Waging class warfare by attacking those who suffer from the problem, not those who profit from the problem

Waging class warfare by attacking those who suffer from the problem, not those who profit from the problem


On Thursday 25 August 2016, Treasurer Scott Morrison delivered a speech in which he continued the Liberal Party's war on the poor. Following on from former Treasurer Joe Hockey's societal split of 'lifters and leaners', Morrison maintained the class war by declaring there was the 'taxed and the taxed nots'⁽¹⁾.

This could have been exciting news for Australians. It could have signalled that the government was going to get serious about tax avoiders, those multi-national companies who turn over billions in profit while not paying a cent in tax ... but no ... sadly, Morrison was blaming Australia's alleged economic woes on those who are on welfare.

According to Morrison's logic, those with no money are responsible for Australia's debt.

So Morrison's solution to too many on welfare? Cut welfare. There will still be unemployed people but they won't be earning as much. Problem solved.

What could possibly go wrong?

Treasurer Scott Morrison - blaming Australia's 'debt crisis' on those who have no money

Oh, let's count the ways. Lower welfare payments would make it harder for people, mainly young adults who've just finished school or university, to have some sort of income while they look for work. Without this support, without welfare, many will be homeless and may resort to crime just to live. Is this the world that the Liberal Party wants or are they just plain ignorant of the effects of poverty. And then there is of course the impact on their spending, which could impact the profitability of many businesses resulting in further job cuts and ... ironically ... more people out of work requiring welfare.

We all know that young kids of today are lazy mofos who expected to be showered in phat stax while sitting around smoking synthetic hooch, hooking up on Tinder and Instagramming their every move and thought. And Morrison blames unemployed youth for Australia's economic crisis. After all, youth unemployment is the highest unemployment.

Well, as a Baby Boomer I'd like to say sorry to the youth of today.

Sorry for screwing everything up for you. Sorry for loading you up with unaffordable housing, sorry for over-regulating the crap out of you because of the need to legislate against dumb-ass Baby Boomers (but we had fun, you know like hooning and drugs and stuff), sorry for expecting you to pay for basic human rights (you know like health care and crippling you with debt for your education), sorry for only offering you part-time work instead of a full-time career and then blaming you Gen Y noobs for wanting to be more mobile, sorry for the whole global warming thing (but hell nothing like a V8 smoking up that high-lead fuel), sorry for extincting a few species here and there (black rhinos I'm looking at you), over-using resources (who needs rainforests anyway, it just sits there doing nothing but taking up valuable space), declaring war on people with no reason other than making the rich richer and expanding the American Empire (we didn't invent war but we've had a phat time blowing up innocent people and facilitating terrorism. Oops), sorry for the increased airplane security (we all used to have a hoot going into the pilot's cabin on international flights, I guess you'll never know the joy), racism (again, we didn't invent it, but many of us are certainly exploiting it for you), truly sorry for reality TV (really not our finest work)  ... oh, also sorry for AIDS. Our bad.

As a disclaimer, I'd like to point out that personally I'm opposed to most of those things listed above that muh-muh-my generation has unleashed on the world. No wonder the young people of today tell us to all fuh-fuh-fade away ... or words to that effect.

But I digress.

A recent report showed that there was a fall in the number of full-time jobs but an increase in part-time employment. The truly delusional Employment Minister, Micaelia Cash, stated that this was good. Apparently it is a good option for many people and that it was people's choice⁽²⁾. For some this may be true, but for the majority it means they are under-employed and unable to provide many of the essentials in life, including housing, adequate food, education and health. Few people chose under-employment and poverty regardless of how Ms Cash tries to spin it.

Minister for Part-Time Employment Micaelia Cash 

I agree there are too many on welfare. However, the solution isn't to cut government benefits because the people receiving it are still going to be here, as will their essential and unmet needs. Instead the solution is to provide jobs with living wages so they don't need welfare. Preferably, create careers. Just like in the olden days when Baby Boomers and their ancestors could rock up to a workplace and not leave until they were ready to don the fluffy socks and bust out the briar wood pipe wiling away the twilight of their lives in a rocking chair on the verandah overlooking the street they've lived on for 50 years and bitching about 'kids of today'.

When university students struggle to find work, there is clearly a problem. When qualified and experienced people struggle to find work, there is clearly a problem.

That problem isn't the fault of the people on welfare. It is the fault of corporate greed which has resulted in job cuts to increase profits for greedy share-holders, it is the fault of a neo-liberal government agenda that believes in cutting expenditure programs which would help maintain industry and business, driving innovation and job creation.

Attacking welfare is attacking the symptom not the cause.

If Morrison, if the Liberal Party, genuinely want to reduce the number of people on welfare, then they should be stimulating job creation not enabling job cuts.

Australia's manufacturing industries are almost non-existent and on life support. The car manufacturing industry has practically gone. Steel factories are on their last legs. Yet instead of investing in the industries of the future, the government is cutting funding to renewal energy and the National Broadband Network. It would rather see us return to the 1950s with a reliance on coal and copper. This is a backward thinking party, not a forward thinking one.

The Liberal Party has for years been criticising Australia's debt and using this to justify the need for austerity measures. Remember the GFC? The countries that ran austerity programs all went into recession. However, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his Treasurer Wayne Swan invested in stimulus programs from the start. As a result, Australia was the one western nation that avoided recession. This stimulus added to Australia's debt, but it also saved more than 200,000 jobs⁽³⁾. For this the Labor Party has been ridiculed by economic simpletons.

Sometimes government's need to spend money to earn money.

The Liberal Party whinges about spending, with welfare at the top of their hit-list, however, they haven't considered the need for revenue as a measure to pay down debt or fund government expenditure. Some government expenditure, predominantly at the hands of the Liberal Party, is unnecessary and only serves to cause harm and division, such as the billions wasted on the systemic physical, sexual and emotional abuse of innocent people seeking asylum. Similarly, Australia kowtowing to the United States led 'war on terror' cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, created the conditions for the rise of ISIL and furthered radicalisation throughout the globe. Good one, John Howard.

The need for government stimulus at this time is quite clear. After all, how much more indication does the government need? The Reserve Bank of Australia has been cutting interest rates for the last few years. Currently, the official interest rate is at an historically low level. The reason the RBA cuts interest is to stimulate the economy. With interest rates at such low levels, the RBA doesn't have much more room to move. The economy needs stimulating and it is the government who should be providing this through investing in job creation programs. Instead, we see the economically incompetent Morrison wanting to cut spending on welfare and other areas.

The government is attempting to get its 'Omnibus' bill passed which will result in more than $6 billion of cuts. All of this is a result of the inability of the Liberal Party to pass elements of its previous budgets. The reason they weren't passed? Predominantly they were unfairly targeting the poor and low income earners. The Libs haven't learned.

Morrison's latest mantra of the 'taxed and taxed-nots' ignores the fact that those on low-incomes or welfare are paying tax through the broad-based tax regime of the Goods and Services Tax. The economy benefits when the government maintains welfare programs because those receiving it will pass that money into the hands of small, medium and large businesses, who then continue to employ people and pay tax. Oh wait! The only way the government won't benefit is if businesses avoid tax and continue downsizing just to fatten their shareholders dividends. This gets back to revenue and means the government needs to stand up to the tax avoiders and ensure they are paying the tax that they should. Perhaps, the government could start by targeting the legislation and use of tax havensthat are facilitating the avoidance of tax, and which are used by big business and people such as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Morrison says that Australians are not earning enough, yet the Liberal Party has waged a war against Unions and workers for years, including a Royal Commission aimed at destroying Unions, not to mention trying to damage Labor through their historical Union ties.

In contrast to Morrison's attack on the poor, former Labor Party Treasurer Wayne Swan co-chaired a report by the Chifley Research Centre, entitled 'Inequality: The Facts and the Future', which detailed how Australia should fix wealth inequality⁽⁴⁾.  The report didn't recommend waging war on the poor. Instead, it suggested redistributing the wealth. Funnily enough, Australia is a very wealthy nation. There is no excuse for record levels of unemployment, for record numbers of part-time jobs or for people to be on welfare for prolonged periods of time.

Australia's wealth can be shared. This may come in the form of, dare I say it, lower CEO salaries in order to create more jobs and better sharing of the profits among workers and the community. Rather than down-sizing and off-shoring, corporations should be encouraged to keep jobs local and re-invest in their own people, in innovation and in the community as a whole. Rather than being driven by short-term greed, they should be driven by long-term gain. Corporations will argue that their raison d'être is profit therefore it goes against the grain for them to share their wealth like some radical 19th century Marxist. However, sharing wealth begets wealth as more people have more to spend which boosts consumption and business longevity.

As an aside, corporations are in the business of making profit on the goods and services they deliver, while government is in the business of delivering services without a focus on profit. For this very reason, government should be very selective about what they privatise. Essential services should remain government-owned and the focus be on the service not the profit, furthering the redistribution of our wealth.

Unfortunately, business is putting profit ahead of people and the government blames the people.

Ideally, government and business working together for the good of the community through job creation programs and more equitable sharing of wealth will result in much less reliance on welfare.

Instead, Morrison sees the results of a problem and attacks its symptom. Dr Amos Wilson commented on those who did a similar thing in America:

'If you want to understand any problem in America, you need to focus on who profits from that problem, not who suffers from the problem'.

Morrison is attacking those who suffer from the problem and lacks the fortitude to address the cause of the problem.


Reference

1. The Guardian, Gareth Hutchins, 'Scott Morrison hits out at 'taxed-nots' and warns of recession risk', 25 August 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/25/scott-morrison-hits-out-at-taxed-nots-and-warns-of-recession-risk. Accessed 27 August 2016.

2. Sydney Morning Herald, Peter Martin, 'Labour force: We're moving part-time jobs as the jobs market hollows out', 19 August 2016, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labour-force-were-moving-parttime-as-the-jobs-market-hollows-out-20160818-gqvlqu.html. Accessed 27 August 2016.

3. ABC News, 'Stimulus saved 200,000 Australian jobs: oeCD', 17 September 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-09-16/stimulus-saved-200000-australian-jobs-oecd/1432016. Accessed 27 August 2016. 

4. Chifley Research Centre, 'Inequality: The Facts and the Future', August 2016, http://www.chifley.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Chifley_ResearchDocument_19.08.16-FINALV2a-min.pdf. Accessed 29 August 2016.

Turn the other cheek to deradicalise the radicalised

Turn the other cheek to deradicalise the radicalised

Way back in the day, say back around Matthew 5:39, a do-gooder named Jesus Christ said 'whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also'.  This has been paraphrased over 2,000 or so years to be 'turn the other cheek'.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that it may well be the most difficult verse in the bible. After all, if someone attacks us shouldn't we defend ourselves?

Perhaps it is the ignoring of this scripture that is seeing the world plunge head-long towards the fascist abyss and the resurrection of Nazi-esque politics in which adherents of one religion attack another.

It's a little ironic then, that we are witnessing Christians attacking Islam in the name of freedom and democracy and 'our way of life'. Of course, not everyone who has taken on the mantle of protector of our freedoms is Christian. Many right-wing hate groups are peopled by non-Christians, however the message of Christ, the message to 'turn the other cheek' still applies.

Following the 2016 federal election, Australia woke to find that Pauline Hanson's One Nation had won four seats in the Senate. Their platform is predominantly opposing all things Islam.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution states:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Hanson finally realised that One Nation's anti-Islam platform is unconstitutional so she is now calling for a Royal Commission to determine if Islam is an ideology rather than a religion. Yep. Hanson wants to overturn 1400 years of religious history not to mention the theological faith of 1.5 billion Muslims.

The Commonwealth cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Whether it be Islam, Christianity or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Not all Christians in Australia have been turned over to the anti-Islam hate and fear-mongering of conservative politics. A number are standing beside our Muslim brothers and sisters, attending Iftar events, visiting mosques, befriending and loving Muslims, and welcoming refugees.

One such Christian is Father Rod Bower of the Gosford Anglican Church. Father Bower has a billboard in front of his church in which he often promotes messages of loving Muslims and caring for refugees. Messages which are at odds with the hate and fear that is being preached or promoted through social media by some right-wing politicians and Christians.

On Sunday, 14 August 2016 a right-wing hate group called the Party for Freedom stormed Father Bower's church dressed as Muslims and terrorised his congregation, warning them to stop promoting Islam and giving them a taste of what they consider the future to be if Islam were to be the dominant religion in Australia.

The Party for Freedom showed that it clearly had no concept of the word 'freedom'. They attacked Bower's freedom of speech and attacked Islam's Constitutional right to freedom of religion.

It then came out that the Party for Freedom are followers of Pauline Hanson. Did she condemn the attack? Where was the outrage from the right-wing?

Hanson simply said that the attack was 'counterproductive in the serious argument One Nation are calling for in our Parliament'. Counter-productive to One Nation's unconstitutional message of hate and intolerance. She said that Australia needs to listen to the anti-Islam sentiment or there will be more of this violence. A threat? A call to action for the easily-led?

What we are seeing is a right-wing response to a perceived attack on our way of life. Attacks such as the installation of squat toilets which will 'destroy our way of life' according to Hanson⁽¹⁾. But what is our 'way of life'? Hanson has even criticised the way of life of the original inhabitants of Australia with her message of white supremacy.  Nonetheless, for around two centuries, Australia has welcomed people from all over the globe and been a multicultural nation. In fact, the Southern Cross flag, first flown at the Eureka Stockade in 1854. Rafael Carboni, an architect of the rebellion, made the following declaration under the Southern Cross:

'Irrespective of nationality, religion and colour, I call on you to salute the 'Southern Cross' as the refuge of all the oppressed from all countries on earth'

Ironic then that some on the right-wing have hijacked this flag and use it to promote a message of intolerance and refuse to offer refuge to the oppressed from all countries on earth.

Australia's 'way of life' is one of multiculturalism.

Anti-Islam sentiment is a result of people fearing Islamist terrorism and linking it to a misconception that it is the goal of Islam to conquer the world and install a brutal and barbaric version Sharia Law.

Yet it isn't Islamic nations who have attacked the West. Terrorism is the result of people who have been radicalised as a result of the West's attack on Islamic nations. It is the West has has invaded and bombed Islamic countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Pakistan and so on. It is the West who supported the illegal creation of Israel and the on-going genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Rabid right-wingers who merely blame Islam for terrorism clearly lack self-reflection and fail to understand world events. Nothing happens in a vacuum. To think that the West hasn't contributed to global terrorism is to deny the funding and training that the United States and other Western nations have provided to various Islamist groups or regimes such as the Mujahideen in 1980s Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bin Laden, the Shah of Iran, President Suharto, not to mention billions of dollars in aid that America provides to Israel as it illegally expands its occupation of Palestine. Many of these regimes committed genocide and gross human rights abuses against their own populations.

Islamist terrorism arose out of decades of bombings, despots, brutality and oppression sponsored or undertaken by the West.

If Australians feel aggrieved enough to become radicalised and justify violent attacks on Islam simply because of issues such as halal, burqas and a misconception of Sharia, then surely this vindicates Muslims who become radicalised as a result of their grievance and anger with the West's attacks on Islamic nations.

The bombings, the drone strikes, the invasions and occupation of Islamic countries is providing impetus to the radicalisation of some Muslims. Imagine if Australia was the target of bombings, drone strikes, invasions and occupation by Muslim nations. How would we react? The radical right-wing groups such as One Nation, Reclaim Australia, Party for Freedom, United Patriots Front are all using the perception of an Islamic invasion and occupation to justify their hatred.

This is why Christ said to turn the other cheek. He didn't say to hate those who are different to us. He didn't say to preach hate and fear. In fact, he said to love our neighbour and to love our enemy. Most Muslims do not see Christians or any non-Muslim as their enemy. However, many right-wingers, including Christians, view Muslims as their enemy and constantly vilify them even though they are commanded to love their enemy. Vilification is not love.

Failing to turn the other cheek results in radicalisation, retribution, violence, hate and fear. A better way is to love and understand. Instead of building walls, build bridges.

Turning the other cheek doesn't mean turning our back on terrorism. While there radicalisation and terrorism needs to be addressed, there is nothing productive in attacking Islam or quoting the Koran out of context. There is nothing productive about blaming innocent people for the actions of others. In fact, this sort of generalisation of a people group is the basis of racism. Yet many Islamophobes will say Islam isn't a race therefore attacking Muslims and Islam isn't racism. Well, if you don't want to be called a racist, don't act like one.

To effectively address terrorism an radicalisation, we need to involve the Muslim community. Terrorists attack innocent people for political, religious or ideological reasons; whether that be in the name of Islam, Christianity, Australia, patriotism, nationalism, democracy or 'freedom'. Becoming a terrorist to oppose terrorism is the ultimate hypocrisy. Yet this is what we are seeing from the right-wing. Only a couple of weeks ago, a leader with Reclaim Australia was arrested on terrorism charges⁽²⁾. A few months ago a car was fire-bombed in front of a Mosque⁽³⁾. And then there have been numerous attacks, both verbal and physical, on Muslims going about their daily business. Mosques have been vandalised and businesses run by Muslims have been attacked. Such incidents are being reported and documented through the Islamophobia Register(4).

The anti-Islam brigade are alienating Muslims and playing into the hands of Islamist organisations who preach that the West hates them, that Christianity is waging war on Islam. Alienation and exclusion breeds anger and hate. Whereas if people feel welcome and included in society they are less likely to become radicalised. It also means that those who have a tendency to radicalisation are more easily identified and their families and friends have the social support needed to hose down those radical ideas.

The ongoing violence and verbal abuse of Muslims, raids and vandalism of Mosques, the storming of a church, the attacks on those who support Muslims is terribly reminiscent of 1930s Germany. A time when conservative Christians sided with the Nazis to attack Jews, socialists, unionists, homosexuals, gypsies; essentially anyone who didn't fit their idea of a perfect society.

The populist politics of conservative parties is fanning the flames of bigotry purely for votes and power. It is normalising hate crime, making it acceptable in the eyes of many.

It is time for right-wing politicians, conservative media and Christian ministers to reign in their bigoted rhetoric and stop encouraging and feeding hate and violence before we see a Kristallnacht-type event or worse.

Islam isn't the problem.

Hate is the problem.

References

1. The Insider, Max Chalmers, Pauline Hanson says a new toilet could destroy 'Australian way of life', 15 August 2016, https://newmatilda.com/2016/08/15/pauline-hanson-says-a-new-toilet-could-destroy-australian-way-of-life/. Accessed 15 August 2016.

2. The Saturday Paper, Martin McKenzie-Murray, How Reclaim Australia hid a 'terrorist', 13 August 2016, https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/law-crime/2016/08/13/how-reclaim-australia-hid-terrorist/14710104003610. Accessed 16 August 2016.

3. ABC News, David Weber and Nikki Roberts, Perth mosque attack: Car fire-bombed, anti-Islam graffiti sprayed in 'act of hate', 29 June 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-29/firebombing-ant-islam-graffiti-attack-at-thornlie-mosque-school/7552394. Accessed 16 August 2016.

4. Islamophobia Register Australia, http://www.islamophobia.com.au/

Prime Puppet Malcolm Turnbull's 'Captain's picks'

Prime Puppet Malcolm Turnbull's 'Captain's picks'

In the couple of weeks since the double dissolution federal election, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has managed to display to the electorate that he is nothing more than a puppet of the Liberal Party's far-right.

Rather than being Malcolm in Charge, he is merely the Prime Puppet of the racist and bigoted right-wing who are more concerned with money and power than people or the good of the country.

The first big decision for Turnbull followed the harrowing Four Corners story on Monday, 25 July 2016, which exposed gross human rights abuses of juveniles detained in the Northern Territory 'corrections' system⁽¹⁾.

Northern Territory prison officials placing a juvenile prisoner, Dylan Voller, in a restraint chair and spit hood.

Initially, Turnbull's reaction appeared appropriate. He immediately announced a Royal Commission into the abuse⁽²⁾. However, amid calls for the Terms of Reference to include all state jurisdictions following similar allegations in Queensland and other states, Turnbull announced it would be restricted to the Northern Territory.

Overshadowing this restriction however, was the bombshell that Justice Brian Martin QC would head the Royal Commission. Martin has presided over a number of high profile cases and delivered what would appear to be some bizarre sentences. For instance, he described five white men as being of 'good character' after they went on a racially motivated crime spree in which they deliberately terrorised aborigines by driving their car over their camps and at the people. Their Klan-like behaviour culminated in them bashing to death 33 year old aboriginal man Kwementyaye Ryder⁽³⁾. Martin was so impressed by their 'good character' that the men received sentences ranging from 12 months to four years⁽⁴⁾. Clearly in Martin's interpretation of the law, the life of an aboriginal man is worth less than the 'good character' of five white killers.

Following the airing of the Four Corners program, Adam Giles, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, removed the Corrections portfolio from John Elferink, however, Elferink retains a number of portfolios⁽⁵⁾ including being the Attorney-General which one would expect to be a pivotal position during the Royal Commission. The Northern Territory also counter-sued the boys who made the claims of abuse, over damage caused during an escape attempt. Amid uproar, Giles announced the lawsuit was to be dropped⁽⁶⁾.

Juan Mendez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, has written to the Australian Government for an explanation of the allegations of abuse in the Northern Territory. Mendez stated that while Australia was yet to respond, the footage he has seen could amount to torture or crimes against humanity⁽⁷⁾.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees stated that multiple international conventions may have been broken, including the Convention for the Rights of the Child and the Convention Against Torture. Given the severity of the allegations of human rights abuses, the UNHCR stated that the Royal Commission needs to be independent, however, it has emerged that the Terms of Reference were formulated in consultation with the Northern Territory Government; the very government under whom the alleged abuses occurred⁽⁸⁾. Compounding this lack of independence, there was no consultation with indigenous leaders before appointing Martin⁽⁹⁾.

The appointment of Martin sends the message that the racists in the Liberal Party are looking after their racist mates in the Northern Territory.

The second issue in which Turnbull showed that he was merely a puppet of the far right-wing, was in rejecting the nomination of Kevin Rudd for United Nations Secretary-General⁽¹⁰⁾. Julie Bishop, as Foreign Minister, was happy to endorse Rudd for the position, however, the extreme right-wing wanted to play politics and so their puppet Turnbull rejected the nomination at their behest, saying Rudd was unsuitable.

Cory Bernardi, right-wing extremist extraordinaire, clearly influenced Turnbull's decision⁽¹¹⁾. In a Tweet, Bernardi unbelievably made the statement that Turnbull was correct in stifling Rudd's personal ambition while boasting of his own appointment to the United Nations in a media statement which read:

• 'I welcome the Prime Minister's decision as it reflects the sentiments of a great many Australians. Our participation in international institutions is more important than an individual's ambition. While seeking to advance Australia's stature on the world stage, we've got to do what's right, rather than what's politically expedient. The Prime Minister has done exactly that today. I look forward to my secondment to the United Nations later in the year'.⁽¹²⁾

Pot/kettle, Cory?

Turnbull, a man who once led Australia's push for a republic, who supported marriage equality, who supported an emissions trading scheme⁽¹³⁾, a man who originally backed Rudd for the UN job⁽¹⁴⁾, is now kowtowing to the extreme right of the Liberal Party on all of these matters.

Turnbull's failed strategy of calling the double dissolution was aimed at clearing the decks in the Senate and ensuring that smaller parties and independents were removed. He now has a Senate that is less malleable than the previous one and which is comprised of the likes of Pauline Hanson whose xenophobic, fear-mongering politics are a fine match for the bigotry of the Liberal Party's extreme right-wing. If Turnbull thought that this election was going to make his job as Prime Minister easier, then he has been sorely mistaken.

Turnbull ascended to the nation's top job following a coup that deposed then Prime Minister Tony Abbott. This was not a popular decision within the Liberal Party's extreme right-wing, who considered Turnbull to be far too left-wing for their fascist ideology. Many voters with moderate or left-leaning political inclinations felt that Turnbull would be better for the country than the bumbling, fear-mongering Abbott. Yet within a few short months it has become abundantly clear that even though Abbott is on the back-bench, the right-wing is still in charge⁽¹⁵⁾ and Turnbull is but their puppet.

In both cases, the NT Royal Commission and Kevin Rudd's UN bid, Turnbull has been thrown under the bus by appearing to make Captain's Calls (as Abbott was fond of calling them), yet they are decisions that have been heavily driven by the right-wing faction of the Liberal Party.

With friends like these in his party, who needs enemies?

Turnbull will be lucky to survive a full term with his puppet-masters engineering his downfall.

Update 1 August 2016

Following uproar across the country, Brian Martin stands down from heading the Royal Commission 'in the public interest'. Prime Minister Turnbull has replaced him with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Gooda, and former Supreme Court judge, Margaret White⁽¹⁶⁾. This would appear to present a more balanced and potentially less biased Royal Commission.

Supporting the perception of Turnbull being merely a puppet of his right-wing, it has now emerged that he rejected the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which found that Rudd was 'qualified for the job' and a 'better candidate than previous Secretaries-General'⁽¹⁷⁾.


References

1. ABC Four Corners, Caro Meldrum-Hanna, Mary Fallon, Elise Worthington, 'Australia's shame - The brutalisation of children behind bars', 25 July 2016.  http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2016/07/25/4504895.htm. Accessed 30 July 2016.

2. Al Jazeera, 'Australia: PM orders inquiry into juvenile prison abuse', 27 July 2016, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/australia-pm-orders-inquiry-juvenile-prison-abuse-160726175327189.html. Accessed 30 July 2016.

3. Overland, Michael Brull, 'Top blokes, totally out of character: when five white men beat an Aboriginal man to death', 14 May 2010, https://overland.org.au/2010/05/top-blokes-totally-out-of-character-when-five-white-men-beat-an-aboriginal-man-to-death/. Accessed 30 July 2016.

4. New Matilda, Chris Graham, 'NT Juvenile Detention Abuse Royal Commissioner Needs No Introduction to Black Territorians', 28 July 2016, https://newmatilda.com/2016/07/28/nt-juvenile-detention-abuse-royal-commissioner-needs-no-introduction-to-black-territorians/. Accessed 30 July 2016.

5. ABC News, 'John Elferink sacked from Corrections in wake of Four Corners report; Adam Giles alleges culture of cover-up', 27 July 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-26/nt-prisons-minister-john-elferink-sacked-after-4-corners-outrage/7661086. Accessed 30 July 2016.

6. Huffington Post, Eoin Blackwell, 'NT Government Withdraws $160,000 Law Suit Against Don Dale Teens', 29 July 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/07/28/nt-government-sues-torture-teens-for-160-000-in-damages/. Accessed 30 July 2016.

7. ABC Radio National, RN Breakfast, Ellen Fanning, 'Does abuse of children in juvenile detention qualify as torture?', 28 July 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/does-abuse-of-children-in/7667508. Accessed 30 July 2016.

8. ABC News, Timothy Fernandez, 'Four Corners: NT youth detention treatment may breach two human rights conventions, UNHCR says', 30 July 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-30/nt-youth-detention-may-abuse-human-rights-conventions:-unhcr/7674532. Accessed 30 July 2016.

9. The Guardian, Calla Wahlquist, 'Indigenous leaders 'disgusted' they were not consulted on detention inquiry', 29 July 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/29/indigenous-leaders-disgusted-they-were-not-consulted-on-detention-inquiry. Accessed 30 July 2016.

10. ABC News, Stephanie Anderson, 'Kevin Rudd: Malcolm Turnbull rules out nominating former PM for UN secretary-general job', 29 July 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-29/kevin-rudd-un-secretary-general-bid-endorsed-by-malcolm-turnbull/7671542. Accessed 30 July 2016.

11. The Australian, Jared Owens, Joe Kelly, 'Cory Bernardi says Coalition should not support Kevin Rudd's UN bid', 20 July 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-29/kevin-rudd-un-secretary-general-bid-endorsed-by-malcolm-turnbull/7671542. Accessed 30 July 2016.

12. Twitter, Cory Bernardi @corybernardi, 29 July 2016, https://twitter.com/corybernardi/status/758856175119020033. Accessed 30 July 2016.

13. New Matilda, Ben Eltham, 'Agile Government: Turnbull Has Notched 17 Backflips In Seven Months',  12 April 2016, https://newmatilda.com/2016/04/12/agile-government-turnbull-has-notched-18-backflips-in-just-seven-months/. Accessed 30 July 2016.

14. ABC News, Eliza Borello and Stephanie Anderson, 'Kevin Rudd releases letters claiming Malcolm Turnbull backed him for United Nations secretary-general job', 30 July 2016, https://twitter.com/corybernardi/status/758856175119020033. Accessed 30 July 2016.

15. The Age, Mark Kenny, 'Turnbull hamstrung by divided party even after the election', 29 July 2016, http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/turnbulls-wings-clipped-before-he-even-gets-airborne-20160729-gqgm1i. Accessed 30 July 2016.

16. ABC News, Anna Henderson, 'Mick Gooda, Margaret White named royal commission heads after Brian Martin stands down', 1 August 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-01/brian-martin-stands-down-from-royal-commission/7677400. Accessed 1 August 2016.

17. SBS, 'PM rejected DFAT advice on Rudd's bid', 1 August 2016, http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/08/01/pm-rejected-dfat-advice-rudds-un-bid. Accessed 1 August 2016.

ISIS - who's your daddy? The war crimes of Bush, Blair, Howard

ISIS - who's your daddy? The war crimes of Bush, Blair, Howard

After seven years of comprehensive investigation, the Chilcot report into Britain's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 has been released. The 2.6 million word report reveals that the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and by default the so-called Coalition of the Willing, had no justification for invading Iraq.

The basic premise for the invasion was that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. This was in direct contradiction to advice from United Nations weapons inspectors, such as Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, who warned numerous times that Hussein didn't possess, nor was he developing, WMDs. This advice didn't suit the plans of US President George W. Bush who wasn't renowned either for his intelligence or his decision making. Bush wanted Iraq by hook or by crook, so he invented a threat and ran with it in the face of opposition from weapons inspectors, the UN Security Council and a number of nations. Bush made the childish statement that Hussein was the 'guy who tried to kill my daddy'. Mic drop. Invade Iraq.

When George Dubya's daddy was President of the USA, he attacked Hussein in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991. Hussein claimed that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. It was a momentous victory. Bush Senior drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait but resisted a further push to drive Hussein out of power. The reason was because of intelligence warning that deposing Hussein would create a power vacuum in the Middle East, potentially causing the region to descend into chaos as multiple players vied for power.

George W decided this wasn't good enough. In an act of blatant hegemony (and looking every bit like a petulant teenager trying to prove himself to a demanding daddy) he found a reason, albeit a flimsy one, to invade Iraq, overthrow Hussein and establish a US presence and puppet government in the area. He ignored warnings that there were no WMDs and most seriously the warnings about the fall-out from such actions.

The result was up to one million Iraqi civilians dead, and the deaths of thousands of US soldiers, 179 British soldiers and two Australian soldiers. It also created the power vacuum that Dubya and his daddy had been warned about⁽¹⁾. The upshot was a dysfunctional and vindictive Shia government that sought retribution against Sunnis who'd support Hussein's Baath party.

Prior to the invasion, the biggest terrorist threat in the world was Al Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden. Hussein and Bin Laden hated each other. While Hussein was in power, there was little to no presence of Al Qaeda in his country. In 2004, the year after the invasion, the Salafist terrorist group Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad joined forces with Bin Laden and established Al Qaeda in Iraq. Two years later the group renamed themselves Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). As the last of the American troops withdrew from Iraq and more than a thousand militant groups fought within Syria's civil war, ISIL, now Islamic State, came to prominence, occupying large areas through Syria and Iraq, and killing thousands of people.

The Coalition of the Willing was comprised of a number of states, particularly the USA, Britain and Australia. Then Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has remained unrepentant about Australia's involvement in the Iraq war.

In the lead up to the invasion, Howard and his Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, made many ludicrous claims about Saddam Hussein, such as him having a human mincing machine⁽²⁾. Hussein was an evil dictator who was responsible for horrendous human rights abuses so there was no need to exaggerate his malevolence, but exaggerate they did.

Howard blames the decision to invade on faulty intelligence. Others claim that the war was waged on the basis of a lie. Given the advice that there were no WMDs and that the invasion would dangerously destabilise the region, it is hard to accept Howard's assertion that he made the best decision on the information at hand.

This 'information' was plagiarised from a report written by a university student and then altered to suit the narrative used to justify the war. It became known as the 'dodgy dossier'⁽³⁾. So was the Iraq invasion a lie or bad intelligence? I'm calling 'lie'.

Andrew Wilkie, an Australian intelligence analyst with the Office of National Assessments, was so concerned by the false intelligence being used to justify the war that he blew the whistle and resigned from his job. He later entered politics as an Independent.

Howard ignored the advice of Australia's intelligence agencies and chose an unnecessary and illegal war⁽⁴⁾.

Tony Blair had been told by his Attorney-General that an invasion without UN Security Council resolution would be illegal. After pressure from Blair, the Attorney-General changed his advice to suit the government narrative⁽⁵⁾. Sound familiar? The reasons for the war were a concoction and Prime Minister Howard bought into it.

The Chilcot Report states there was no justification for war and that the justification used did not have any evidence to support it. Howard may argue that this report has the advantage of hindsight. Yet, most telling of all is that at the time of the decision, the United Nations Security Council refused to sanction the invasion because of lack of evidence and the risk of regional destablisation. Countries such as Russia, Germany and France refused to partake in the illegal US-led invasion.

There are now calls for Tony Blair to be charged with war crimes in the wake of the Chilcot Report. While the report investigated Britain's reasons for the invasion, it is a damning indictment on Howard's judgement and honesty.

At the very least, a Royal Commission should be held into Australia's involvement in the disastrous war. Even before the release of the Chilcot Report, there were calls in Australia for an investigation or a Royal Commission. The Liberal Party has resisted the urge claiming that it is ancient history and there is no need for it. In the wake of the Chilcot Report, Paul Barratt, former head of the Defence Department, is also calling for an Inquiry into Australia's involvement in the war(6).

The Liberal Pary's refusal to investigate Howard's war is a little ironic. This from a party that held a number of investigations and a Royal Commission into the pink batts fiasco in which Labor ignored advice regarding the installation of ceiling insulation, resulting in the deaths of four young men. This from a party who held a Royal Commission into Union corruption which was nothing more than a witch-hunt to weaken Unions and ulimately discredit the Labor Party. This from a party that demands an investigation into an allegedly fraudulent text message that Labor sent under the auspices of Medicare during an election campaign. Yet the Liberal Party flippantly rejects calls for a Royal Commission into a decision that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and gave impetus to the most dangerous terrorist group the world has seen. It is clear where the Liberal Party's values lie. It is clear the Liberal Party is shackled hand and foot to its American overlords. It is clear they are content in covering up war-crimes and illegal invasions. This isn't really a surprise given their willingness to commit human rights abuses against asylum seekers, to breach international conventions on refugees, torture and the treatment of children.

Lying wasn't new to Howard. Nor was destroying innocent lives. In order to secure his re-election in 2001 and to retain power at subsequent elections, Howard used the fear generated from 9/11 to demonise and victimise asylum seekers in a number of incidents which he either manipulated for political gain or failed to tell the truth about as revealed in a Senate Inquiry, including the Tampa crisis, Children Overboard scandal and SIEV-X (in which 353 innocent people drowned).

'Honest' John Howard as some called him, must be investigated and should be charged with war-crimes along with members of his Cabinet, including then Foreign Minister Alexander Downer.

The Chilcot Report has vindicated what many of us already knew; that there was no justification for the war,  that the invasion had no legal basis, Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat, that the invasion would cost a vast number of lives, the blowback would be significant and would result in a Pyrrhic victory.

If it had been a Labor Party Prime Minister who did this, the Liberal Party would be apoplectic and screaming for blood.

John Howard led Australia to an illegal war on the basis of doctored and false intelligence costing hundreds of thousands of lives and creating a situation that has significantly increased terrorism across the globe.

References

1. International New York Times, Joel Brinkley and Eric Schmitt, 'Iraqi Leaders Say U.S. Was Warned of Disorder After Hussein, but Little Was Done', 30 November 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/30/international/middleeast/30PLAN.html. Accessed 7 July 2016.

2. Crikey, 'Howard's biggest Iraq porky', 4 March 2004,  https://www.crikey.com.au/2004/03/04/howards-biggest-iraq-porky/. Accessed 7 July 2016.

3. Independent, Andrew Buncombe, 'Chilcot report: Student whose thesis became Tony Blair's 'dodgy dossier' accuses UK of systematic failure', 6 July 2016, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-author-of-dodgy-dossier-accuses-uk-of-systematic-failure-a7123136.html. Accessed 7 July 2016.

4. Sydney Morning Herald, Margaret Swieringa, 'Howard ignored official advice on Iraq's weapons and chose war', 12 April 2013, http://www.smh.com.au/comment/howard-ignored-official-advice-on-iraqs-weapons-and-chose-war-20130411-2hogn.html. Accessed 7 July 2016.

5. Independent, Kim Sengupta, 'How Goldsmith changed advice on legality of war', 1 July 2010, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-goldsmith-changed-advice-on-legality-of-war-2015252.html. Accessed 7 July 2016.

6. The Guardian, Ben Doherty and Kate Lyons, 'Australia needs its own Chilcot inquiry into Iraq war, former defence head says', 7 July 2016,  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/07/australia-needs-its-own-chilcot-inquiry-into-iraq-war-former-defence-head-says. Accessed 7 July 2016.

Benighted & bigoted - The Hanson Treachery

Benighted & bigoted - The Hanson Treachery

Australia's 2016 federal election is one for the ages. With the closest result in years that will probably deliver a minority government and both Houses likely reliant on deals and haggling with the Greens, One Nation, the Jackie Lambie Network, the Nick Xenophon Team, other minor parties and independents.

The election had its share of right-wing parties including the Australian Liberty Alliance and Rise Up Australia; parties whose raison d'être was nothing short of nationalistic bigotry and Islamophobia. None of these parties secured a seat in the parliament.

Unfortunately, the perennial Pauline Hanson appears to have successfully resurrected her old party One Nation and will likely end up with at least one, if not more, seats in the Senate.

Her first post-election media conference was a rambling diatribe of insanity⁽¹⁾ as she unleashed a horrendous and disgraceful attack on Muslim Australians. She immediately called for the banning of halal certification, sharia law and burqas while accusing mosques of being hotbeds of hatred.

She also demanded that Muslims follow the Constitution. This last accusation was a little ironic considering that Hanson's anti-Islam policies are unconstitutional.

To legitimise her Islamophobia, she has called for a royal commission into whether Islam is a religion or an ideology⁽²⁾. Of course, she needs it to be an ideology so that she can get around the Constitution and then try to implement her fascist and neo-Nazi policies.

Section 116 of that Constitution states:

'The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth'.

In reality, no Royal Commissioner will overturn 1400 years of history or break the news to 1.5 billion Muslims that their religion doesn't exist.

Would Hanson accept the umpire's decision if the Royal Commission confirms that Islam is a religion? Anyway, many Christians go to great lengths to state that Christianity isn't a religion but a relationship. Perhaps we should remove Christianity from the list of religions. While we're at, let's remove its tax exemptions as well, but that's another story.

Hanson wants the Royal Commission to investigate 'hate-preaching' in Mosques. Perhaps the Royal Commission could be expanded into hate-preaching by Hanson and One Nation.

Hanson is out of control with such ludicrous fear-mongering and hatred ... and she hasn't even been sworn in yet. In fact, the dust is yet to settle on the election result.

With the exhuming of the benighted and bigoted Pauline Hanson and her war on Islam, I can't help but ponder the Monty Python declaration:

'Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government'.

Hanson has made many ignorant claims, including the unfounded statement that 98% of Australians opposed halal certification. Most Aussies couldn't care less about whether food was halal certified or not. It's only the bigots that have created such a stir about it.

Hanson claims that she isn't a racist. Yet she has previously attacked indigenous people, Asians and now Muslims. She recently warned that Australia risked being 'swamped by Asians'⁽³⁾. Racists generalise their hatred and fear by portraying everyone in a particular people group as having the same characteristics. Hanson is doing this with Muslims, she is doing it with Asians and she has previously done it with indigenous people. If she doesn't want to be labelled a racist, then she shouldn't act like one.

Another of her statements is that Muslims put God before Australia. Perhaps Hanson might want to spend some time in a fundamentalist church ... the same sort of church which is attended by many of the right-wing Christians who voted for her. Those churches put God before everything else. Yes, they'll preach that they must follow the laws of the land, just as Muslims preach. However, if push comes to shove, fundamentalist Christians will rise up against governments or laws that require them to do things that go against their beliefs. One only has to look at the passionate campaigning against marriage equality by Christian pastors who refuse to marry LGBTI people if it were ever to be made law.

Hanson's racist attacks are putrid and dangerous. Australia's Race Discrimination Commissioner has warned that they are likely to incite violent hate crimes⁽⁴⁾.

Hatred and bigotry are not patriotism. Being wrapped in the Australian flag doesn't make a person patriotic. Nationalist maybe, but not patriotic. George Orwell stated that 'nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception'.

Pauline Hanson claims that her life is at risk because of her statements. Yet she is the biggest risk to Australia. Her dog-whistling is appealing to racists who may well feel empowered & legitimised by this hate speech. She warns of Islamic terrorism, however, counter-terrorism experts warn that right-wing extremism is as big a threat as Islamic radicalisation, if not bigger⁽⁵⁾.

If she genuinely wants to combat extremism, she should start with herself and those like her. If she wants to address Islamic extremism, then she should be inclusive not exclusive. Excluding people from society is the quickest way to alienate and radicalise them. Embracing the Muslim community and make them feel welcome and a part of Australian society is the best way to reduce radicalisation⁽⁶⁾.

This next government is going to be marred by Hanson and the bigotry of One Nation. Thankfully there are already politicians who have stated they will stand up against her hate speech.

Hanson is a politician and leader of a political party, which means she and her One Nation colleagues are supposed to represent the electorate; an electorate comprised of hundreds of thousands of Australians who are Muslim or of Asian descent ... or both. If she hates Australians so much and clearly doesn't like the Australian Constitution, she can't claim to be a proud Australian defending Australian culture? She certainly isn't loyal to her country if she can't accept the demographic composition of it. At the very least she is unsuitable as a politician if she won't represent the electorate.

Australia doesn't belong to white people or Christians. It is a secular nation whose Constitution protects freedom of religion. Australia is a nation built by migrants whose culture has been shaped by the cultures of other nations. Attacking and vilifying other cultures, other peoples, other religions is not patriotism, it is treachery.

If Hanson doesn't love Australia, she should leave!



References

1. The Huffington Post, Josh Butler, 'Pauline Hanson's First Press Conference As a Senator Was INSANE', 4 July 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/07/03/pauline-hansons-first-press-conference-as-a-senator-was-insane. Accessed 5 July 2016.

2. ABC News, Kym Agius, 'Election 2016: Pauline Hanson not backing down on call for royal commission into Islam', 4 July 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-04/election-2016-pauline-hanson-royal-commission-islam-banking/7566416. Accessed 5 July 2016.

3. Sydney Morning Herald, Nicole Hasham, 'Election 2016: Pauline Hanson warns of terror on the street and suburbs swamped by Asians', 4 July 2016, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-pauline-hanson-warns-of-terror-on-the-streets-and-suburbs-swamped-by-asians-20160704-gpxzpn.html. Accessed 5 July 2016.

4. ABC News, Jean Kennedy, 'Election 2016: Pauline Hanson's comments could lead to violence, Tim Soutphommasane', 5 July 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-05/pauline-hanson's-comments-could-lead-to-violence:-soutphommosane/7568608. Accessed 5 July 2016.

5. Sydney Morning Herald, Rachel Olding, 'Right wing extremism equal to Muslim radicalisation, say academics', 17 July 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/national/rightwing-extremism-equal-to-muslim-radicalisation-say-academics-20150716-giduqp.html. Accessed 5 July 2016.

6. United Nations, General Assembly 86th meeting, 'Links between Extreme Poverty, Violent Extremism Can Be Broken by Creating Jobs, Reducing Inequalities, General Assembly Hears as Debate Concludes', 16 February 2016, http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/ga11761.doc.htm. Accessed 5 July 2016.

Turnbull's pyrrhic victory

Turnbull's pyrrhic victory

The results of the 2016 Australian federal election are on a knife-edge. The morning after the night before is no closer to determining who will lead Australia for the next three years. What is clear however, is that the Liberal and National Party coalition who were the incumbent government have been decimated, losing a raft of seats while the Labor Party have picked up a significant number. It is also clear that there has been a large swing to the Greens, the Nick Xenophon Team and some independents.

Whoever, forms government will likely have to negotiate with the cross-benches in order to have legislation pass. Not that this is necessarily bad. After all, instead of one party pushing through their own legislation it will be on terms agreeable to all sitting MPs. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard made this work during her term in which she presided over a hung parliament. In fact, she was Australia's most productive Prime Minister, passing more legislation than any other⁽¹⁾.

Courtesy of Guardian Australia

The hand-wringing, soul-searching and character assassinations have already commenced within the Liberal Party, blaming Turnbull for the massive swing against the LNP. However, this swing cannot be placed solely at the feet of Turnbull as there were a number of factors that contributed to it.

First and foremost was the arrogance of the Liberals in thinking they were better than the Labor Party because of their stability and cohesion. They gained so much mileage from Labor's disunity when then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was axed in lieu of Gillard in 2010. In 2013, she was replaced by Rudd because of the internal party ructions which greatly damaged Labor's credibility. It was no great shock then that the 2013 election saw the Liberal Party elected with a massive majority of 35 seats and Prime Minister Tony Abbott at the helm spruiking Liberal Party unity. And then the unthinkable happened and the Liberal Party axed a sitting prime minister. Abbott was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull. The often incoherent Abbott had made numerous blunders and his popularity was plummeting. Turnbull's rise to the top job came with much expectation.

However, the Turnbull administration continued on in the same vein that Abbott had. There were few changes and it became clear that Turnbull was not in charge of the party. Where the Liberals accused Labor of being controlled by the unions, it was obvious that the Libs had two masters: the religious right wing and the neo-liberal Institute of Public Affairs⁽²⁾ which had demanded the abolition of the clean energy fund and the Department of Climate Change, not too mention a number of demands that the Liberal Party sought to implement in one manner or another, including repealing the mining tax, cutting company tax and privatising Medicare.

Turnbull delivered a budget only weeks before the federal election gifting a $50 million tax cut to big business in line with the IPA and big business wishes, at the expense of funding for Health and Education. He also attempted to limit funding for Medicare by freezing the rebate rate at 37% for six years. Some doctors announced that they could no longer be bulk-billing, but instead pass on the gap payments to customers⁽³⁾. Allegations from Labor that the Liberal Party were privatising Medicare were not far off the mark. While not privatising as such, the Libs clearly have an agenda to reduce the public funding of it. Abbott had tried to introduce a GP co-payment. While the co-payment failed, Turnbull has effectively implemented it through the freeze on the rebate threshold. Abbott closed the Medicare Local network and cut bulk-billing for pathology and diagnostic imaging⁽⁴⁾. The Liberals had planned to privatise the Medicare payments system, but Turnbull ruled it out only after it became clear that Labor would make much mileage from it⁽⁵⁾.

Prior to being dumped, Abbott had promised a plebiscite on marriage equality. During the 2016 election campaign, Turnbull reiterated there would be a plebiscite if the Liberal Party won, but then he stated that it wouldn't be binding and that MPs could vote according to conscience. Religious Right members, Cory Bernardi and George Christensen stated that regardless of the wishes of the Australian electorate, they would oppose marriage equality.

The Liberal Party showed their true colours by attacking Turnbull's character. He was seen as being a lefty, pro-gay, pro-Islam, pro-tolerance. Turnbull dared to tone down Abbott's vitriolic attack on Islam and the right wing was apoplectic. Turnbull even attended a community Iftar event during Ramadan. The right-wing gained mileage in the character assassination of Turnbull when it was revealed that one of his guests, Sheikh Shady, held ... wait for it ... homophobic views. Yes, the pro-Abbott, anti-gay, religious right wing were upset that a Muslim had stolen their homophobic thunder. The stench of irony and hypocrisy reeked across conservative Australia.

It was no wonder that the Liberal Party was savaged in the election. Abbott was displaced because of his unpopularity, yet Turnbull was unable to change direction because of the very culture of the Liberal Party.

The pressure was telling on him. Following the election, Labor leader Bill Shorten delivered an eloquent speech which was full of hope for the future. Turnbull wasn't to be seen. In a farce worthy of a Laurel and Hardy movie, Turnbull holed up in his house, unwilling to come out. So absured did it become that the media drove there and set up camp. Turnbull eventually showed his face and delivered a speech reminiscent of the ungracious and self-serving speech that former Queensland Premier, Campbell Newman delivered on his spectacular defeat in the Queensland election. An election result that is beginning to mirror the federal election. Both Newman and Turnbull led parties with large majorities, in Newman's case, he'd won the 2010 election with 78 seats to Labor's 6 seats. Both the Newman and Abbott/Turnbull governments led with a toxic culture that waged war on workers and the poor, while lining the pockets of big business, both led parties that supported neo-liberal austerity measures, and both displayed extreme arrogance believing they would easily win the election given their massive majorities. How wrong they were. Newman was ousted and replaced by a Labor minority government. Meanwhile, it is apparent that Turnbull will be lucky to have any majority and if successful, may well be leading a minority government. Turnbull's speech⁽⁶⁾, instead of being gracious and acknowledging that perhaps he and his party were responsible for the swing against them, he blamed Labor and the electorate, just as Newman had. The only difference is that it is not yet clear if the Coalition will win or lose the election.

Malcolm Turnbull believes the Coalition will be returned to government⁽⁷⁾

Turnbull called the double dissolution that led to the election and replacement of the full Senate. The trigger for the double dissolution was the failure to pass the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) bill. Funnily enough, during the election campaign, the ABCC wasn't mentioned once. It was merely an excuse for the election which Turnbull saw as an opportunity to clean house in the Senate. He had thought he'd end up with a more favourable upper house, but his plan backfired spectacularly.

However, win or lose, this will be a pyrrhic victory for Turnbull. The old adage, 'be careful what you wish for because you just may get it', will apply. If he does remain Prime Minister he will need to negotiate with the cross-benches while trying to deal with the massive internal power-plays within the Liberal party as well as the external influences from the religious right-wing, the IPA and a hostile media, some of whom are already calling for Turnbull to resign.

If the Liberal Party wins the election, it will likely deliver a government whose term will be marked by great instability and in-fighting, which will further disenfranchise an already jaded electorate. Turnbull is unlikely to survive the term or to lead the Liberal Party at the next election.

References

1. The Guardian, 'Was Julia Gillard the most productive prime minister in Australia's history', Nick Evershed, 28 June 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/australia-productive-prime-minister. Accessed 3 July 2016.

2. Independent Australia, Pearls and Irritations, 'The Liberal Party and the Institute of Public Affairs: Who is Whose?', 2 April 2016, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-liberal-party-and-the-institute-of-public-affairs-who-is-whose,8837. Accessed 3 July 2016.

3. News.com.au, 'Doctors around the country bringing an end to bulk billing', 26 May 2016, http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/doctors-around-the-country-bringing-an-end-to-bulk-billing/news-story/67adaeb8ee527e0dfc49be11b6ebd674. Accessed 3 July 2016.

4. The Guardian, Shalailah Medhora, 'Medicare cuts to diagnostic scans will cost cancer patients, say radiologists', 9 January 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/09/medicare-cuts-to-diagnostic-scans-will-cost-cancer-patients-say-radiologists. Accessed 3 July 2016.

5. New Matilda, Ben Eltham, 'Under Turnbull's Government, Health is becoming a private affair', 21 June 2016, https://newmatilda.com/2016/06/21/under-turnbulls-government-health-is-becoming-a-private-affair. Accessed 4 July 2016.

6. Daily Mail, Max Margan and Australian Associated Press, 'Malcolm Turnbull slammed by Laurie Oakes and Alan Jones for his 'pathetic' and 'rancorous' speech on election night', 3 July 2016, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3671981/Election-2016-Malcolm-Turnbull-slammed-post-election-speech.html. Accessed 3 July 2016.

7. Australian Financial Review, Laura Tingle, 'Election 2016: Malcolm Turnbull short of votes, Bill Shorten short of dollars', 26 June 2016, http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election/election-2016-malcolm-turnbull-short-of-votes-bill-shorten-short-of-dollars-20160626-gps9vt. Accessed 3 July 2016.

A Christian Values Guide to Australian Politics

As the federal election bears down upon us, voters are being bombarded with choices and attempts by political parties to manipulate the electorate by appealing to fear, prejudice and values.

Not surprisingly, the Christian vote is significant and the major parties play on this by claiming to represent Christian values. In order to help Christians chose who to vote for, we have developed this handy chart mapping Christian values against the policies of some of the political parties contesting the election.

To view a larger version of this table, click here:

http://www.rantingpanda.com/images/valuestable4.png

Each Christian Value had a number of criteria supporting it. An answer of 'no' to any of the criteria under the particular Christian Value resulted in a failure to meet that value. In determining whether a party met each criteria their policies and other public information was assessed.

While all parties would like to claim that they can meet each of the Christian Values, it is clear that scratching the surface reveals an abject failure in adhering to biblical principles. For instance, the bible is clear about welcoming the stranger, caring for the poor, protecting children and sharing wealth. Yet all of the conservative parties failed these. Disturbingly, those same parties are promoted by conservative Christians as bastions of Christianity.

The criteria used for each Christian Value were:

When the bible talks of the stranger, it is talking of immigrants and refugees. Jesus and his family were refugees who fled into Egypt to escape Herod's plan to murder the first born of every family. On their journey they stayed in Bethlehem where an inn-keeper gave them sanctuary in a stable. Every Christmas, Christians … and even a lot of non-Christians … display decorations or send cards featuring the little baby Jesus in a Manger. Sadly, far too many of these same Christians oppose the UN Refugee Convention and support the Australian government's despicable treatment of asylum seekers. Part of the fear-mongering rhetoric is that asylum seekers are 'illegal'. Yet, if voters are so hung up on the legality of migration, then surely they must be upset with the illegality of the off-shore detention centres and the international laws that the government is breaking in relation to refugees, torture and treatment of children. Some will placate their conscience by arguing that the policy is saving people from drowning at sea. Meanwhile, there has been a significant increase in the number of refugees fleeing to Europe now that Australia's doors are closed, with a corresponding increase in drownings in the Mediterranean. Disturbingly, Australia is breaking international refoulement laws by returning some asylum seekers to their countries of origin in which they face persecution, torture or murder. There were some who argued that we only want 'genuine' refugees, yet half of the refugees on Manus Island have been given 'genuine' refugee status and are still imprisoned because Australia has no Christian values and refuses to welcome the stranger. 

A vote for this brutal regime is not a vote for Christian values.

Australian society is a cornucopia of culture. It includes the continent's first people, the traditional owners of the land. It includes people from all cultures, countries and religions. We are all neighbours. So to ignore the rights and recognition of indigenous people is not loving our neighbour. To vilify or try to restrict the practising of any religion is not showing love. Being a Christian doesn't mean allowing Christians to have more rights to worship than other religions. The Constitution clearly states that the Commonwealth shall pass no laws that restrict religion. So why are there parties running in the federal election with unconstitutional policies which brazenly attack Islam and want to restrict its religious practices. This is not love. Some of the conservative parties are in favour of removing or watering down laws against vilifying people based on race, gender identification or religion. Why would any Christian vote for a party that wants the right to vilify another person? This is not loving your neighbour.

Conversely, Jesus also commanded that we love our enemies. Of course, most of the people who are classified as 'enemies' of Christianity, don't really see themselves as that. For instance, many right-wing Christians claim that Islam is an enemy of the church, yet that would be news to most Muslims who love and accept Christians. In fact, many of these Muslims forgive Christians or other non-Muslims who are intolerant, violent or hateful. That is true love. Christians would do well to also love others. Voting for parties with anti-Islam platforms or promoting the work of white supremacists such as Geert Wilders is not loving your enemy.

Some Christians will spout slogans such as 'love the sinner, but hate the sin'. This usually translates into homophobic attacks on the gay community. This is not love. Disagreeing with someone is one thing and can be done in love. Attacking and vilifying them is altogether another thing and is not displaying love, no matter how it is dressed up. Many Christians seem to think that their votes should be for a party that opposes gay marriage … or marriage equality. The bible's own version of marriage is not one man & one woman. The bible has a history of polygamy, incest and even of rape victims being forced to marry their rapist. Hardly the prime example of marriage. You can love someone who's lifestyle you disagree with, but forcing your beliefs on to them is not love. A plebiscite on marriage equality is a waste of money. Gay is a sin? Who cares? There are plenty of gay Christians. People are born gay. Why should anyone have a say in whether or not someone else can marry the person they love? Stopping a loving couple from marrying is not showing love. Bring on marriage equality and let's call it, well, marriage. 

 Then there's Palestine. Not exactly our enemy, but some Christians treat Palestinians as such. Many Christians have swallowed the Zionist lie that modern Israel is a fulfilment of ancient prophecy. The New Testament is clear that the promises given to the Jews of a homeland in Israel, were taken away from them and given to Christians (Galatians 3:29, 'And if you be Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise'). So why would God suddenly renege on his own word? Zionism is a twisting of scripture and is based on a lie: 'A land without people for people without a land'. The land did have people: Palestinians who'd been there for thousands of years. Even Jewish scripture talks of Palestine. Maps and history books show Palestine existed. Yet Zionists have worked their magic to convince the world that Palestine has no legitimacy. '… for people without a land' is also a lie as Israel is now comprised predominantly of European Jews who did have a land: Europe. Albeit it needed rebuilding after World War 2, but that is what most Europeans did. Zionism is not scriptural and is not a Christian value. Besides, scripture or no scripture, genocide and ethnic cleansing have no place in Christian values.

There is a little parable in the bible about the sheep and the goats. It describes the sheep as being those who cared for the poor, visited the sick and the prisoner, clothed the naked, fed the hungry. It calls them 'the least of these'. And 'whatsoever you do to the least of these you do to me', says God. Opposing the UN Declaration on Human Rights, or trying to stop the poor accessing welfare while the rich and big business continue gouging money out of the government and the community is not caring for the least of these; this is not applying Christian values.

'Suffer the little children to come unto me', says Jesus in Luke 18:16 and other similar verses. This does not mean 'make the little children suffer'. Yet Australia is deliberately and insolently abusing babies and children by holding them indefinitely in off-shore detention. Australia is breaching the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The government's response? Make it illegal for whistleblowers to report crimes and abuse, whether it be rape or child abuse. Children are being severely traumatised and abused in Australia's detention centres and right-wing Christians are supporting and condoning this. How can any Christian vote for this?

One thing that is repeated ad nauseum by fundamentalist Christians is that it is not the role of government to provide for the poor. I'm yet to see churches solve global poverty. One would think that if Christians truly cared for the poor, they would mobilise all resources at their disposal to combat poverty and care for the poor, including working with government and sharing their wealth. Sadly, right-wing Christianity is more concerned about accumulation of wealth than in redistribution of wealth. It has this mentality that the tithe will set you free. And all the while the poor continue to suffer

Some see tax as theft and are adamant that there should be less of it. This then begs the question as to how infrastructure and services will be funded. Those who argue for small government are arguing for the privatising of government responsibility. This only ends in higher costs and reduced services. Government traditionally was only interested in delivering services and projects for the benefit of the community, not in making obscene profits. Private industry on the other hand operates for one reason: profit. Profit at the expense of the community. The bigger the profit the better. So what could possibly go wrong by giving private industry the responsibility to build infrastructure and deliver services?

According to the bible, God created the world and that is within it. At some point he gave stewardship for his creation to people. Stewardship does not mean raping the land and polluting the environment. Christians should be voting for parties with policies that combat climate change and protect the ecology and environment.

God is a socialist. Get over it. While the bible acknowledges that there are rich people and poor people, the commands to care for the poor and redistribute wealth are writ large throughout the book. Perhaps Karl Marx plagiarised Acts 4:32-35 or Exodus 16:16-18, when he wrote, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. As a reminder, in Acts 4:35 they 'distributed to each as anyone had need' and in Exodus 16:18, 'he who gathered much had nothing left over and he who gathered little had no lack. Every man gathered according to each one's need'.

Greed is not a Christian Value. Covetousness is not a Christian Value. Accumulating wealth is nto a Christian value. Share the wealth. For the love of God!

One would think this was a no-brainer, so it is surprising that so many Christians have opposed universal health care. Thankfully, Australians haven't quite lost their minds in the same way that Republicans in the US did. For years, the Liberal Party has been attacking and attempting to dismantle Medicare. The latest attacks have been in the form of GP co-payments, decreasing and limiting benefits or reducing bulk-billing. If Australia was to go the way of the United States, which it would appear that the Liberals would like, then we will see a significant rise in bankruptcies associated with expensive medical bills and people not being treated because they can't afford it. Denying health care is not a Christian value.

All parties, left and right failed the Christian Value of 'Thou Shall Not Kill', either because they supported war, abortion or euthanasia. Christians were responsible for most of the wars of the 20th century, not to mention the perpetual wars against Muslim nations for centuries, including the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq this century. Millions dead because of Christian-led wars. While there are humane arguments behind voluntary euthanasia, it is hard to argue that the bible upholds euthanasia as a Christian value. Similarly, there are arguments around what constitutes 'life' when we discuss abortion. For the purposes of this exercise, abortion at any stage is considered ending a life. Why? Again, it's hard to argue that the bible would condone abortion. However, it's one thing to oppose abortion, it's another to do something about the primary cause of abortion: poverty. Many of those who picket abortion clinics or wring their hands over the murder of the fetus, also oppose welfare for the poor or payment of a living wage. It's easy to protest the symptom but much harder to target the cause.

Facetious? One would think until one sees how people lose their shyte at Christmas with the simple sharing of a meme claiming Santa will be banned or Christmas is under attack. No-one is trying to ban Santa or the Easter Bunny. The only war on Christmas is the one in which we see one of Christendom's holiest celebrations corporatised and exploited by capitalism. Nothing says Christ quite like an orgy of consumerism … oh, wait …

 At Christmas and Easter (and basically every other day), it wouldn't kill us to remember what these celebrations are actually about. Perhaps a quick read of the sermon on the mount or the parable of the sheep & the goats might help Christians, if not others, focus on what is important and what truly constitutes Christian values.

So the parties whose policies most reflect Christian values are The Greens, Socialist Alliance, Socialist Equality Party, the Sex Party and the Pirate Party, with the Nick Xenophon Team and Labor not too far behind. The conservative parties failed dismally because of their greed, selfishness, fear-mongering, bigotry and lack of compassion.

Surprised at the outcome?

After all, how could left-wing, socialist do-gooders be more 'Christian' than the conservative church-going faithful? Well, firstly, Christians are commanded to be do-gooders. Ephesians 2:10 states, 'For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do'.

It is a sad indictment of fundamentalist Christianity that these secular parties are more Christian than the so-called 'Christian' parties.

The bible is very clear on loving others as being one of the greatest commandments in the bible. It is not love to control other people's lives. It is not love to vilify others or to deny them the same rights that you enjoy. Love doesn't require agreement with others, however, attacking, vilifying or trying to restrict the beliefs, culture, lifestyles or identities of others is not showing love.

It is clear that a vote for a conservative party is not a vote for Christian values.