As Australians Republicans renew their push for an fully and truly independent nation, Len Liddelow predicts monarchists will be out there spreading the same old lame old excuses that they always do.

Will monarchists be able to withstand the new push by republicans to cut Constitutional ties with the monarchy that will see Australia have its own Head of State and become a completely independent and sovereign country in its own right?

Most likely not.

However they will stubbornly and blindly defend their cause to the bitter end.

Among the many defensive ploys used by them to maintain the status quo is the well-worn old chestnut: ‘Show us your model’. Just as well the majority of Australians did not want to see the Constitution before they voted on becoming a Federation at the end of the 19^th century, or else we would still be six separate colonies.

On this question, the truth is – although continually lied about and misrepresented by monarchists – we already have a model. It has been running successfully for 111 years. It is called the Commonwealth of Australia. The only change needed to become a republic will be to amend the constitution to remove the Queen and replace her with the Governor General. It is not rocket science.

The details and method of appointment and dismissal, and so on, would be decided by the people by plebiscite and then referendum.

Their next favourite approach is to falsely claim that if the Head of State is appointed by the Prime Minister, it will be a “politicians’ republic”. This nonsensical argument is endlessly repeated by them, despite the fact that the sitting Prime Minister has been successfully responsible for appointing every Governor-General since 1930 — making Australia, by their standards, a “politicians monarchy”.

Of course, practical logic does not figure in their propaganda. They simply want to mislead the public whenever possible. Why let the truth get in the way of an argument? Somehow, they mistakenly believe that our present constitutional monarchy is a perfect system with the Queen as an overriding umpire who could somehow intervene in our government if she feels it is required. Despite section 59 in our Constitution purporting to say this, it is of course nonsense. Convention and protocols have made this section spent — dead letter law. Even the Queen sees her role in our political system as being only ceremonial and symbolic.

Now we move on to their next favourite defense. Whenever it is suggested that the Head of State (HoS) could be elected by the people, they trot out the same old nonsense that an elected HoS would have a mandate by the people and would be more powerful than the Prime Minister. Never, of course, citing any instances in a Westminster system where this has occurred or, indeed, giving any reason why it should occur. Most importantly, they completely ignore the fact that the powers of an elected HoS would be restricted to those contained in the Constitution and the recognised reserve powers in our current Westminster system.

Can anyone possibly imagine that a dignified, highly educated, intelligent person, who has had the distinction and honour of being elected to the most prestigious position in the land, would ignore his position, his family and friends and suddenly turn feral? More amazing, why would he do this — what would he have to gain? Even more amazing still, on what grounds would he be able do this.

Although this scenario is totally implausible, to appease adherents to political science, and all others, this unlikely situation could be counteracted by adding a new section to the constitution. This section would make any decisions by the HoS, by virtue of reserve powers, or Constitutional powers, justiciable in the High Court, and appealable only by the Prime Minister. This would mean that in the event the HoS has used any of their powers and the Prime Minister has good reason to believe they have been used incorrectly or unjustly, he could appeal their validity to the High Court. Naturally, the High Court would be required under this new section to hand down a decision within a specified time frame.

In actual fact, it is worth considering this safety measure no matter which way the HoS is appointed.

Now we come to the real doozy in their well-worn and endlessly parroted sayings. You guessed it: “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”. How juvenile and pathetic is this little beauty. T-model Fords, black and white TVs, even the old horse and cart were not broken. They were purely and simply overtaken by progress, evolution, and better ways of doing things. This is exactly the same as the way our political system has evolved to the point where the monarchy is now nothing more than a toothless historical anomaly that plays no functional part and serves no purpose to Australia or our government.

So, the bottom line is – this time around – republicans are ready for the limited worn out propaganda that monarchists present to lie and mislead the people.

Republicans will concentrate on truthfully informing and engaging the public to allow them, when the time comes, to make an intelligent decision on the political destiny of Australia.

(Follow ‘An Australian Republic’ on Facebook by clicking here.)

Penny Wong’s rare moment of sincerity on Q&A on Monday betrayed the paucity of what passes for Australian political commentary these days, says Dennis Altman.

If there is a turning point in the Australian debate on same-sex marriage it may well be Penny Wong’s remarkable grace and honesty when answering Joe Hockey on Monday night’s Q&A.

Wong was asked by host Tony Jones whether Hockey’s view that children were better off with a mother and father was hurtful to her.

“Of course it is,” she said. Then, with a curt nod: “But I know what my family is worth.”

For once, a minister spoke on television from her heart, unconstrained by the need to follow whatever script was issued that day from head office.

But such honesty is rare in political debate in Australia.

Recently I appeared on an ABC program called, ironically, “Outsiders”. Ironic because one of my co-panellists was former Liberal Minister Peter Reith. Whatever else one might say about Reith, he is not an outsider, and he obediently repeated the current Liberal Party attacks on the government.

The trend towards employing ex-politicians to pontificate is increasing at an alarming rate. The Age gives us the reflections of Amanda Vanstone and Peter Costello on a regular basis. Mark Latham seems to be embedded in the Financial Review, and Graham Richardson is such a fixture on Q & A that he is presumably now entered as a depreciation for tax purposes.

Latham and Richardson can at least be counted on for venom, passing as analysis. Costello and Vanstone, being somewhat more loyal to their old mates — well, not all of them in Costello’s case — will tell us, predictably, the current party line.

Other than a moment from Malcolm Fraser some years ago, acknowledging during a speech at La Trobe that he had not handled East Timor’s independence movement well, I have yet to hear a former politician admit to an error, or add much to political understanding. But this is symptomatic of the general decline of political commentary, which becomes increasingly an obsessive rehashing of current events, in which predictable positions are adopted.

If it isn’t politicians, we rely on members of the press gallery, who between them dominate political analysis on Sunday morning talk shows. I suspect no one watches these shows, but they provide footage for the evening news, when the same opinions that were in their newspapers can be trotted out again, and then reported the following day in an endless cycle of repetitive insider knowledge.

There are some dispassionate political journalists: George Megalogenis continues to actually analyse rather than preach, as did Michelle Grattan before her extraordinary dislike of Julia Gillard took over. But the cycle of the same small group of folk reinforcing each others’ views is drowning out anything else.

Until politicians are free to actually express their own views rather than those of the party, they cannot be used as commentators. Perhaps that is why the final exchange between Penny Wong and Joe Hockey on Monday’s Q&A was so electric. Here were current politicians talking about personal beliefs, and Hockey’s clear embarrassment was evidence that his basic decency is restricted by his party’s policy.

Far more important than Gillard’s rather inexplicable opposition to changing the Marriage Act is that the Liberal Party, which claims to believe in individual conscience, has forbidden a free vote on the issue. Australian politics is remarkably restricted by party discipline, which means that what passes for debate is limited to who can be most ingenious in finding ways of selling statements they obviously cannot believe.

Frontbenchers have to defend party policy. I don’t expect Wong to agree that the surplus is a con job or Hockey to acknowledge that his knowledge of economics is sadly limited. Their job is to be combatants, though one wishes their language could be as dignified as Wong was on Monday. But we desperately need commentators whose positions are not compromised by partisan loyalties, or the need to exercise payback.

We used to rely on the ABC for this sort of informed but dispassionate analysis. Maybe it’s time for it to cleanse its stables and move beyond the smug circle whereby “insiders” and “outsiders” merge, as long as Tony Jones can interrupt at will.

(This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.)

Tony Abbott must be praying that a Parliamentary Code of Conduct never sees the light of day, says senior correspondent Barry Everingham.

Tony Abbott must be on his knees 24/7 praying that a Code of Conduct never sees the light of day in the Federal Parliament.

If such a Code was ever accepted, it would mean Abbott might have to desist in his constant abhorrent behaviour towards Julia Gillard on a daily basis — we all know that the failed seminarian is a misogynist of the lowest order and wouldn’t take on a bloke in the way he does Gillard.

He smirks when he deplores the scuttlebutt surrounding Bill Shorten’s marriage, yet it doesn’t take much to assume that Abbott would have put his dogs of innuendo on to Shortens’s case.

After all, Abbott is devoid of policies and quaintly tells us they will be released when Gillard announces the date of the next election.

Now, I have an interest to declare here.

I have enjoyed Shorten’s company over many years at the house of mutual friends — we are not mates, but we are acquaintances and our meetings, whenever they take place, are always cordial.

I am close to his former in-laws, Felicity and Julian Beale and their daughter Deborah, Shorten’s former wife, who have been my friends for many years. I have never met Chloe Shorten, though I know and respect her parents, Their Excellencies the Governor-General and Mr Michael Bryce.

The vice regal  couple paid my family an incredibly wonderful compliment by leading more than 300 mourners at my late wife’s Memorial Service in Melbourne last January.

From what I have gleaned – and not from family connections but from mutual friends – the Shorten marriage is solid and is built on mutual love and respect.

So, why are the Liberals being so bloody minded towards Shorten?

Could it be that in the unlikely event Gillard is rolled in this current Parliament, Abbott would not want to face a man of Shorten’s intellect across the despatch boxes, knowing the former trade union supremo would wipe the floor with him?

The unfortunate mess surrounding Craig Thomson is giving Abbott a field day — but his demands for the Government to set the Member for Dobell totally adrift and not accept his vote is, quite frankly, laughable.

Abbott and his hench-people have been strangely quiet, for instance, about the appalling mess  Sophie Mirabella is in over the Will of her aged former live-in lover, the well-respected Professor Colin Howard, whose family are confused about the ownership of their late father’s property.

And, if my memory serves me correctly, Professor Howard contributed to Mirabella’s election fund when she ran for the seat of Indi, ably assisted in that campaign by the disgraced former Liberal powerbroker, Noel Crichton-Browne.

It’s no wonder the Liberals are a closed shop about those episodes, but I am mystified about why Labor hasn’t reminded the public of the type of people surrounding Abbott.

When Mirabella screeched a comment across the floor of the Parliament recently, when Anthony Albanese was taking Abbott apart, the Leader of the House paused to remind Mirabella thus: “I’d be careful what I said, if were you — we haven’t started on you yet!”

The standard of behaviour of the Liberals and their country cousins in the House of Representatives is the lowest in living memory and it’s all because the Independents wouldn’t have a bar of Abbott.

Neither should the Liberals.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

There are many suspicious features about Craig Thomson’s Health Services Union imbroglio, but notable among them are the apparently close links between HSU “whistleblower” Kathy Jackson and Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. Peter Wicks uncovers a very tangled web.

The major saga embroiling the Federal Government at the moment, besides the curious Peter Slipper and James Ashby affair, is the Health Services Union (HSU) debacle.

Firstly, let me start by saying that I do not endorse anyone spending over $6,000 on prostitutes on a union credit card — that is reprehensible behaviour. Nor do I endorse not declaring vast amounts of money to the Electoral Commission on election campaigns. However, these allegations are yet to be proved — and are vigorously denied.

In any case, I think I smell a rat.

Union whistleblower Kathy Jackson has been ripping into both the Labor Party and the former (until February 2012) President of Fair Work Australia, Geoffrey Giudice, for months now over the goings on within the embattled Union and the investigation resulting from her claims.

Kathy Jackson has caused the union movement untold damage and brought the Federal Government to the brink of collapse. One would assume that the public may be interested in knowing a little more about her and any conflicts of interest she may have.

One vital piece of information that is not widely known about her is that her partner is a man named Michael Lawler.

Who is Michael Lawler?

For starters, according to reliable sources, Michael Lawler is friends with a man named Tony Abbott. Apparently, the two of them socialise regularly. Conveniently, Tony Abbott is also the leader of the political party making so much ground out of the claims Michael’s partner is making.

Michael Lawler works for an organisation called Fair Work Australia, where he is a Vice-President on a salary of $400,000 a year. The only person higher than him at that organisation is Iain Ross, who just replaced Geoffrey Giudice – the one who Tony Abbott and Lawler’s partner Kathy Jackson were attacking daily – as President of Fair Work Australia.

On the 11th of October 2002, according to the FWA annual report, Michael Lawler was appointed Vice President of Fair Work Australia — although back then it was called the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Previously, Lawler was a barrister who made his mark representing employers in employment disputes. The man who appointed him to the AIRC was none other than Tony Abbott — who at the time was Employment and Workplace Relations Minister under John Howard’s Coalition Government.

On his appointment, Tony Abbott gave a speech praising Lawler in a remarkably personal and intimate fashion. Here is some of what he said that day:

“Intellect combined with common sense, compassion tempered by realism, ideals shaped but not dimmed by experience, some grasp of the nobility and waywardness that contend in every man: these, in my view, are some of the qualities which Vice President Lawler will bring to the demanding and often lonely life that lies before him.”

At a function to farewell Tony Abbott from his position as Employment and Workplace Relations minister the following year, Lawler was one of just four members of the AIRC to attend.

Independent Australia requested confirmation from Tony Abbott’s office about the relationship between the Opposition Leader and Michael Lawler, but had not received a response by the time of publication.

The Opposition always refer to Fair Work Australia as Julia Gillard’s “baby”, but Lawler was certainly Tony Abbott’s appointment.

Of course, all these things may be purely coincidental…

However, it does appear strange that Mr Lawler seems to have become involved in factional battles within the union on his partner Kathy’s behalf.

Carol Glen was the Victorian Divisional Secretary of HSU East for three years before resigning recently. At the time, Kathy Jackson was National Secretary of HSU East, and Michael Williamson was the General Secretary of HSU East.

Carol resigned due to the factional fighting within the union, particularly between Jackson and Williamson.

However, Jackson clearly did not want Carol to resign, as she feared that Williamson would replace her with a Divisional Secretary loyal to him.

This is the point where Lawler became involved in the factional battle within the Union, even though he was not a part of the HSU himself.

Carol Glen, in a written complaint to former Fair Work Australia President Geoffrey Giudice, alleges she received an “aggressive” phone call from Lawler, who told her:

“You can fuck off and take sick leave if you don’t want to do the work and still be paid, but you can’t resign.”

Michael Lawler did not work at HSU East, and this complaint went directly to his only superior in Fair Work Australia, Geoffrey Guidice.

Then, just a few days later, Lawler made corruption allegations against Carol to NSW Police and Strikeforce Carnarvon was born.

It is odd that this type of complaint would come from Lawler — as he was not part of HSU East or even a member of the Union.

As part of his complaint of corruption, Lawler made reference to a cheque that was being picked up by Carol — something he said she had mentioned in an email. The inference was that this cheque was some sort of pay off.

The Australian details the claims made by Lawler and the subsequent reaction by Glen:

Mr Lawler claims Ms Glen may have been given an inducement to give false evidence, noting that in a private email exchange with her partner in December, she had referred to a cheque she was going to pick up.

“I had ordered a bank cheque to pay my rent,” Ms Glen said, questioning how Mr Lawler had obtained her emails. She says she finds it extraordinary that Mr Lawler, the second highest industrial judge in the land, would engage in such a campaign.

Mr Lawler’s associate said it would be inappropriate for him to comment.

So, in fact, the cheque was a bank cheque ordered by Carol to pay her rent — totally innocent and unrelated to any Union business at all.

However, the question remains: how would Lawler know about the cheque? Given he mentioned a “private email exchange”, it would seem certain that he somehow had access to Ms Glen’s emails. So, how did Lawler have access to Glen’s private emails?

We don’t know, because as soon as he was asked about this detail, Lawler’s associate clammed up.

All decidedly suspicious.

On the 2nd May, police officers from the NSW Fraud and Cybercrime Squad raided the HSU East headquarters in Pitt Street, Sydney, in a much publicised operation.

However, my inside sources have pointed out a few anomalies about the official story of the raid that was reported in the press. Police were offered the option of using the service elevator and the rear entrance to the building to make things simpler, safer, and faster for officers — but this offer was rejected as the police were reportedly keen to use the main entrance, where the press had been assembled. Sources also state that the large number of boxes shown on TV being carried out by officers were all virtually empty — it was allegedly all done for show, to make it look like there were mountains of documents seized. Also, sources say, the story about HSU boss Michael Williamson trying to sneak out a back door with evidence was total rubbish — done presumably to implicate guilt. In fact, Mr Williamson left the office via the entrance the police were offered access to, as his car was parked in the car park opposite; the things he was carrying were taken by police as a routine part of the operation, as were his personal items — and probably a sandwich as well.

Of course, Kathy Jackson has acted very strangely for a so-called union boss.

In Melbourne, Jackson has hired Stuart Wood, a former Vice President of the HR Nicholls Society, as her lawyer. The HR Nicholls Society is a right-wing lobby group with close ties to the Liberal Party, set up as a think tank dedicated to Industrial Relations “reform”— much of which fed into the architecture of the Howard Government’s infamous “WorkChoices” policy.

It would seem valid to question why the Secretary of a union would hire a solicitor that is anti-union — and, indeed, one whose ideas you have apparently spent your whole working life fighting against. A quick look at HR Nicholls Society’s website shows just how close its ties are with the Liberal Party. Former Howard Government industrial relations minister Peter Reith is a board member, for example, and other notable names on the list of who contributes to this Society are Tony Abbott (there’s that name again), Eric Abetz, Peter Costello, Michael Kroger… the list goes on and on — even Andrew Bolt gets a mention.

Even more strangely, for a union rep, Jackson is due to be guest of honour and give a speech at the HR Nicholls Society annual dinner on June 12th. Strangely, Mal Brough – who has been accused of being implicated in the allegations against Peter Slipper – fronted the HR Nicholls Society only a week or two ago [note below video].

And, in yet another strange coincidence, Peter Slipper accuser James Ashby is using Kathy Jackson’s Sydney lawyers.

On the 14th May, on the Chris Smith programme on radio station 2GB, Kathy Jackson said that rumours of the Liberal party paying for her vast team of lawyers were rubbish. These lawyers, expensive lawyers, were all working for her for free – pro bono – she stated. Chris Smith, however, chose not to pursue the matter…

People can say whatever they like about Craig Thomson’s credibility and his explanation of events, however most people would find it totally unbelievable, and absolutely inconceivable, that these right wing lawyers, one of them from a Liberal Party aligned union busting “think tank”, would provide their services free to a union boss — especially one who pays herself a $270,000 salary.

So, it would seem there are many questions to be asked — and not just of Craig Thomson.

The mind boggles as to how someone who is a former employers’ barrister in their disputes with unions and was appointed to the AIRC by Tony Abbott as well as allegedly being a personal friend, is able to allegedly hack the emails of a Union official and then make a criminal complaint regarding this Union even while being the Vice President of the organisation actually in charge of investigating the same Union — as well as being the partner of the Union whistleblower most deeply enmeshed in the whole affair, who is soon to speak at a function for a union busting Liberal Party-aligned think tank, and who is being represented in all her actions against the union for free by the Liberal Party’s favourite lawyers — and yet none of this is widely reported in the media, or seemingly of any major interest to police?

Talk about conflicts of interest.

What is really going on here?

In my mind, all this puts question marks over the entire investigation — and makes me wonder about the Coalition’s direct involvement. After all, George Brandis repeatedly kept pushing for more investigations. If nothing else, Jackson, Lawler, Abbott – and the NSW police – have some serious questions to answer.

I don’t know how deep this runs but, like I said, I smell a rat.

(This is an abridged version of a longer story on Peter Wicks’ blog WIXXYLEAKS.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

PART ONE

Why is Justice in Victoria treating the three children of executed police informant Terrence Hodson and his wife Christine, as low life trailer trash?

Why are they being treated as the lesser among equals?

Why is the execution of their parents – eight years ago tomorrow – still unsolved?

Why haven’t Victoria Police, the Department of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Justice, the Judiciary, the various regulatory bodies and Victoria’s ‘B’ Grade Governments – first the Brumby Government, and now the Baillieu Government, to say nothing of Attorney General Robert Clark – not been intent on finding the assassins?

Why was Carl Williams blatantly executed on April 19, 2010, whilst a prisoner under the protection of the State in the maximum security Barwon Prison?

Why was the search for Barwon Prison General Manager, David Prideaux who went missing in the Alpine National Park on June 5, 2011 called off after a mere eight days?

And why was the Law Institute of Victoria, the National Australia Bank and McKean Park permitted by the Judiciary to run rampant and remove explosive documents and files from my premises and law offices, that contained vital investigative material and statements from informants and whistleblowers concerning these very matters, as well as the NAB’s financial dealings with several gangland figures — jeopardising the lives of my sources?

Terrence and Christine Hodson were each shot twice in the back of the head in their East Kew home and were reported to have been kneeling side by side.

The cowardice of the murderer(s) is replicated by the cowardice of the guardians of Justice in the State of Victoria.

Little wonder, given that the Top End of Town is well and truly mired in so many aspects of this ongoing turgid gangland saga

Ironically, Law Week started yesterday in Victoria.

But almost daily, Victorians are confronted with serious failings and flaws of the Justice, Police and political systems, as well as the broken election promises by the Baillieu Government to be open and transparent and accountable to the people.

Even the attempt to set up an Anti-Corruption Commission has been steeped in controversy, farce, inept governance and allegations of corruption.

In the eight years that Mandy, Andrew and Nicola Hodson have been trying to rise above their family’s torrid reputation and personal transgressions, they have become used to the doors of Justice being slammed in their faces.

But they want to try and get on with their lives and, as Mandy said to me today, they can’t do that until the execution of their parents is properly investigated.

Other people are allowed ‘closure’ — so why is it being denied to the Hodsons?

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

That is just one of the reasons the children delivered a plea to Chief Commissioner Ken Lay on April 24, 2012.

This is not a ‘cold case’ Commissioner Lay. This is a boiling hot case.

In the letter the children wrote, they asked for action and assistance:

“We are writing to you to implore you to take action in relation to the murder of our parents, Terrence and Christine Hodson. Since their murders almost eight years ago we have had conversations with lots of different members of Victoria Police, but we now feel very strongly that it is appropriate to ask you directly to implement action and to assign us a permanent contact person so that we can be regularly updated.”

They further stated that their suspicions that some in Victorian Police had no interest in solving the crime:

“One might speculate that there are some people in the Victoria Police who have a vested interest in not solving the murders.

“One may further speculate that solving the murders may cause (further) embarrassment to many important people; meanwhile the community is waiting to secure finality and we are waiting to see who will be the next victim of the murderous activity.

“We are very confident, based on personal knowledge, that credible and reliable evidence is available to at least pursue Police enquiries: however Victoria Police’s continued inactivity results in the silencing of witnesses.

“The OPP [Ed: Office of Public Prosecutions] indicates it has no power to investigate only to prosecute. Consequently the Director is apparently waiting for Police to provide evidence so that he may be in a position to proceed. Like us he is waiting and waiting and waiting.

“May we respectfully ask how long the community will need to wait to bring criminals to justice?

At this stage Victoria Police are yet to prepare a brief of evidence for an inquest … what could be the reason for this? One might speculate that the community may then see how little the Police have done to date.”

The Hodson children asked Commissioner Lay not to do as

“…predecessors and others within the Police Hierarchy have done … put this into the “too hard” basket and ignore our plea.

“We would like to think that you would at the very least want to live up to the promise you made to the Victorian public when you accepted your (formal) appointment as the new Chief Commissioner some six months ago, that being to resolve one of the most heinous crimes ever in the history of this State.”

The despair and the pleas by the Hodson children is echoed by many of us who are experiencing, to a lesser and greater degree, the utter degradation of Justice in Victoria and the abuse of due process that takes place, at times, with complete impunity before the Courts and those who preside over them.

Speaking Truth to Power and Justice is life threatening in Victoria.

How did the Police respond to the letter? Stay tuned for Part Two.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Cartoonist Gee follows the leader of the Opposition’s progression from seminarian, through tuition by News Limited propagandists, to eager Prime Minister-in-waiting.

The NSW Government has ruled that asbestos victims’ families will get nothing if the sufferer dies before their compensation case is concluded in court. Peter Wicks reports.

Bernie Banton spent his last few agonizing breaths fighting for their rights, this week the NSW Coalition Government kicked them and their families in the guts. Damn hard too.

They are the workers suffering and dying from the effects of asbestos, which leads to some particularly nasty and painful conditions.

Those who are unlucky enough to have this condition have a long, undignified, and agonizing death to look forward to. Their families will have to deal with watching their loved ones suffer excruciating pain with each breath, and know that there is nothing that can be done for them. This truly is a disease you wouldn’t wish upon your worst enemy — it is beyond horrific.

The company who gave us this deadly product was James Hardie, and the Federal Government at the time of the legal battles for compensation was the Howard Government.

As I mentioned, Bernie Banton was the man James Hardie hadn’t counted on. Bernie spent what were his final years fighting those he saw as the bastards who refused to help those suffering. Those bastards were the Directors of James Hardie, and Tony Abbott, who was then Health Minister. Tony Abbott did not want sufferers to have access to medication that was subsidised, and James Hardie didn’t want to be held liable for the serious problems that they had caused. In fact, Tony Abbott even had the gall to insult Banton in his final days [note below video]:

Nevertheless, in a true David and Goliath battle, Bernie won on both counts, gaining compensation guarantees and access to subsidised medication.

Then, like a war criminal fleeing for Switzerland, James Hardie moved its headquarters overseas in a bid to avoid the compensation payments, under the Coalitions watch.

In NSW, victims of this awful condition have received yet another awful blow, at the hands of a heartless Government.

Some of you may remember me writing about NSW Attorney-General General Greg Smith — well, it seems Greg’s priorities are a little more than back the front.

Unlike the state governments in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria, Greg Smith has decided that these poor asbestos victims and their families should receive no compensation at all if the sufferer dies before the compensation case is finalised in court.

This is an unprecedented heartless act of total bastardry.

This virtually forces the victims to spend their final months not with their loved ones, but in court fighting for what no reasonable person would say they don’t deserve. Mr Smith is also encouraging the legal team opposing compensation payments to drag the proceedings out and delay an outcome as long as possible, as they will be financially rewarded if the victim dies before his claim is finalised.

The compensation claims the Government would be liable for are estimated at $23 million over 40 years. Just over half a million a year — not much at all, really.

More than this has probably been spent in the last year on marketing and spin about the North West Rail Link, which hasn’t even been started yet.

Apparently, according to Greg Smith, to pay this compensation would leave the NSW Government open to legal damages from James Hardie that could cost the NSW Government anywhere between $23 million and $140 million over 40 years.

So, at the absolute worst, the Government would be faced with a cost of $3.5Million in a year. This is based on the assumption that James Hardie would not only take on the NSW Government legally — but would win.

It assumes that a company like James Hardie would be seeking to gain more adverse publicity by short-changing their victims. It also assumes that a judge would find in the favour of a company that has caused the deaths of thousands over a Government trying to compensate victim’s families.

According to Greg Smith, this is not a battle worth fighting. What a gutless display of apathy. Barry O’Farrell should show some guts and sack Mr Smith now, as he should have done last fortnight after the paedophile fiasco.

It is interesting to note that Greg Smith won’t fight for asbestos victims and their families, but is happy to stand up for his mate the paedophile.

If the Liberal Party had any decency left in them they would sack him, and I hope the local branches have the common sense to preselect someone else next time around.

This is nothing short of a disgrace.

(This story was originally published on WIXXYLEAKS and has been republished with permission. Read more about asbestos in IA here.)

On popular panel show Q&A tonight, the ABC will present a largely recycled bunch of ideological warriors — with only one, Tim Costello, not having appeared on the panel before; shareholder activist Stephen Mayne makes his third appearance; ultra-conservative economist Judith Sloan her fourth; Finance Minister Penny Wong her eighth and Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey makes an almost unbelievable eleventh appearance on a show that has only been in production since 2008.

[Read more of Independent Australia's original research and analysis into Q&A.]

According to Peter Johnstone, this show represents a sickness in the heart of the ABC — created by the tyranny of balance, and the public broadcaster’s capture by right-wing think tanks.

‘Balance’ and the ABC

In the late 1990’s, there was a strong campaign by conservative groups and some members of the Howard Government to portray the ABC as ‘left-leaning’ and captive to socialist journalists.

As a consequence, prominent conservatives were appointed to the board of the ABC and the ABC was rigorous in adopting a policy of presenting ‘balance’ in their programming. Programs such as ‘Late Night Live’ were supposedly counterbalanced by ‘Counterpoint’ presented by Michael Duffy. The ABC ensured there was seen to be ‘balance’ on all programs with a panel (such as Insiders).

Of course, this issue of ‘balance’ in the media became a contested zone in the U.S.A. 40 years ago.

Whenever there was a media report on the dangers of cigarette smoking, the well-organized tobacco industry persuaded politicians and the media to provide ‘balance’ in reporting.

Doubt is crucial to science, but it also makes science vulnerable to misrepresentation. The tobacco industry exploited this situation and ran effective campaigns to mislead the public, to sow doubt, and to deny well-established scientific knowledge for over four decades. The ‘merchants of doubt’ were successful because the mainstream media gave air time and credibility to scientifically flawed views.

The media could, and should, act as gatekeepers — ignoring charlatans and snake oil salesmen. When it comes to science, the media has failed, particularly when it comes to issues like climate science or the River Murray. It has failed because it has succumbed to notion of ‘balance’, rather than accuracy.

Providing ‘balance’ has become an ideal to strive for in the ABC, but it carries within it some significant flaws.

To have a ‘balance’, you require a fulcrum/centre point. How do we know whether the fulcrum/centre has moved ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ over time? Or, does it depend on the ideological stance of the current government or the management policy of the media outlet? Where is the ‘fulcrum’ in the debate on climate change, on same sex marriage, or increasing the population of Australia?

How many times have any of the following appeared as a commentator on an ABC program in the last 3 months: a genuine climate scientist, a spokesperson from the Occupy movement, a pacifist, an atheist, a passionate humanist, or a Marxist? Yet it is not difficult to list the many appearances of Peter Reith, people from the Institute of Public Affairs, Judith Sloan (who appears on Q&A tonight for the fourth time) , Mark Textor, Clive Palmer and so on. On some program panels, debate often appears to be between a conservative and an ultra-conservative commentator, and quite often between men.

‘Balance’? Where the hell is the fulcrum?

‘Balance’ in the ABC has also become a kind of tyranny. The ideal of ‘balance’ leads journalists to give minority, sometimes inaccurate and often ultra-conservative views more credence than they deserve. We are in desperate need of transparency about the ABC’s use of think tanks for commentary and the use of their spokespersons on panel programs (The Drum, Q&A, 7.30, RN Breakfast and so on).

Some frequent examples are: Centre for Independent Studies, Institute of Public Affairs, Sydney Institute and the Australian Environment Foundation — all of them seeming to push a similar pro-big business, free market, ideology.

Who are their corporate sponsors? Is it the Tobacco Industry? If not, why won’t they tell us who the corporate sponsors are? Does the ABC find out who their sponsors are before they put these people on air?

Surely we, the audience/public, deserve some declaration about who is supporting and sponsoring the think tank if they are appearing on our public broadcaster’s programs. We need to know which politicians are advising them or which corporate identities are on their board. Clive Palmer?

What are the think tank’s agendas? Certainly some of the think tanks mentioned above have a clear agenda of market fundamentalism/free market economy, climate denial (climate change is a fabrication of alarmist scientists!) and opposition to government taxes. If their declared goals are neo or ultra conservative, what then is their hidden agenda? Their agenda is to shape and influence public policy but is it also to undermine any progressive ‘left-leaning’ thinking? To get control of the media message?

If it is, then they are surely succeeding.

Who in the ABC decides that the think tanks appear on their programs? How frequently have they participated in ABC programs in the last 3 months? What is the agenda of those who make these decisions in the ABC?

Don’t tell me it is to provide ‘balance’ — we, the public, are not stupid.

If Wayne Swan is concerned about a few wealthy individuals undermining the national interest, then he needs to be concerned about the role of think tanks on our public broadcaster and their engineering of public policy.

Do we need ‘balance’ on climate change? We may as well ask, do we need ‘balance’ on the issue of whether the earth orbits the sun? Because the question of whether anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is happening is settled — IT IS! Studies show that 97 out of every 100 climate scientists agree on this point (with 2 undecided and one denier). That is as close to consensus as is possible in science. We ignore its message at our peril and yet the ABC continues to present another view upon the altar of ‘balance’.

Once non-scientific and fundamentally inaccurate ideas become established in the community through ongoing affirmation and reinforcement by think tanks and commentators with a political agenda, they become values and beliefs that become widespread and well-nigh impossible to shift. In our fast moving, complex world, superstitious beliefs, pseudoscience and, in some cases, nasty myths, can give people a sense of control and certainty.

‘Brendan Nyhan at the University of Michigan undertook a study that found that when people were shown information that proved that their beliefs were wrong they actually became more entrenched in their original beliefs. This is known in the business as ‘backfire’. And what’s more, highly intelligent people tend to suffer backfire more than less intelligent people do, making us immune to any facts that are counter to our strongly held beliefs.

So what about providing the public with more ‘balanced’ and factual information? Well that can be a problem too when you present the public with both sides of a story, the arguments for and against (as research shows) that people with an existing attitude tend to become more entrenched in their original viewpoint too and are less likely to see the merit of any other viewpoints.’ (Dr Craig Cormick, Ockham’s Razor, ABC Radio National. 23/10/2011)

In many cases, as was the case with the tobacco industry, maintaining and reinforcing those inaccurate beliefs and myths is part of a deliberate political agenda. The ABC appears to be having a love affair with some similar conservative and well funded ‘think tanks’ in Australia that have a definite political agenda.

Unfortunately, for the likes of Tony Jones (Q&A) maintaining some controversy and entertaining non-scientific ideas, no matter how whacky the participants, is part of his bread and butter.

As a community, we need to be worried.

‘You can’t just take democracy for granted, you’ve got to look after it like it’s a garden – you’ve got to cherish it a bit. Because if you don’t look after it, weeds will grow and you won’t be able to function in it anymore’ (William McInnes).

Widespread support for non-scientific beliefs can serve to undermine democracy and impede a society’s ability to function or to compete in an ever more complicated and science and technology driven world. And, if there is a concern about the ABC’s role — what about the rest of the mainstream media?

What should happen?

The ABC should abandon its ideal of ‘balance’ and concentrate on providing the public with accurate information. This should extend to social issues like asylum seekers and gambling.

The ABC should ignore the charlatans and confront the ‘merchants of doubt’ and the people who have an investment in spreading unfounded and harmful myths. Isn’t it time for some transparency and perhaps (god forbid!) some regulation of think tanks?

Something needs to happen soon or the weeds will grow out of control.

The ABC should front up about the sponsors, the links and the political agenda of the minority commentariat and of the think tanks used on their panel programs.

Do this and we can proudly reclaim our public broadcaster as “OUR ABC”.

(Follow Peter Johnstone on Twitter: @sem4peter)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

In which the Last Person in Australia Approving of Prime Minister Gillard is Exposed by the Media and, Rejected by his Family, Takes up Residence in a Hole on the Banks of the Yarra, where he Contemplates Opinion Polls and his Future.

In this episode, the author has an epiphany and thereafter rejoins the world — making plans to stand as an Independent Federal candidate.

By Graham Jackson

[Read part 1]

[Read part 2]

[Read part 3]

Conclusion

13:  Low Water

The river is no more than a trickle. If the Bend to Bridge Dash were held today the competitors would thrash about on the rocks like dying perch, and if Mr Abbott were asked to think about hiding his shame he might think twice before he said no. Premier Ted has been away for several weeks, rumoured to be down on the bay, at Portsea or Rye. The Age has reported sightings of him instructing the Opposition Leader how to negotiate Victorian waters in more modest attire. Speculation is rife and innuendo prevails in the daily news, and even the cheery young men at 7 Eleven are beginning to show signs of distress. Consumer confidence is as low as the Yarra and business is bad.

I do the best I can, turning up each morning for my paper, sometimes stopping to chat. Their English is good and no barrier to conversation, but their spirit is gone and a tired smile and weary good morning is all they can muster. Once, I waited more than a minute for someone to emerge from the STAFF ONLY door and received no apology. I feel for them; I feel for everyone in these days of low morale and river levels.

Raoul has become more reserved – I was going to say sullen, but it’s not as bad as that – and has his head buried in a book when he comes round to visit. He’s reading Father Brown mysteries. I’m starting to worry about Raoul. He’s never been religious, my eldest son, and another conversion in the family might be a faith too far. Already, I struggle to tabulate our swings to and fro, Protestant to Catholic, Catholic to Protestant, and can count my blessings I only have Christian beliefs to record. By the time other faiths appear in the family this unbelieving historian will be cold in his grave.

Even The Age has become sympathetic. Either that or turned nasty – it’s hard to say which – and taken an editorial decision to twist the knife. This morning, one of their psychoanalysts made fun of the polls and his colleagues — called them idiots. You can’t say fairer than that. I might have written the piece myself with the right kind of background information. It delved into the political past, when the current Opposition ruled the land and high seas and turned potential 7 Eleven staff back to the chaotic countries they came from. The general conclusion was that Prime Minister Gillard still had the ghost of a chance. But no one can read between lines better than me and when another columnist told me the gambling industry had the Prime Minister’s measure, I knew all bets were off.

Advice from the Institute of Public Affairs tempted me to stop buying the paper, but decisions are rarely made so easily. I still needed paper for toileting and, as we moved into a cold late autumn, the broadsheet was useful as a second blanket. My wife had weakened to the extent of sending food parcels down to the river, but they were intended to keep me alive, not in comfort.

I had a third sign planted by my burrow now. NO HAWKERS, it said. While it exposed me to a negativity charge, the time I saved explaining my situation made it worthwhile. How these people made a living selling their wares up and down the river was beyond my understanding. Times were so tough you couldn’t eat a scone without breaking your teeth, and everyone knew the price of a dentist. They could name their own price, if the truth were told, and how many citizens had that kind of advantage? Only dentists, billionaire evangelists and the Prime Minister, who, in another context, was being goaded by the gambling industry to write her own ticket on an election win.

With confidence in everything hitting rock bottom, even the trickle in the Yarra evaporated and my wife’s beef stew lost a lot of its beef. Bulked out with a soy bean substitute, it tasted like river mud, which could still be found here and there in the billabongs. Once I trekked upstream to find the last of them, but lost myself in the Banyule Flats. Life is unforgiving in this stretch of the river, in flood and in drought, and I had to call for Raoul’s help to get me back to my hole.

14: Pai-abun

I lay dormant in my burrow, like the original wombat. Images fast forwarded across my eyes, the peaks and troughs of opinion poll graphs, faster and faster, until they blurred and flatlined. The Prime Minister’s approval rating was a constant 0% and the war against her was won. The Age newspaper headlines spiralled round her tense face, proclaiming victory in wars against everything —against drugs, faith, hope and charity, against Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan and remote Palm Island. The war against asylum-seekers had also been won, screamed a huge black headline, and Mr Abbott was taking credit for turning their boats around and shoving them in the right direction. The troops could now come home.

The wars had come at a cost. Three senior Age writers were being treated for ulcers and powder burns. Their campaigns had been long and arduous and Missus Grattan had willingly gone to the front page on numerous occasions. Too many, it seemed. Her face had become as unmoving as the fallen enemy. Her pith helmet was stained with blood and sweat, with tears for those of her comrades who had gone missing in action. Fears were still entertained for their safety. Would anyone see Master Blarney again?

An American platoon, codenamed The Australian, shouldered in to claim the victory. Their headlines screamed VIVE LE REPUBLICAN PARTY! and their mascot Liberty Albrechtsen was given the honour of raising the flag before passing it on to retired General Kelly, who, overcome with emotion, dropped dead at her feet. Alan Jones bravely strode in to challenge the corpse to stand up like a man, but distracted by incoming phone calls lost the thread of his demands and fled the field. His admirers gathered to console him, to wipe the foam from his mouth, and Mr Andrew Bolt offered words of encouragement at the best price he could get, per column inch.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word is now the power and the glory, the creator and destroyer. Burrows are dug on a word of encouragement. Even as my own retreat caves in and stifles the words streaming out of my mouth.

But my vision remains unimpaired. I can see a figure on the farther bank, Premier Ted, beckoning. Have I heard the troops are coming home? he calls. Yes, I’ve heard the rumour, and that chickens are coming home to roost, and that I have to vacate the riverbank and go back to suburbia.

I lay delirious in the burrow. Ancestors were with me, the Singing Evangelist, the Man of Flowers and the Musical Baptist. They asked me to reconsider my faith. They had also been sorely tried and tested. Their wives had died young, they never remarried and had to raise their children alone. I should have more confidence in my boys, in their ability to create a future. Come out of the burrow, my ancestors urged, as they presented me with family icons — a conductor’s baton, a hand-crafted, kiln-fired flower pot and an old 1904 book about Aboriginal customs and beliefs. Turning the pages of this heirloom I discovered that if a man

“…dreamt anything special at any time, he would always repeat the dream to his companions, and they would take it seriously. A dream was called pai-abun, and during one a man would often see a person who had died, and … if he saw anything dreadful in his dream he became exceedingly afraid, and would be convinced that the awful things he saw were really to happen.”

For days I lay in the burrow tended by my eldest son. Later, he told me Chance had come down to the river with a proper beef stew and helped me sip the gravy. Slowly, patiently, I was nursed back to health and I want to note here the care provided by all members of my family, with the exception of Sylvester. Raoul believes his youngest brother is becoming infected by war games and in danger of being lost to the void.

I am exceedingly afraid for him. My dreams of death and destruction, of ill-gotten victories, have drained optimism out of my frail body. Even hope is hard to find, although I still sleep at night and wake each morning with the first calls of the birds and go up to the 7 Eleven for my paper. But how long can I go on this way? Should I go back to my wife? Raoul has suggested I wait a few more weeks, to see how I feel then, and I’m inclined to take his advice.

15:  After the Dreaming

One night I returned to my old home, when the moon was hidden behind cloud and the suburb cloaked in darkness. I could feel the fear in the streets, the ancient fear of night and even of fear itself. New analyses now suggested some of our wars had been abandoned rather than won, and that wars against terror, tobacco and TattsLotto fell into this category and might be expected to flare any minute. Liberty Albrechtsen’s war against hypocrisy was a case in point, since she’d called out all those who bought $1,000 fundraising tickets to dinners other than the one given in her honour by the Institute of Public Affairs. Some mean spirited columnists claimed she stood accused of shooting herself in the foot and that she was one of war’s hidden casualties and had in fact hidden behind one war or another – against rival philosophies, Prime Ministers, Occupy Movements – for too many years. But every individual stands accused at some time or other, even as I had been branded as the last living supporter of Prime Minister Gillard and now walked suburban streets alone.

I don’t believe I’m overstating the case, although I hear the hyperbolic shrill in my mind and appreciate others might catch some of its echoes. I could also hear my footsteps echoing down the concrete path behind me, and turned my head more than once to see who might be following. But no one was there, just the unremitting darkness and fears for my three sons, especially Sylvester. If Liberty Albrechtsen was hidden in the shadows I could trust her to be looking out for herself, not me.

I stopped outside my weatherboard. Should I knock at the door, see if one of my family would let me back in? Despite their recent approaches, I still wasn’t sure of my welcome. Perhaps with me out of the house they were experiencing the kind of nostalgia we all have for the good times we shared in the past – birthday parties and summer trips to the beach – under the security umbrella of a male Prime Minister. Now we’d all moved on, I might be better served cutting my losses and be grateful for whatever family contact I could attract down to the riverbank. At least I was my own master there.

I returned via the 7 Eleven, where the student on duty noticed how sad I looked and offered me a small Slurpee free of charge. It was a thoughtful gesture. The young fellow’s English wasn’t as good as his colleagues on the morning shift and he was keen to get some practice. He didn’t know me, of course, since it wasn’t my usual hour. In fact, he probably didn’t know anyone. I’d walked along a deserted road to get to the store, a road which for the greater part of the day was jammed with traffic. I remarked how quiet it was. He must have been working on his reply for some hours, as he waited to greet his first customer. At the time I didn’t understand a word he said, but I got the gist of the overall meaning and later, in the burrow, I was able to work it out. He was trying to be humorous. His store was a genuine 7 Eleven, he said: people only came in between 7am and 11pm. Then he laughed. Perhaps if they renamed it 12 Twelve, they might get customers round the clock! He looked at me, slyly, to see if I understood. Fortunately I smiled, not at the joke, but to thank him for the Slurpee. So he was grateful then, too, and returned the smile, and although he didn’t get to use his cash register, I imagine the transaction was as satisfactory for him as it was for me.

I took a lot away from this casual encounter, a calmer frame of mind, less reliance on the daily news round to provide a reason for my being. Really, I should have arrived at this point as soon as the opinion polls wiped out my slender percentage; but better later than never, I reasoned, as I began to tidy up the burrow. Who knew what tomorrow might bring? No more wars, at any rate, I was done with them. If I bought the morning paper I’d turn to its cartoon page and embrace the Wizard of Id.

16: Wizard Ideas

First an apology I should have made earlier to Premier Ted. Since his return to the Yarra I’ve crossed the dry river bed a number of times to say hello. Although he answers few of my questions, I appreciate his calmness and rock-like assurance — even the necessity for busy politicians to get away from the hurly burly once in a while to gather their thoughts in private. Perhaps the Prime Minister needs a hole in the river.

So I thought I had Premier Ted’s measure and when he finally spoke at length I couldn’t believe what I heard. He was hard at work in his hole, he told me, hard at work. Of course I understood him to mean he was meditating, or preparing one of his short speeches. But no, he was working on the Missing Link — a thoroughfare between the Ring Road and the Eastern Freeway that had been planned for years but never built. Providing the link was such a wizard idea I could think of no better way for the Premier to spend his time than studying proposals for the project, above ground and underground. That was when he told me he was, in point of fact, digging a tunnel with his bare hands and had calculated that with a bit of luck and a lot of honest toil the work would be finished by the end of the year. He smiled in his slight, unfathomable way, anticipating the electorate’s joy come Christmas. When I recovered my wits and asked what he was doing with the earth and rock he dug out – there was no evidence of it on the riverbank – he clammed up, and I had to accept his right to make freely available only such information as he chose.

But it started me thinking about ideas big and small, practical ideas and hopeless cases. What was the opposite of a wizard idea, I wondered? Nothing came to my mind and I asked Raoul if he had any idea. Easy, he said, the opposite of a wizard idea was a fizzer. And there it was, as easy as that. I thanked him and went back to the article I was reading, a fizzer if ever there was one, since it implied Australia ought to go down the path of Fiji and New Guinea. Give the Generals, current and retired, a greater say in how the country was run. Ignore the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence. Give the Generals their heads. What a fizzer!

But there was a wizard idea in the paper as well, about how we needed people of vision to lead us out of the bog of opinion poll politics — independent thinkers who refused to take ‘cash for concessions’ from the Reverend Potted Palm and his kind, who refused to take any nonsense from Generals and who gave us hope for the future. This was the test I should apply to the Prime Minister, the article concluded.

Could my approval of Prime Minister Gillard survive such a test? All my anxieties flooded back at once and, sick with apprehension, I was inclined to dodge the bullet. With the Generals out and about that was no easy matter. Friendly fire, they called it. Moreover it was the Victorian duck shooting season and Premier Ted was sitting outside his burrow taking pot shots at anything moving. I had to keep my head out of sight, deep in its hole, where it threatened to implode in any case, with so much new information to process, so many fears to face, and the very real prospect of the loss of its one and only faith.

Would I have to abandon the Prime Minister? Would I have to become even more independent than I was then, on the banks of the Yarra? Would I have to refuse my wife’s food parcels, turn my son away from the burrow? Would I have to come up with a wizard idea of my own? All manner of madness swirled round in my brain, such as the temptation to accept as a wizard idea that my ongoing approval of Prime Minister Gillard was a fizzer. Fizzers and wizards flew in and out of my hole. Premier Ted banged away at them all and didn’t seem to care if they took a direct hit or fell, winged and wounded, into the dry river bed. The Yarra had seen it all before, of course, through drought and flood, pollution and clean up campaigns, dead ducks and living bellbirds ringing through the trees on its banks.

Could the river itself help dig me out of my hole?

Postscript

In Australia flood follows drought as surely as day follows night and the Yarra did come to my rescue, much sooner than I expected. It caught Premier Ted on the hop, too, and the media was on hand to record his awkward escape from the fast rising river. He fell back down the bank at least twice before an emergency rescue team got to him. I was overlooked completely, which was fine by me, since my experience of the daily news cycle had taught me a valuable lesson. And that was to put a premium on solitude, whether it was in a riverbank burrow or behind a locked bedroom door. I was beginning to understand my sons. I imagine Premier Ted had learned some kind of lesson as well.

For all that, I’ve made a momentous decision that will place me in the public spotlight again. But I have a tougher hide now and, like the wombat, know which profile to present. My years in retirement have also refreshed me, given me the desire to go back to the car pool (metaphorically speaking) and start counting again. Only this time I’ll count heads.

Yes, I’m entering the next federal election as an independent candidate, aware that I have to stand up for myself and not simply approve of what others are doing. Make no mistake, I still admire the Prime Minister’s courage in the face of such desperate odds, and who knows, one day we might even be in a minority government together. What a day that would be!

But there is much work to be done before then. The 7 Eleven student with the poor grasp of English has come out in support and offered to be my campaign manager, in return for my signature on immigration papers. We have a lot to offer each other. In fact he was keen to start a party, and call it the 12 Twelve, but I explained my call to arms would be in the areas of vision and policy, rather than on an actual field of battle.

Of course, I couldn’t take him on as my campaign manager either, since Raoul had that position, with Chance as his deputy. Nevertheless our Tamil brother (as it turns out) is still keen as mustard and has accepted a position as general factotum. His first task is to get Sylvester on the electoral roll. At the same time he has to keep going to English classes, enlist support from other 7 Eleven staff and try hard not to brood too much about his proud, ancient heritage. Other jobs come to mind as I write, such as monitoring opinion polls on a daily basis. Know Your Enemy is one of our private slogans; not one we can put before the electorate, of course, but something to buck us up in private as the tide of public approval ebbs and flows.

I’ve given a lot of thought as to what our campaign slogan should be. Nothing too aggressive, or too self-effacing, but something that strikes the right balance and suggests a man of conviction who knows what Australia needs. The right words will suggest themselves as we settle into our task and read the electorate’s mood.

I see I’m using ‘we’ instead of ‘I’, which reflects my desire to appeal to all people, all Australians, all cultural parts of our all-embracing democracy. My wife has entered the spirit of the campaign and is learning to cook a range of vegetarian dishes, which in time we hope will have a mellowing effect on Sylvester. We can all use a dose of lentils now and then, if only to take the edge off our response to media campaigns of insult and abuse, their psychoanalytical tirades. I’m ready for them now.

And my vision? Well, I’m not a prophet like Jesus Christ or Muhammad, or even one of the Old Testament kind, and I’m not Ghandi or Mandela or anyone else people worldwide recognise as an inspirational leader. In fact, as you already know, my greatest experience is as a car pool attendant, with some more recent knowledge picked up on the banks of the Yarra. All of which prepares me, you might legitimately ask, for what? And I would say, I know how to be my country’s attendant, paying attention to detail, being kind to myself on a rough day and understanding of others when they phone in with abusive reports of traffic conditions. In my Australia, we’ll all work together to solve our transport problems, even if we pray apart, to different gods.

Speaking of which and, most important of all – the cornerstone of my vision – we’ll all learn the myths and legends of our Indigenous Elders together, in kindergarten, school and car pool, retirement village and nursing home. Everyone will know the Dreamtime, the stories of the emu, kangaroo and wombat. In time, Wombat and Australia Days will merge. They will become one, celebrated the length and breadth of the country. On sunny beaches, inland deserts and the banks of the Yarra, everyone will know how the first Wombat dug itself into a burrow to escape the hustle and bustle of contemporary life and exposure to unwanted attention — and only came back out into the world when it was ready, and on its own terms.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

According to Associate Professor Martin Hirst, the thought that the Federal Government’s recent budget has launched a “class war” is nothing more than a huge joke.

The idea that Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan have launched a “class war” in Australia through last week’s federal budget is a huge joke. I don’t believe The Australian’s editor-in-chief Chris Mitchell even believes his own rhetoric.

A small “redistribution” of wealth, in the form of increased family benefits, hardly constitutes an attack on the privileged few. The class war argument is even harder to sustain when the budget gives with one hand and takes away with the other. Some family payments have gone up, but single mothers will be forced onto the dole.

All quiet on the North Shore

This budget has not increased the pain for Australia’s richest people and it certainly does not represent any kind of class war push-back against those with privilege or against members of the elite.

There’s nothing in this budget to make the ruling class tremble. Scrapping a 1% cut in corporate tax rates hardly constitutes class warfare; nor does throwing a few dollars at child care, disability services or education.

Wayne Swan called this budget “Labor to its boot straps” and it seems that this line has been seized upon to justify the class war rhetoric. But the boots in question would be unrecognisable to Labor’s founding fathers. They are Dolce & Gabbana gold-embossed snakeskin, not hobnail Blundstones.

Then Julia Gillard accused Tony Abbott of being out of touch with ordinary Australians because he lives in Sydney’s reasonably affluent northern suburbs. A red rag to some bulls already predisposed to snorting and charging at shadows.

Hardly enough evidence to back up headlines like “Reform agenda lost in class war” from Thursday’s Australian newspaper. But enough for Tony Abbott to jump on to the tumbrel as it rolled passed his well-upholstered doorway.

In his budget reply speech, the Opposition leader accused the government of cynically playing the “class war” card. He also repeated the myth at the heart of this nonsensical charge:

“Our country has normally been free from the class struggle that’s waged elsewhere to other countries’ terrible cost.”

The myth of a classless Australia

The idea that Australia is a classless society is a myth that many of us cling to – mateship and egalitarian stories of sacrifice in war are promoted as enduring and iconic virtues.

But it is nonetheless a myth. The truth is somewhat less saccharine. The class struggle is alive and well in Australia and low-level class war is a constant feature of daily life. Most workers know this instinctively – prices go up faster than wages, car industry handouts don’t save their jobs but (coincidence the bosses claim) seem to be equal to the “profit” announced by the “struggling” Ford Motor Company.

However, this low-level and constant class war is not talked about in these terms, particularly not in the mainstream media. It is there, it is just hidden inside unchallenged assumptions along the lines of competition and growth are good for everyone and that we are all “middle Australia”.

We can’t all be in the “middle”, some are on the top and some on the bottom. The top 1% are almost invisible except as unassailable role models of vast entrepreneurial skill and business savvy and the bottom 10% are invisible because they exist in the liminal cracks of long-term unemployment; or they are marginalised like the vast bulk of indigenous Australians.

But these groups are tiny compared to the bulk of the population: most of us work for wages or salary.

The 2012-13 budget holds out a small and rather limp carrot to this group (by far the majority of Australians) in the form of a mild redistribution of tiny amounts of “wealth”. But what it does most certainly not do is declare class war.

Four truths about class in Australia

The Australian’s headline from Wednesday – “Smash the rich, save the base” – sent out alarmist signals that the ALP might be about to charge the Stock Exchange. The front page cartoon certainly gave that impression with Wayne Swan and Julia Gillard at the head of a phalanx of marching workers, with the hammer and sickle red flag aloft behind.

But why would The Australian go down this line?

The simple and direct answer is that it is a newspaper which supports the interests of Australia’s ruling class and, like ruling elites from Moscow to Cairo, the Australian elite is greedy. Even a small impost on profits must be resisted, at the same time such naked grasping must be dressed in the rhetoric of national interest.

A few truths have emerged from all the rhetoric about class warfare.

The first and most obvious is that the ALP is desperate. On current projections and readings of voter sentiment, there is almost no chance that Labor can win the next federal election.

The ALP response, as The Australian has pointed out correctly, has been to launch assaults on Australia’s small group of super-rich. In particular Clive Palmer, Gina Reinhart and (to a lesser extent) Twiggy Forrest.

But this does not signal a return to class war politics for the ALP – that’s actually the last thing they want – it is merely a rhetorical flourish and perhaps too little too late to save their arses at the polls.

The second truth is that The Australian is clearly in support of Australia’s ruling class and has this week cynically exploited the rhetoric of class warfare to support the Coalition’s attacks on Labor.

The third point is that the convenient national myth of a classless Australia is strong. Instead of understanding real class divisions, we prefer to think of ourselves as all being “middle Australia”.

The fourth is that Tony Abbott is now and always has been a class warrior. He learnt his politics at the sclerotic knee of B. A. Santamaria, Australia’s leading anti-communist for more than 40 years. Nothing has changed.

The struggle continues

The DLP's Bob Santamaria - an early mentor to Tony Abbott

Despite a refusal to talk about real class politics in the media, the class struggle is alive and well in Australia and low-level class war is a daily reality for many workers.

The workers at the Baiada chicken processing plant certainly know about it. They resisted full frontal attacks from Victorian police to maintain a picket line and win their union fight for improved wages and conditions.

The workers at Toyota in Melbourne also got a lesson in class warfare when the company hired a private security firm to escort sacked staff off the premises.

TAFE teachers in Victoria learned a thing or two about class warfare when their funding was cut.

Victorian nurses also learned the hard way when they were forced to take illegal action and walk off the job to save their jobs and working conditions.

If real class warfare were to erupt in Australia Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott and Chris Mitchell would all be on the same side, while the chicken pluckers of Baiada would be on the other and (I reckon) so too would be TAFE teachers, car workers and nurses.

Until then, Abbott and Mitchell’s fear-mongering will remain ultimately meaningless.

(This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.)