If the polls stay the same, Tony Abbott will be Australia’s prime minister in less than four months, however Clint Howitt says efforts to portray him as a changed man just don’t add up.

Which Tony will we get?

ALMOST IMMEDIATELY after the announcement of the election date, the Leader of the Opposition underwent a sudden and dramatic transformation. His clothes and grooming started to receive a lot more care and attention.

In his televised National Press Club address in February, the makeover was taken to a farcical extreme, featuring caked fake-tan make-up, white eyeliner, an enhanced hairline, smart new suit, brilliant white shirt and subdued blue tie. There were even suggestions of botox injections.

His demeanour became more congenial and restrained. His tone more conciliatory, ‘more prime ministerial’. Overnight, the old in-your-face, abrasive, uncompromising Tony Abbott had virtually vanished without trace.

Since then, we’ve been told that he has mellowed, and is now more compassionate, positive and inclusive. We’re told he is now a political pragmatist. The man seemed to have undergone a Damascene conversion.

Obvious makeovers and spin however inevitably arouse suspicion.

It is simply inconceivable that, at the age of 55, a man can suddenly undergo such a radical metamorphosis. It raises questions about why it was so important to conceal his true nature and intentions behind a mask of convenience.

Something to hide

In his fine Australian poem Sheep Killer, Ernest G. Moll tells of a rogue sheep dog driven by a destructive secret agenda. While it is under the watchful eye of its owner, it controls its natural instincts and conceals its real intentions. When he trusts it off the chain one night, it runs amok among his flock and creates deadly havoc.

When the carnage is over, the owner reprimands himself that he should have seen all the indications of what would happen if the dog was given its chance. We are given a striking portrait of an animal whose behaviour had betrayed all the warning signs – the shifty ‘glint that sprang/Into his eyes’, the way he stands ‘stiffly’ when under close observation ‘as though he kept/His body back from where his thoughts leapt/Ahead’.

But the owner carelessly ignored all the indicators — with disastrous consequences.

At that stage, it becomes painfully obvious that the animal had cleverly cloaked its actual motives:

‘cunning (had been) the muzzle on desire.’

There are disturbing parallels to be seen in Tony Abbott concealing his dark side in the run up to the September election.

Abbott on the leash

(Image Wes Mountain; thisisaustraliatoday.wordpress.com)

There is no doubt that Abbott is now on the leash. He had always been seen as a risky proposition. He had on numerous occasions put himself and his party into tricky situations by his impulsiveness and unpredictability.

Since becoming leader, Abbott has been actively advised by his pack of minders led by his wily chief of staff Peta Credlin. Their task of restraining him cannot have been an easy one.

To counter the perception of attack dog Tony, at first they went for the action man image — clad in lycra on his bike, wearing a lifesaver’s cap and his now banned budgie smugglers on Queenscliffe Beach.

But this looked more like Tony being self indulgent rather than attending to the serious political duties of an Opposition Leader.

Abbott’s personal approval rating remained stubbornly low. It indicated that the electorate sensed there was something to be wary of. In most polls over the last three years, more people have disapproved than approved of him. They plummeted after the PM’s misogyny speech.

A newer image was launched, but there were noticeable cracks, despite all the efforts to paper over them.

There is still an uneasiness in his actions and in his words that signal the extent to which he is being constrained — and his discomfort is clear for all to see.

They appear in the form of his awkward physical demeanour, his verbal constipation and the regular gaffes during rare tough interviews.

His walking gait resembles that of an arthritic gorilla. For a man who revels in physical pursuits, he looks remarkably uncoordinated and uncomfortably self-conscious when the cameras are rolling. His tight forced smile only adds to the impression of an underlying tension and a lack of authenticity.

Under close questioning, he averts his gaze and his fluency deserts him as he measures each utterance before delivering it, like a man struggling not to incriminate himself.

His biographer Michael Duffy observed:

‘I found someone far more guarded than before and far less articulate. At times he wrapped an arm across his chest as though trying to protect himself.’

Now he is in the spotlight, all those around him have been at pains to conceal the unpalatable side of the man. At the same time, the Coalition has used one excuse after another to avoid offering a detailed and fully costed set of policies until the eleventh hour. It should make us wonder what exactly Abbott and his staff are trying to hide about their leader and his party’s intentions.

Religion, conservatism, aggression and a hunger for power

A useful place to begin is by examining the emergence of Abbott’s belief and value system and how it has manifested itself all of his adult life. Fortunately, this is an easy matter. Long before his public image was so carefully stage managed, the four great forces that drive his persona were on open display, particularly during his young adulthood.

Raised in a Catholic family and educated in Jesuit schools, Catholicism is at the core of Abbott’s belief system. He could be the embodiment of the Jesuit promise:

‘Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.’

In the case of young Tony, the Jesuit influence on his development lasted until he was 18 years old.

At Sydney University, he was drawn to the political arm of the Catholic Church, B. A. Santamaria’s National Civic Council and its parliamentary offshoot, the Democratic Labor Party.

Bob Santamaria had established the ‘Catholic Social Studies Movement’ or ‘the Movement’ in the 1950’s with the express purpose of infiltrating the Labor Party to purge it of ‘Communist influences’. It succeeded in splitting the party in the mid 1950s and the breakaway group formed the Democratic Labor Party, which was instrumental in keeping Labor out of office for nearly 20 years.

Santamaria never held political office. He was a back-room manipulator, described by veteran journalist Alan Reid as ‘Svengali-like’ and lurking ‘in the wings’, giving the actors on the stage their cues.

In the early seventies, after the DLP imploded, Santamaria’s attention turned to the university campuses, which he viewed as the breeding ground for godless socialism that needed to be exorcised from the nation’s intellectual life.

Young members of the NCC were groomed to be active in university politics. He wanted to gain control of student organisations in order to undermine or stifle student dissent and left wing attacks on the establishment. Tony Abbott was just the man for the job.

Right wing political and religious zealotry proved a heady mix for Abbott’s driven personality. He plunged straight into campus politics and was soon displaying all the ruthless belligerence of a modern jihadi. This earned him the nicknames the Mad Monk and Captain Catholic.

David Marr in his excellent Quarterly Essay, Political Animal: The Making of Tony Abbott, relates an illuminating story that coveys the menace in Abbott’s conduct at that time. In the 1977 Student Representative Council election, Abbott was beaten for the presidency by the popular Barbara Ramjan by a large margin.

After the publication of the Quarterly Essay, a formerly unknown witness claimed he saw Abbott, stung by his defeat and in league with his “famous flying squad of goons,” burst into the SRC offices.  Barbara Ramjan said: “He came up to within an inch of my nose and punched the wall on either side of my head … It was done to intimidate.”

Sydney barrister, David Patch verified that she had told him of the incident at the time and made out a strong case in support of her version of events.  Her story was well known by her contemporaries.

When Marr questioned him about it, Abbott at first denied any recollection, claiming enigmatically, “It would be profoundly out of character.”  Later he went a step further, saying, “It never happened.” It looked like a case of her word against his.

However the man who has now come forward told Mark Coultran of the Sydney Morning Herald that he was prepared to sign a statutory declaration to confirm that he had followed the rampaging students inside where he “saw Abbott throw a punch at Barbara Ramjan, but didn’t see it land … when next I saw her, she was in an extremely shocked condition, leaning against the wall … I thought he had actually struck her..”

Subsequently, according to Patch, Ramjan, in her role as President of the SRC, expressed a preference for the gender neutral term ‘Chairperson.’  So for an entire year, Abbott pointedly called her ‘Chairthing’ whenever he addressed her at SRC meetings.

We can deduce from what we know of this formative time in Abbott’s life, there were four major drivers of his psyche – a strong Catholic conviction, ultra conservative views, an innate willingness to intimidate which even extended to women and a hunger for power and influence.  In the years immediately following, he continued to track along this course.

(Image courtesy Herald Sun)

After leaving Sydney he went to Oxford University on a Rhodes scholarship where he won a blue for boxing.  Somehow pugilism seemed to be a natural choice for him. On his return, he trained for the priesthood for three years at St Patrick’s Seminary before quitting the course.  At that stage he was on the cusp of entering the political life.

It is pertinent to ask whether these drivers have continued to motivate his behaviour in politics and if so, what their implications are for a future Abbott government.

Abbott’s Catholicism

While there are many admirable social justice aspects to Catholicism, some of its teachings – on sexual matters, in particular – have remained in the Dark Ages. Since his entry into federal parliament, it is no surprise that the views Abbott has expressed about human sexuality have adhered closely to these controversial aspects of Catholic dogma.

He is on the record making statements that reflect the outdated doctrines of the Church on matters such as the subordinate status of women, abortion and gay relationships. These date from those undergraduate days right up to the present. The following are just a few of many examples.

On the status of women:

• “I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation … simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different ….”
• “… this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand …. both need to be moderated….”
• “What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing …”

On abortion:

• At various times Abbott has referred to abortion as “a question of the mother’s convenience,” “the easy option,” “an epidemic,” “this generation’s legacy of unutterable shame”.
• In 2006, as health minister, he encouraged other anti-abortion MPs such as Christopher Pyne to be active in opposing the morning after pill, RU486 and threatened to use his power of veto as health minister against its introduction.

On gay relationships:

• In a letter to High Court judge Michael Kirby, Abbott was blunt about homosexuality — ‘the overwhelming weight of tradition holds that it is in some sense sinful’.
• When the parliament voted on same sex marriage, Abbott refused to give Coalition members a conscience vote — unlike the government. It is well known that a significant number of Opposition members would have supported the bill. This manoeuvre ensured the bill would fail.
• In an interview on 60 Minutes with Liz Hayes in 2010, he was asked, “Homosexuality? How do you feel about that?” He responded: “I probably feel a bit threatened.”  Later, he explained, homosexuality “challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things”.

Abbott’s Catholicism has been associated with some marginal calls. The first involved an incident laced with irony.

As a teenager, Abbott had unprotected sex with his then girlfriend, Kathy Donnelly, who died in 2011. Very likely because of the Church’s teachings on contraceptives, they practised what she described as “Vatican roulette”.

Soon afterwards, she found she was pregnant. Of course, they would not be the first teens to find themselves in that situation.

Abbott decided not to conform with the time honoured tradition — to marry the girl.

Irony 1: his reason was that he wanted to become celibate — as a priest!

Apparently Kathy agreed to have the child put up for adoption. In 2004, she was contacted by her son.

Irony 2: he was a sound recordist with the ABC and had worked on TV interviews of Abbott.

However, it turned out he was not Abbott’s love child. Kathy had also had a one-off encounter with her flatmate, who had worn a condom.

Irony 3: It was the condom that failed.

Although Kathy Donnelly appears to have consented to the adoption, she undoubtedly felt pressure from others to do so.

Irony 4: It was Julia Gillard who this year gave a moving apology on behalf of the nation to all the mothers who were forced to give up their babies.

Another doubtful decision was in the case of Father John Gerard Nestor. In 1991, when he was a priest in the Wollongong diocese, Nestor was charged with the indecent assault of a 15-year-old altar boy.

He was found guilty by a Wollongong magistrate and sentenced to a jail term.  He won an appeal against the conviction in October 1997.  His character witness described him as “a beacon of humanity.”

That character witness was a fellow seminarian who now worked as a parliamentary secretary in the Howard government — Tony Abbott.

The risks arising from Abbott’s Catholicism

The intrusion of religion into politics runs counter to the traditional separation of Church and State in modern democracies, but Abbott’s statements and actions have already made it clear that his strong sectarian convictions do encroach on his political role.

Given the controversial positions he has taken on the sensitive matters of the status of women, abortion and gay relationships, it must be of great concern to people affected by these issues that the hard-won gains are likely either to freeze, or worst still, wind them back, under an Abbott government.

If, on the other hand, his claim is true that he will not allow his beliefs to impact on his political decisions, we can only speculate on the crisis of conscience a man with such strong religious convictions holding high political office must undergo if he defies the teachings of his church.

His mind would be a battleground between what he really believes and what is politically or socially tolerable.

If he puts the dictates of his party above his principles, he is a hypocrite. If he sticks to his principles, he has no option but to resign from his position. This was the dilemma Abbott faced over the listing of RU 486.

Equally concerning is the extent to which the ultra-conservative Cardinal George Pell has Abbott’s ear. We know the two meet regularly.

Pell is clearly an ‘eminence grise’ shaping the opposition leader’s thinking. That is bad enough. When we look at the Cardinal’s bizarre political pronouncements, we have cause for alarm.

Pell has linked religion to secular issues when there is no connection whatsoever:

• In a London meeting of climate change deniers in London in 2011, he linked global warming to atheism.  Global warming was a myth being peddled by the ”religionless and spiritually rootless.”
• On another occasion he declared the carbon tax was a latter day version of ”the pre-Reformation practice of selling indulgences.”  Go figure.

Conservatism

Abbott came to power with the support of hard-line power brokers like Nick Minchin, who were unhappy with the progressive and small ‘l’ liberal policy direction being taken by Malcolm Turnbull as leader. In Abbott, they saw a man with the potential to become the kind of aggressive and uncompromising reactionary they admired.

As leader, Abbott’s instinctive response to reforms has been to oppose them and threaten to dismantle them. David Marr concluded that he is “a man profoundly wary of change.” This explains, in part, his hostile attacks and his negativity towards Labor’s reform program.

Although he has frequently been forced to reverse his original position, he is on record as opposing the Carbon Tax, the National Broadband Network, stimulus spending during the GFC, the Malaysian Solution, the PM’s offer to develop a bipartisan approach to asylum seekers, mandatory pre-commitment for poker machines, the mining tax, means-testing for the private health insurance rebate, raising the excise on alcopops, income tax cuts for low income earners, the Schoolkid’s Bonus, health reforms such as the plain packaging laws for cigarettes and GP super clinics and the $5.8 billion flood levy to help Queensland and Victoria rebuild.

So Labor had a point when they called him “Dr No.”

His conservatism came to the fore in his speech in reply to the 2013 Budget. He vowed to scrap the Carbon Tax, the Mining Tax, the Schoolkid’s Bonus and the Green Loans Scheme, delay superannuation increases for 8.4 million Australians, lower the tax-free threshold from $18,200 back to $6,000. He gave a strong indication that the highly praised Gonski reforms to education would be trashed. There were even hints that he would revamp the NDIS, which he claims to support.

Again, the theme was negativity and putting the country into reverse gear. It signalled a return to the stagnation of the Howard era.

The risks arising from Abbott’s conservatism

Despite a good deal of back-pedalling or softening on his original stance, Abbott’s game plan is essentially reactionary — to dismantle some of the major Labor reforms completely, to wind back others, and to slash government spending.

Given his track record on social issues, it is a reasonable assumption that he would like to take Australia well to the right by applying the brakes to reform and restoring largesse to the captains of industry. The country would be characterised by a do-nothing government, neglect of minorities and the underprivileged but open slather for the rich.

The dismantling of the carbon tax would be particularly regressive. It will set back the critical need for action on climate change by decades. It would require businesses to undo all their compliance procedures. It would halt the initiatives of entrepreneurs who have geared up to develop clean energy initiatives. It would snuff out the potential development of innovations which the world is going to need and which could generate wealth for the country.

The tragedy is that it is so unnecessary. The impact of pricing carbon has been relatively minor. However, because Abbott has ramped up community outrage by his foam flecked rhetoric and scare tactics, he dare not back down for fear of confirming that his campaign was a fraud.

Due to the fact Abbott and the Coalition have made such a virtue out of budget surpluses (irrespective of the economic circumstances), it is highly probable that they would risk driving the country into recession by punitive austerity measures.

To hell with the economic and social consequences!

Instead of the last 22 consecutive years of growth, there is a real possibility that the razor will be wielded to the point where we would have the inevitable loss of vulnerable jobs and critical services that we have seen with the austerity budgets in Britain and other parts of Europe.

Like Howard, they will be prepared to inflict pain in the hope that the world economy will have picked up enough so that when the next election comes around, they can boast about how quickly they returned the budget to surplus and, at the same time, stimulated growth.

Labor could have imposed vicious spending cuts to deliver a surplus in this year’s budget, but opted for a gradual approach so that the economy will continue to grow, employment rates will remain high and major reforms can proceed. At the same time, they will restrain spending and plug revenue leaks.

Belligerence and intimidation

Abbott’s aggression has endured well beyond his rugby, boxing and university days.  Anyone seeing his interview with Mark Riley would immediately think Abbott was a candidate for an anger management course.  The telling aspect of that footage was that his anger was out of control.  He was trembling with rage and was unable to speak.

In the political arena, he made the bully’s choice of using hostility during Question Time as means of rattling the prime minister.

Like Alan Jones he seemed to relish being on the attack.  In fact he recreated the atmosphere of the worst of talkback radio across the dispatch box.  Bristling with hostility, he’d eyeball and berate the government during his regular motions to suspend standing orders.

His language has been loose, extravagant and cruel, confirming his aggressive nature.  The two most repugnant episodes set new lows in verbal thuggery.

The first was his callous remark about the heroic asbestos victim Bernie Banton who was dying of mesothelioma while he was leading the campaign against James Hardy.

After what Abbott claimed was a misunderstanding about the presentation of a petition concerning a drug for sufferers, the then health minister angrily lashed out, “just because a person is sick doesn’t necessarily mean that he is pure of heart in all things.” Abbott later apologised.

The second incident could be described as the spoken equivalent of the alleged attack on Barbara Ramjan. This time the incident was recorded. It was the culmination of the constant hostility directed at the PM.

By baiting her with the taunt that she led a “government which should have already died of shame,” he had echoed the malicious jibe made by Alan Jones about her father’s very recent death, that “the old man probably died of shame.”

His aggression would turn around and bite him.  His intimidatory tactics were hurting him more than the government.  It prompted the powerful ‘misogyny speech’ from Julia Gillard and a huge backlash, especially from women.  Abbott’s stocks plunged.  He was forced to begin the mutation into the new gentler Tony.

However the role of belligerent was simply assigned to others. The vitriolic and personal attacks on the government, particularly the prime minister and the treasurer, persist.  Front benchers Julie Bishop, Joe Hockey and Christopher Pyne have taken up the cudgel while Abbott tries to look above all that.  Indeed Pyne has become quite apoplectic in recent sessions of Question Time.

The risks of aggression in a nation’s leader

To say that hairy chested aggression is not the best trait to have in a country’s leader is a no brainer. If you combine that with Abbott’s well known impulsiveness, the level of risk escalates.

The trouble with speculating about how a person will perform as prime minister is that you never know for sure until after they are in the job.

One can only dread what the consequences would be if Abbott lost it when dealing with another country’s leader or chose to settle an international dispute the way he tackles domestic political disputes — aggressively rather than through negotiation and co-operation.

Negotiation and compromise have yet to appear as strategies that Abbott embraces in dealing with opponents. He much prefers short-sighted confrontation.

If he comes to power after September, then it is highly likely that he will have to deal with a hostile Senate containing many who will remember how he gave no quarter when he was in opposition. It’s going to be a big ask to expect them to co-operate and pass legislation for him.

Finally, there is the problem he has with assertive women in positions of authority. He has no difficulty with those who support him, like Gina Rinehart. His problem is with opponents who stand up to him and where he has no control over them.

A craving for power

While all of the other forces are strongly present in Abbott, his ambition to be prime minister can over-ride them all — even his core Catholic convictions. For that reason, it is potentially the most dangerous.

Australians have every reason to be wary of a man whose craving for power is so strong that he was prepared to seize on any opportunity to disrupt the parliament, destabilise the government, undermine public confidence in our AAA rated economy and make constant attempts to force an early election.

All this was done in the expectation that he could fast track his ambition to occupy the Lodge.

His behaviour was succinctly summed up by Paul Keating:

”You know what Tony Abbott’s policy is: ‘If you don’t give me the job, I’ll wreck the place’.”

That is why he has called for a suspension of standing orders on over sixty occasions in order to move motions of no confidence in the government impatiently hoping that a couple of Greens or Independents would support him so that the term of the government would be curtailed.

Independent MHR Tony Windsor lifted the lid on Abbott’s all consuming ambition in parliament. Windsor stunned the house with a withering attack on Abbott’s hypocrisy. He declared that Abbott had pleaded for his support and that he was prepared to offer almost anything in return, including introducing a carbon tax.

“I would do anything, Tony, to get this job; the only thing I wouldn’t do is sell my arse,” Mr Windsor told the parliament, of Abbott’s meetings with him post the 2010 election negotiations. ‘‘If he had been asked to put in place an emissions trading scheme—or a carbon tax, for that matter—he would have done it.”

Andrew Wilkie had a similar view. He said Abbott had made him an offer of $1 billion to build a new Tasmanian hospital in return for his support. The amount was so extravagant that Wilkie questioned the man’s judgment to govern the country.

Now that his destabilization strategy has proved counter-productive, Abbott has been forced to change tack.

He has had to embrace the concept of an NBN after previously promising to dismantle it. It is why he has stopped his belligerent personal attacks on the prime minister in Question Time. It is why he has modified his strong opposition to abortion, softened his statements on homosexuality.

It is why he has made himself a small target on industrial relations by proposing only a few changes to the Fair Work Commission rather than opting for a resurrection of the despised Work Choices, sought by his backers.

He likes to claim he is showing pragmatism. Others might call it duplicity. It simply demonstrates that he is prepared to sacrifice his principles to achieve power.

It makes you wonder what kind of person would be prepared to abandon his most deeply held beliefs for political gain.

As Robert Bolt may have put it:

“It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world…, but Tony, for Canberra?”

The ultimate risk — putting power in Abbott’s hands

Like Windsor and Wilkie, most people are highly suspicious of those who display such naked ambition.

Abraham Lincoln once said:

“If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Luckily, we don’t have to take Abbott on trust to judge what kind of person he is. It’s all there on the record.

Increasingly, he seems convinced that his brilliant tactics have positioned his party for an easy win in the September election. In interviews, he has been wearing the smug condescending smile of a man impressed by his own cleverness.

Here is the big question. Is it credible that a man can really reverse all that he has been and all he has stood for over the previous 37 years and 3 months – that is, for his entire adult life?

He is asking us to take on trust that a person who has been characterised by rigid Catholic views, deep conservatism, aggression, objectionable attitudes to women and barefaced hunger for power has suddenly become a totally new person.

He is asking us to accept that he has sloughed off his essential self like a snake shedding its skin.

He is asking us to believe that it is mere co-incidence that this miracle happened immediately after the prime minister announced the election date – just 7 months away from polling day.

He is asking us to believe that the leopard actually has changed its spots.  Forget about all we have seen for the last three years and believe in the illusion.  The assumption is that voters are gullible fools who can be treated with contempt.

What will happen if such a person is let off the leash?

(Read Clint Howitt’s popular article: ‘A fair go for Julia Gillard’.)

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

As requested by Gavin and Stacey, a pair of manly men with manly beards, this week John Turnbull considers the manly world of soundtracks.

SOUNDTRACKS ARE an odd beast.

Some of them aren’t bad, and there are a couple that are verging on excellent, but few people list soundtracks in their top ten favourite albums. Why is this? Could it be that soundtracks are, by their nature, disposable; linked inextricably with the host film, that will quickly find its way into the bargain bin at JB HiFi? Could it be that soundtracks are generally a mishmash of different artists and styles that don’t hold up to repeat listens?

Perhaps these are questions for the ages. For now, let’s listen to some new music, shall we?

Django Unchained

Quentin Tarantino is widely regarded as a master of the soundtrack, and is responsible for at least two that achieve the aformentioned excellence. His first film, Reservior Dogs, was anchored by a torture scene played out to the strains of Stuck in the Middle with You by Steelers Wheel and included obscure but catchy songs like Little Green Bag by the George Baker Selection and Hooked on a Feeling by Blue Suede. Holding the soundtrack together are snippets of dialogue from the film, chiefly Steven Wright’s deadpan DJ from K-Billy’s Super Sounds of the Seventies.

After Dogs came Pulp Fiction, again accompanied by a cracking soundtrack. Highlights this time included the Dick Dale classic Miserlou, the haunting Son of a Preacher Man by Dusty Springfield and a passage from the bible. You know which one.

It is this use of dialogue from the film that can make or break a soundtrack ― a classic line or two can be great, too much becomes grating after a couple of listens. In the case of Django Unchained, Tarantino gets it mostly right ― with one notable exception. The frequent use of the word n***** in the film is acceptable in context (unless you’re Spike Lee) but stands out like the proverbial dog’s bollocks on the soundtrack.

This is an album that you won’t be able to listen to when pretty much anybody is around. Even people you think are cool are likely to be offended. One guy I know made the poor choice of putting it on during a kids party; needless to say, his wife was unamused…

The majority of the music on the album is old timey (Django, His Name is King) and bears a deep debt to composer Ennio Morricone, who contributes three tracks. Now and again, there are moments of hardcore rap, including the menacing 100 Black Coffins by Rick Ross and Unchained by James Brown and 2Pac (who has been dead for 17 years, but still managed to record a new song, like a rap Yul Brynner).

Verdict: 8/10 ― definitely listenable, despite the frequent use of the N word…

Best track: 100 Black Coffins.

Music from Baz Luhrmann’s Film The Great Gatsby 

I will be honest here ― I have no desire to see The Great Gatsby. I was forced to read the book at school and didn’t particularly enjoy it. I watched the 1974 Robert Redford version of the film and fell asleep ― twice. And last, but not least, I am of the humble opinion that Baz Luhrmann is a director of limited talent who puts style over substance and thinks that bigger/louder/more is always better. With that out of the way, I’m doing my best to listen to the soundtrack with an open mind.

The album is produced by Jay Z, who contributes two original tracks and a mixed bag of other stuff.  The first of these is the cookie-cutter 100$ Bill, which sounds like an outtake from American Gangster.  Things don’t get much better with a cover of Back to Black by Beyonce and Andre 3000, which was so bad that the family of Amy Winehouse apparently complained. I can see why. It’s bloody awful.

It takes a while before things start to look up, with Lana Del Rey turning in a typically sultry performance on the lyrically underwhelming Young and Beautiful.

Bryan Ferry and his Orchestra contribute what I assume is a parody version of the Roxy Music classic Love is the Drug. Oh, didn’t you know that Bryan Ferry has his own orchestra? Well, he does. He won it in a poker game from Elton John.

Ferry’s Orchestra returns later to accompany Emile Sande on a cover of Beyonce’s Crazy in Love. It’s not as good as the original and you have to wonder, with Beyonce already appearing on the album, why they didn’t just ask her to do it?

The suddenly hip Gotye contributes an old track, Heart’s a Mess. It’s whimsical enough to fit the tone of the album, but still a good song. Up next is Jack White, with a song called Love is Blindness, a U2 cover that proves U2 songs always sound better when sung by people other than Bono. Raw and passionate, this is without doubt the best track on the album.

Snippets of dialogue distract momentarily before Australia’s own Sia contributes a track called Kill and Run, during which she channels Edith Piaf. While this is probably appropriate for the film, it really doesn’t make the best use of Ms Furler’s extensive range and unique vocal approach – the track might as well be sung by Celine Dion.

Jay Z teams up with Kanye West, Frank Ocean and some guy called The-Dream on No Church in the Wild. You might recognise this song from the film trailer and it’s pretty catchy. I’m not sure it’s something they would have appreciated in the roaring twenties, however…

Verdict: 7/10 ― better than I expected, and potentially a lot better than the film itself…

Best track: Love is Blindness.

Iron Man 3: Heroes Fall ― Music Inspired by the Motion Picture

I’m always wary about soundtracks that claim to be ‘inspired by’ a film. After all, Charles Manson was ‘inspired’ by The Beatles, yet few people would argue that he is a good representation of their core beliefs and values.

The soundtrack to the first Iron Man film was decent but entirely predictable ― a bunch of fairly generic rock songs anchored by the Black Sabbath classic Iron Man. The soundtrack to Iron Man 2: Electric Boogaloo (I think that was what it was called) was by hard rock dinosaurs AC/DC.  Fortunately, as this was a collection of their greatest hits rather than a new album it was actually rather good.

This new album is populated by alternative rock bands that you’ve probably never heard of, like Imagine Dragons, Neon Trees and Redlight King.  Joining them are people who used to be in successful bands but are now doing something else, which might not be as commercially viable but is still art, man ― Andrew Stockdale and Robbie Williams.

Stockdale used to be the lead singer of seventies throwback Wolfmother, After the other two guys in the band left to pursue something new, Stockdale has doubled down and embraced the past. The track he contributes here is Keep Moving, which sounds like something Humble Pie might have written after a particularly big night.

Robbie Williams used to be in Take That, before he left and became a megastar. Here, he appears with so-called supergroup The Wondergirls on a track called Let’s Go All the Way. It’s not great, but… there’s nothing really I can add to that statement.

In the end, this might be generic alt-rock, but at least it’s inspired by a decent movie.

Verdict: 3/10.

Best track: Just pick one at random, they’re pretty much interchangeable.

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

Since Tom, Rupert and an idiot tomato installed Tony Abbott as an unbackable favourite, other tomatoes seem to have lost confidence. Gee reports.

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

Hoddle Street mass murderer Julian Knight wants a PlayStation in his prison cell; Tess Lawrence says it’s just yet another play for media attention around the anniversary of his brutal crimes.

by contributing editor-at-large Tess Lawrence

JULIAN KNIGHT ALREADY HAS A PLAYSTATION ― THE 1987 HODDLE ST MASSACRE

SO, MASS MURDERER Julian Knight wants access to a PlayStation in prison.

Ya don’t say.

This gutless manipulative gamer has already starred in and produced his own real life video game impaled with high impact violence, carnage and cruelty.

It is called ‘The Hoddle St Massacre 1987‘.

It was/is aimed at innocents. Babies, women and men alike; old and young; whoever came/comes into the line of fire.

The storyline is dead simple. It’s not a game of skill. More a game of kill. Thrill kill. The victims are always vulnerable civilians.

Roadkill.

Not so much PlayStation as PreyStation.

It goes like this.

There’s this ex-Duntroon cadet loser, who’s loaded up with alcohol, hate and a battery of lethal weapons ‒ including two semi-automatic rifles and a pump-action shotgun ‒ who takes his private wars to a public place.

The virtual reality zone is the Melbourne inner suburb village of Clifton Hill, on streets and railways lines just metres from where the loser lives ― so our home-grown terrorist can literally piss on the blood of victims dead and alive in his own backyard.

Take no prisoners.

Greater hate hath no man than he who hates himself.

As the human prey unwittingly drive into view one by one, the gamer guns them down ― just like that, easy peasy. It’s always a Sunday night.

And when they jump out of cars to help one another, or flee from the line of fire, the gamer gets a second chance for a kill to ramp up the death count score by going up close to those wounded, but not quite dead, and pumping more bullets into them until they are without life.

All the while, to help gamers get into blood lust mode, virtual sound surround emits screams, sirens, and the hissing noise of compressed air exploding like hot steam from burst bodies, gurgling through the warm blood spurting from mouths, necks, and bullet holes, along with the urine and faeces we humans expel under such duress and when our bodies are shot into and blown open.

Are you getting the gory sickening picture?

Because these are just feeble words that can never accurately portray the unspeakable reality and horror of that massacre and its continuing aftermath upon victims, families and friends, police and ambulance, and all others who attended that long night into day on 9 August 1987.

For some, that long night has never ended. For them, the sun never fully rises. And I’m talking of the living as well.

If one accurately portrayed in a video game what took place during The Hoddle St Massacre 1987, it would probably be on the banned video list in Australia.

Last week in the Victorian Supreme Court, Knight sought leave to bring an action against the State because he has been denied access to a PlayStation. He also wants access to a computer in his cell.

Despite being declared a vexatious litigant, Knight’s insatiable narcissism and knowledge of how to manipulate the legal system coincidentally seems to come to the fore in the months close to the massacre’s anniversary.

This would be deemed a stupid move, in terms of insensitive legal strategy since it invites public wrath. Knight is not stupid.

It appears obvious he craves media attention and notoriety more than he craves a PlayStation or a computer.

So often in our courts, it seems that victims are locked out of public debate and the judicial system.

At times, they are not even considered or mentioned. Little wonder the community angers at   perpetrators exchanging prison garb for the shrouds of victims.

Last year, in the first of a two-part series in Independent Australia, entitled ‘The Dark Knight Rises on the Viagra of Violence’, I wrote:

There is little doubt that … gutless murderer Julian Knight will get out the pornographic material that has reportedly been returned to him in his cell in Barwon Prison and mentally masturbate over that bloody night of infamy in 1987, when his dysfunctional manhood achieved erection only by fixing it to the barrel of a gun. Several guns. Such was his need for the Viagra of violence.

Consider the implications of Julian Knight in possession of pornographic material in his cell.

He also had racist and neo-Nazi material ― both are staples of video games.

How did Knight get access to all of this?

In the same way that Carl Williams was murdered in prison and his bleeding corpse dragged around the prison floors before being shoved into his cell, after which his murderer and his mate went for a genteel stroll around the scenic prison yard for a spot of country air, a smoke and no doubt a fine and rigorous intellectual discourse on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the Survival of the Fittest.

Draw your own conclusions.

We can argue as a community that there should be humane levels of both punitive and redemptive aspects in prison.

And there is an arguable case for allowing prisoners access to pornography. But what type of pornography and should every prisoner have access to it?

We know that those who are addicted to pornography and who cannot function sexually without it, become inured after a time and require more extreme pornography to get arousal; and that inevitably means viewing more violence and violation ― often using non-consenters.

Real-life/death scenes from mutilations, rapes, necrophilia ‒ often involving babies and children and sometimes culled from war zones ‒ are now being edited and incorporated into pornographic videos and video games.

Peer to Peer traffic invariably evades detection and is too voluminous to monitor, even if the collective will was there by our national and international agencies.

Good people within these agencies are often eclipsed by those who are corrupt.

This stuff generates mega bucks that exceed anything our mining industries generate.

And there’s no carbon tax to pay.

Of course, porn is rife in our prisons.

I’m told by a former prison warden that (some) staff supply and trade porn with prisoners.

They do the same (some) with drugs.

He’s told me of witnessing guards jerking off, whilst watching prisoners jerking off watching porn and having sex.

He’s not the only prison warden that has told me of these activities. Everyone knows it happens.

Only you, the public, aren’t told.

We have every right to know what’s going on.

As I wrote in Part Two of the series on Knight:

Julian Knight is a renowned media whore.

I am no psychologist, and have not seen Knight in person for decades, but some of those who have attest that he continues to relish the notoriety his cowardly murders have brought to his prison door.

To say he is self-obsessed is an understatement.

When being interviewed about Knight by Fran Kelly’s on ABC Breakfast (Radio National) in 2007, on the anniversary of the massacre, I remained mindful of the continued hurting of our community.

This is how Fran Kelly introduced the segment [IA  emphasis]:

Nineteen-year-old Julian Knight was jailed for life in 1988 for his part in Melbourne’s Hoddle Street massacre, with a minimum of 27 years to be served.

The former Duntroon cadet was reportedly fascinated with guns and all things military at school.

He has since used a number of legal and other ploys to draw attention to his story, including attempts to write letters of apology to his victims. In 2004, he was declared a vexatious litigant by the Victorian justice system.

One person who has kept a close eye on Julian Knight is Tess Lawrence, a journalist and now a specialist in crisis management.

She was one of very few journalists who have interviewed Julian Knight. She did so face-to-face in a series of personal visits in Pentridge Prison in 1987.

She published a very controversial article in the Good Weekend in 1988 and she’s kept a watching brief on Knight since.

And Knight watches the watchers. More intently than we watch him.

Many of those affected by Knight’s massacre continue to endure a life sentence of mental and physical anguish in a prison without walls from which there is no escape.

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

Globalisation might have a lot to do with the demise of Ford Australia but, according to Ross Jones, much of the blame can be sheeted a lot closer to home.

(Image: screenshot from 7 News YouTube video.)

AH, GLOBALISATION … what a hoot. An Australian sets the scene for a whole lot of other Australians to lose their jobs.

Back in 1969, the 21 year-old Jacques “Jack” Nasser – product of RMIT – joined Ford Australia as an analyst. The gold GTs had just won Bathurst, scoring first and second, and the very nasty GTHO was just around the corner. Good times.

Global promotions followed. So did a reputation for screwing suppliers. So did the appellation ‘Jack the Knife’. A caring guy. A sharing guy who, after a few global stints torturing local industries, in 1998 ascended the pinnacle of the Ford ziggurat. CEO. Dearborn. Successor to such greats as Lee Iacocca.

Jack’s tenure lasted just three years, until October 2001, but it carved the face of Ford.

Answerable only to chairman William Clay Ford, descendant of the anti-semite, pro-Nazi, union busting Henry, who, by the way, did bugger all by way of inventing anything, but appropriated the brilliance of his underlings for his own self-aggrandisement.

Like any good Australian faced with the largesse generated by the 1990s US boom for F150s and other gargantuan bits of metal and glass, Jack decided to stack the garage with toys. Land Rover, Volvo. Hello?

I’ve resisted mentioning Jack’s Lebanese birth until now, but where I live every self-respecting Lebanese male has a Ford. Good car, mate.

Jack Nasser led the big miners protests against the mining tax. (Image: screen shot from ABC News YouTube video.)

Jack was such a switched on guy that, by 2008, Henry’s baby was ingesting $14.6 billion annually. So, bye-bye Volvo, see you Land Rover. Out with the bathwater went Aston Martin and Jaguar. The Premier Automotive Group indeed.

In 2000, Jack was forced to front a US Congressional Committee over allegations the cheap as chips Firestone rubber fitted to some of the aforementioned gargantuans were in fact shit and contributed directly to the deaths of over 130 SUV suckers… sorry … consumers. This little cost-cutting, supplier-bleeding, caper is reputed to have cost Ford $4.4 billion all up.

Go Jack!

The only decent thing Ford owned was 33% of Mazda — makers of successful motors. A succession of brilliant management decisions reduced that to 3.5%.

Jack – or Jacques to his close friends – evolved, from his own mind, Ford’s ‘Performance Management Process’. Sounds great, eh?

What it did was to grade management into three and to make it a rule that every year at least 5 per cent of managers were classed in the lowest grade. Badly classified staff had two years to elevate themselves to a higher grade or it was “see-you-later”. I will let you imagine the office politics.

Jack, then, set the stage for the final curtain.

Australia, as far as Dearborn is concerned, is an outlier. Fresh from copping $34 million from the Victorian and Federal Governments in January 2012 with a straight face, current local MD Bob Graziano has decided he’d rather drive a Holden. Or whatever.

But it’s worse — much worse. Not only are those poor bastards in Geelong and Broadmeadows for the chop, I ask you, what about Bathurst? Sorry, the Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000. No Falcon? At Bathurst? Who is going to hate whom? Mercedes fans v Toyota fans? Smuggling slabs of Asahi and Becks onto Mt Panorama?

Did V8 Supercars Events Pty Ltd show preternatural prescience when they decided to admit other brands for the 2013 season? When did they make the decision to do this? And why? Did Ford give them the tip long (as in, at least a year) before the public mea culpa?

My dad had a 1960 XA Falcon. It was a total heap of shit. Fully imported, of course. Gossamer suspension, show it a dirt road and it went all Tea Party. Indignant. Offended. Outraged. The next model, the XP, developed here, was a ripper, and they kept getting better. Big cars you could punt.

But punting isn’t what it was. Had Jack a stalk, he might not have wasted the legacy of a great free-enterprise monolith on the frivolity of screwing suppliers to the wall for fun. And he’s an Australian.

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

Craig Thomson faced court yesterday and 19 new charges. Peter Wicks fills in the gaping gaps in the mainstream media’s coverage of these events.

BY NOW, you have probably heard that Craig Thomson was in court in Melbourne yesterday.

You have probably read how there were 19 new charges laid against him and that this time his wife Zoe was not there to support him.

All of these things are true, but there is more that you probably haven’t read in the mainstream media.

I’ll try to fill in the gaps.

For starters, the 19 new charges — you probably don’t know what they are.

The new charges are all fraud related and pertain to spending during Thomson’s time at the Health Services Union. A complete list of the new charges is linked below.

Example of the new charges against Craig Thomson.

[See Craig Thomson Additional Charges in PDF]

Interestingly, many of the new charges are for amounts of less than $50. This would mean that these charges actually cost more to process than the amount the charge alleges was fraudulently taken.

These new charges are clearly designed to create a media frenzy as most of the amounts are less than trivial.

I also note that many of the larger amounts are in fact combined totals of smaller amounts on bank statements.

Another way of making it look worse than it is are examples such as charge 157, which mentions a Diners Club statement totalling $2,385.67, although the charge only relates to $15.95 of that. The rest is just window dressing.

Other charges, such as charge number 159 for a $500 cash withdrawal, are doubled up so that there are two charges for the same allegation; you will note charge 160 is for the same offence.

This is seemingly designed for media consumption.

In fact, given that the evidence that these charges were based on has been in police hands for so long it would appear as if the charges are being drip fed to a hungry media with each court appearance. I wonder how many new charges will be laid next time?

If you think this is a bit far-fetched, think back to when Thomson was arrested with the dodgy police warrant at his electoral office.

You may recall the media circus, the pre-arranged media pack, the dodgy warrant, the strip search, and the third bail condition. That’s right, the third bail condition telling Thomson that he could not associate with sex workers.

At the time, the judge stated she thought that the third bail condition was highly prejudicial, seemingly designed to imply guilt and looked like it had been created with the media in mind.

At yesterday’s court appearance, the judge refused to even read out this bail condition, after starting to read it, stopping and telling Thomson to note it was there. You probably didn’t read that elsewhere…

Thomson’s wife Zoe was not at court — because of the extra expense, I’d assume, given they are doing it tough financially due to Thomson’s legal costs. For the mainstream media to try to imply it suggests Zoe does not support her husband is nothing short of irresponsible.

Some charges have mentioned that Thomson had watched “in-house R Rated Adult Pornographic movie” in his room, but didn’t say what they were. Maybe this is because hotels offer adult movies, not porn. Maybe it was Pulp Fiction, a classic war film like Apocalypse Now, or maybe he decided to give himself a fright with The Exorcist — they are all classed as R-Rated adult entertainment. But that would not have the desired implication, or attract the same media attention. Those who have read the in-house entertainment guides in hotels would be aware that hotels don’t itemise movies to preserve customer privacy.

The media reporting in this case has been incredibly biased and selective — not just yesterday, but throughout the entire case.

Whether he is guilty or innocent, the press should give Thomson the benefit of the doubt until he is proven guilty; I believe that is their job, otherwise they should label every page as opinion.

Craig Thomson and his wife Zoe at his previous court appearance. Media tried to beat up the fact she was not there yesterday.

In fact, I am of the belief that if Thomson were driving down a street and a five-year old girl in a wheelchair rolled out in front of him and he crashed into a telegraph pole to avoid her, the headline would read “Thomson damages council property” and would not even mention the girl.

In other news, since my last article was posted, I have received a few queries regarding my mentioning of how close Kathy Jackson was to the Williamson’s, particularly regarding the $3,000 Bulgari earrings.

I should just clarify this relationship a bit better than I did.

The Williamson’s were not, in any way, friends of Kathy Jackson. I am of the impression that Jackson wanted to create the illusion of being a friendly figure, all the while conspiring to take over the NSW Branch — something she allegedly still aspires to do via her factional allies.

Any friend of Jackson’s probably understands all too well the notion of “Friendly Fire”.

For Thomson, however, it continues to come from all directions.

(Peter Wicks is a Labor Party member and a former NSW ALP candidate. Catch up on IA’s full Jacksonville investigation by clicking here.)

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

Joe Hockey’s press club address yesterday included at least 20 fudges and furphies — all of them, again, ignored by Australia’s press pack. Alan Austin covers 15 of his most egregious errors.

(Image courtesy @georgebludger.)

STRAIGHT AFTER one of the most mendacious party leader speeches in modern Western democracies – Tony Abbott’s showpiece budget reply in Parliament last Thursday – comes another.

This one – Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey’s speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday – is even more disturbing. For three reasons.

First, we accept Abbott’s inability to tell the truth. Hence, more is expected of his colleagues. Second, it is hoped he who would be Treasurer would display some grasp of economics. And third, we might have expected Australia’s press gallery to show some diligence in scrutinising the nonsense Joe Hockey spouts if – as they seem unanimously agreed – he will soon run the economy.

Again, more than 20 misleading assertions, hypocritical claims and blatant lies. None appears to have been noticed by any of the journalists present. Here are just 15.

1. “They [Australians] distrust their government … The stability and certainty that Australians enjoyed up until 2007 has been replaced by volatility and unpredictability.”

The whole world has been in turmoil since 2008. Except one country. Australia, alone in the developed world, averted recession when the global financial crisis (GFC) hit. Unemployment rose only marginally and has remained remarkably stable. Australia’s growth, production, jobs, productivity, incomes and pensions have increased steadily.

It is wrong to suggest Australia has experienced anything like the volatility elsewhere. And maliciously false to claim it’s the Government’s fault.

2. “And we must return stable, predictable, and honest government to Australia.”

Off to an unimpressive start. The budget reply speech by the Opposition Leader was shamefully dishonest. So is this one.

3. “Stability does not come from a Labor Government that has had five small business ministers in fifteen months.”

Labor had five from 2010 to 2013. From 1997 to 2001 the Howard Government also had five. Surely Joe Hockey is not suggesting the Howard Government was unstable?

4. “Predictability does not come when policies like tax cuts are announced in one budget then reversed without shame or embarrassment in the next.”

Perhaps. But a predictable global environment is not the good fortune of any administration today. National and state governments worldwide – including Western Australia’s Liberal Government this week – are obliged to revise tax policies.

5. “Honesty does not come when a government excuses its past profligacy on the promise of a surplus ― then not only fails to deliver one, but delivers a $19bn deficit with more to come.”

Hockey ignores several vital points:

(a) This year’s deficit is less than half last year’s. The quantum is falling dramatically.

(b) A deficit of that order is regarded by most economists as appropriate for the times.

(c) At just 1.3% of gross domestic product (GDP) this is a small deficit in comparative terms. Britain, Denmark, France, Israel and the Netherlands are all above 4%. The USA, New Zealand and Japan are above 8.0%.

(d) The underlying budget deficit, according to the non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Office, is partly due to tax policy blunders during the Howard years. It instanced decisions to freeze the indexation of petrol excise and cut tobacco excise receipts as contributing to the structural imbalance.

6. “Honesty does not come when a Prime Minister and her Treasurer promise there will be no carbon tax then introduce one as soon as they are re-elected.”

7. “The objective of the Coalition, over time, is to reduce the overall tax burden on business and taxpayers, not to increase it.”

These both repeat hypocrisies in Abbott’s speech last week, analysed previously.

8. “Next year’s forecast surplus of $2.2 billion has now become a deficit of $18 billion. Again a deterioration of $20 billion.”

Forward estimates of revenue are being revised downwards across the globe. This is the result of price movements and other unpredictable conditions. It is a transparent process, with projections publicly available and revisions posted as required by non-partisan public servants.

9. “That means seven straight budget deficits from Labor. That is the longest period of successive deficits by one government in more than a generation.”

Perhaps. But before this generation, there were 32 years of consecutive deficits ― all but three of them delivered by Liberal treasurers. The economy was returned to surpluses by Labor in the 1980s. Paul Keating delivered four. Peter Costello inherited a transformed economy and delivered nine more.

(Source: Treasury.gov.au)

10. “Under Labor the budget will never come back to surplus.”

The Parliamentary budget Office rejected that this week. It reported that the structural budget position “showed a sharp improvement” last financial year and will improve further towards surplus in 2016-17.

11. “Under Labor, gross debt ‒ that is the money we actually have to repay ‒ has been going up and up.”

Australia’s borrowings are currently 20.7% of GDP, down from 22.9% last year.

Borrowings remain low by global comparison. Many economists believe it is the correct course for borrowings to increase while interest rates are low, while Australia has top credit rating, while infrastructure investment is needed, and repayments are easily managed.

12. “The sum of all this is that the Government does not have a revenue collection problem … it has a revenue forecasting problem, all of its own creation.”

More foolish nonsense. Forward estimates are provided for the Government, the Opposition, business and the wider community by independent public servants, as Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson explained painstakingly last week. They are not produced by Cabinet.

13. “With little credibility around the underlying forecasts on revenue and expenditure, and with a seemingly generous approach to economic parameters, the reality is that the cupboard is bare.”

Just economically illiterate drivel. Compare Australia with the next best economies in the world: Norway’s debt to GDP is 28.3%, Switzerland’s 35.3% Germany’s 82% and Canada’s 84.6%. Australia’s borrowings ‒ at a mere 20.7% ‒ allow enormous scope to borrow billions more at low interest for infrastructure or other long-term investment.

Then compare tax rates. Australia takes a puny 25.6% of GDP. Switzerland takes 28.5%, Canada 31%, Germany 37.1% and Norway a hefty 43.2%. So Australia has plenty of scope, also, for boosting income for recurrent spending.

(Source: Treasury.gov.au)

14. “Because of Labor’s determination to keep spending other people’s money, if we are elected on September 14, obviously we will have little fiscal room to move.”

According to economists such as Professor Joseph Stiglitz it is precisely the level of stimulus spending Australia opted for when the GFC hit that saved Australia from a disastrous recession. If Hockey becomes Treasurer in September, he will inherit the world’s best- managed economy by a street.

15. “And we should never forget that Australia had its credit rating downgraded twice under a previous Labor Government when Commonwealth debt was below the levels it is at now.”

Nor should Hockey forget Australia first gained triple A ratings with all three agencies in 2011, after Wayne Swan had been Treasurer for three years. This was never achieved under the Coalition. Australia’s modest borrowings are not a problem in the real world.

So what is it with Joe Hockey? Is he unaware of the global financial crisis? Or does he understand it but seek to conceal its impact? Either way, this shows no fitness for a position of trust.

And what about media scrutiny in Australia? Why no questioning of the hypocrisy, the lies and the economic nonsense?

Are the mischievous internet memes actually true? That word has come down from news media bosses that nothing is to impede a Coalition victory ― not even accurate reporting?

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

Christopher Pyne has clearly been pondering the fate of Sodom, says Bob Ellis, and may, therefrom, have exceeded his mandate.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE has clearly been pondering the fate of Sodom.

In Genesis 18, you will recall, Abraham asks God if, in immolating Sodom, he doesn’t mind destroying the righteous with the wicked. God says, What righteous? What are you talking about? Abraham says, well, if there are fifty righteous men in Sodom will you spare it? God says yes. Too right. Abraham gulps, and asks if there are twenty, will you spare it? Absolutely, God says. My oath. Abraham haggles him down to one, and there still isn’t any. And Sodom burns, in what seems now a rehearsal of 9/11.

And so it went last night on Sky News with Richo pleading with Pyne to spare Gonski. And Christopher, Godlike, said he would not spare it, nay, not even for O’Farrell, nor yet for O’Farrell plus the Labor states, nor by Yahweh would he spare it, even for seven out of the eight states and territories. He would spare Gonski only if every state signed on. And if they did not, the disabled and Aboriginal and language-challenged hobbled and crippled children could burn in Hell for all he cared. He would not spare them. Not a one of them.

In thus impersonating the God of Israel, Christopher may have exceeded his mandate. Richo was baffled when told in arch and fearsome tones no contract would be honoured and O’Farrell must take his punishment like a man.

It may be that Christopher has become insane.

O’Farrell, thus thwarted, may feel like the visiting angel in Sodom whom the Sodomites wished to anally penetrate, and Lot, a good host, protected by offering the surging crowd his daughters in place of that heavenly arse, and he may not like the sensation. And he may soon seek his revenge.

And we will see what we shall see.

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

Political rough-housing over the Gonski reforms have turned into a classic case of classroom bullying. Gee reports.

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

There is a contradiction at the heart of conservatism, says Grant Wyeth, and it’s that capitalism in modern times is, by its very nature, rapidly changing and evolving.

ON FRIDAY LAST WEEK in The Age, Waleed Aly wrote a thoughtful piece on the tensions that currently exist globally within “the Right” of politics.

Aly hit the nail beautifully on the head when he wrote that modern

‘…conservative politics [has come] to be built on a contradiction: a pact between the opposing forces of free market-liberalism and social conservatism.’

However, Aly didn’t quite go far enough in explaining just how strange and counter-productive to conservative ideals this alliance has become. Modern political thought tends to view this as a perfectly consistent philosophy, but I would contend that nothing could be further from the truth.

The way I see things, World War II and the Cold War induced conservatives in the West to go looking for the most anti-socialist (both national and garden variety) philosopher and economist they could find. It led them to F. A. Hayek, a man who diagnosed the brutally restrictive machines of state-centric Fascism and Communism earlier than most. However, this was an ironic choice for conservatives, seeing he had also written an essay entitled Why I’m Not A Conservative.

However, as insightful (and misunderstood) as Hayek was (and still is), I think we need to look towards another economist for a more succinct reason as to why this is such an odd match.

Joseph Schumpeter noted:

‘Capitalism is by nature a form or method of change and not only never is, but never can be, stationary.’

Which is why I find it strange that we conventionally call capitalism “economic conservatism”, when the dictionary tells me that conservatives are uncomfortable, opposed, or suspicious, of change.

Schumpeter, however, also observed that capitalism is

‘…a process whose every element takes considerable time in revealing its true features and ultimate effects.’

This could be considered “conservative”, in that the more rational conservatives believe change needs time to digest, not full-scale resistance. But since the post-World War II period, market-fuelled economic and social change has moved at such a rapid and multiplying pace that surely conservatives would advocate more state intervention against the market, not less?

The train, the car, the aeroplane and the internet – all major inventions fuelled and enhanced by competition and the free exchange of ideas – have been instrumental in breaking down ethnic and cultural barriers as they moved the masses out of the monoculture of the village and into the wonderful world of difference. Firsthand knowledge is the biggest enemy of the ignorant, and capitalism has given us these wonderful tools to gain it.

Furthermore, when it comes to cultural and ethnic relations, the conservative adherence to the market is again odd. If, as Hayek would promote, the state is a physical impediment to exchange amongst humans, then surely the nation is a mental one? The nation is one particularly dangerous form of collectivism that conservatives seem to have overlooked.

Swedish academic Hans Rosling has noted that a capitalist invention such as the simple washing machine was a significant tool in the women’s liberation movement. The massive amount of time it saved allowed women to educate and organise themselves. The result being that within a very short period, women now out-attend and out-perform men in education, and will soon translate this to out-earn.

The state just doesn’t have the knowledge, the mechanisms, nor the self-interest to create change on this scale. And when it has tried, it has ended up with a lot of dead bodies.

The state is a reactionary institution in the purest sense. Its role is to react to what occurs around it, and when you concentrate considerable power and prestige in it, the state is less likely to be comfortable with change that may threaten this power.

This is why I refer to both the state itself, and the ideas of “the Left”, as “structurally conservative”. Presently, “the Right” have the desire to resist change, but “the Left” have all the instruments to do so.

This is something Bob Katter understands with his conservative “Old Labor” instincts. He may be backwards, but at least he is philosophically consistent. There are no homosexuals in the seat of Kennedy, just as there are none in Tehran and Pyongyang. By a head in the sand or a gun in the hand.

However, in a modern liberal society, the issue is lost for poor Bob. The prevalence of gay characters on television now, and the popularity of a prime time show like Modern Family, indicates just how far the state in Australia is behind.

In reference to his own support for gay marriage, U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden noted:

“I think Will & Grace probably did more to educate the American public than almost anything anybody’s ever done so far.”

Shows such as these are not just educational tools though. Their prominence is actually a reflection of society’s values. They’re shown in prime time for a reason. The state only hears the loudest voices, the market has a much more finely tuned ear.

Aly notes that:

‘Bob Katter’s constituency have long been globalisation’s losers.’

A similar thing can be said about America’s Tea Party movement. I (smugly) call them “Reagan’s Losers”. Yet what The Tea Party miss, that Katter understands, is that they only sow the seeds of their own further discomfort by advocating for increased liberalisation from the state. The increased “freedom” they call for, is actually the freedom that will continue to create significant global, economic and social change.

Theirs is an essentially nationalist movement, they attach themselves to market-liberalism due to America’s national mythology, not due to its cosmopolitan outcomes.

This existential crisis within the Republican Party, along with the rise of UKIP that Aly mentions, the minor parties formed out of the Coalition and the irrational and unhinged rhetoric that spews from elements on the Right these days, are all symptoms of conservatives struggling to reconcile this pact with market-liberalism that doesn’t provide them with the outcomes they desire.

The changes occurring globally and locally in the 21^st Century are too strong for this contradictory alliance of ideas to hold. Conservatives are going to either have to learn to embrace the era in which they live, or find a different philosophical and economic model to align themselves in order to resist it.

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