Early Elections and Government Legitimacy

#Marchinmay down Elizabeth Street in Melbourne

The recent budget handed down by the Abbott Government has been poorly received by the Australian people and has resulted in an outpouring of community anger with up to fifteen thousand people marching in Melbourne. Similar protests were held throughout the country.

The breaking of several election promises was secondary to the anger over a raft of changes which undermine the universality of Medicare, restrict access to university education, impose draconian conditions on the young unemployed and cut $80 billion from health and education services.

During the rally, several speakers called for a double dissolution election. The Greens deputy leader, Adam Bandt, suggested that an alliance of the Greens, Australian Labor Party and the Palmer United Party could bring about a new government by Christmas.

Adam Bandt addresses the crowd

Bandt's call reflected an earlier sentiment by ALP leader, Bill Shorten, in his budget reply speech for  Tony Abbott to "bring it [an election] on" as Abbott had threatened to call a double dissolution election should elements of the budget be blocked in the Senate (a position he has since backed down on).

However, this sentiment has morphed into calls from twitter megaphones and sections of the Left for an immediate double dissolution or for the senate to block supply.

Double Dissolution

As has been pointed out by experts such as Anthony Green, there are a number of reasons why an immediate double dissolution election is impossible:

1. The elements of s57 of the Constitution have not been satisfied.

2. After s57 is satisfied, a double dissolution occurs on advice from the Government to the Governor General to dissolve both houses. Something which is extremely unlikely; considering the current unpopularity of the Government.

Blocking Supply

Blocking supply means blocking the government appropriations bill that appropriates money for the general running of government. Although  the appropriations bill contains some of the cuts to expenditure, new policies such as the ones which have elicited such community anger cannot be attached to this appropriations bill. It is likely that it is these new proposals are the ones that the Senate are likely to block - not the appropriations bill.

Blocking the appropriations bill will spark a constitutional crisis as the government begins to run out of money. It will not in and of itself spark an election. The only precedent in Federal politics is the 1975 constitutional crisis where the Governor General stepped in and sacked the Whitlam Government. The subsequent election was actually called by the appointed Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, using double dissolution triggers that had occurred in the Whitlam government's tenure. There was no constitutional reason why an election needed to be called - it was merely politically advantageous for Fraser to call an election at that time.

As can been seen, there were specific circumstances (and personalities) around the 1975 crisis. There is no reason why similar events would result in a similar outcome. A constitutional crisis is just that: a crisis which result in unprecedented and unpredictable actions  in our political system. They damage the political process and undermine our parliamentary system. It is for these reasons that they ought to be avoided (and are unlikely to be pursued by either the Labor party or the Greens).

The legitimacy of a government

The calls for new elections stem from questions surrounding the government's legitimacy. As with the Right's constant and unprecedented attacks on the Gillard government, the Left is focusing on the legitimacy of the Abbott Government, elected as it was on promises of integrity and honesty in its commitments. There are serious questions around the moral legitimacy of the Abbott government - considering it's central pitch to voters was one of trust. However, legally, the government was legitimately elected.

In the same way that the Gillard government was legitimately elected and even though the Right never accepted it, the government went to its full term. No matter how much the Left does not accept the legitimacy of the Abbott government, in the same way, it is most likely to go full term.

Protest

Protest at March In May Melbourne

Even though the Government will likely go to its full term, it does not mean that protest such as marchinmay are pointless. The use of public protest to continue to question the Abbott Government's moral legitimacy serve the same process as the campaigning by the Murdoch press on the legitimacy of the Gillard Government.

It is important to maintain the momentum that has built around the questioning of the legitimacy of the Government, however, calls for the irresponsible blocking of supply undermines the Left's message. It drags the Left to the level of the appalling action of the Right and their allies in rejecting the legitimacy of Australia's democratic system during the Gillard government.

The fact is that Abbott was legally elected and his government is likely to last until 2016. One Term Tony could become a reality if the Left stays on message about the legitimacy of a government that lied their way into office. It does not need to sink to the level of the Right with irresponsible calls to undermine Australia's democratic institutions by blocking supply.

Ministerial Responsibility

There has been much criticism of Prime Minster Abbott's assigning policy responsibility for the status of women to the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) portfolio. This is understandable considering Abbott's many sexist public statements. 

Abbott has gone on the record saying:

"I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons"

So it is unsurprising that there was a strong reaction to Abbott essentially appointing himself Minister for the Status of Women. However, it has been pointed out that the bringing of the Office of the Status of Women into a central policy making agency such as Prime Minister and Cabinet has the potential to make policies affecting women closer to the heart of the decision making process.

While this is true, the corollary of this is that now Abbott himself, as the Minister, is accountable for every sexist comment of his Government, sexist policy (in any portfolio) and his passive acceptance of any sexist comments from his cheerleaders in the media. So next time Abbott spouts his sexism, he cannot hide behind being a "daggy dad". Every time shock jocks spout their sexism, he cannot let it pass and every time his Ministers make gender based attacks on women in parliament it is Abbott who is responsible for holding them to account.

If Abbott was truly going to take responsibility for stemming the sexism that he himself unleashed it would be worth giving him the benefit of the doubt, but unfortunately he has already shown his mettle.

In his first media interview since becoming the Minister, Tony Abbott, Minister for the Status of women said:

"I don't think women suffer legal discrimination and I don't think anyone these days sets out to do the wrong thing but it is very difficult for women to combine work and family if they don't have a fair dinkum paid parental leave scheme and that's going to change very soon under the Coalition."

Legal discrimination? All discrimination on the basis of gender is illegal. Bringing the Office into PM&C may be a positive step for policy making but it is clear that the Minister to whom they report is sexist and unfit for the the office.

Occupy the narrative: winning the culture wars of the Right

"I certainly believe in her right to say what she said. I thought some of the things she said were an accurate reflection of what people feel."

These words are from former Prime Minister John Howard in 1996, failing to repudiate the independent (former Liberal) MP Pauline Hanson's maiden speech, in which she put forward the view that Australia was being "swamped by Asians".

This changed the political narrative in Australia. While under the previous Keating Government racism was called out, under the Howard Government it was carefully incorporated into policy that played to an undercurrent of racism that exists in Australia.

As Keating himself said: "you change the government, you change the country" and this is precisely what Howard's deliberate failure to repudiate Hanson's racism did. He had given permission for racism and elevated it to an acceptable view, a view which "reflected what people felt" and because it was what people "felt", it no longer needed to be justified. It gave permission for a type of cognitive dissonance that allows someone to spout racist views, but be good mates with their ethnic neighbours. Every challenge to this contradiction can be  met with an accusation of "political correctness".

Fast forward to the Abbott Government. Abbott, through his words and actions, has carefully crafted a similar story for sexism and a similar dissonance for those on the Right to hold those views while still believing themselves not to be sexist. To challenge them is to play the "gender card" or to be "politically correct". This sits nicely with the general conservatism of the populace, which does not see gender politics as any more nuanced than a simple matter of "equality". It is this simplistic view of feminism that enabled the effectiveness of the parade of "Abbott's Women", who by their mere presence proved that he could not be sexist. The more nuanced symbolic arguments of the Left failed to have the resonance of simplistic symbols paraded by the Right.

In his article for the Guardian, Jeff Sparrow argues that "The challenge for the left is not to abandon symbolism, but rather to fill symbolic reforms with real content" and argues that by doing this the Left will achieve the resonance with the populace that it needs to repudiate Abbott's sexism. Sparrow argues: "If [...] progressives can use debates over sexism in political life to discuss the oppression faced by women who don’t hold positions of prominence and power, Abbott’s persona suddenly pits him irrevocably against him the bulk of the population."

 Although it is true that the Left must "fill symbolic reforms with real content", the achievement of this is not, as Sparrow suggests, a matter of finding this resonance by using relateable examples. It ignores the relativism and cognitive dissonance of views that the Right has given permission for people to hold. If the Left wants to break this type of relativism, its leaders must challenge the contradictions inherent in the Right's ideological narrative.

The job of the Left is to call out these contradictions. For those calls to  resonate, it requires leadership that is not timid. The Left must articulate its own ideological vision.

This is the tragedy of the treatment of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's "misogyny speech"[video]. Here was an example of a leader repudiating sexism, denying permission, outlining an ideological view. However, by this time it was too late. The ALP was too timid to engage directly with the electorate on gender for fear of Gillard's gender being a defining feature of her Prime Ministership (which it was already). This re-enforced the Right's position and it was hardly surprising that a cynical media amplified the Opposition's "gender card" excuse to fit the narrative of the PM that the ALP had allowed to take hold.

The Left has been too timid to engage in this direct battle of ideas, preferring to console itself with symbolism - arrogantly assuming its symbols are too nuanced for the electorate to engage with directly - or expressing an incoherent middle-class dissatisfaction through movements such as 'Occupy' or disengaging entirely through clicktivism.

The Left must stop ceding ground to the Right and directly engage with the Right's contradictory ideological position. This can not be done by adopting the type of soft-liberal symbolism that divorces their position from the majority of the electorate but with a coherent ideological narrative that articulates the Left's position.

This goes further than Sparrow's "filling symbolic reforms with real content", it is a coherent ideological response to the Right. Sparrow's view encourages the sort of soft-liberal approaches that have been the very reason for the Left's failure to counter the Right's ideological position.

The Right is incoherent and contradictory and  its culture wars are a distraction from its incoherence. An  ideological narrative from the Left will expose the cognitive dissonance inherent in the ideology of the Right.

The occupation of the narrative is the goal of the culture wars and the Left must meet it head on, not through soft-liberalism but through hard-edged ideological vision. It is only then that the narrative can be wrested from the incoherence of the Right.

A simple sleight of hand - The morphing of Fair Work to WorkChoices

The spectre of WorkChoices was back from the dead today as the Liberal Party's  own Lazarus, John Howard, urged the party to resurrect the dead, buried and cremated policy. The current leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, was quick to shut down any discussion (lest it lead to an actual policy position that may enable voters to see any Liberal policy longer than three word slogans). However, in his rush to shut down the discussion, he inadvertently gave a glimpse of the mechanism by which he intends to introduce a more radical workplace policy.
Abbot stated that:

"The Labor Government under the Fair Work Act has put in place individual flexibility agreements. I think these agreements need to be made more workable, but there's no going back to the past. We want the Fair Work Act to work better."

Individual flexibility arrangements (IFAs) are arrangements that can vary an employee's conditions under enterprise agreements (EAs)- s202 of the Fair Work Act 2009 -  or modern awards - s144(1). They are designed to allow employees to vary their workplace conditions to suit their circumstances (such as working hours) or for employers to offer a set of conditions to an employee to alter their working conditions to better match business requirements. However, unlike the old WorkChoices Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs ), IFAs are limited to a specific set of workplace conditons, cannot be made a condition of employment and must leave an employee "better off overall". 

  IFAs vs AWAs

characteristic	IFA	AWA
Subject Matter	Limited	Unlimited (within a basic safety net)
Can be offered as a condition of employment	No	Yes
Can be offered en masse	No (that's what EAs are for)	Yes
Termination	Unilateral	By agreement
Test	Better off overall	No Disadvantage (initially no test)

As can be seen from the table there are only a few differences between IFAs and AWAs - most notably the subject matter and whether they can be offered as a condition of employment. The removal of these two conditions on IFAs would effectively re-introduce AWAs. A removal or erosion of the test for the agreements would effectively bring back the worst elements of the supposedly dead policy.

Abbott's admission that IFAs are the mechanism by which a future Liberal government would re-introduce "flexibility" should give us pause for thought. The re-introduction of AWAs would not require substantial changes to the Act and so when Abbott states that all changes will be within the Fair Work framework it is cold comfort that the Liberals' pet policy, WorkChoices, isn't ripe for resurrection.

Labor and the Greens: History repeating?

The right wing of the Labor party has been heaping scorn on the Greens this week, spearheaded by Paul Howes and backed up by many of Labor's parliamentary members. Some commentators have suggested that this is a ploy to drag back wavering socially conservative blue-collar voters from the Liberals by distancing themselves from the Greens. This ploy is doomed to failure as this group of voters is much more likely to be convinced by the pandering to xenophobia that has been honed into a fine art by the Coalition than any Green bashing from Labor's right.

A far more likely outcome can be found in relatively recent State political history between Tasmanian Labor and the Tasmanian Greens. In fact, the parallels between Federal Labor's current policy tantrum at the Greens over asylum seekers and the breakup of the Tasmanian Labor-Green accord in 1992 are strikingly similar.

In 1992, the then Field government was governing Tasmania with the support of the Greens. It was always an uneasy alliance with major disagreements over school closures and forestry policy. However, the straw that finally broke the accord was Labor's "take it or leave it" approach to the Howard (edit: thanks Matthew) Keating government's Forests Industry Strategy, which the Greens had strongly opposed (in fact, the adoption of this policy went directly against the tenets of the accord).

The Labor party assumed that the Greens would merely roll over and accept it because the alternative was to bring down the unpopular Labor government and elect the less Green-friendly Liberals (who had already said that they wouldn't deal with the Greens). The assumption was that the Greens would be equally punished as the Labor party and end up politically much worse off. 

The Greens didn't blink and the election was called. The Liberals won the most seats but were still forced to govern in a minority (with supply being given by the Greens) [Edit: This isn't quite right - Please see Matthew's comment below for more explanation]. Ultimately, Labor's assumption that the Greens were merely an errant left faction that could be pushed around by the party ended up leaving the Labor party out of power but did not affect the Greens.

After their defeat, Labor was fixated on killing off the Greens who they saw as a major threat to their party base. They even conspired with the Liberals to reduce the size of parliament (and thus the quota needed to win a seat) to get rid of them - a policy which has had a devastating effect on the ability of successive Tasmanian governments to effectively govern the State as there are not enough parliamentarians to effectively manage the necessary portfolios. 

The reduction in size of the Tasmanian parliament did keep the Greens out of power for some time, but in the most recent election of the Tasmanian Labor government, the Greens hold the balance of power again.

The current machinations of the current Federal Government are eerily reminiscent of 1992:

• The assumption that the Greens are merely an errant left-faction of the Labor party,
• The assumption that they could take a "take it, or leave it approach" to the Greens in the parliament (the CPRS being a case-in-point),
• The assumption that a parliamentary loss for Labor would be equally felt by the Greens.

These assumptions in Tasmania ended up damaging the Labor party far more than the Greens. The current Federal ALP would do well to look back at this history or, as they say, they'll be doomed to repeat it.

Observations from the US: The economy and partisan politics

In his recent speech to the American Chamber of Commerce (SA), Reserve Bank of Australia governor Glenn Stevens outlined Australia's exceptional economic performance in the face of global uncertainty. Stevens urged Australians to see the glass as half full even though many Australians have been determined to see that the Australian economy is in crisis - a perception that is helped by the hysterical campaigning of the opposition parroted by a captured Australian media.

According to Stevens:

"[...]the nature of public discussion is unrelentingly gloomy, and this has intensified over the past six months. Even before the recent turn of events in Europe and their effects on global markets, we were grimly determined to see our glass as half empty. Numerous foreign visitors to the Reserve Bank have remarked on the surprising extent of this pessimism. Each time I travel abroad I am struck by the difference between the perceptions held by foreigners about Australia and what I read in the newspapers at home."

I have recently spent six weeks travelling around the United States and this has been my experience as well. I observed a deeply depressed American economy and a highly polarised political climate. There was a general feeling of malaise from locals I spoke to about the current state of the American economy. Many of them knew about Australia's excellent economic performance and were bemused by the pessimism about the Australian economy expressed by Australians.

The middle class in America has been under sustained assault from a succession of policies promulgated from rent-seekers and interest groups through Congress.

According to the Congressional Budget Office:

"[...] over the 1979 to 2007 period, the highest income quintile’s share of market income increased from 50 percent to 60 percent, while the share of market income for every other quintile declined. In fact, the distribution of market income became more unequal almost continuously between 1979 and 2007." 

Any attempt to mitigate the outcomes of these policies has been systematically blocked by the partisanship that has pervaded the American political system.

This, combined with the unemployment rate that has exceeded 8% since February 2009, has gutted the middle classes. This has reduced the spending of the middle-class that is the underpinning of the economy.

One of the locals I spoke to (a small business owner) lamented "there is no middle class in America, just the rich and various classes of poor".

Everyone I spoke to was stunned by Australia's economic figures (particularly the unemployment rate) and even more stunned that Australians were complaining about the economy. However, once I explained the partisanship that had infected our political discourse, many of them recognised the political climate that has led the American economy to its current state.

There is a lesson in this for Australia: the sort of partisanship that is being pursued by the opposition and its pandering to rent-seekers and interest groups has consequences for the wider Australian economy. When even the central bank is warning about its effects on confidence, the opposition should take note and begin to act in the National interest, rather than their own interest in gaining power at any cost.

Australians should see the glass as half full: our economy is doing well, unemployment is very low and inflation and interest rates are also low - if Australians really want a view of how "Hockeynomics" and Abbott-style partisan politics works out: go the the US and observe the future.

Hockeynomics: Cut medicare, subsidise private health, save money

Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, has attacked the "culture of entitlement" that has supposedly stemmed from Australia's welfare state - citing examples of our Asian neighbours as a yardstick by which to judge effective government spending on welfare.

An excellent analysis of Hockey's argument by Matt Cowgill shows that, in fact, Australia's welfare spend on areas other than health and ageing, is comparable to our Asian neighbours. It also compares strongly to other Western countries, including the US.

Cowgill's conclusion is that the only place in which welfare can effectively be cut is in either Health or Ageing:

"To achieve the sort of cuts that Hockey has flagged, to bring our social spending into line with Korea and other countries in our region, would involve huge cuts to health spending, pensions, aged care and help for people with disabilities."

However, there is no need to go into a depth of analysis to see that this is precisely what the coalition intends to do with its cuts to welfare.

In an interview with Lateline, in answer to a question on the Private Health Insurance Rebate, Hockey outlines a move to the US-style system of health care: heavily subsidised private providers providing the bulk of care, with a minor role for a public safety net. Hockey said (emphasis mine):

"If you reduce or remove the Private Health Insurance Rebate, you are simply pushing more people onto the public hospital system, which means they have an entitlement to universal health care, which means that the entitlement system grows."

Hockey is suggesting that an entitlement to universal health care is a bad thing and it is more effective to dismantle the universal system for a system of government subsidy to the private sector.

Hockey goes on further to say: "some entitlements [the Private Health Insurance Rebate] work to reduce other entitlements."

So, according to Hockey, the use of the Private Health Insurance Rebate - a subsidy to the private sector, will reduce the entitlement to universal health care [ie. Medicare].  The shifting of subsidies to the private sector and the dismantling of Medicare's universality smacks heavily of the current US system. In this system the publicly funded system is only available to certain classes of citizen with many falling between the cracks of subsidised private health insurance and the public scheme.

So how does this system compare for cost savings? According to the OECD the US health system costs 7.2% GDP compared to the Australian system which costs 5.7%. In terms of life expectancy, the US ranks 38th in the world, compared to Australia's rank of 6th. There appears to be little gained in the way of cost savings or better health outcomes.

Hockey has given us a glimpse of what a Coalition government would do to fund it's $70 billion in promises - Medicare's universality is to be dismantled, and not for cost but for an ideological antipathy to Medicare that has festered in the Coalition since Malcom Fraser first opposed it.

Billionaires and Battlers

Labor back bencher, Kelvin Thompson, has recently become embroiled in the latest round of Australia's supposed "class war" by daring to suggest that the $50 million taxpayer funding of Australia's F1 Grand Prix might better be better spent on hospitals than funding the lavish lifestyle of Bernie Eccelstone's daughter.

The response from Eccelstone was typical of the recent responses of billionaires to criticism - that democratically elected representatives should resign for daring to criticise those of the moneyed elite. Similar to Clive Palmer's dummy spit to Wayne Swan's article in The Monthly, Ecclestone became indignant and rather than address the criticism, engaged in ad hominem attacks as if somehow the mere fact that he was rich was a shield to any sort of criticism.

Palmer and Eccelstone have attacked their critics variously as "communists" and "destroying the wealth of this country and robbing our children of their opportunities". They have both forgotten that it is the stability of the democratic civil society that has enabled their wealth including, in Palmer's case, the ability to exploit publicly owned assets. Yet the billionaire's view is that they are entitled to their position, and their position is immune to criticism. Those that criticise them, regardless of the fact that they may be democratically elected, "should be fired".

These indignant reactions to criticism are typical of the 1% - they do not see themselves as participants in a society that goes deeper than mere tax-deductable expressions of philanthropy. They see themselves as entitled to a special place in the operation of that society, free from its responsibilities - an unfettered plutocracy, geared to exploit.

We have seen the results of when the 1% are unfettered, first in the 1980's when Reagan removed lending regulations on savings and loans banks that eventually resulted in a financial crisis, and secondly in the 2000's when Bush similarly removed restrictions on banks that resulted once again in financial crisis. In both instances, the 1% were happy to use the removal of regulation to exploit those that were most at risk in society to the detriment of all, particularly the wealth generating middle-class which is now being squeezed out of existence by a rampant 1%.

The disproportionate intrusion of the billionaires to undermine the civil society by the mere size of their wealth is an expression of a sense of arrogant entitlement from those who do not think that a £1 million Mexican crystal bathtub is a vulgar extravagance. A sense of entitlement that was built out of the policies of Reagan and Thatcher in the 1980's.

Margaret Thatcher's declaration in the 1980's that "there is no such thing as society" became the rallying cry of neo-conservatives around the world. Neo-conservative governments began to remove the progressive regulation and taxation systems that had limited the excesses of the rich under the theory that the civil society was unnecessary and that the self-interest of individuals would be sufficient.

Ironically, these conservatives decried the entitlement culture and assumed that the emphasis on the individual would necessarily lead to a "trickle down" of wealth to those less fortunate.

Thatcher herself recognised the entitlement culture, stating: "People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"

However, both Thatcher and Reagan saw those obligations (including the tax burden) as rightly falling upon the poor and middle classes and not similarly upon the rich. The view was that by the very fact that the rich were wealthy, they had fulfilled any obligation to society. This position unravelled the social contract and led to the excesses that caused the financial crises. Far from these crises causing a re-evaluation of this position, Thatcher, Reagan and later Bush continued with their policies further squeezing the middle classes. This has led to an entitlement culture growing amongst the rich - that regardless of the damage caused by their exploitation, government should be there to pick up the pieces at taxpayers expense.

In the past, this sort of sense of entitlement from the rich was met with derision from both the working and middle classes because it was seen for what it was - a desire to exploit society for reasons of self-interest. The institutions of the civil society placed proportionate obligations on everyone.

However, the structures of the civil society have been eroded by successive neo-conservative governments, which has created a society built on exploitation and an indignant sense of entitlement.

The removal of these institutions by conservative governments has led to  the "trickle down" of the exploitative sense of the entitlement to the middle class such that the billionaire's dilemma can be related to by those who are less well off. Accusations of "class warfare" resonate with the middle class, even though the warfare is actually being perpetuated upon them from above.

In Australia, this sense of entitlement has been generated through the explosion in middle class welfare under the Howard government. Just as the 1% believe that they are entitled to be unfettered by responsibilities to society, the middle class believe they are entitled to subsidy-fueled mortgages, private health rebates, subsidised private schools and the like, regardless of the exploitative effect on civil society. In fact, when governments have tried to make these "entitlements" progressive, it has been met with howls of "class warfare".

We have become too relaxed and comfortable, demanding our share of the trough rather than accepting our responsibility to engage with our obligations to society. We instead have fallen to the cheap popularism of slogan inspired "comfort".

This is why the accusation of class warfare has such resonance. In the same way that the billionaires see criticism of their extravagant unsustainable lifestyles as unfair, the middle classes see criticism of their entitlement to an unsustainable subsidy as equally unfair.

The exploitation of the unravelling of civil society is most pronounced by the 1%, who lobby for more changes that entrench their influence and power, but it can also be seen by the subsidy demanding "Howard battlers" who parrot the demands of the 1% even as their own standards of living are eroded.

This exploitative culture has thoroughly distorted the economy, such that everyone looks to Government to provide the conditions by which they can exploit society - rather than to provide conditions under which society thrives. The rampant individualism set in motion in the Thatcher and Regan eras has engendered the exploitation culture - a culture that led us to the global financial crisis and a culture that has created a crisis for the civil society.

Whooping Cough is dangerous, so is misinformation

Earlier this year I was diagnosed with whooping cough. Like many people I'd had the vaccination, but my immunity had run out (it is recommended that adults get a booster).

It was one of the most unpleasant sicknesses I have ever experienced. Six weeks of a horrible hacking cough, so bad that I couldn't breathe except for the "whoop" at the end of the fit. I was told by my doctor that it is not unusual to break ribs during these coughing fits - something that I was glad I didn't do, but the pain in my sides was bad enough.

I could not imagine a child going through that. It was bad enough as an adult. Adults generally don't get it as bad as children, adults rarely die of it but children do. Immunisations save lives.

So today I'm sitting at home with a cold - with a similar hacking cough which is a gift from my bout of pertussis -  and I'm catching up on the news and the ABC is a story about whooping cough. It was enough to start a coughing fit.

The story quotes Meryl Doorey from the notorious and misleadingly named "Australian Vaccination Network". The AVN is a pseudo-science based anti-vaccination organisation whose ideas have been discredited by actual real science, yet the ABC sees fit to go to them for an opinion.

Does this mean that the ABC will go to Birthers, Truthers, and Reptillians for their particular alternative nutjob views in the cause of "balance"?

Immunisations save lives and it is extremely irresponsible to give a platform to someone who not only is discredited, but preaches dangerous pseudo-science that can have disastrous consequences.

Sceptics and Ideologues

Scientific scepticism (or rational scepticism) is the practice of questioning or doubting the veracity of conclusions that lack empirical evidence or rely on non-reproducable experimentation. For example, the Berkely Earth Project set out to test climatologists research:

"Existing data used to show global warming have met with much criticism. The Berkeley Earth project attempts to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses by making available an open record to enable rapid response to further criticism and suggestions. Our results include our best estimate for the global temperature change and our estimates of the uncertainties in the record."

-From Berkeley Earth Project FAQ

The project took a sceptical approach to the earth temperature measurement to test some of the assertions made against climatologists. This independent analysis of both the data used by the IPCC and the arguments put by critics of climate change is an example of a sceptical, scientific method of analysis.

In contrast, an ideologue is a partisan advocate of a particular position or theory - for example [Emphasis mine]:

"Climate change sceptic Ian Plimer's book "How to Get Expelled from School: A Guide to Climate Change for Pupils, Parents and Punters" arms children with 101 questions to challenge their teachers...

The 250-page book includes a list of questions intended to embarrass poorly prepared teachers."

Plimer and his denialist friends are very fond of using the title of "sceptic" because the term lends them some sort of scientific credibility. However, Plimer is not a sceptic, he is an ideologue and his book is pure ideology.

It is little surprise that he got one of Australia's most ideologically-driven leaders to launch it.

Of pizza and the privatisation of public policy

Pizza has been declared a vegetable.

The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) proposed food standards were undermined by a congressional spending bill that enabled pizza to be counted as a vegetable. The bill was the result of lobbying by the frozen food industry to ensure that pizza and chips would still be available for school lunches.

In addition the bill will:

• Block the Agriculture Department from limiting starchy vegetables, including corn and peas, to two servings a week. The rule was intended to cut down on french fries, which many schools serve daily.
• Allow USDA to count two tablespoons of tomato paste as a vegetable - which allows pizza to be counted as a serve of vegetables. Federally subsidized lunches must have a certain number of vegetables to be served.

The intervention and lobbying by the fast-food industry to undermine the science-based public policy making of the USDA is yet another example of the increasing trend to privatise public policy making.

Interest groups and lobbyists have disproportionate sway over lawmaking, and in some cases have been able to  get lawmakers to completely abrogate their responsibility to legislate in areas of public policy. So much so that areas that were once the purview of government are now almost purely regulated and enforced by private interests.

This is particularly the case in intellectual property (IP) policy, where industry lobby groups have monopolised the public debate so that they virtually write the legislation for lawmakers to pass.

The recent "Stop Online Piracy" (SOPA) bill is one such example. The bill, if made into law, would give content publishers unprecedented powers to censor and control the publication of online content - making the content  publishers ultimate arbiters of what can be published on the internet. Through laws such as these, Governments have bestowed arbitrary quasi-judicial powers upon powerful interests, removing requirements for due process, natural justice or evidentiary rules - thus shirking their responsibilities to legislate public policy or protect the public interest.

The powers that the bill confers have been likened to the powers that the Chinese government executes over internet content through the "Great Firewall" albeit that the Western version is executed by private, rather than government interests. However, like the Chinese Firewall, the public can not dismantle this policy by excercising their democratic powers - the interests of this private plutocracy are just as dictatorial and totalitatarian as the Chinese Government.

In Australia too, the government has abrogated its responsibility to the public on IP policy by signing up to secretly negotiated "free-trade" treaties such as the Trans-pacific partnership.  The government is also refusing to take a leadership role in regulating IP infringement on the internet - preferring to hand that process over to vested interests in the ISP and content publishing industries rather than legislating in such a way that provides a balance between industry interests and the public interest.

The pervasiveness of the ideology that advocates that public policy is best executed by private interests relegates lawmaking to mere administration and democratic power to tinkering around the edges of issues. 

This abrogation of public policy making by lawmakers has not only had a chilling effect on the rights and freedoms of people, but it has also had serious effects on the world economy (global financial crisis), environment (climate change) and public health and wellbeing (health policy). However, lawmakers are satisfied to leave these important issues up to private interests instead of providing political leadership in the public interest and when a government does try to allow its citizenry to have a say, it is loudly shouted down and decried by those powerful interests to which an appeal to democracy would disadvantage the most.

Various governments have handed over some of the most important areas of public policy to powerful private interests to varying degrees. The economy, the environment, public health and culture have all been privatised to varying extents.

The virtual privatisation of these areas of public policy has collectively given society the global financial crisis by handing the economy to bankers, global warming by acquiescing to industrialist interests, a global obesity epidemic by pandering to the fast-food industry, lack of access to drugs in developing countries by granting broad patents to pharmaceutical companies and limitations on free speech and  human creativity by the over-regulation of IP.

And as we complain about our politicians tinkering around the edges of what was democracy, at least we can drown ourselves in the vacuity of culture that is left to us by the plutocrats and reach for another slice of pizza.

Well, at least it's a vegetable.

The 1% strikes back: QANTAS holds the economy to ransom

Last night, Fair Work Australia (FWA) ruled to terminate all industrial action in the QANTAS dispute. Undoubtedly there will be much written blaming the unions for this industrial chaos, but FWA makes it clear that it was the threatened action by QANTAS that was the deciding factor in terminating the action.

The issue arose because of an application by the Federal Government under s424 of the Fair Work Act (the Act). Section 424(1) states:

424 FWA must suspend or terminate protected industrial action—endangering life etc. Suspension or termination of protected industrial action
1. FWA must make an order suspending or terminating protected industrial action for a proposed enterprise agreement that:
   
   1. is being engaged in; or
   2. is threatened, impending or probable; if FWA is satisfied that the protected industrial action has threatened, is threatening, or would threaten:
   3. to endanger the life, the personal safety or health, or the welfare, of the population or of part of it; or
   4. to cause significant damage to the Australian economy or an important part of it.”

FWA ruled that the criteria had been met under s424, particularly 424(1)(d) with respect to the aviation, tourism and associated industries.

However, it was not the protected action taken by unions that fulfilled the criteria but the threatened industrial action by QANTAS.

At [10], FWA ruled (emphasis mine):

"It is unlikely that the protected industrial action taken by the three unions, even taken together, is threatening to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries. The response industrial action of which Qantas has given notice, if taken, threatens to cause significant damage to the tourism and air transport industries and indirectly to industry generally because of the effect on consumers of air passenger and cargo services."

In its ruling on making the order to terminate, rather than suspend protected industrial action, FWA further referenced the uncertainty cause by the employer strike:

At [15] (emphasis mine):

"...Suspension is necessarily temporary - it leaves open the possibility there may be a further lock out with its attendant risks for the relevant part of the economy. That is, a risk the situation we are now dealing with will recur."

In other words QANTAS' threats to the wider economy were the deciding factor in this order, not the union action.

The right to strike has been curtailed to such an extent that it is almost impossible for employees to withdraw their labour to obtain fair working conditions such as the 8-hour day, sick leave, holiday pay, maternity leave and many other conditions that we now take for granted. The justification for this curtailment of labour to take action has always been that industrial action by labour can have seriously detrimental effects on the economy.

The message from this, is that the 1% - the corporations- has unfettered power and is prepared to use it regardless of the detrimental effects to the economy or the country. The almost unfettered right to strike by capital, has held the Australian economy to ransom. FWA has made it clear that it was QANTAS' actions that were the threat, not the union that threatened the economy. The economy cannot be  held to ransom by the industrial action of capital, just as it cannot be held to ransom by labour.

It is time the the Government governs for the 99%  and curtails the rights of capital to strike as they have curtailed the rights of labour.

QANTAS' potentially unlawful action: a brief analysis

Today, QANTAS has decided to ground all of its fleet, both domestic and international, in response to the continuing industrial dispute between QANTAS and unions.  In response the Government has intervened by applying to Fair Work Australia (FWA) to suspend all industrial action (both union and QANTAS) under s424 of the Fair Work Act - FWA will be hearing the matter of suspending action tonight.

Outside of this initial action in FWA, there are other issues arising from QANTAS' actions that may be scrutinised in further subsequent actions in FWA, some of which could find QANTAS in breach of the Act.

There are a few ways that this dispute could play out and QANTAS may actually be significantly worse off by taking this action. However, much of this law is yet to be tested and it is difficult to predict how it will turn out - particularly in regard to the action that QANTAS has taken.

Industrial action, which includes employer response action, is only protected if it meets the criteria in Part 3, Division 2 of the Act. Employer response action (such as lock-outs) is governed by s411 of the Act.

s411 states:

Employer response action for a proposed enterprise agreement means industrial action that:

1. is organised or engaged in as a response to industrial action by:
   
   1. a bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement; or
   2. an employee who will be covered by the agreement; and
2. is organised or engaged in by an employer that will be covered by the agreement against one or more employees that will be covered by the agreement; and
3. meets the common requirements set out in Subdivision B.

The action is indeed in response to industrial action by those  classes of people in s411(a)(i) and s411(a)(ii), however it is much broader than that with the potential to affect a much broader class of employees. The breadth of this action may not reasonably be seen to be action only in response to industrial action in 411(a) - if the action is too broad, it could be that the action is unprotected.

The "Common Requirements" referred to in s411(c) are defined in s414 of the Act. These too, may have been contravened by QANTAS.

S414(5) gives the notice requirements for employer response action:

Before an employer engages in employer response action for a proposed enterprise agreement, the employer must:

1. give written notice of the action to each bargaining representative of an employee who will be covered by the agreement; and
2. take all reasonable steps to notify the employees who will be covered by the agreement of the action.

Considering the extremely sudden nature of the lock out, it appears that the notice requirements in s414(5)(i) may not have been met (the AWU has claimed that they had no notice). It  also appears unlikely that the notice requirements in s414(5)(ii) would have been met either. If these notice requirements have not been met then QANTAS' action in grounding its entire fleet, would be unprotected.

Taking unprotected industrial action may make QANTAS liable for fines or civil action. Tests of these sections will undoubtedly require examination by higher courts than FWA, potentially even up to the High Court. Whatever the result, it is likely to change the industrial relations landscape in Australia by significantly curtailing or expanding an employer's ability to take industrial action against its own employees.

The procedural fairness of unfair dismissal

There has been considerable agitation by previous Howard Government Ministers to re-animate the corpse of WorkChoices with calls for the Liberal Party to consider further changes to the industrial relations system.  The current shadow minister for Industrial Relations, Senator Eric Abetz was quick to hose down the potential restoration of WorkChoices, however, he could not help but throw in the usual Liberal Party lines attacking the current Fair Work system. In particular Sen. Abetz alluded to a "burgeoning industry" of "go-away money" to settle unfair dismissal claims.

Unfair dismissal has been a particular focus of the Coalition, often stating that is is a brake on employment, despite evidence to the contrary. It is worthwhile to examine the Fair Work regime of unfair dismissal to see just how 'unfair' unfair dismissal actually is to the employer.

A person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have been employed for the minimum employment period (between six months and one year) and if they are covered by a modern award, enterprise agreement and are under the high-income threshold.

Unfair dismmissal comprises of the following elements:

(a) the person has been dismissed; and

(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and

(c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and

(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

So, in the case of a small business, there is a simple way to avoid any claim, and one would imagine that if a larger business followed the Code and employee would have difficulty proving that the dismissal was unfair, unjust or unreasonable.

The fair dismissal code merely applies the principles of procedural fairness to dismissal situations. The principles of procedural fairness require that a person has a fair hearing, free from bias, a decision based on evidence and an ability for the person affected to respond.

So in the industrial context, a person who is to be dismissed should be dismissed on the basis of evidence and also allow a person who is affected by a decision to know the accusation against them and to respond.

At its most basic, the code requires that an employer makes the employee aware that there is a problem with their performance and give them a chance to respond an rectify the problem. It does not protect an employee who has committed serious misconduct such as theft, fraud or occupational health and safety breaches.

The ability of an employee to have the chance to be informed of and respond to any identified performance problems is consistent with the principles of procedural fairness, so it is not unreasonable to apply this administrative burden on business.

So one must question where this burgeoning industry of "go-away" money is coming from.

Firstly, it is likely that this "industry" is being fed by small businesses not following the code, preferring to summarily dismiss under-performing or disliked employees due to a disconnect between the employers perceptions of serious misconduct and those that are actually proscribed by the law.

Secondly,  it is likely that employers and employees are coming to a settlement outside of the remedies imposed by Fair Work Australia (FWA) rulings because the most frequent remedy for unfair dismissal is that of reinstatement rather than compensation (except where the relationship has soured to such an extent that it is impractical). If this is the case, then the employers themselves are choosing to "pay out" employees (something which they probably could have done before going down the dismissal route). This is not imposed by the Fair Work regime, it is created by employers who have not dismissed employees correctly.

Ultimately it is up to businesses to follow the law, and considering that the law only incorporates the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, it is hardly onerous. Furthermore this only really relates to summary  dismissal, there is nothing that prevents an employer from dismissing an employee so long as the necessary notice is given (or pay in lieu of notice) and entitlements are paid out.

What businesses are really after is the ability to avoid their responsibilities for notice and entitlements as they do not see these as part of the total pay package to which employees are entitled - putting it under the guise of not being able to sack under-performing employees.

The media too, is rife with stories of seemingly outrageous conduct by employees successfully being appealed to Fair Work Australia. However, when one actually looks past the media reporting to the actual facts of the case, it is often the employer who has been unfair, unjust or unreasonable or merely has not provided evidence.

It is not an unreasonable burden on business that they treat their employees fairly, nor is it unreasonable to expect them to follow the law. What is unreasonable is that businesses expect that the law ought to be changed to allow them to sack at will for whatever reason and avoid paying entitlements - all under the guise of 'flexibility'.

Fundamental institutions are cast aside in the pursuit of raw power

"THE presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a foundation of our democracy. There are investigations underway that need to be allowed to take place and resolved, and those resolutions will determine whether Parliament has a role to play in this matter.

It is a very dangerous precedent for Parliament to call a member to explain allegations made against them, before proper process and natural justice have reached their conclusions, as this would blur the line between our parliamentary and judicial systems."

Rob Oakeshott, MP (Ind)

The Craig Thompson scandal that has engulfed parliament this week has once again shown that the Liberals are prepared to do anything, including breaking political convention and undermining our system of justice, to gain power. It has been a raw and grubby affair, particularly since the scandal itself is so salacious.

The quote above from independent MP, Rob Oakeshott highlights the issues that seem to have been forgotten in the Opposition's headlong grab for power; that everyone, regardless of what they are alleged to have done, is entitled to a presumption of innocence and that it is the courts and not the parliament or the media that are the ultimate arbiters of innocence or guilt. However, the opposition is happy to cast aside all those principles in its relentless drive for power.

It is ironic that convention and tradition have been cast aside by the so-called conservatives, now fully re-casting themselves not as a conservative or even liberal party but a radical neo-con machine focused purely on the obtaining and holding of power at whatever cost.

And they say the ALP has lost its values.....

Demands for flexibility hide a failure to adapt

Recently there has been a call from members of the Liberal Party and their supporters to repeal certain parts of Labor's Fair Work Act to enhance what they like to call "flexibility". One of the major points that has been raised is that penalty rates are a major imposition on the labour flexibility of the flagging retail sector.

The retail sector has complained that inflexibility in the Fair Work Act means that they are often unable to open at the times that they desire because penalty rates make it unfeasible.

However, it is obvious that the retail sector, with the encouragement of the Liberal Party's Work Choices champions,  is merely engaging in a campaign to lobby government to allow them to cut wages because if  penalty rates actually were the problem, then the retail sector would make more use of means already at its disposal to alter penalty rates and hours of work.

Section 144 of the Fair Work Act requires that any modern award must contain a flexibility term which allows employers and employees to agree to changing certain terms of employment under the award.

In the General Retail Industry Award 2010 [PDF] (an instrument that is likely to cover a large number of retail employees) the flexibility clause states:

"7.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this award, an employer and an individual employee may agree to vary the application of certain terms of this award to meet the genuine individual needs of the employer and the individual employee. The terms the employer and the individual employee may agree to vary the application of are those concerning:
(a) arrangements for when work is performed;
(b) overtime rates;
(c) penalty rates;
(d) allowances; and
(e) leave loading
..."

As long as the employee is "better off overall" (s7.3(b)), for example by including a higher base rate of pay, an employer can enter into an individual flexibility arrangement with that employee.

So it is untrue that the Fair Work regime is inflexible with regard to penalty rates and, like their complaints about the GST payable on overseas purchases, it appears that the retail industry is once again failing to understand the conditions under which their own industry works.

The retail sector is busily trying to blame everything but its own inability to adapt to a changing environment. It consistently fails to recognise that its main advantage against online shopping is that of the "shopping experience" of which customer service is a major part.

However, the industry's response is that paying their staff less is the best way for the retail sector to regain their lost competitive edge. Undoubtedly, reducing pay will encourage their already low-paid staff to provide customers with the sort of service that stops them running off to online stores.

The industry's simple knee-jerk response to the changes bought about by online retail has been to demand government concessions and extra "flexibility" to cut workers' wages and conditions to fix the retail dilemma. These demands show just how incapable the retail industry is of seeing that its own failure to understand and adapt to the changing market are the real reasons for its problems.

Ignorance powers the climate change debate

The recent furore over Cate Blanchett appearing in an ad [video] supporting climate change has highlighted the strong current of anti-intellectualism that is driving the carbon pricing debate. The opposition has shown itself all too keen to pander to Australia's inherent cultural cringe to brand celebrities, economists, and scientists who support a carbon price as elitist and out of touch. It is interesting to note that it was Blanchett that garnered all of the criticism and not Michael Caton, an actor more associated with "ordinary Australians" through his roles in "The Castle" and "Packed to the Rafters". The reason for this is to play into the narrative that the opposition is trying to build around an "elitism" that is supposedly at the heart of carbon pricing.

This characterisation of the debate as an "us and them" rather than a debate about ideas is a hallmark of the tea-party style politics that have become such a feature of the rhetoric of the right. This dichotomy between "us" the ordinary citizen and "them" the intellectual elitist is the very building block of the astroturfing "movements" that are built up by powerful interests who are happy to stand behind and manipulate these so-called people's movements to further their own corporate interests. The involvement of Koch Industries in undermining climate science and engineering the "debate" both by manipulating the right-wing media and by funding the Tea Party in America is well documented but in Australia we are only just beginning to see the rise of a similar model of politics.

Combined with the new activism of large corporate interests in the mining industry, the rhetoric by the opposition and its News Ltd. cheerleaders is straying dangerously close to that of the Tea Party - building the dynamic of "us and them" that is so characteristic of tea-party politics.

The Government has not helped itself in this regard. Its inability to disassociate itself from the "elitism" narrative, built in some part by the intellectual Kevin Rudd, has fed into the anti-intellectual narrative. This was highlighted almost comically in the debate over the Resource Super Profits Tax (RSPT) on mining. The miners ad depicted an "ordinary" mine-worker talking to "ordinary Australians" about issues to which they could relate. Compare that with the Government's ad set in a lecture theatre, the very epitome of "academic elitism". Feeding this narrative that has carefully been built up by the opposition and its powerful allies effectively devastated the government's reforms.

The opposition effectively builds this anti-intellectual narrative with its simplistic sloganeering and cheap politics. Distilling every argument down to its simplistic "us and them" dichotomy, eschewing debate. It is combined with careful dog-whistling to the extreme right to assure them that whatever policies they do actually put forward are always done with a wink and a nod to the extremes.

This unhelpful narrative undermines the whole public policy process, but then it is the opposition's goal to reduce every debate to sloganeering. The opposition doesn't even try to engage in the policy debate, barely selling their own alternative "direct action" plan as it is their intention to merely frame any debate regardless of its content into an "us vs. them" slanging match. This charactisation of the debate away from actual policy to the "us and them" rhetoric enables the seemingly hypocritical attack on Blanchett for her wealth and elite status while praising the even more wealthy Gina Rinehart. The narrative paints Rinehart as the "down to earth mine worker" and Blanchett as the "elitist intellectual".

The building of the anti-intellectual narrative is what has leads to the more unhinged types resorting to making death threats and engaging in campaigns of bullying against scientists doing their research. Even though those that build the narrative would seek to deny the connection.

The dangerous narrative is of little concern to the activist corporate interests. It is important to them that debates are reduced to dichotomies of "us and them" as it makes it easier for them to mobilise astroturf anti-intellectual movements against those which would seek to limit their power. It enables them to excuse their own hypocrisy, shut down debate and mobilise their astroturf campaigns with their cries of "out of touch elite". Anti-intellectualism is a powerful force which tea party politics has harnessed both here and in the US and it has been ruthlessly exploited by the new right.

"Ignorance is Strength"

The rule of force undermines justice

The mythologising of the recent killing of Osama bin Laden has already begun with the Right (particularly in America) already claiming that the Bush-era policies (unfortunately carried over into the Obama administration) of torture, extra-judicial killings and using the rule of force over that of law have been vindicated. However, the actions by the US to assassinate bin Laden are likely to be more counterproductive to the War on Terror as they undermine the rule of law and give succor to those who would prefer an anarchic international system ruled by force and supported by perpetual conflict. This is precisely the sort of world in which the poisonous ideas of Osama bin Laden and his ilk gain credence and following.

Although there are many valid criticisms that can be leveled at the United Nations (and in particular the archaic United Nations Security Council system), it at least provides the legal framework for the operation of international security. Unfortunately the US-led war on terror has done much to undermine this system - particularly with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It has been argued by critics of the invasion of Afghanistan, that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) never authorised the use of force in Afghanistan. The two instruments that are widely thought to have authorised the use of force are:

1. UNSC Resolution 1368 which firstly re-affirms the right to self-defence in Article 51 of the UN charter and states in clause 3:

"[The UNSC] Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;"

2. UNSC Resolution 1373 imposed a duty of Member States to:

"Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;"

Proponents of the invasion argue that, although the resolutions do not specifically authorise the use of military force, the harbouring of Osama bin Laden by the Taliban constituted an illegal act for which they should be held accountable. Furthermore, the right to self-defence from terrorist act would include bringing to justice the perpetrators of terrorist acts and those who provide material support to those perpetrators. However, while proponents of this argument are happy to apply it to the situation in Afghanistan, they are loathe to apply it universally.

The view that sovereign nations habouring terrorists provides a blank cheque to use military force is also held out as the reason for the ability of US forces to raid the compound in which Osama bin Laden was hiding. This action has even further damaged strained relations between Pakistan and the US which ultimately undermines the ostensible aims of the War on Terror to make the world safer. An unstable Pakistan would be disastrous, which is probably why the US has made little noise about the fact that bin Laden had been hiding in relative plain sight in Pakistan for anything up to ten years.

The problem of the raid is that its aim was not to arrest bin Laden, but to assassinate him. An arrest operation would likely have garnered less criticism - particularly if that arrest had led to a trial, either in the US or preferably before the International Criminal Court (although the US is not a signatory to the ICC). This would have sent the message that there are international crimes for which a person may be arrested and tried, rather than the message that the US can go into any country and assassinate whomsoever it pleases. One could imagine that if other countries pursued the same policies there would be uproar - and an ultimately unworkable and unstable international system.

This is why the rule of law must be applied universally. The trial before a competent court with access to a defense counsel gives authority to the decision to arrest and supports a workable international framework for dealing with international criminals. Although the ICC would be preferable, an American court would have sufficed in this instance and the potential breach of international law (although it could be argued that UNSC Resolution 1368 authorised the action) could be remedied. There has been precedent for this in the past.

The bringing to trial of international war criminals sends a message to people who would commit these types of crimes that they will be arrested and bought before the court as a common criminal, and not assassinated and martyred by a State which holds as little regard for the law as they do.

Freedom from speech

It was Voltaire who said (paraphrased): "I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" in his defence of the importance of freedom of expression. However, he did not go on to say "I'll defend to the death your right to not be criticised when you say something stupid" which appears to be the instant reaction that comes from the right-wing commentariat every time they are subjected any criticism of their views. Often this criticism is framed as somehow interfering with their right to free speech (although they are very happy to dole out criticism of other's views).

In Australia, this attitude was hardened during the Howard years, particularly during the rise of One Nation. Comments criticising the idiotic statements by Hanson were countered by the phrase "political correctness" (see previous blog post). In fact, it was Howard himself that lent credence to this position by commenting that the expression of these views showed that a "pall of political correctness" had been lifted from Australia.

Since then, the right has become emboldened to expect that their commentary will go unchallenged as the mere mention of "political correctness" along with other right-wing favourites such as accusations of "left-wing bias", "chattering classes" and "chardonnay-sipping lefties" can defeat even the most structured and compelling of arguments.

In fact, any criticism at all is construed as the inherent left-wing bias of the media that in some way is out to gag those poor commentators of the right - who, of course, don't get any coverage for their views.

The recent offensive comments by Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby have added a new excuse to the lexicon of right-wing commentary: "the vitriol of twitter". Indeed, according to Jim the offensive comments should have been allowed to pass uncritically as they were just a reflection of his views and those of "older diggers" who had come to not recognise the Australia in which they lived. Wallace accused [video] a small cabal of "twitter activists" who sought to "manipulate the media" of taking his offensive comments out of context. So it appears that "twitter activists" can be added to "chardonnay-sippers, "inner-city latte drinkers" "political correctness" and "chattering classes" as pejorative terms that the right can use to defeat any argument or criticism.

Free-speech is a nebulous thing to the right-wing commentariat. It is something that they should enjoy without criticism or having to defend their comments in any way. It only extends to things they agree with and things that they don't should be censored.

So although we may take Voltaire's words to heart and attempt to defeat stupid comments with reasoned argument (or reasonable criticism), the right (and in particular the Christian right), continue to use pejorative accusations to howl down anything with which they don't agree.

In the end, maybe it is Voltaire's famous prayer that ultimately explains the right's continual making of indefensible, idiotic comments and their outrage at the criticism that follows:

"I always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: "O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!" God granted it."

"Carbon Dioxide is essential to life": the stupidest anti-carbon tax argument

During the recent debates on carbon pricing, the opposition has more closely aligned itself with those that ague that global warming is not man-made. Tony Abbott has even reflected these views in various recent statements, including buying into what is quite possibly the stupidest argument against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the carbon price. Abbott said that carbon dioxide is not a proven "environmental villain", which echoes the comments frequently stated by AGW-denialists that carbon dioxide is somehow not a problem because it is "essential to life".

This is quite possibly the stupidest argument against AGW and carbon pricing - there are plenty of other elements and gases that are "essential to life" that are pollutants and are priced and regulated.

Just to take one of them: sulphur. Sulphur is an important trace element that is required by the body for the manufacture of amino acids. It is also a component of many preservatives (particularly in wine). So it could be said that sulphur is essential to life.

However, like carbon, human activity has greatly changed the natural sulphur cycle which has resulted in the atmospheric concentration of sulphur increasing. This has had serious environmental impacts - the most striking of which is acid rain.

To tackle the problem of acid rain governments have used international treaties and a successful emissions trading scheme - sound familiar?

Saying that because carbon dioxide is "essential to life" it can not also be a pollutant is a completely spurious argument, and if we look at the regulation of another element that is also "essential to life", sulphur, we see a similar model to tackling the problem that we have seen proposed for carbon dioxide.