You can't eat trees.

That line came from the mouth of Nationals Senator Fiona Nash yesterday.

She was arguing for the notion that existing vegetation on farmland should be protected, preferring instead a regime which permits farmers to clear vegetation on their land for crops or grazing.

Carbon sinks appear to me to be a good idea. Individuals and businesses would be able to invest in such carbon sinks to offset their carbon emissions, the more they emit, the more trees planted on their behalf to suck the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.

The Nationals, as evidenced by the comments of Senator Nash and others, don’t like this. They seem to believe that farmers should be allowed to clear their land at whim for cows and sheep and wheat. Barnaby Joyce is travelling today to country New South Wales to visit a farmer who is hunger-striking until such time as he is permitted to clear his land. Food security is, according to Fiona, the most pressing issue facing Australia.

Perhaps, Senator Nash. But part of the reason your farmer constituents find it so difficult to maintain the same levels of food production these days is because it doesn’t rain as much.

It doesn’t rain as much because of el Niño’s increased ferocity and frequency due to global warming.

And a big part of the global warming problem is that we’ve felled far too many trees, compounding the carbon dioxide problem. We’re pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than ever before, while at the same time removing the gas’ most reliable filter.

I grant you Senator, that trees cannot be eaten.

But neither, Senator, can we ‘breathe’ this much carbon dioxide.

Charlie and the Bonnie Planet

I will always be a staunch republican - but Charles' speech to the Copenhagen conference was inspiring, and is testament to the fact that while the notion of a monarchy is morally bankrupt, those who occupy its offices aren't all bad.

Read the full text here.

It is difficult not to have respect for the man's long-standing commitment to the environment, and the world is going to need many more leaders like him if this empassioned plea, and many others, continue to be ignored by delegates to Cop15.

What a load of [CENSORED]

Trekkie Monster of Avenue Q loves the internet. Specifcally internet porn. Pursuing his passion could be a little less straightforward after today’s announcement from Senator Conroy that the federal government will proceed with the establishment of a mandatory internet censorship regime in Australia.

I have no qualm with government agencies taking the fight to the denizens of cyberland, to would-be terrorists and kiddy fiddlers. Fair enough, the planning or incitement of such acts is and should be a crime.

But such a system is simply far too powerful a tool to rest with bureaucrats in fluorescent-lit basements, glued to their monitors, trawling the internet for content that might infringe any one point on a hastily cobbled-together, subjectively-determined register of possible moral, ethical and legal violations. Aside from that, I'm going to leave aside philosophical discussion on free speech, since in the absence of a constitutional guarantee for it, free speech means little in the Australian context.

Additionally, we have to wonder: would such a system be open to abuse? What safeguards against abuse would exist?

I am certainly not suggesting that a pernicious, incumbent government in Australia would be so brazen or so bold to ban the websites of its main political rivals. But what of smaller, fringe parties like, for example, One Nation? The government of the day seemed pretty insistent that the wider public simply stop listening to Pauline. What if in 1996 John Howard had decided that we oughtn’t to listen to red-headed xenophobes with whom, however rightly or wrongly, a significant proportion of the electorate identified. It is a slippery slope.

Already this government has blacklisted a site that displayed a list of the sites it intended to ban… doesn’t sound like a government that tolerates dissent.

What of governments with hardline moral agenda? An Abbott-led Coalition government would not, I imagine, be too keen on gay rights. Indeed many in the Coalition have expressed the view that the issue of homosexuality should not be discussed in the classroom. And while we’re doing that in the classroom, they might argue, then why not ‘protect’ children in the virtual world too?

What of desperate governments? Administrations of both a Labor and Liberal persuasion that have found themselves dependent on the votes of lunatic religious senators have demonstrated themselves capable of playing with all sorts of unanticipated bargaining chips. Might a resurrected Harradine request a ban on Islamic websites?

What about cloudy moral issues? Euthanasia has widespread support in the community, but is illegal. Will campaigners be unable to further their cause on the World Wide Web?

But most importantly of all: the filtering software Conroy intends to employ simply doesn’t work. It’s been found to inadvertently ban certain Wikipedia articles, perfectly legal gambling sites, perfectly legal pornographic material, a substantial swathe of YouTube clips and, most oddly, the site of a Queensland dentist.

Surely it would make more sense to pour the resources from this scheme into tracking down paedophiles and terrorists rather than destroying Queenslanders' hopes for better dentition.

The wowserism’s gone far enough. [CENSORED] off Conroy, and [CENSORED] off, Rudd. As Trekkie Monster would doubtless say the internet is for porn.

And Wikipedia, gambling, YouTube and dentists.

Just when I thought he couldn't get any stupider

This gem comes from Senator Joyce, on AM this morning, on the subject of the likely (in his mind) scenario in which a cash-strapped US government defaults on its loans.

Well I suppose you have to look at what will be the fallout in Australia with a, you know, if that event was to occur. I mean why are they having a conference in Copenhagen on the contingencies of climate change yet there are other issues that are around such as, in the economic paradigm,* which are probably just as concerning which we're not really engaged in.

Dumbass.

That paragraph makes no sense. Pauline Hanson made more sense. Even Wilson Tuckey usually makes more sense.

But I’ll give Joycey the benefit of the doubt. I think what he’s trying to question is the need for nations to conference on the issue of climate change when there are pressing economic issues we should be addressing, but aren’t.

Why Copenhagen Barnaby? Because everybody but you, Minchin, a few crackpot Republicans, and those who believe in Super Jesus, thinks that preserving economic growth while the planet burns, isn’t a noble goal. They believe, and rightly so, that the health of our planet is fundamental to our existence, let alone our economic welfare. Having a wallet full of cash is not "just as concerning" to sane people as say, having food to eat. Or polar icecaps.

Regardless, Barnaby: if you picked up a newspaper once in a while, you’d’ve noticed that world leaders have spent considerable time this year and last discussing and dealing with issues in economics, finance and trade . And they will continue to do so. (Interestingly enough only you and the same crackpot Republicans are the only people entertaining the notion of a US loan default, by the way.)

You’re a shadow minister now Barnaby. You’re playing with the big boys now. And while you and your staffers might not be intelligent enough to grasp the concept of multitasking, governments are.



* Am I the only one who thinks he put the word paradigm in here to sound intelligent? It's so totally out of context here. Honestly, Fielding has better luck with big words.

Hire Monkeys, Get Bananas.

Unlike the media and whosoever happens to be in Opposition at the time, I don’t believe in the idea that there is an implicit social contract between the Government, the RBA and banks on the one hand, and those with mortgages to repay on the other, to keep rates low.

There are people (self-funded retirees, for example) in the economy whose lives and livelihoods depend on good economic management and, sometimes, good economic management means having higher interest rates. Hopefully, those who take out home loans are aware of the concept of the market, and are aware that their interest rates will not remain stagnant forever. If they’re not, they shouldn’t have loans. (I do have a few centre-right opinions!)

That said, I understand that changes in interest rates can result in big (though hopefully manageable) changes to the budget of an individual or family and consequently the issue should be treated with sensitivity and care.

Which is why this video, sent via email to Westpac customers, is so surprising.



I get Westpac’s point. I sympathise with them. And I understand their frustration at being the scapegoat for public and governmental vitriol every time interest rates rise.

But seriously, which bright spark in PR department thought a banana smoothie stand was a good analogy? The use of bananas cheapens their argument, and makes a mockery of any claim the bank might lay to being an understanding and caring institution.

The saying used to be “pay peanuts, get monkeys.” It seems that for the Western Pacific Banking Corporation, it should be “Hire monkeys, get bananas.”

Commies and Nazis

New Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott has likened the Copenhagen Conference to the Munich Agreement negotiated in the prelude to World War Two. Just in case you don’t remember that Agreement was marked, of course, by “weak leaders caving in to Adolf Hitler.” (Abbott’s words and interpretation)

According to this analogy (and clearly in Liberals’ minds) climate change activists are clandestine Nazis. I’m glad he’s cleared that up for me: when Copenhagen was but a twinkle in Ban Ki Moon’s eye I was already riven with angst; nervous that Hu, Obama and Merkel might cede their industrial Sudetenlands for rape and pillage by eco-Nazis, while polluting capitalists were herded together for ‘re-education’ in special camps. It’s good to see someone keeping on eye on things.

But wait a minute…

Two weeks ago, didn’t Abbott’s trusty lieutenant (puppeteer?) Senator Nick Minchin explicate that the global warming ‘myth’ was the invention of left wing radicals opining for the good ol’ days of the Soviet Union? Copenhagen, Kyoto, et. al. were patently, he told us, nought more than vehicles through which pinkos could and would further their insidious, internationalist goal of “de-industrialising the western world.”

I believed Senator Minchin, Tony, and now I want to believe you. But I’m obviously a bit confused, and I need some help to answer a few questions about global warming’s foes:

Is Obama actually a fascist? Where one might expect Hu Jintao to keep a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book is there actually a copy of Mein Kampf?

Or are the free-market champions like Merkel and Sarkozy actually minions of a resurgent, red preponderance to the east, led by a Medvedev who hums bars from Trotsky’s Lament sub rosa? Is Queen Elizabeth II going to head their New World Order?

And since you are a staunch Catholic Mr Abbott, I thought you might be able to ask Cardinal Pell for me: Benedict XVI, Commy or Nazi?

A Government-in-Exile

Has anyone else noticed something odd about the new Opposition frontbench?

At a time when the need for renewal within the Liberal Party is almost universally proclaimed, Abbott has chosen to reinstate the frontbench positions of three Howard era Ministers: Bronwyn ‘bathe me in kerosene’ Bishop, Kevin ‘deport me without cause’ Andrews and Philip ‘they threw children overboard’ Ruddock.

Rather than constructing an effective opposition, it seems Abbott has decided to set up a “government-in-exile” that has a collective amnesia for the period on and around 24 November 2007.

Odd: but certainly proof of the adage that “everything old is new again.”

And is anyone else concerned that the exceedingly important shadow Health portfolio is vested in a man who still doesn’t appear to have a seat come the next election?

It's really scary what you hear on the radio.

I heard an interesting quote this morning from a man the ABC described as a ‘leading’ climate change sceptic.

“…voters will not tolerate the largest tax increase in the history of humankind in the name of saving a planet which was successfully saved two thousand years ago and does not need to be saved again.”

Presumably, that was a reference to the Christian Messiah.

So those on the left are accused of religious zealotry in their opposition to continued carbon pollution, while those on the nutty right are permitted to use fairytales to justify their cause.

But I will play their game, for a minute, and attempt to apply cosmic logic to the creation and workings of the Judeo-Christian Almighty. I reckon that when She created Venus, gave it a 96.5% carbon dioxide atmosphere, allowed its atmosphere to reach temperatures of more than 400 degrees, and placed it closer to Earth than any other planet, that She was actually leaving us with a giant, cosmic warning buoy. And you know if I pray hard enough, I can hear Her echo across the sky every time I watch our fiery yellow sister traversing the sky… “Emulate this planet at your peril.”

But out of fairytale land, and back to reality. The man I originally quoted is a delegate to the Copenhagen Conference. And if there are other people like him there, hindering progress on a global agreement on climate change we will, in fact, need Super Jesus.

Thanks, Helen.

There aren’t too many Liberals for whom I have affection. But Helen Coonan is one of them. She has just announced her resignation from the Shadow Ministry. Barnaby is her likely replacement. Shame. Senator Coonan was a moderate, a Republican, and a woman of conviction. As the only woman to have occupied a treasury portfolio, she was an unheralded trailblazer; her success despite her sex under misogynistic Mr Howard a testament to her talent.

Her major fault: her bottle blonde hair.

Good luck in your future endeavours, Senator Coonan.

As for her likely successor in the finance portfolio… I watched Barnaby Joyce on Insiders on Sunday. I have been firm in my conviction for some time now that the man is a crackpot. Now, I think he is a stupid crackpot. What Barnaby says, if you listen closely enough, makes no sense.

I don’t just mean from a policy perspective: after listening to a good ten minutes of ranting and raving, I realised that I could only discern meaning in about 10% of what he said. His sentences often make no sense. Some appear to make sense but then, in a heartbeat, the entire focus of the sentence (let alone the tense, subject and object) changes. He never finishes thoughts, and speaks in clichés.

And if being a minister means that he will be “concentrating on the file in front of him” as he claims he will now do, one wonders what he’s been doing until now...

NSW: The Soap Opera State.

I do not claim to know much about New South Wales’ politics. But I know I have at least two readers there. This one’s for you, kids.

You might be forgiven for thinking that after watching the implosion of the Liberal Party earlier in the week, and seeing the scorn heaped upon them by media and public alike, that NSW Labor might have recognised the importance of party unity.

Apparently not.

Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid (characters of whose existence I am only aware due to their recent sacking as ministers, and their association with every leadership tussle in NSW politics from Rees’ elevation onwards) seem intent on ditching the Premier, and installing a more amenable, acquiescent leader.

Tripodi and Obeid are treacherous fellows, doubtless motivated at least in part by a desire for revenge after their recent dismissal. But the fifteen others they’ve managed to cajole into supporting their spill are, news reports suggest, motivated by a desire to stem the sustained haemorrhaging of electoral support for the government.

After the disaster that was the Iemma premiership, Labor was never going to win the next election. But the magnitude of the now inevitable loss is exacerbated by the petty, internecine struggles that now characterise NSW Labor. It has forgotten about the business of government and forgotten about the people of New South Wales. Rees, on the other hand, seems genuinely distressed by the current plight of his state.

The malcontents don’t need a leadership spill to find the solution to their problem, they need a mirror.

Curiouser and Curiouser

There is much to be said about the election of Tony Abbott to the leadership of the Liberal Party. But for now I just want everyone to think about this:

The rabble that is the Liberal Party now finds itself in the curious position of offering the Australian people the “best solution” to a problem which its leader doesn’t actually believe exists.

If you understand how this is an improvement in policy (and remember it was policy, not leadership, that supposedly brought this tussle on) let me know. And while you’re at it, you might want to flick off an email to Liberal HQ, too.

Abbott/Bishop Combination: Liberals show their true colours.

Liberals Launch Campaign

Fake Feelding. I mean, Fielding.

For those of you who, like me, are not so enamoured of Senator Fielding, check out this out.

It's gold!

Dear Senator Minchin

Dear Senator Minchin,

I was listening to you on the radio this morning, and I heard you remark that the ETS "can wait." Having the establishing legislation passed by the Senate before the Copenhagen conference was unnecessary, you argued. You claim it was forefront on the ALP’s legislative agenda for no other demonstrable reason than the inflation of the Prime Minister’s already considerable ego, permitting him to strut the world stage with confidence and aplomb.

You, your colleagues, and especially Barnaby have oft repeated these or similar sentiments throughout this ETS saga. You are wrong. And even if you’re right, that’s not a bad thing.

Firstly, consider this. We Australians, 22 million of us, comprise approximately 0.3% of the 7 billion strong swathe of human beings. Yet our carbon footprint is considerably more substantial: 1.3% of global emissions originate in the antipodes. All sources put us in the top 5 of per capita emitters. To put that in perspective, we emit roughly the same amount of CO2 has Britain and France: nations with three times our population.

Giving the Australian delegation to Copenhagen a shiny new ETS to show off is not a hollow gesture. It is an important demonstration that we, as one of world’s worst per capita emitters, are committed to combating rising levels of carbon dioxide.

Waiting to see what “everybody else does,” a strategy you have recommended is a deeply flawed plan. Why try and hatch a scheme whereby our economic interests are protected, simply to watch the planet burn around us? The only jobs you’re really protecting are those in the air-conditioning industry.

Furthermore, you seem to view these negotiations as some bizarre global poker game. But in this game Nick, we cannot wait to see who is bluffing, who has a bad hand and who has a good one. World leaders cannot sit around a table staring each other in the eye waiting for someone else to blink. We have to lay our cards down on the table for all to see. Otherwise nothing will ever get done.

Which brings me to my next point. If Rudd wants to strut across the world stage, proudly showing off the ETS, then I commend that. The world has been sluggish, at best, in coordinating and formulating a response to global warming. We need leaders who will inspire others to act. And the thought that that leader might be an Aussie, be they Labor, Liberal or Green, makes me proud.

Oh, I forgot. You don’t even believe in climate change, do you? So why insult Rudd? Be a man Nick, and be honest about the motivations for your opposition.

History repeating before history's been written.

Joe Hockey would probably make a decent Opposition Leader/Prime Minister. He is a convivial, likeable man. His passion for touch rugby over Dietrich Bonhoeffer makes him a far more palatable dinner guest than our current PM.

But reports that a move is underfoot to have him as the ‘unifying,’ ‘compromise’ candidate in a Liberal leadership spill likely at some point over the next few days are nothing short of bizarre.

Those who think that this debacle is the manifestation of tensions about an emissions trading scheme or leadership styles are wrong. This is a debate about the future ideological direction of the Liberal party. Will it be the classically liberal; will it be progressive? Or will the forces of neo-conservatism win out?

My money is on the latter. Which is why Joe Hockey would be such a bizarre choice. Hockey is classically Liberal. Hockey is further to the left than Malcolm on many issues. Hockey’s immediate predecessor in the seat of North Sydney was a maverick, left-ish independent – Hockey only managed to wrestle the seat back for the Liberals upon his retirement.

So, assuming Hockey runs for – and wins – the leadership, won’t the Liberals be in the same position they were in before? The result would be either (1) a party of conservative malcontents lining up behind a proper liberal leader, or (2) a leader betraying his principles and ideological beliefs so that he has a better shot at the premiership. Either result would be a disservice to the Australian people and to the detriment of Australian political discourse. History appears to be repeating itself before the tragic history of Turnbull's betrayal has been written. How odd.

I should not grumble too much. This cloud of a leadership spill does indeed have a silver lining: Julie Bishop’s going to get the boot.

Malcolm: in the Middle?

I have always had a profound respect for Malcolm Turnbull. I have always assumed that it arose out of my passionate republicanism, and my gratitude for the enormous amount of time, money, and effort he poured into the cause. But today’s events, and the resignations of Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin, et. al. have forced me to reconsider just why Malcolm holds that special place in my heart and mind.

The results of my soul search were surprising.

Menzies cobbled together the Liberal Party of Australia in the aftermath of World War Two, consolidating a broad coalition of conservative political interests into a single entity. The legacy, as John Howard was so fond of reminding us, is a “broad church” of a political party that counts among its members Thatcher-idolising neocons at one end of its internal spectrum and refugee-embracing, tree-hugging, small-l liberals at the other.

I have always admired the latter group of Liberals: I even vote under the line on my Senate ballot in the vain hope that by placing Nick Minchin ahead of only Family First and One Nation, I can make my own contribution to the small-l liberalisation of the Libs. Turnbull is small-l: someone prepared to stand up for the environment, for gay rights, for an Australian republic.

And then tonight, listening to his inspiring, passionate defence of the need for an emissions trading scheme, it dawned on me. Turnbull is probably my ‘second preference’. Turnbull, certainly more than Kevin Rudd, represents where I lie on the political spectrum – at least when it comes to the issues about which I care.

I vote Green. Bob Brown is my hero. I hug trees. I do not see anything in my life or circumstances that is likely to alter that in the near future. But due to the injustices of the non-proportionally representative Australian lower house, I cannot send who I want to Canberra, so I am forced to choose a second favourite. In the elections in which I have participated so far, that’s always been Labor (even when I was a member of the ALP, I preferenced the Democrats first!) since, as a party, it is more closely aligned with my beliefs. But in a hypothetical electorate where the candidates were Brown, Rudd and Turnbull: Rudd would be #3.

Resurgent social conservatism is a major threat to the Australian polity. Catholics and Evangelical Christians in the Liberal Party are arguing against abortion again. Tony Abbott has suggested the reintroduction of fault-based divorce. In SA, Family First holds two seats in the Legislative Council, and they have used that platform to argue, among other things, that a homosexual partnership is akin to a man marrying his dog.

Breakaway from the Liberal Party, Malcolm. Set up the "middle" party the Democrats should have been: a socially liberal, otherwise conservative, political party. Fuck the “broad church” of the Liberal Party, because it has fucked you, deceived you, and betrayed you and will now betray your principles.

Wait. Perhaps I lied. There are circumstances under which I might alter my Green vote. Do what I’ve said and I’ll move to Wentworth to vote for you.

Kevin 11. Almost.

Malcolm Turnbull triumphant, is the Liberal spin on today’s events. He was re-anointed, we are told, by a ‘convincing’ margin. The 48-35 victory over Kevin Andrews has the ostensible appearance of being ‘convincing’ – it is after all three times larger than the margin by which Turnbull defeated Brendan Nelson in the last spill. But closer investigation undermines the very fabric of the Liberals’ credibility as an alternative government.

Andrews’ fame and career, as I see it, is marked by three key events: the private member’s bill that overrode the Northern Territory’s voluntary euthanasia laws; WorkChoices; and his role in cancelling the visa of Mohamed Haneef. The last two issues were, to be blunt, poison for the Coalition in the lead up to and during the 2007 federal election. Therefore, it is unlikely Andrews could ever have been considered (even by Nick Minchin) as a credible, viable Leader of the Opposition. But with Hockey, Abbott and Robb all sitting this stoush out, Andrews was the only alternative proffered.

Yet fully aware of the fact that there was only one other candidate for the leadership and, presumably, cognizant of the electoral risk that the said candidate posed, only 48 out of 83 electors preferred Turnbull. In other words, 35 members would have preferred a leader that would have led them to electoral suicide over the continuance of Turnbull’s leadership. Furthermore, those 35 believed a failed minister, responsible for policies that failed the Coalition at the last election, would be a better Prime Minister than a man who, for all his failings, has demonstrated a sincere love and affection for the Australian polity. Those same 35 thought an ideological popularity contest to be more important than the survival of their own party at the ballot box.

We must question what aspects of the nation’s welfare, in the minds of those 35 men and women, could be justifiably sacrificed in the name of their ideological struggles and follies?

Suddenly Turnbull’s majority just does not appear so convincing.

What Mike Rann does with his pinkbits.

Anyone who knows me well enough knows that I am easily irked.

But in all honesty, the currently fiasco involving our media-savvy Premier really is simply too much, and has raised my ire to the point that I must do that which I swore I never would. I shall blog.

For those of you unfamiliar with recent developments in South Australia's political scene, here is a brief summary. Premier is beaten with a magazine by the estranged husband of a woman who once worked at Parliament House. Everyone wonders why. Woman goes on television and claims to have had a love affair with Mike. Mike denies it.

If we believe Mike then certainly there has been no wrong. "Premier befriends waitress and develops a flirtatious relationship" is the headline, reminding me of Edina Monsoon's imagined scandal "Woman caught showing ankle to chimney sweep shock". So if this IS the case, why the fuss? This is not Saudi Arabia. This is not Iran. Men and women are free to interact. Men and women may, within the bounds of legality, morality and good taste, flirt. Ergo, no case to answer.

If we believe Ms Chantelois (am I the only person who thinks her name sounds like that of a brothel madam?) they had a sexual relationship which, for the purposes of my argument has two marked characteristics: (1) passions which often manifested themselves within the walls of our great, grey Parliament, and (2) it occurred after the estrangement from (or at the very least great tension with) her husband.

I find Rann's version of events more believable. The likelihood of someone being able (or intelligent enough) to conduct a torrid love affair in Parliament is so minute. The likelihood of Rann doing so mere metres away from a horde of Liberals is even more so (and surely being that close to a Liberal would most feeling "limp"). But EVEN IF (and it's a very big "even if") the Chant was verily sinned against on North Terrace, "coitus parliamentarius" might be in poor taste, but it's hardly a crime against the state or against democracy.

Furthermore (and again this is an "even if"), this was a woman who was estranged from her husband. Given that man's recent behaviour and demonstration of ill-temper, it's hard to imagine that man being anything but estranged from any woman. Rann was single. So a single man had sex with a woman in (at best) a dysfunctional marriage. What a horrendous crime! Woe! Alack! Come on, people: even Benedict XVI would probably just give them both a few Hail Marys to say and sent them on their way!

I cannot, for the life of me, ascertain the nature of the objectionable behaviour here.

Thus I can come to only one conclusion. South Australia must have become such a bastion of social conservatism that the public and media now demand that any person occupying high public office must remain celibate during their tenure unless they are married. And fucking in a bed.

I can feel the ground tremble as Don Dunstan turns in his grave.