MrGareth’s Missives

“We do not have time for this kind of silliness, we’ve got better stuff to do.  I’ve got better stuff to do. We’ve got big problems to solve, and I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them, not on this...[sideshows and carnival barkers].” Barack Obama

It's a kooky coincidence that the same week as the most powerful man in the world spat the dummy about media trivialisation of politics, the former Australian Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner, launched his book about media trivialisation of politics, called "Sideshow".  Now you can assume this was not co-ordinated.  They may agree, but they don't really operate in the same circles.

And I agree also.  Although he doesn't seem to have refererred  to it in what I've heard, the "silliness" around Obama's birth certificate couldn't have been more timely for Mr Tanner in supporting his point that policy has been subjugated in favour of theatrics.

The infuriating thing about the situation we have reached that both men point out is that, particularly in Donald Trump's case, the media is not doing it's job in putting the microscope on policy proposal and are instead eating up Trump's "sideshow" with a spoon.  I mean, let's face it, Trump is mad!  He wants to tax Chinese imports by 25%!  Has he any idea how dangerous that is?  And yet the media lapped up his hair-brained conspiracy theory instead of taking him down on the issues. Meanwhile Obama is quizzed ad nauseum on his already well-researched origins instead of engaged directly on policy debate.  It's a farce.

Tanner's book makes many useful points it seems from the couple of interviews I've seen him do this week.  His point was usefully underlined by a sad return of the hair scrutiny Gillard is being subjected to, recently beaten up for her hair while she toured the sites of the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear-meltdown.  How much more trivial can you get?

While lamenting the media for their shallow nature is nothing new, it seems there's always been a fairly strict convention in the States that no one mention it.  It seems quite unprecedented that the President himself should take them to task on it, complaining as he does that he could never get media "cut-through"on policy but when he makes a statement about the birth certificate issue, they are on him like a shot:

Of course naturally, it's not really the media that is to blame, directly.  Just as parties complain that the media don't talk about the policies and help people understand the issues at stake, so companies complain that the media has no interest in products but only in sensationalising and gossip.  The media respond that people, the people, aren't really interested in that stuff.  Frankly, they are right.  Sadly we can all complain as much as we like, but until we start demonstrating that we want more depth in our media reporting of political issues, they are only going to keep serving up what we ask for. 

A further caveat I think though is this, how is Lindsay Tanner hoping to promote his book?  How is President Obama hoping to get re-elected?  Media campaigns.  It's catch-22. Furthermore, it is worth noting that in every Tanner interview I saw, when asked about his time as a Government Minister, he declined to comment quite steadfastly. While the issues his book raises are very interesting, I wanted him to talk about his role in the overthrow of the last Prime Minister and in the scraping of the emissions-trading scheme - which right now are two of the biggest issues we face.  So he was taking from the media, but not giving back.

So it seems important to remember that if media is truly a mirror to society, 'perhaps then if you're looking into it you can't really complain about what it reflects back to you.

<Nasel twang> "Now I like a punt as much as the next bloke, but..." 

In reality I'm pretty indifferent to gambling.  I do like a punt on the Melbourne Cup once a year, just as I used to on the Grand National in the UK, but I'm not much good at it.  While I've picked the winner more times than not, I've often bet on so many other horses through indecision that I rarely come out on top.  But its not really about the money, I like to join in with "the race that stops the nation" and I like the sport.  I've also got a lot of time for a game of Two-up on ANZAC day for precisely the same reasons.  I'm not very good at it and so I've never been adicted to it. 

So when it comes to Pokies - those foul, noisy and ugly machines that spoil most pubs in Australia - I really don't understand the attraction.  It's a bad look and a very private experience - so there's no aspect of joining in, but more importantly, there's no sport.  They are mathematically programmed to win 8 or 9 times out of ten.  Where's the sport there?

I found this comment quite stark from a detailed examination of the mathematics of pokies:

"On of the most important points to note is that there are no pokies with a pay back set to over 100%. This means that the longer you play the more you are likely to lose. There is no way to consistently win on the pokies."

So, I don't understand it, and to be honest I don't understand the mathematical equation on which they operate either, being almost completely inumerate!  So perhaps I shouldn't get on my soapbox about something I understand so little about?  But what I do get is that a lot of organisations - pubs and clubs - make a huge amount of money out of sending some people bankrupt and destroying their families.  That so much of Australian society is organised around this principle - exploitation of the stupid, the desperate and the weak-willed - is something I find quite abhorent and distasteful about life down-under. 

Here's some stark facts: In 2008 Australians lost $12 billion dollars on the pokies - 40% of which lost by those with a gambling problem, i.e. they couldn't afford to lose that money.  Furthermore, it is horrifying to note that Australia - a population of 20 million, has more than five times the number of machines as in the United States, a nation with a population of over 300 million!  One quarter of ALL the world's poker machines are in New South Wales.

So even though I've only a limited amount of time for Andrew Wilkie, whom I find to be more than just a little self-righteous and sanctimonious, I do applaud his bill to impose a license-system on those using the pokies.  Having to set your own limit is really rule one for the sensible gambler and if people can't figure out on the fly when it is time to stop than I'm all for helping them to do it.  Problem gambling is a horribly sad state of affairs and that a family member might make the rest of their family homeless by a simple inability to get across the maths and know when to say "that's enough", then perhaps society should step in to assist - ESPECIALLY when the rest of society is benefiting so very well from their addiction! 

Society is taking a role in helping to reduce the amount people smoke and drink and through another license system, ensures that when driving, people are responsible and sober.  I see no difference.  (I just wish I think that this crusade - if successful - be attributed to Nick Xenophon, the independent Senator, who's been waging this campaign far longer and far more sensibly and without narcicism.)

In all honesty I'd like to see Pokies banned.

I do like Malcolm Farr's comments on Insiders this week, "When someone says something is 'Un-Australian', that's a clear sign they've run out of coherent argument." How can a country so obsessed with mateship, think it is Australian to fund whole aspects of society from the misery and degradation of a vulnerable few?

It's not unusual to be disapointed with political debate in Australia, but this week past - the first week of real combat in 2011 - has been especially poor in terms of political discourse.  Just as a levy breaking triggers the influx of flood waters; so this levy tax debate has triggered a flood of political idiocy.

First, I really dont see why people are so upset with a levy at all.  Ás is often the case, Australians turned charity in the wake of the floods disaster into an Olympic sport at which they could claim dominance.  The generosity was immediate, unqualified and copious.  The total as of the time of writing is $201 million, which is pretty impressive by any standards for a country of only 20 million = $10 for every man, woman and child.

So, you would imagine it wouldn't create that much of a fuss, would be in fact a slam-dunk, if the government wanted to make a levy to raise funds to assist in the reconstruction.  $200 Million will certainly help with the compensation of individuals as they rebuild their own lives, but the roads (see picture), the ports and the electricity infrastructure completely wrecked in South East Queensland - not to mention now the Yasi disaster zone - will cost a lot more than that to repair.  The total bill is expected to be a staggering $5.6 billion!

The Levy was pitched at a modest level (merely a fifth of the total bill) and is means-tested - for most the equivalent of two coffees a week for a year.  To me this addresses a couple of realities: that the huge generosity of Australians will naturally wane after the TV pictures recede with the water levels; and that while some give generously, some simply don't.  So the Levy institutionalises that generosity for a year to make sure that the state of Queensland is fully rebuilt, but also equalises and makes the national donation fair.  All pay according to their means, the miserly as well as the generous; and the rich pay their fair share proportionate to those less well off.

Not only have many whinged and complained; the political "elite" have seized on the opportunity to make political capital - and have done it very, very badly.  First, there is Premier Kristina Keneally, attempting to appeal to New South Wales voters (weeks before her impending electoral doom) by trying to make out that New South Wales voters are worse off than the rest of the country and should be excluded from the full weight of the levy.  If it wasn't such a blatant attempt to endear herself to her electorate as the ballet axe begins to fall, I would give the substance of what she said some thought - but it is, so I won't.

Then cue the master of political insensitivity, Tony Abbott, who sees in the levy another opportunity to opportunistically replay his dual broken records of "great big tax" and "school buildings rort" by opposing the levy vehemently; and rather than uniting in some kind of bi-partisanship-in-the-face-of-national-disaster...has gone for the jugular.  In fact, in doing so he lost sight of the great suffering at the heart of the debate by sending out a letter asking - instead of donations to flood victims - for donations to the Liberal party in order to fight the levy!

Personally speaking, I gave to the fund but recognise that there's going to be a lot more needed when all the television camera crews have long since flown out of Far North Queensland and people are left to rebuild their lives.  So I am happy to pay a dollar a day for a year to rebuild Queensland.  Not only mining, but agriculture and tourism all bringing in a mint for the Australian economy.  This is important stuff.

One piece of sensible commentary I do want to applaud is that of Tony Windsor, the Independent consistently the making the most sense in Canberra.  Lets have a permanent disaster relief fund next time.  Every one of the ten years I've been in Australia there has been some terrible disaster.  Some worse than others but be it bushfire, flood or storm - this is a continent ever beset by a cataclysm of one sort and we should always be prepared. 

So lets go through this debate again please; its very, very, very unseamly.

I'm not going to read this book.  I'm not even going to flick through the pages in a bookshop.  But I must say I'm enjoying the apparent open season on John Howard the publishing of his memoirs has prompted.  So much so that as a passionate Howard-hater, I thought I'd add my own voice to the chorus of derision and criticism deservedly heading his way.

Among a bag of other enjoyable barbs, Jeff Kennett concluded that John Howard had no legacy. I disagree slightly - the only legacy he has in my opinion is his longevity - the second longest serving Prime Minister in Australian History in fact.  This is no doubt because that is all John Howard put his mind to: his longevity.  The John Howard Prime Ministership was focussed on one outcome alone - the preservation and survival of the John Howard Prime Ministership.  I feel that this book is very similar, designed to contribute nothing to the national record but for the preservation of his legacy.  (Somewhat in vain given the lack there-of.)

How can I say all this without reading it?  Well, John Brown's words on "Party Liners" on @702Sydney this morning helped me to that conclusion.  He does not, apparently, address in the book any of the following:

- His refusal to say sorry to the aboriginal population when political consensus was agreed that it was time

- His complicity in the invasion of Iraq based on a fallacy that there were WMD when there weren't - despite the warnings of the now Independent Senator and then ASIO analyst Andrew Wilkie, whom he derided and victimised

- His complicity in the unforgiveable Children Over Board scandal

These three crimes are his legacy if there's anything, and to gloss over them is frankly irresponsible for one attempting historical documentation. This goes somewhat to Kennet's further - and amusing - accusation that he has a Christlike image of his own infallability.  Naturally, his view of history sees himself only as a virtuous and unmalignable national hero; those events that conflict with that are seen through/over/passed.  This smacks of outrageous hubris.

Moving to the great Costello debate, I tire of this ordinarily as I dislike Costello as much as Howard and in fact find his self-serving, arrogant whines even more grating than Howard's.  However, in this case even Costello has joined the fray to set the record straight.  Howard maintains that he welched on the leadership deal between them based on Costello's behaviour around its publication in July 2006.  Doesn't this smack of childish petulence?

As to leadership he always stuck to the convenient line that he would stay as long as his party wanted him to.  Yet summary of his decision to fight the 2007 election, and the failure of those around him to persuade him to resign, is that his wife and children persuaded him to fight so he didn't look as if he was running from a fight with Rudd.  His own family overuled his party?  Doesn't this inconsistency smack of a woeful lack of integrity?

In fact, given my premise above, that his only interest was his own political survival and that of the party was irrelevant, it is actually no surprise that he welched on both commitments to a. pass the leadership batton to Costello and b. resign when his party clearly no longer wanted him.  How his party fared in the 2007 election was unimportant to him if he was not there to lead it.

(Its worth reading both Leo Shanahan's article on Punch about this, as well as Phillip Coorey's in the Herald.)

Further thoughts from Kennett about how he squandered an historical economic boom by indulging only in debt-management, middle-class welfare expansion and international aggrandisement are valid also I feel.  A complete lack of investment in infrastructure was pure irresponsibilty; and his shameless sychophancy towards George Bush position Australia as Infidel-puppy in the minds of much of the muslim world when it needn't be. 

All I'd say is that from what I understand, his battle over firearms early on in his tenure is about the only thing that doesn't look like self-serving machinations and is instead genuine national leadership.  But his disgraceful and calculated behaviour over the Tampa alone is enough to completely invalidate this as a virtue.  I think Mr Kennett sums up Mr Howard's psychological short-comings rather well so I feel I should leave the last word with him:

"John must believe that he had all the answers, and that he was almost infallible.  He joins only one other individual on earth's surface over history that can claim that credit, the rest of us are mere mortals and we do our best."

Dear Bob, Rob and Tony too...

As you chaps enter your final days of consideration as to which government you'd like to give your blessing to, I thought I'd do you the favour of trying to sum up your dilemma because I'm sure its been a very confusing fortnight for you all.

1.  You've put at the top of your list "stable and competent government".  Well, consider the following: 

• with the Greens locked-in in a formal "a-green-ment", not only does that give the  ALP a 73rd seat in the House of Reps, but from July it also gives them complete   control of the Senate.

•   with Wilkie locked in also, that gives them a 74th seat meaning that with all three of your votes included, that would give the ALP a spare seat at 77.

• (at first I thought this was a week point but now...) The ALP have a three line whip and can be depended on to keep party voting discipline much better than the Coalition, who don't.

• with Tony Crook, the Coalition have a loose canon.  A National who unseated a Liberal in the seat of O'Connor, he has said he won't necessarily vote with the Coalition and while he does agree on some topics, he can't be fully counted on to vote along party lines.  He's a renegade.

2. You said that you want to work with a party you can trust.  Well consider the very first request you made: that election promises be submitted to Treasury for costing.  What was the Coalition's first reaction? "No." Then when they did finally submit them, hey presto: a $7-11 billion black hole!  When quizzed about it, both Rob and Hockey put it down merely to a "difference of opinion".  So: non-cooperative, incompetent, lacking integrity and arrogant too - is this who you want to be working with? (Lara Tingle in the AFR said this alone made them unfit to govern.)

Then consider the Coalition's negotiation with Wilkie.  He mentioned that a priority of his was a new hospital for Hobart.  Bang! $1 billion suddenly appears on the table - from where?  With their election promises already out by $7-11 billion, does this extra billion taken that to 8-12? Furthermore, when asked by Tony Jones on Lateline if that billion remained on the table for Hobart if the Coalition did make government, Andrew Rob said it would.  The following day his colleague Joe Hockey said it would not and that Wilkie had "cost Hobart a hospital" by going with Labor.  That is either deliberately duplicitous, or Rob and Hockey can't communicate.  Competant? Trustworthy?

3. On policy, you've said that you want to bring the bush to the national agenda.  Let me list the key acronyms we need to think about in the bush: NBN, RSPT, ETS.  Who can deliver those and who can't?  Broadband for the bush, environmental protection and infrastructure spending.   Even another acronym: BER.  While poorly delivered admittedly, this was a government investing in schools.  With super clinics, they are investing in health too.  What are the Coalition planning? Cuts.  Afteral what is government money for? Sitting on?  Or spending?

4. We should also think about what the people wanted.  Preferred Prime Minister? Gillard.  If the Liberal/National Coalition is actually right, and the Labor/Green alliance is a new "coalition", then in both primary AND two-party preferred, the Labor/Green Coalition is by far and away the people's choice for government and Julia Gillard their choice for PM.  So it could be construed as your duty to put them into government.

Also - remember all three of you actually left the National Party for a reason!  Are you sure you want to join up again, because that's in effect what you'd be doing by backing an Abbott Government - resuming your metaphical seats on the National Party backbenches.

This second election, with an electorate of just the three of you, has been fascinating.  It's been far more interesting than the phony five week farce we sat through prior to the poll.  It's focussed on what the issues actually are, rather than idiocy like stopping the boats.  It's focussing on health, it's focussed on pokies, it's focussed on the economy.  I think we are all agreed that Gillard fully lost the phony election, but Abbott has easily lost the real election.

Finally, perhaps this advice I saw on a church notice board I passed in Rozelle: "vote for the one with the smallest gap between what they say and what they do."  I think that should help you frame your decision. 

 I eagerly await your verdict, best of luck! 

P.S. Try and stick together too! Mr Katter, if you back Abbott and the other two put Gillard into Government, then Kennedy will get nada from a Gillard Government!

With 2 weeks to go in this farce of an election I have reached a point of utter dejection - there's almost nothing that I can see anyone doing about the fact that I just can't in good conscience cast a vote confidently for anyone at all.  The only people making the slightest sense is the Australian sex party, which as fun as it might sound is obviously no basis for serious government.

I completely trust the Liberal party under Tony abbot to competently and cost effectively implement policies that deeply shame me and make me question my very decision to live in Australia - just like the seven years of Howard Government I lived through before.  At the same time, I trust Labor to have principles I wholeheartedly agree with, but to develop policies that are half-cut compromises to satisfy various factional vested interest and then completely fail to competently implement them.  In terms of leaders, it's a choice between Mad Monk Abbott and Julia Gillard's 'government by Kath and Kim' - with the mercurial Ruddbot lurking spookily in the shadows and the delusional Mark Latham popping up randomly like some Pythonesque jack-in-the-box. 

(Come back Malcolm Turnbull and Kim Beazley – all is forgiven!)

And the greens? While I would like to donate my very first Australian vote to the Greens, I cannot forgive them for conspiring with the Coalition to kill the ETS (in a remarkable case of ‘letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.’ ).  I can't remember if they could or couldn't provide the numbers to get that through - but its the principle of the thing.  Besides, I do find that to a man and woman, their self-righteousness is stomach churning.

Its a depressing and exasperating proposition which leaves me mulling a really bizarre set of options since voting in this country is mandatory

- the positive: vote green purely to keep the Liberals out while making sure Labor gets a bloody nose
- the creative: turn up to vote but defile the ballot paper. The main challenge here is to decide what to defile it with.  All suggestions welcome in the comments box below
- the negative: not turn up and register a protest by paying the $100 fine
- the comical: vote for the Australian sex party afteral; (somewhat dependent on whether they sell out to share preferences with the puritanical 'family first' party)
- the insane: lobby the Queen to revoke Federation so we can re-establish British rule

The last option of course is an echo of this comical letter from the Queen circulated after the debacle of the 2000 US election.