Our Newly Appointed Governor-General

It really depends on how you interpret our constitution.

Either our first female head of state was sworn in on Thursday, or our second. Or someone else, who just happens to be the first female to hold that role.

In any event, Ms Quentin Bryce succeeds Major-General Michael Jeffery as our new Governor-General, becoming the 25th Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia in the process, and the first female to hold the post.

The former Governor of Queensland is possibly also the first Governor-General to only be entitled to one style or title at the start of her name, not including the "Her Excellency" that she gets by virtue of being the GG. Which she also would have got for being Governor of Queensland as well. This blogger notes that the previous 5 GGs had the following styles and titles (not including gongs, military honours and suffixes):

• Major-General (Ret'd) Michael Jeffery
  
• The Right Reverend Doctor Peter Hollingworth
  
• The Honourable Sir (Justice, Ret'd) William Deane
  
• The Honourable Bill Hayden
  
• The Right Honourable Sir (Justice, Ret'd) Ninian Stephen
  

And since they've retired, Hollingworth and Jeffery will have had "The Honourable" added on to the start of theirs. Which makes it almost refreshing that we can get someone like Bryce who is merely a "Ms".

NB: For the benefit of my international readers, our head of state appears to be defined roughly as the Governor-General on behalf of the British monarch. Hence the confusion about who the head of state actually is. A lot of non-Aussies usually ask me at this point, if they're not the head of state, then what is the role of the Prime Minister? In short, the PM is the head of government: In Westminster parliamentary systems, the two roles (heads of government and state) are separate.

I was prompted after reading about Bryce to go back and look at the Constitutional Convention of 1998 where the question was put about what model republic we would have if we were ever to become a republic. After some serious fighting, it was proposed that a model with minimalist changes should be proposed at a referendum as an alternative.

This model would merely erase mention of the British monarch and change the name of the GG to "President". I would have gone one step less myself and kept the title of "Governor-General".

Some say that the referendum that followed was sabotaged by then Prime Minister, John Howard. Unfortunately, this was misdirected anger, as Howard was a scapegoat for those who really destroyed the whole process. Sure, he did assist in stacking the delegates, writing the referendum motion and the red herring that was the proposed preamble was genius.

The process of Australia becoming a republic was, in actual fact, destroyed by a bunch of "republicans" making a noise about how any future president should be directly elected by the people, not appointed as proposed. Prominent Australians who were opposed to an appointed figurehead and who supported an elected one included Eddie McGuire, Phil Cleary, Ted Mack and Clem Jones. These "republicans" supported a "No" vote in the referendum on these grounds.

I use quotes deliberately to make a point: There have been, since the failed referendum, three GGs appointed. Two of which were controversial: the very controversial Hollingworth, former Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane, and the mildly controversial Jeffery, former Major-General in the Australian Army.

Each of these appointments in turn, called into question the links between church and state, and military and state. And in the case of Hollingworth, was almost completely disastrous.

It's interesting to note, however, that even though three GGs have been appointed since the referendum, not once have any of the "republicans" who supported the "No" vote in the referendum come forward to campaign for a directly elected Governor-General.

(Nor for that matter, have any of these buffoons proposed direct elections for the post of Queen/King of Australia. Which is the post that the British monarch holds.)

I don't think that I'm the first to issue this challenge, but this goes out to all you hypocrites who campaigned for a republic with a directly elected head of state: Either you immediately campaign for (at the very least) a directly elected GG, or you all fess up that you're all closet monarchists.

It's that simple.

Sorry.

Today was historical. I mean, really historical. Today was one of those days where you could honestly say that it felt good to be an Australian citizen.

And you know, it really did feel good to just come out and say it.

"Sorry."

For the benefit of those reading this blog from outside Australia who are wondering what the big deal is, our federal government finally summoned the balls to apologise to what is now referred to the Stolen Generations.

The Stolen Generations were a large number of Australia's indigenous population who were separated from their parents forcibly under government policy between 1869 and 1969.

Australia's indigenous peoples fall loosely under the title of the Aboriginal people, who were really, prior to European settlement, a collection of between 350 to 750 different peoples, and the Torres Strait Islanders, who are really ethnically a Papuan people. But also, technically, aboriginal to the islands of the Torres Strait, a body of water that separates the Australian continent from the island of New Guinea.

The flags at the top of this post represent the two groups.

The first one is the Aboriginal flag. Supposedly, the black represents the people, the red represents the land and the yellow represents the sun, although the flag's designer, Harold Thomas, was never this specific.

The second one is the Torres Strait Islander flag. The green lines represent the land, and the blue represents the water of Torres Strait. The thin black lines represent the people. The five pointed star is supposed to represent the five main island groups, and lastly there is a white headdress which is used in Torres Strait Islander ceremonies. Bernard Namok was the flag's designer.

But on to sorry.

The legal profession really has a lot to answer for. Thanks to shyster plaintiff lawyers and idiot judges, the word "sorry" is now a dirty word from a legal perspective. Supposedly, if you say sorry, it's seen as an admission of guilt.

This is such a load of crap. For starters, take funerals. When you go up to someone who has lost a loved one and you say, "I'm sorry," we're now expected to believe that you are now assuming responsibility for the death itself. Never mind if you were on the other side of the world at the time.

And so it has been with the act of apologising to the Stolen Generations.

Former Prime Minister John Howard refused to apologise on two grounds:

1. That to apologise would be an admission of guilt, and this would raise the question of compensation which could prove expensive; and
2. Further to the above point, such an apology would involve current Australians assuming responsibility for the acts of other Australians long since gone.

This was always a very dodgy pair of premises, and it wasn't going to fly either with indigenous Australia, or non-indigenous Australians. It should be noted that Howard was a lawyer by training, and sadly, this probably meant that he couldn't see past the straitjacket that the legal profession has put around apologising generally.

Current PM Kevin Rudd is not a lawyer. He's a diplomat by training, and diplomats live or die by their pragmatism. Consequently, the act of apologising comes naturally to him. Not only that, as a recently elected Prime Minister, Rudd needs to start honouring election promises, and newly elected PM's traditionally issue grand statements.

And as far as grand statements go, this ranks as a ginormous motherfucker. Like, we're talking Gettysburg Address big.

Rudd's apology was agreed to multilaterally (with some reservations) by both sides of Parliament, and this is what Rudd said when he addressed Parliament this morning at 9AM.

Befitting this occasion, the current Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, also made a speech. We can probably say that after the pandemonium and uproar that his speech created, Nelson has effectively written his Last Will and Testament as Opposition Leader, and frankly, I don't see him lasting a full six months in the role.

It is clear that the former PM's influence is still far-reaching, and the Liberal Party really needs to wake up to themselves if they want to grab power again in the near future.

But now the focus is back on the Government again. Words are meaningless if they're not backed up by action. Let's hope Rudd manages to put something positive in place, because our indigenous community really needs it. And let's face it: it would be unacceptable to all Australians if non-indigenous Australia was forced to make another apology.

Dikkii's election wrap-up - the newbies take over

OK. So you all probably know by now that the Liberal/National coalition government headed by John Howard was crushingly defeated by the Labor opposition.

I think that the ALP ended up with a 25 seat majority in the House of Representatives.

Which of course means that Kevin Rudd is now our new Prime Minister. In fact, he was sworn in as the 26th Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia today, along with his new ministry.

And he hasn't mucked around either - making this blogger look like a goose by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. I predicted that the Rudd Government would renege on this particular election promise. Boy, do I feel stupid.

Howard himself ended up being defeated in his own electorate, making him, as regular commenter Plonka has pointed out, the first Prime Minister in nearly 70 years to actually lose his seat at an election. Then Peter Costello retired. Now Brendan Nelson has been made Opposition Leader.

The tears and recriminations from this will be amazing - the Liberal Party is known for trashing their former PMs, with the exception of Robert Menzies, of course, and Harold Holt. Ming is something of a minor deity to the Libs, and you will never hear a bad word said against him. Holt died in tragic circumstances while in office, so I guess that Liberal Party members draw the line somewhere. But if the past is a guide, Howard's legacy is cactus in the eyes of Liberal members.

The new ministry looks a little like this:

Cabinet

• Kevin Rudd, MP: Prime Minister
• Julia Gillard, MP: Deputy Prime Minister; Minister for Education; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations; Minister for Social Inclusion
• Wayne Swan, MP: Treasurer
• Lindsay Tanner, MP: Minister for Finance and Deregulation
• Peter Garrett, MP: Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts
• Senator Penny Wong: Minister for Climate Change and Water
• Anthony Albanese, MP: Minister for Infrastructure, Transport; Regional Development and Local Government
• Senator Kim Carr: Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
• Martin Ferguson, MP: Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism
• Tony Burke, MP: Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
• Simon Crean, MP: Minister for Trade
• Nicola Roxon, MP: Minister for Health and Ageing
• Jenny Macklin, MP: Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
• Stephen Smith, MP: Minister for Foreign Affairs;
• Joel Fitzgibbon, MP: Minister for Defence
• Robert McClelland, MP: Attorney-General
• Senator Chris Evans: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
• Senator Stephen Conroy: Minister for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy
• Senator John Faulkner: Cabinet Secretary; Special Minister of State; Vice President of the Executive Council

Outer ministry

• Senator Nick Sherry: Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law
• Craig Emerson, MP: Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister assisting the Finance Minister on Business Deregulation
• Brendan O'Connor, MP: Minister for Workplace Participation
• Tanya Plibersek, MP: Minister for Housing and the Status of Women
• Senator Joe Ludwig: Minister for Human Services, Manager of Government Business in the Senate
• Bob Debus, MP: Minister for Home Affairs
• Alan Griffin, MP: Minister for Veterans' Affairs
• Warren Snowdon, MP: Minister for Defence Science and Personnel
• Justine Elliot, MP: Minister for Ageing
• Kate Ellis, MP: Minister for Youth and Sport
• Chris Bowen, MP: Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs

Parliamentary Secretaries

• Maxine McKew, MP: Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Early Childhood Education and Childcare
• Anthony Byrne, MP: Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister
• Greg Combet, MP: Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence
• Mike Kelly, MP: Parliamentary Secretary for Defence
• Gary Gray, MP: Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Infrastructure with responsibility for Northern and Regional Australia
• Bill Shorten, MP: Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
• Bob McMullan, MP: Parliamentary Secretary responsible for International Development Assistance
• Duncan Kerr, MP: Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs
• Laurie Ferguson, MP: Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Programs
• Senator Ursula Stephens: Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion
• John Murphy, MP: Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade

This blogger predicted that after his pedestrian election campaign, Peter Garrett will most likely not be Environment Minister. Again, I was made to look silly when he was appointed to that portfolio, although I notice that he did score Arts, and that Penny Wong ended up with half the Environment portfolio (Climate Change and Water).

The Arts Minister post would be something of a let-down for him - this is normally the portfolio for ministers who have failed, or for junior ministers looking at their first portfolio.

No surprises elsewhere - Wayne Swan is Treasurer, Stephen Smith is Foreign Minister. Nicola Roxon got Health.

Maxine McKew, after unseating Howard ended up with a Parl Sec job. Good work, I say.

Elsewhere in the Senate, it looks like the Greens have picked up 2 seats and Family First one. Independent Nick Xenophon from South Australia also won a seat. This means that neither major party holds a majority in the Senate again. It'll still be a couple of weeks before the Senate votes are all tallied.

But that's it so far. Thank FSM it's over.

Dikkii's pre-election round-up (part 1)

Hi folks. As this appears to be becoming a bit of a tradition at Dikkii's Diatribe, it's time for me to give my pre-election round-up.

For the benefit of my international readers, who are mostly American, I better give a quick run-down on how the Australian political system works.

We have a Westminster parliamentary system in Australia. Our Head of State (called the Governor-General) is a totally separate person from our Head of Government (called the Prime Minister). The Government is elected through general elections which are called once every three years.

Skipping out all the assumptions and theoretical bits, the party (or coalition of parties) which wins the majority of seats in the House of Representatives (the lower house of parliament, where legislation is proposed) is the party which forms a Government.

The leader of that party (or the senior party in a coalition), who is normally also a member of the House of Representatives, will become Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will then appoint a Cabinet, and an Outer Ministry. The Cabinet and Outer Ministry are together known as the Ministry. The Ministry runs the Government.

The other members of Parliament are called the Opposition, with the leader of the next biggest party in the House of Representatives known as the Opposition Leader. After losing the election, the new Opposition Leader will appoint a panel of spokespeople to address issues raised by the government and to propose issues of their own. This panel is known as the Shadow Ministry and from this group, a Shadow Cabinet is assembled.

Elections are held to elect members to the House of Representatives and half the members of the Senate, which is the upper house of parliament, where pending legislation is reviewed.

Members of the House of Representatives (or MHRs) are elected to represent localised districts called "electorates". These are loosely based on population distributions, thus highly populated states such as New South Wales and Victoria will have the most, whereas states such as Tasmania, South Australia and the territories will have the smallest number of MHRs.

Senators are elected to 6 year terms, and are elected to represent each state or territory. At each election (every three years), there will be 6 senators elected for each state, and two for each of the Northern Territory (NT) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT). Jervis Bay Territory (JBT) only has a population of a couple of hundred, and is thus included as part of the ACT for federal electoral purposes.

Currently, the Government is a coalition of the Liberal and National parties, and the Prime Minister is a man named John Howard, who is the leader of the Liberal Party. The Opposition is headed by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and their leader (also the Opposition Leader) is a man named Kevin Rudd.

The Government also currently happens to hold a majority in the Senate, as well.

Right. That's out of the way. On to the round up.

More than anything else, the impression that I've got throughout this election campaign is that it has really dragged. Six weeks is a really long time between calling an election to actually having it.

Consequently, what I thought were the key issues identified at the start of the election campaign don't even appear to have registered with the voters. But I really don't have a clue. In any event, this is what I see as the key issues:

1. WorkChoices

WorkChoices has been designed to shaft workers and eliminate unions. Essentially, it there to capture the votes of small business, and to great deal, it has worked. The federal government, however did go too far in implementing this, and was forced in May to implement a "Fairness Test" for all new employment contracts (called AWAs).

I notice, cynically, that the Fairness Test can be dismantled really easily if the Government of the day chose to.

The Fairness Test has backfired on the Government to some small degree. Most notably, some businesses are finding it truly expensive to adhere to the requirements of the Fairness Test, and have reverted back to the cheaper enterprise bargaining system.

With the economy motoring along at close to full employment, don't expect to see the workers of Australia voting on this issue - they don't really care if their rights are stripped away with the Fairness Test in place and more money from employers on offer.

Expect to see the Government water-down or eliminate the Fairness Test if re-elected. If the Opposition is elected, they've indicated that WorkChoices will be eliminated entirely, although the substance of their policy details indicates that some of WorkChoices will be retained.

2. Climate and the Environment

Once upon a time, "climate" meant the overall political climate. Now, it refers to global warming.

Fortunately for us Australians, global warming denialism is a spent force in Australian politics. Unfortunately though, because corporate donations to political parties are still allowed to taint the political process, the Government will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

The electorate will vote strongly on this issue - even more strongly than the Government expects.

Complicating this is the issue of water, and the Government's traditional power base amongst farmers and the bush.

If the Government is re-elected, expect no further action on emissions. Water, on the other hand, could be interesting - but I don't see anything major other than what current Minister for the Environment Malcolm Turnbull has proposed. If the Opposition is elected, they have indicated that they'll ratify the Kyoto Protocol. I have no confidence in this, and I expect them to renege. Shadow Environment Minister Peter Garrett has already shown that he can be bought, and I actually don't expect to see him holding this portfolio if the Opposition is elected. The Opposition, on the other hand could really work wonders on the whole water front, but I'm not crossing my fingers.

Climate and the environment stands to deliver some Senate seats to the Greens. This is always interesting.

3. Health

Health Minister Tony Abbott has not had a good election campaign at all.

Yet, reading between the lines, the Government has possibly the best health strategy lined up if they win power, with the exception of the whole "communities run hospitals" silliness.

This is the problem. The electorate will only see this, and not the actual fix. Our health system is extremely good, as anyone who has seen Sicko will attest, but it could be better.

The Opposition, for all the good work of Shadow Health Minister Nicola Roxon during this election just don't really have anything other than lamely copying the federal government's policy stance. Improved performance measures will not register with the electorate.

What's wrong? The federal government is in charge of Medicare. The states are in charge of public hospitals. Don't people understand that such a stupid situation is untenable?

I expect that the copycat tactics of the Opposition has made health a non-issue at this election.

4. Secondary Education

It was left, ironically, to principals of private secondary schools to enunciate what was wrong with the Government's policy delivery on this. And with Julie Bishop going missing conspicuously during this election campaign, the government don't have a scapegoat either for what could have been a well received yet blatant attempt to bribe the electorate.

I will attempt to post a follow-up post this week about why secondary education in Australia is so completely fucked, but just like the Government, I don't like my chances.

This will be an issue during this election. Despite this being a boost to the pockets of middle Australia thanks to our high private school usage, no one likes it when the wealthy get handouts.

The Government will implement their policy of handouts to parents of private school kids if elected. The Opposition has wisely chosen not to copy this particular policy and have benefited from the fallout.

5. Tertiary Education

*crickets*

Oh, I forgot. Something from the Opposition. Scholarships, I believe. But scarcely a blip, really.

Wasted opportunity all round.

6. The Economy and Interest Rates

Treasurer Peter Costello has wasted no time going round and trumpeting his economic credentials, and with good cause - unemployment is at record lows and the economy is doing spectacularly well.

Too well, in fact. Inflation is not under control, and interest rates are on the way up as a result.

Unfortunately, spinning this into something that grabs the punters is close to impossible, especially when having a mortgage is almost a legal requirement for the Australian voter.

And while it is unlikely that we'll have a credit crunch like what they're having in the States, it only takes a couple more interest rate rises to see a housing price collapse, particularly with housing affordability the way that it is.

On the downside, both parties have made a lot of costly election promises. And as Master Yoda would have said:

Spending leads to inflation,
Inflation leads to rate rises,
Rate rises leads to the Dark Side.

Or he might not. In any event the spending promises during this election campaign have been profligate. In fact, I awake in dry sweats thinking about it. Ex-PM and Treasurer Paul Keating has savaged both parties for the disgraceful spending that has been promised.

For once in my life, I agree with him.

Expect the voters to give the Government the big thumbs up for economic management - they already appear to have bought the line that interest rate rises were unavoidable and that the Government weren't lying through their teeth at the last election about this very issue.

7. Housing Affordability

Housing affordability in Australia is a DISGRACE!!!

And both parties think that they have the solution: throw more money at buyers.

Needless to say, this will be extremely popular with the electorate, who have proved that they have the economic nous of a doormouse.

I'm a poet and I don't know it.

Nyuk nyuk nyuk. (Cue: "Wiseguy, eh?" followed by Three Stooge-esque violence)

In any event, this will be influential in the marginal seats. Never mind that inflating demand will only exacerbate the problem. Houses will only become more unaffordable. Why don't people realise this?

Something really needs to be done about people's economic literacy.

8. "Family"

This will thankfully be a minor issue that this election. Thank FSM for that.

9. Religion

And because 8 will be a non-issue, so will point 9. It should be mentioned that thanks to our ridiculous preference system in the Senate, the key religious party, Family First stands to gain a seat (at the most, I'm tipping) but they've been quiet.

It will be interesting to see how the preference deal between the Liberals and the Christian Democrats for the New South Wales Senate seats goes - they're even more of a bunch of nutbars than Family First.

10. Bennelong and Liberal Succession Planning

John Howard has indicated that he will stand aside during the next term in favour of Peter Costello. Don't expect that there won't be as fight if this happens. Brendan Nelson, Abbott and Turnbull will, I expect, put in a real humdinger of a fight for the top job.

But that could happen sooner, particularly if the unthinkable happens in Bennelong.

Bennelong will be the most closely watched seat in the House. Not only is it the electorate of the PM, but there is also a really good chance that it could be won by high profile ALP candidate Maxine McKew.

If that happens and the Government wins the election, we will, theoretically, have no Prime Minister until Peter Costello is confirmed. Again, though, watch this space. Nelson, Abbott and/or Turnbull (who has his own fight for Wentworth to look at) will get treacherous.

---

Hope that you enjoyed that. I'll do a part two later this week, where I cover off on which way I'll be voting.

I notice that in my election polls, there is a really big wish that the Greens could win the election. I would never have thought this about my readership.

Party on!

How much of a waste was the APEC summit?

The 2007 APEC summit has been and gone and the one thing that really amazed me is the monumental amount of hoo-ha that we embraced with the so-called "Sydney Declaration".

During the summit, we saw an unbelievably large police presence looking bored as protesters failed to materialise, excellent pranks played by The Chaser boys (with Chas Licciardello dressed as Osama Bin Laden) and the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard completely upstaged in an election year by the Australian Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd chatting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in fluent Mandarin.

The media has not bought the truly dazzling amounts of spin that APEC chose to issue with the declaration, and rightly so: the piece is staggeringly inept, and completely amateurish. Which is not what you expect when you have a room filled with eight heads of government, eleven heads of state (some of whom also double as heads of government) the chief executive of Hong Kong and a "special representative" from Taiwan, sorry, Chinese Taipei.

It was probably a good thing that we weren't expecting much - after all, with two "reformed" global warming denialists (George W Bush and Howard), one who couldn't give a rat's arse about global warming (Hu) and one who has indicated that his government will actually refuse to be bound by the rule of law with regards to his government's obligations (Stephen Harper), it was always going to be something very wrong.

But I don't think that we were ready for just how bad it actually was.

The document makes it clear that all participants are ready to discuss "aspirational" goals for reducing emissions by 2030.

Most nations of the world were "ready" for legally binding targets several years ago. The evidence for this is a series of meetings that commenced in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. This culminated in the Kyoto Protocol.

"Aspirational" goals are, quite simply, a waste of breath unless they're legally binding.

And 2030? This document is an INTERNATIONAL DISGRACE!!!

So in tribute to these masterminds, here is a presentation of what gets my vote as possibly the most sarcastic song ever written. There is truly a Devo song for every occasion.

It's titled, "Beautiful World" and it's off their fourth long-player, New Traditionalists. It is a particularly good music video. Enjoy.

Great debacles of our time: Snowy Hydro

The road to privatisation for non-core government assets is riddled with potholes.

But that's not to say that most of them cannot be avoided.

In the case of the recent Snowy Hydro fiasco, it appears that the driver of this particular car fairly aimed all four wheels at the same hole. At once.

What we ended up with was a complete mess.

Morris Iemma, premier of New South Wales has come out of this in perhaps the worst shape of his political career. Steve Bracks, premier of Victoria hasn't ended up much better.

In fact, the whole sordid affair looks more and more likely to bury the New South Wales labor government.

Meanwhile, the architects of this disgraceful little episode, the PM and Senator Bill Heffernan, look like heroes to their core constituents, as well as some unlikely prestige in the eyes of the green/left vote.

Who woulda thunk it?

I for one have to get my two cents in and tip a bucket over the federal government for this.

The thing is - would they have done anything else?

John Howard has revealed himself to be a policy maker on the run, incessantly chasing after votes from the lowest common denominator.

Iemma needed these funds real bad. The NSW government, after years of financial mismanagement by the ALP have a fiscal black hole that needs some serious plugging.

And as for Bracks, well, at least he was able to back out with some pride when the rug got pulled.

But none of this is the point.

None of this finger pointing actually achieves anything. Incidentally, Alan Kohler speculated in Saturday's Age that Howard was going to fry Bracks and Iemma all along. The theory being that, even though the federal government is all for privatisation and would, "plough on through any opposition, even Alan Jones," to achieve it, they would much rather embarrass two state labor governments if they could.

The point is that all the reasons for not privatising Snowy Hydro were all wrong.

Kohler himself points out the following:

"The Snowy hydro-electric scheme is no more iconic than the Loy Yang power station, the national phone network, or even the TABs."

"In withdrawing it from sale the [federal] Government has capitulated to the paranoid and cynical campaigns of vested interests."

"Snowy Hydro is, in fact, an investment bank — selling derivatives and insurance products to the electricity industry."

Quite a scathing indictment, actually.

Elsewhere, some quite fraudulent arguments were uttered by the Victorian branch of the Australian Greens about who owned the water.

Bill Heffernan weighed in with some concerns that foreigners could end up controlling it. (So what?)

What is nearly worst about this tawdry chapter is that our government once again, just like with the failed bid by Royal Dutch Shell for Woodside Petroleum, has shown the rest of the world that while we talk the talk about open and fair economies, we don't walk the walk.

This is a DISGRACE.

What is the worst is that it shows that the federal government is not above using populist rubbish like this for their own political gains, once again proving that democracy is at times, frustratingly undemocratic.

Ten years of John Howard

Well it's finally happened.

Ten years of having John Howard as PM.

Now, this is a fairly decent achievement. Some would say that he's benefited from an unusually rare run of 15 years of unprecedented growth, but to be fair, there was a tech wreck that hit the rest of the world in 2000, and we came within a hair's breadth of a recession in 1997/98.

So economic prosperity has been good. On the other hand, this has come at the price of quite a few things.

We appear to have become a much more intolerant country as a result of various things. Peter Costello's inconceivable words to the media about people from islamic countries migrating here and instantly looking to convert us to sharia law appears to have been aimed at the general population who are possibly getting stupider and stupider.

Thanks to thoughtless comments like Costello's, we now have a real problem with a sub-section of Australia who belives that all muslims are out to cleanse the earth of non-believers.

On top of this, prior to the Howard Government, a comment like Costello's would have been enough to have him sacked from previous governments.

(Sadly, a lot of these idiots are born again freaks who happily quote the Qu'ran on the subject, but then wilfully ignore the Bible's wording which is uncannily similar. Especially in the Book of Judges)

Our treatment of refugees is similarly hopeless. They have now become "illegal immigrants".

Apologising (Not!) to Aboriginal Australia for the Stolen Generation, not enforcing the Ministerial Code of Conduct, mollycoddling the ethanol lobby, negotiating a useless free-trade agreement, going out of their way to discriminate against gay Australia... the list goes on and on.

At least Port Arthur happened early on in the government's reign. If it had happened yesterday there is absolutely no way that the gun controls proposed by the Howard Government would even see the light if day now.

I give them a C-, just because I'm charitable.