Showing posts with label kevin rudd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kevin rudd. Show all posts

31 October 2008

I haven't blogged much recently


I have been meaning to blog more recently, but I just don't seem to find all that much time to do it.

Here are a couple of things that I've been meaning to blog about:

1. The forthcoming atheist bus advertisements in London. Due January 2009.

2. The Rudd Government's bank guarantees, and how non-bank lenders and investors are being done over by this. Naturally, I plan to take a balanced and fair view. Yeah right.

3. Hedge funds getting burnt by Porsche's takeover of Volkswagen. Who ever suggested that I'm immune to feelings of schadenfreude was out of their freaking minds.

4. Horse racing and the fact that I hate the Spring Racing Carnival and all the hype that goes along with it only slightly less than how much I hate Seven's Summer of Tennis.

5. My recent installation of Ubuntu-Eee on my Eee PC. It went very well, thank you.

6. My growing dislike of social networking sites. And my increasing reliance on a few of them.

7. The realisation that if something isn't done soon about Melbourne's train system, it'll end up like Sydney's.

8. The Federal Government's plan for an internet makeover, Chinese style. Fight this one with a passion kids.

9. Ubuntu 8.10. Where's the hype?

Anyway, I am getting round to it. Just haven't had time is all. And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

07 July 2008

The art empire strikes back


One of the things that we learnt from the recent Bill Henson controversy is that there appears to be an orthodox position that artists assume on the the whole "What is an acceptable image?" thing.

That position has been characterised with a great deal of effort by artists in saying, "There has to be exploitation," for an image to be deemed unacceptable.

So what happened this week? A magazine called Art Monthly Australia has run a cover with a nude 6 year old girl on the front. Ostensibly to make a point about the Bill Henson controversy.

I'll be the first to admit, folks, that this country, and perhaps a lot of the western world is a smidge hysterical when it comes to pornography involving children. I don't actually believe that the connection between child pornography and paedophile behaviour will ever be found.

And the requirement for a nude photo to be exploitative in order for it to be porn is so goddamn subjective, I'm actually concerned about pretty much all artistic behaviour at this point.

Having said all that, doesn't it appear to the average onlooker that a 6 year old (she's now 11) has been exploited in order to make a point?

Doesn't this mean that Art Monthly Australia has crossed the line with a flying leap and is therefore guilty of child exploitation?

More to the point, given that this photo was made by the child's mother, doesn't this make her complicit in child exploitation?

After all that, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd has waded in after spotting a way to appeal to the lowest common denominator by exploiting our anti-child pornography hysteria. Is he guilty of exploitation by milking this in the theatre of public opinion?

(My 2c: We thoroughly deserve exploitation over this)

Last but not least, in The Age today, the artist's husband (who just happens to be an art critic at The Age) has weighed in and criticised the PM for speaking out on something that he doesn't know any thing about, namely art.

This is all fucked for the following reasons:

1. The guy is a major art critic for a major Australian daily newspaper. Therefore, venturing any opinion, explicit or implied in his wife's work has a conflict of interest. He simply cannot occupy the aggrieved husband's position and therefore has to keep his mouth shut.

2. His comparison of this fiasco to the greenhouse effect is quite possibly the worst hyperbole ever by an artist:

"It's interesting that if the Prime Minister comments on, say the greenhouse effect, he gets expert advice first," Monah (sic) University Associate Professor [Robert] Nelson said. "I would like to know which art expert advised him on this."

3. "I would like to know which art expert advised him on this." An ad-hominem attack is not beneath this guy, even though he's an art critic and a university professor. Furthermore, if he's comfortable implying that the PM is a philistine, then what hope is there for the rest of us art consumers?

4. Nelson wears many hats during this which doesn't help. Hiding behind his academic one does him no favours, although Margaret Cook of The Age should take most of the blame for this. Attempting an argument from authority is a somewhat ham-fisted approach, n'est-ce pas?

5. Dissecting the above quote further, we now have evidence that the arts world, or at least the visual arts world, sees the consumer as an inconvenience. The performing arts do not. Theirs is a world where the consumer is king, whereas in the world of visual arts, the consumer is treated pretty shabbily when the artist refuses to consider their own audience.

6. Further to 5, as an arts consumer, I frankly (by and large) don't care about the artist's intention. I'm concerned with how visually appealing an image is. What's lost on Associate Professor Nelson is that most art consumers feel exactly the same way. And some of us are sick of being dictated to by those who think that they know better.

If there was ever any more evidence required that artists have lost touch with the rest of us, it is this. Ironically, it is on an issue where the rest of us have lost all sense of perspective (I speak of society generally) and become hysterical over the merest suggestion of someone getting their rocks off on kiddie nudity.

13 February 2008

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.

04 December 2007

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.

18 November 2007

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!

13 September 2007

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.