Thursday, June 23, 2011

Australia: Disillusioned or Worried? Leadership Issues


According to an ABC report Political Analyst Dr Troy Whitford  believes Australians are disillusioned by the political leadership being displayed by the two major Australian political entities, Labor and the Liberal-National Party Coalition:







"...there's a great deal of negativity and cynicism in the air towards leadership in Australia at the moment,"


He goes on;

"There's a growing sense of disillusionment in our political system that's catching on. In some respects, it can be quite a long-term and dangerous problem,".

Dr Whitford then makes a similar observation about political leadership generally that I  made when I looked, more particularly, at why Julia Gillard was not striking notes of resonance with the Australian people.

In a recent blog post I stated that Ms Gillard did not meet the historical ideal of the rough and tumble Aussie, the type you believed in and trusted  enough to allow them to make the hard decisions on your behalf. The one you would willingly follow “over the top” of the trenches if necessary.

She, I said, is not a Menzies, a Hawke, a Whitlam. She is not a Jack Lang or Billy Hughes, not even a Jo Bjelke Peterson.

Big, bold characters. Full of belief, not only in themselves and where they believed they could take the country, but the country itself.  People who radiated confidence and purpose.

Dr Whitford I believe is making a similar point though he chooses a few different exemplars, the more father like leaders from our history:

"In comparison to previous times, most of our leaders - Menzies, Chifley, McEwen - were held in greater regard because they were either seen as being more statesman-like or more pragmatic with policy."

So I agree with Dr Whitford's analysis as it concerns leadership types that Australians are looking for, and, I think I know where he is coming from generally.  But, can what Australians are feeling at the moment be called disillusionment?  Cynicism? I do not believe it is anywhere near that easy to pigeon hole.

I would use a much harder term I would say what they are feeling is “fear”.  Fear of the unknown, fear of what tomorrow will bring.

Australian's today are generally better educated then previous generations. We have, with information technology growing so quickly, more exposure to issues that perhaps our parents and certainly our grandparents would not have been exposed to.

I have chosen my words very carefully here; the Australian people  are “exposed" to issues but they do not necessarily “understand” them, nor, know how we, as a nation, should handle them.

I will use myself as an example. I am university educated, of mature age, consider myself well read and, for want of a better word, worldly. But I have a lot of problems with fully understanding the totality of the issues we face as a country today.

Think about it. Asylum seekers, live cattle exports, Afghanistan, carbon emissions issues,  foreign policy, how to deal with a rising China, global economic crisis, immigration. All that before the average Australian starts to worry about day to day stuff, Interest rates, rising utility prices, child care costs et al;

To carry forward the military analogy we are like soldiers on a battlefield, seemingly outflanked, bullets whizzing around our heads and just, emphasis on just, weathering a withering barrage of artillery.

What do we do? Where do we go? We haven’t the time to think.

Where is the general? Tell us what to do! Save us!

Alas, we look around and there is no general. No one that we can put our faith in without having personally to be experts on military strategy.

We just want someone to say “follow me lads it will be OK!”

We have not got that in Australia at the moment. It is not Julia Gillard, it is not Tony Abbott.

We are not sitting back and basking in the self ameliorating righteousness of “Disillusionment”. We have not drifted off into “cynicim’, as the Doctor argues, we are as a nation deeply troubled and extremely worried.

Whilst not many, I feel, would admit to it, we do not understand and the vacuum of leadership, the lack of a group or an individual to be able to enlighten us does not exist.

Therefore, we as a people, feel deep uncertainty, we are scared  and we do not have anyone who radiates strength and purpose to alleviate us so we do not need to fully understand.

Someone that we trust in enough to follow “over the top” and believe that at the end of the day “She’ll be right mate!”

No Doctor we are not disillusioned. We are not Cynical. We are scared.

Australia's Political Leadership clouded by negativity.

Julia Gillard under fire in Question Time over Kevin Rudd knifing | thetelegraph.com.au


PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has faced a Question Time attack in Parliament over her decision to "assassinate" her predecessor Kevin Rudd one year ago this week. 

Ms Gillard seized the Labor leadership from Mr Rudd on June 24 last year, declaring she needed to take over because "a good government" had lost its way.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott today said the Government had gone "from bad to worse" under Ms Gillard's leadership.

"Has the political assassination of a prime minister been worth it?" he asked her during Question Time.

Ms Gillard dismissed the question as part of a "silly political games" and attacked Mr Abbott's economic credentials.

"I cannot believe that he is so reckless, so negative and so incompetent that he has failed to absorb any of the detail of the last Budget," the Prime Minister said.


Julia Gillard under fire in Question Time over Kevin Rudd knifing | thetelegraph.com.au

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Accepting boat refugees a deadly game: Fielding




Retiring Family First Senator Steve Fielding has appealed to all sides of politics to support offshore processing of Asylum seekers who attempt to enter Australia by boat.

The Senator stated

"As long as we keep accepting these refugees who do make it, we will be a partner in this deadly game of Russian roulette," 

"We must stop the boats for humane reasons, regardless of politics from both sides."

The Senator was referring to the possible future loss of life of boat people attempting to get to Australia at the hands of people smugglers in non-seaworthy boats.






There have been many deaths of Asylum seekers risking the dangerous boat trip to Australia the latest being the Christmas Island tragedy in December 2010 when forty eight lost their lives. In 2001, 353 asylum-seekers sailing from Indonesia to Australia drowned when their vessel sank.


Senator Fielding went on further to say:
"Where asylum seekers arriving by boat would be transferred to the back of the queue in overseas refugee camps,"

"But to release pressure on these camps Australia would agree to take two or more refugees that had been waiting patiently for years to be resettled."

The senator stated further that he had floated this idea with both the Labor Party and the federal Coalition.

I believe the Senator has a very valid and workable idea.

Australian's fully sympathise with the plight of true Refugees. We signed the U.N. 1951 Convention on Refugees and have lived up to it's ideals. We truly want to help bona fide refugees but there is a process that we, as a nation, feel they must follow.

And not only must they adhere to our requirements but in dissuading "Boat people" by whatever means, we are, as Senator Harding infers, acting humanely by hopefully stopping unnecessary deaths at the hands of people smugglers and the unforgiving seas.

Bona fide refugees escaping death, torture and persecution  will always be taken care of by Australia and Australians.


Accepting boat refugees a deadly game: Fielding - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Kim Scott wins prestigious Miles Franklin Award

Aboriginal author Kim Scott has won this year's Miles Franklin literary award with his novel That Deadman Dance.


Kim Scott wins prestigious Miles Franklin - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Work with me: PM appeals to business





















Australia's prime minister Julia Gillard has called on the Australian business community to work with the government on Carbon Tax pricing.

In an address to the Business Council of Australia last night the prime minister said:

''Because for us to be our best selves, listening and leading, we need you to be your best selves too, putting that characteristic BCA voice into the public debate.''


Unfortunately business in Australia is not to particularly supportive of Carbon Tax so her pleas may have fallen on barren ground there.


By the way I have included the Sydney Morning Herald's cartoon because I am a fan of Political cartooning.


It was the Australian Federal Labor Party that stabbed Kevin Rudd in the back, not Ms Gillard alone, so to that degree the cartoon is a little unfair on the PM. 


Work with me: PM's appeal to MPs and business

If a picture paints a thousand words..




I wish I was like that bloke on TV from "Lie to me". You know the bloke who intently surveys body language to work out what someone is thinking.

I wish I had that talent looking at this classic photo of current prime minister Julia Gillard and former prime minister and now foreign minister Kevin Rudd.

I call it a "classic" photo because it has everything. It could not have been more classic if it were staged.

The white washed "corridor of power". The cold white lights. The cell like look. The two protagonists. The "Fly on the wall", looking on but pretending he is not.

The juxtaposition.

The prime minister has the look of superiority, but more one derived from position rather then inherent power. The foreign minister a look of "if you weren't the boss..."

Everything; arrogance, petulance, tongue biting, pursed lips, fighter's stance.

If this image does not portend a right royal stoush ahead between these two then nothing does.


Picture Courtesy: Daily Telegraph Sydney

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Why did I do That?: Tony Abbott Carbon Tax Plebiscite





Tony Does it Again!















Federal Opposition leader Tony Abbott can't take a trick!


He thought he was on a winner with his proposed plebiscite on "Carbon Tax". But he needed the support of both cross bench senators, Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding. But Senator Fielding has come out and put a kibosh on this lame and "shoot from the hip"idea.

Calling the plebiscite, which would have cost $80 million, a "glorified opinion poll", Senator Fielding said:



"What we've got here is a political stunt which will waste taxpayers' money and achieve nothing."


And rightly so. The country can give it's verdict at the next Federal Election.

With all the woes the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and government are going through at the moment all poor old Tony had to do was sit back and smile. But alas, that's  our Tony.






Fielding kills Abbott's carbon plebiscite - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Monday, June 20, 2011

Australian ex-PM denies planning leadership bid


You know when there is going to be a leadership bid when everyone says there isn't going to be a leadership bid.

Opinion polls have Rudd as a much preferred prime minister than Ms Gillard but Kevin Rudd must have stepped on a lot of toes in the Australian Labor party. There is not a lot of love oozing from his fellow Labor politicians.

But one wonders if Rudd really wants to get the PMs job back, at least at the moment. He would appear to be on a hiding to nothing, given Labor's polling, of winning the next election. As well, we have the Asylum seeker issue, Carbon Tax and live cattle exports issues. One would think it is time to remain warming the bench till the tryline turns around. But stranger things have happened in politics. Funnily enough Rudd is the type to relish these challenges.

Rudd appears to be a man who holds a very quiet but very deep hurt over his axing so quickly after bringing Labor to power in 2007. He won't forgive and he certainly won't forget.

But, to his credit, and despite all the criticism about his tripping around the world, he has achieved quite a lot in his role of Foreign Minister. His various speeches around the world particularly his moving ANZAC Day address have, in my book at least, marked him as a man of consequence on the world stage. Just look how many Twitter followers he has!

 For all his schoolboy looks and squeaky clean, butter would not melt in his mouth facade,  Rudd is a fighter.

 He grew up tough and he really has an affinity with the grass roots of Labor's heartland. He may be up against it on many fronts but he is certainly not one to give in without a fight at a time and a place of his choosing.


Australian ex-PM denies planning leadership bid - Channel NewsAsia

Australia's Rudd: Set on being "best" Foreign Minister






The English Telegraph ran the following story today about Kevin Rudd denying aspirations to regain his prime ministerial position. I for one would much prefer to see him back in that position instead of Ms Julia Gillard




"Labor Party figures are reportedly furious that Mr Rudd, who was brutally ousted by his then deputy Miss Gillard in a party-room coup, is giving a series of interviews ahead of the one year anniversary of his dumping.


But asked whether he was plotting a comeback, Mr Rudd, now Australia's foreign minister, said: "I am set on being the best Foreign Minister I can be. But nice try."


Miss Gillard led a party-room coup which removed Rudd in June 2010, and shortly afterwards called national elections in which Labor lost its clear majority and resulted in a hung parliament.

After narrowly scraping back into power by securing the support of several independents and a Greens MP after 17 days of negotiations, Miss Gillard named Mr Rudd as her foreign minister.


Miss Gillard said on Saturday she felt "very secure" in her position, but the nation's first woman prime minister has experienced an unprecedented slump in the polls while Mr Rudd remains popular with the public."




Saturday, June 18, 2011

Australia: prime minister Julia Gillard feeling the heat.














A  Herald /Nielsen telephone poll conducted June 14-16 has very few positives in it for prime minister Julia Gillard in particular and the Labor government generally.


The results show a 3% drop in the two party preferred figure to 41% as compared to the Coalition's figure of 59%.


Of particular concern for the PM are the Carbon Tax and  Asylum seekers issues. 


The carbon tax result is self evident but the report does not indicate whether dissatisfaction with Asylum seekers issues is general or more particular only concerning the recent choice of Malaysia as a destination for detention processing . It is my feeling that it is more about destination rather than general policy of housing asylum seekers offshore.


Whatever the issues of contention are among the electorate one can not help but feel that this is a backlash of sorts not against Labor party policies but Julia Gillard herself.


The Australian public has not warmed to Julia Gillard. She really did not even have a honeymoon period.


I have considered this long and hard. As our first female prime minister one would have thought she would have had been cut some slack but no. The manner of her gaining the top position, I believe, does not sit well with a majority of Australians.


Firstly, Australian's do not feel they "elected" her. Despite the fact that only her electorate actually elected her to parliament and it was the Labor  Party who elected her to the top job, Australian's feel they elected a Labor party headed by Kevin Rudd. If anyone was going to get rid of Kevin Rudd it should be them not backroom boys of the Australian Labor Party.


Secondly, the ousting of Kevin Rudd was seen, I believe by many, as being "UnAustralian", to coin that oft used but  ambiguous term. Australian's don't stab their mates in the back. Kevin Rudd may have been getting up the nose of some in the country but that's not how you handle getting rid of him.


Apart from that there are other reasons I feel for the lack of connectivity between Ms Gillard and the people.


Is the fact she is a woman an issue with her acceptance? I feel it is. I would describe mainstream Australia as leaning more to being matriarchal rather then patriarchal so one would think that having a woman leader would not be an issue. But whilst I have this view generally for day to day Australian life I don't think it  holds true in the case of national leadership. 


A degree of sexism it could be said  exists but it is coming from both men and women. Australian's, I quite frankly think, don't see the country being led by a woman.


Then  her lack of connectivity is to a degree a result of her heritage. She is not the fair dinkum, knock about, knock you down then shake your hand, Aussie type that we have been use to in our political history. 


She is not the hard living Bob Hawke calling people "mongrels". She is not the Mao like figure of a Menzies or the say it as you see it Gough Whitlam standing on the steps saying "God save the Queen....", the Billy Hughes' the Jack Langs the Jo's.


The culture has not had enough generations to embed itself. In other words she does not come across as "Australian" enough. 


It is blatantly apparent that Ms Gillard is on a losing streak from which she is very unlikely to recover from and the Australian Labor Party is on a loser, not as a person, but as a leader and a winner at the next election..

Few positives for Gillard in horror poll

Friday, June 17, 2011

Australia: New and relaxed Policy to attract skilled labour

A new migration policy initiative comes into play July first in attempt by the Australian Government to attract 125,000 skilled migrants in the year to June 30, 2012.

The new policy allows aspiring migrants to electronically add their resume to an online database search able by Australian Companies looking for potential workers with a particular skill set they want. The person would then be contacted with an offer to apply for a visa.

As part of the new policy the age of potential immigrants has been raised from 45 to 50 and changes have been made to the process for recognising foreign qualifications.

The news has been reported in India, as the link to article points, so we can expect some early interest from that area though the Immigration policy expects to attract applicants world wide.



Thursday, June 16, 2011

Australian Refugee Situation: The wheat from the chaff





The linked to article is an interview with Dr Jane McAdam. 


Dr McAdam talks about Australia's obligations as concerns the relocating of asylum seekers offshore whilst they await processing and assessment as to their eligibility of being classified as Refugees.

Dr McAdam states
Australia has obligations primarily not to return anybody to a place where they would face persecution or other forms of serious harm such as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or arbitrary deprivation of life.
She goes on further to say
This requires, at a bare minimum, the assessment of individuals’ international protection needs.
In other words we are required by our being a signatory to the 1951 UNHRC Refugee Convention  to perform due diligence on a case by case basis.

And then, quite rightly, she expands on that observation
Australia is therefore at risk of breaching its obligations precisely because it does not systematically examine on a case by case basis whether people have a risk of such treatment if they are removed from Australia. This needs to be assessed not only with respect to their removal to their home country, but also to Malaysia (or any other country to which their removal might be proposed).
What Dr McAdam states is quite true but I think our "obligations" need a little more understanding as some may think our obligations have a legal basis.

We have a moral and an ethical obligation to treat Refugees as per the 1951 Refugee Convention. This obligation arises out of our agreement to adhere to the principles for the treatment of Refugees as set out in that Convention. It holds no force in International or Domestic Law'

What is a refugee as defined by the Convention?
A PERSON WHO IS OUTSIDE HIS OR HER COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY OR HABITUAL RESIDENCE; HAS A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION BECAUSE OF HIS OR HER RACE, RELIGION, NATIONALITY, MEMBERSHIP OF A PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP OR POLITICAL OPINION; AND IS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO AVAIL HIMSELF OR HERSELF OF THE PROTECTION OF THAT COUNTRY, OR TO RETURN THERE, FOR FEAR OF PERSECUTION.
Thus it is incumbent upon a receiving country to asses whether a person attempting to gain entry for purposes of remaining there fits the definition of "refugee" as per the convention. This is the process the government undertakes after interception. The reason for this is that there are people who are "economic refugees", those seeking a better standard of living then achievable in their native country. These people do not meet the criteria of the Convention and thus fall outside our obligations under the Convention.

Where the person's claim is assessed he is either found to have fitted the definition or not in which case the receiving country has the right to return that person to whence he originated  from.

As an aside, even if the person satisfies the criteria of the definition, the convention
.......does not provide automatic protection for all time. Many refugees have integrated permanently in their country of asylum, but some stop being a refugee when the basis for their original asylum claim ceases to exist. Voluntary repatriation of refugees to their home country is UNHCR’s ‘preferred’ solution – and indeed is the commonest outcome – but only when conditions make it possible for them to return home safely. (UNHRC)
Therefore, the government has the right to grant temporary refugee status that can be revoked once the situation in the refugees home country changes. In practice this does not happen.

So the Australian Government has the right to process those seeking refugee status anywhere that it wishes as long as it does so with "Non Refoulement". This means that no country may deport or expel a person to a country where that person faces persecution, or risk of serious human rights violations.Now, the question is whether Malaysia is likely to persecute or violate the human rights of the Asylum seekers during their period of detention there on our behalf.

That is a question for the Government to answer. Whilst Malaysia is not a signatory to the Convention that does not preclude it per se. It would have to be proved by sending claimants there would be an act of "Refoulment". Dr McAdam's is right that each case must be looked upon individually, for example, you could not send a Muslim to a country that only serves pork even if that person was otherwise treated as a King.

I am sure the Government is more than aware of this requirement, notwithstanding that, we as a country treat Human Rights very seriously and I doubt any Australian would act so cavalier to do other than what is in the best interest of the claimants and Australia.

This whole debate is based on Australia's rights to deter non genuine "refugees". We should do all we can to achieve this objective with due respect to the commitments we have undertaken and to a genuine regard for the human rights of the claimants.


Explainer: The facts about the Malaysian solution and Australia's international obligations


Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Australian Asylum Seekers: A Conundrum



What should our policy be?



















The news of late has had much commentary and opinion concerning Australia's "Asylum Seekers" Policy, particularly with the issue of where Refugees should be housed whilst their applications are being processed.

There are two distinct issues to this argument,
  1. What is our attitude to Asylum Seekers/refugees generally? and
  2.  How and where should they be processed as to their eligibility to being allowed to reside permanently into Australia
No-one, I believe, is against the sovereign right of Australia to choose who it allows into this country as permanent residents.

The Australian government and the Australian opposition party, the Australian Liberals, are both in accord that Asylum seekers should be intercepted and  located in offshore sites where their applications would be duly processed. That Australia will decide who it allows into this country and on what grounds.

In opposition to this is the minority Greens Party, humanitarian organisations and various religious leaders. 

They argue that Asylum seekers should be housed in Australia under the day to day supervision of Australia whilst  their Asylum applications are processed. That, as a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, we have certain obligations that we are abrogating by offshore processing. And, further, that it is a human rights violation and morally wrong to offshore the process.

Now the Australian public I feel are mostly for the interception and processing of Asylum seekers offshore. 

Australians have a very high regard for human rights, and rightly so, we have a lot to be thankful for, and we genuinely feel for those less well off. But deep down the average "Joe Blow" does not want anyone but bona fide Asylum seekers getting residency in Australia. 

There is much thought that the majority of these boat people are not true refugees escaping torture death and other serious human rights abuses. They in fact believe many are "economic refugees", people who want to come here for a better standard of living but who would not have been accepted through normal channels and procedures. Given the many incidences of identification destruction as well as the violent and costly disturbances, some have been involved with, this is not a hard proposition to believe.

The Australian government, the opposition party and the people of Australia feel that by enforcing offshore processing we will deter non genuine "Asylum seekers" from even trying to get here. And, probably more to the point, if they are processed offshore it is very much out of sight out of mind. Due process of law can take place without our collective soft hearts being affected and therefore our objectivity..

This is a valid point to consider. Australians just don't like hurting people, we are not collectively hard enough to allow these people to appeal to our very open humanity. Those opposing offshore processing know this thus the bringing into play spectres of "corporal punishment" in Malaysia or sub standard conditions in Nauru or "unaccompanied' children roaming around in a foreign country alone and afraid. They know the only way to win this argument is to blatantly appeal to our softer side.

We Australians have the right to choose who comes to our country and how they come. We have the right to deter people from attempting to do so illegally.


The government's policy of interception and offshore housing of asylum seekers is the way for Australia to proceed.


But, in saying that, we also have the obligation to ensure that these people, for whatever reason they attempt to come here illegally, are treated humanely, promptly and according to law, be it domestic or otherwise.


I think the Australian government, the people of Australia, with the oversight of the country's news media and humanitarian and religious organisations, want this outcome and are more than capable of achieving it.










Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Australia's PM Gillard Dreams on...

Cartoons | National Times

This cartoon from the National Times Australia refers to the Australian prime minister and her partner who revealed recently that he has a garden shed that the PM is not allowed to enter.

Prime Minister Gillard is wishing that she held an outright  majority in both Houses of the Australian Parliament: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Currently she governs with the support of minor party The "Greens" and independents.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Middle class turn to welfare vouchers | thetelegraph.com.au


"I wept because I had no shoes until I saw a man who had no feet"


When, as a country, we have never had it so good we whinge. "Middle class" turning to to welfare vouchers! What a laugh. A laugh on two counts:

  1. That the Telegraph had the gall to pen such a sensationalising and childish headline , and;
  2. That some people out there actually may think that they are doing it tough.
I say "some people"  because there are many who are doing it tough but, let's get real, they don't come from the "middle class".

I remember as achild in the early '60's on many occasions sitting at home with candles burning because there was no electricity. Dad said there was a blackout on that's why the candles, but, methinks, in hindsight, that the parents just couldn't afford the power bill at the time.

We didn't have one car, let alone two, so we couldn't whinge about fuel prices and registration and insurance costs. 

We didn't have "u beaut" electronic gadgetry chewing up electricity 24 hours a day.

No mobile bills, no Internet connection costs.  

No "McMansion".

We were "working class". My dad worked as a train driver, mum stayed at home. We took the train and bus everywhere. Our house was a little fibro joint but it was home. Luxuries for my parents were a beer for Dad and for mum a smoke, a few Bex Powders and TV (  for those not old enough to remember Bex were in the 60's  "mum's little helpers"!) 

And you know what? We never needed welfare vouchers, unless you count the tab mum would run up at the corner shop.

So what has become of us eh? What? we want everything on a platter? Live beyond our means then complain about it and take "welfare vouchers" from people who really are doing it tough. What a joke!

And I hope it is a joke. That the Tele was having a bad news morning or some rookie cadet was trying to impress the editor with his/her panache at headline writing.

Click on picture above and donate to those really doing it tough!


Friday, June 10, 2011

Faulkner slams Labor's 'anaemic' culture



GIVE US A VISION

In a recent speech Labor Senator John Faulkner has lashed out at his "anaemic" party, which he warns risks losing a generation of followers.
I think Faulkner has hit the nail on the head here about, not only the the Australian Labor Party, but all parties who are acting more like businesses attempting to model their goods and services to attract a target market.


What colour packaging would catch your eye Mr Consumer? Do you like it crunchy or smooth? Ok, we will go off and try to put together something that you will buy!
"We commission focus groups to find out not just what people think of what we say, but all too often, what we should be saying at all," he said.
The job of a political party, as Faulkner alludes to, is to prove to the electorate that it can lead, that is it has the vision and capability and the guts.

Yes a successful party being elected in a democratic country must reflect the views of the electorate, that is what a democracy is all about, a government being the servant of the people.

But people realise that they can not hope to be expert on all elements of government, the day to day minutiae, that is why we have elected officials and wall to wall public servants. The electorate, the people of Australia want "Big Picture". It is craving for vision.

When was the last time you heard a "Vision Statement" in Australia from a major political party. Stuff your day to day operational stuff,  don't ask me if I would vote for Julia Gillard if she changed her hairstyle and stopped wearing red. Tell me where you, our political parties, propose to  lead us to in the next 20 years.

Tell me what kind of country my children and grand children be living in? Who will we be aligned with? What will we stand for in the world?

Don't ask me in a focus group.

Tell me where you believe Australia should be and the road we must follow to get there then ask me at the ballot box if that's the road I want to go down and the destination I want to arrive at.


Faulkner slams Labor's 'anaemic' culture - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Be Prepared For A Chinese Invasion!



Chinese Tourism Booming


According to a Tourism Research Australia Report released Thursday, June 8, China is Australia's fastest growing inbound tourism market, currently ranked fourth behind New Zealand, Britain and the United States.

Whilst, numerically, the Chinese ranked fourth, in terms of dollars spent and average days stayed Chinese visitors ranked number one


In 2010, Chinese visitors rose 22 percent from the previous year to 454,000 and spent a whopping  $3.3 billion.

With the Chinese economy growing at a rate of up to 10% per annum  a whole new, cashed up, middle class has emerged that is young, adventurous and relatively close by.

Combined with the increasing economic and cultural links between the two countries Australia will obviously become a preferred holiday option and travel here will grow dramatically in the foreseeable future.

To promote this Tourism Australia has said it is planning to dramatically increase its marketing activity in China and expects to open 11 new offices on the mainland by 2014.

Whilst Chinese tourism will bring considerable additional revenue to Australia it is also extremely important in terms of increasing positive diplomatic relations between the two countries.

And, just as importantly, it exposes the up and coming future leaders of China to a hopefully a positive role model in terms of democratic freedoms and human rights.

This will undoubtedly  assist China's "peaceful rising" in it becoming a superpower on the world stage.

So it's time to learn to say hello in Chinese "Ni Hao" China!





Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Should We Be In Afghanistan?

                                                    How Much Is Too Much To Pay?



With the report of the twenty seventh death of an Australian Digger in Afghanistan, coming as it does a day after two other Diggers were returned to Australia, the question on every Australian's  lips just now is






"Should we be there...?"

Is the deaths of Australians justified in this theatre of operations and, if it is, what level of deaths is acceptable?

Well let me start by saying that my thoughts are with the families of all our Heroes who have lost their lives or have been wounded in Afghanistan. As an Australian I am enormously proud of all our military men and women.

Regrettable as the loss of life is, in any circumstances, that loss can be justified if it achieves a greater good. I do not think anyone would argue with that hypothesis and I am sure the mourned men would feel the same.

Put simply, one death to save 100 must be seen by a majority of people as justifiable, 100 deaths to save 1 must be questionable no matter what brand of philosophy you adhere to.

Combat Deaths incurred to fight International Terrorism with it's concomitant effects on average people throughout the world  is justifiable. I do not believe any but a very few would argue otherwise. The effects of terrorism are brutal, inhumane, wide reaching and destabilising on many planes.

Combat deaths to "lessen" International Terrorism and it's effects falls into the a questionable zone. A zone where we need to make judgements.

What success are we having? How do we assess and quantify that success? And, very importantly what number of deaths are acceptable? These are questions decision makers, be they military or a national government, must wrestle with on a day to day basis.

An Army general will assess a situation by weighing  up the worth of an objective against possible casualties likely to be incurred to achieve that objective. Casualties are expected but at what level?

Military doctrine has pointers to what are acceptable casualty ratios to achieve an objective. To take a position with 10% casualties could well be acceptable with 99% surely not.

The American casualty ratios in it's island hop in the Pacific in WW2 were grossly high by any standards but drew no public outcry, the objective was clear and simple; defeat the Japanese at whatever cost. Casualty ratios in Vietnam on the other hand were acceptable militarily but drew incredible criticism and public outcry because the objective was not clear and simple.

What I am trying to emphasise here is the "worth" of an objective and whether it can be acceptably attained. It is from this position that we can attempt perhaps to answer the question:

 "Should we be in Afghanistan and losing Australian sons?"

Now I would posit most Australian's would say that Australia's objective in Afghanistan was to root out International Terrorism or at the very least damage it considerably from it's cradle with a bi-product of bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice.

But was that and is that the only objective for our being in Afghanistan? Because,if it is not the only objective, then the process necessary to arrive at an answer changes significantly.

Let me try to expand this and in doing so make my point understandable.

Lets talk casualty levels in the following arbitrary terms.

If we were in Afghanistan to root out International Terrorism then I would say we would be accepting of high casualty rates. If we believed we were in Afghanistan to "Lessen" International Terrorism then our acceptance of casualty rates would decrease, the worth of the objective has diminished. If we believed that we were in Afghanistan with no real chance of either we would not be accepting of any casualties at all.

However our involvement in Afghanistan has another dimension that needs factoring in and that is our willingness to support an ally.

When this factor is brought into consideration the answer to our question, as it concerns acceptable casualty rates, must change because our objective in being there has changed.

Therefore, we must view the question from two aspects. Firstly do we believe we are achieving our main objective, that is, to root out or lessen International Terrorism and secondly what price do we put on our alliances, in this case with The United States.

I believe our involvement in Afghanistan will not root out International Terrorism but I do believe it is achieving a lessening of it's effects. Therefore,on that basis we must be accepting of a some casualties though obviously not  "many". With the importance of our alliance with the United States we must be accepting of more casualties, the "worth" of our involvement has increased with this added dimension.

Should we be in Afghanistan? I would answer yes. We are achieving by our involvement a lessening of International Terrorism but, as an objective on it's own, our acceptance of casualties should be low. With the fact that we are supporting our greatest ally our acceptance of number casualties should increase.

At what level should this acceptance be re-evaluated? I would say at a much higher casualty rate then we have experienced to date. Some of the higher casualty rates are, as of yesterday, US: 1610, UK: 371, Canada: 156 France: 59 Germany: 53  Denmark: 40.

We are in Afghanistan for the right reasons; to reduce the infrastructure of Terrorism, thereby lessening it's ability to harm, and to support our closest and most needed ally.

We should stay in Afghanistan for as long as the United States stays unless casualty rates become considerably higher then they are now or other factors come to play.

I do not like seeing Australia's or any countries' youth die but I think the results achieved are commensurate with the cost.


Picture courtesy of The Daily Telegraph




Monday, June 6, 2011

Mr Rocketman Off Again

Australia’s Foreign Minister and former prime minister is off overseas again, this time to Hungary.
He has only been home from Europe via China a week.
The Australian press has nicknamed him Mr Rocketman because the kilometres he has travelled would have him on the moon.
Some facts about Mr Rocketman in his eight month tenure as Foreign Minister
  • Kevin Rudd racks up 384,000km in travel
  • Has spent four days in every 10 overseas
  • His carbon footprint amounts to 58 tonnes 
If you follow this link to the article Mr Rocketman you will find a cute little animation of his sojourns.
By the way in my book he is doing a good job.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Australian Welfare System:Fear of failure Causes Unemployment


I welcome this Australian study on Australia’s Government Unemployed Welfare Scheme

The study essentially concludes that people are scared to get a job and run the risk of it not working out for whatever reason.

They therefore prefer to stay on the dole because of the inherently demeaning and totally out of proportion requirements to access this basic social security right if they need to do so if things don't go right. These are some of my thoughts on the current system.

  • Given the structure of Australia’s welfare system the interface with authorities is incredibly demeaning, especially so, for people who find it difficult to deal with authority figures, paperwork or just issues that we take for granted.
  • The processes required to access the system or more importantly in the context of this study re-access, are far out of proportion with the benefit and are a disincentive to take risk in employment searching in the first place.
  • A majority of people trying to access the system, whilst many are not impoverished, they do live hand to mouth and waiting weeks for financial support is untenable thus reducing employment risk taking by getting "off the dole".
  • As many are not prepared to take the risk of employment that may be uncertain they won,t, therefore decreasing the likelihood of getting employment in the future. The old saying it is easier to get a job if you have a job
  • Thus a long term unemployment scenario is effected. No risk taking in job search, longer on benefits, loss of skills, less credibility with potential employers, less likelihood or desire to get a job.
As the report says fixes are cheap and easy.

 I can think of one straight off the bat so to speak. If you go off security payments for a job and you lose that job for whatever reason (and don't think employers don't use vulnerable people) then you sign one piece of paper and your benefits are fully restored. You took this risk it failed (it may not have) you don't starve for a week or two and you are not put through the whole soul destroying and demeaning paperwork and interview rigmarole.

I think a lot of people will stick once they get that job. It certainly would cut administration costs for the Government.

    Australian Welfare System:Fear of failure Causes Unemployment

    Treasury chief talks of golden age ahead


    We Are Quick To criticise....


    I can not believe all the guff in the press of late in Australia screaming doom and gloom over the Australian economy.

    It is funny that we recently laughed at the Doomsayers predicting the end of the earth but now when a couple of journalists claim we are heading for financial depression we all believe them.

    Crikey Moses we have had one quarter of negative growth. One Quarter!

    Does anybody remember we have just had some incredibly catastrophic occurrences in Australia? Hey the whole of Queensland was underwater almost at one point for crying out load.

    You read things like "demand for iron ore and coal is falling off" "retail sales in decline" "Housing approvals down" "China is in economic meltdown" and hundreds of other reasons why we should beat Armageddon and get our ticket now.

    Sure we had one quarter of negative growth but hey let's take all factors into considerations none less then unplanned for "Acts of God" (well unplanned by us that is).

    It takes two back to back negative growth quarters to qualify for the term "Economy in recession" Even if that should occur there are recessions and there are recessions. It's not the term we need to worry about but the size of the term.

    I totally agree with the Head of the Treasury when he said


    There was nothing to change its view that the March and June quarters would be weak followed by "a strong rebound with very positive growth prospects in 2011-12 and 2012-13".

    The economy of a nation is cyclical by nature, as all other things in life are.

    We take the good times with the bad times and in Australia we seem to do that very well.

    The slang term "She'll be right mate" is what has brought us through many hard times. Times of "droughts and pouring rains" to paraphrase Dorethea Mackellar.

    One quarter of negative growth given the context it has occurred in should give no=one reason to be concerned.


    We are in for one of the most exciting decades, economically, that I have experienced in my five decades of life.










    Treasury chief talks of golden age ahead