They’ve been going back and forth for a century… Why the #ALP should savage the #Greens #auspol

It must suck being the ALP.  Is it really a party which can handle the challenges of the future?  Is it the death rattle that we can hear?  Is it like a headless chook which is technically dead but the rest of its body doesn’t seem to realise?

The saddest part for the ALP is that it struggles philosophically to express its identity.  It used to be the worker’s party, but the shift in the right wing end of the spectrum stole most of that support.  It dabbled with being the wooly-headed humanitarian party, but that just pushed its traditional voter base further into the hands of the LNP.  And now it’s got the Greens stealing the wooly-headed, confused-about-the-world vote.

What to do?

There are two major parties in the Australian landscape: the LNP (which is technically two parties but the National Party is a complete non-entity these days) and the ALP.  Due to the weird way the Senate is elected, a third party is usually elected from the run-off preferences.  Previously, this spot went to the Democrats but they suffered electoral oblivion.  Now, it’s a role serviced by the Australian Greens.

Why do the preferences run-off like that?  Neither the LNP nor the ALP want to preference the other. You can usually spot which parties are completely repugnant by who sits lower on the preference list than the other major party.  Traditionally, both major parties would prefer to have their preferences go to the Greens than to the other major party.

In the last election, this spread to the Lower House.  See for example the result of the seat of Melbourne in the last Federal Election. The ALP came up short of 50% based on primary vote alone.  It needed about 7,000 votes to be directed to it from preferences.  Instead, the 14,000 people who voted for the LNP preferenced the Greens.  Thus, the seat was ‘won’ (I still hate that word for election results) by the Greens Party based on LNP support.

Since then, it’s been a nightmare for the ALP to deal with the Greens.  As it’s in a minority government, it relies on negotiation with the Greens.  For a variety of complicated reasons, compromise has not been received as a virtue by the Australian electorate.  Thus, every time the ALP works with the Greens, the ALP is criticised for watering down its policies to work with the Greens (‘Bob Brown is the real Prime Minister of Australia’, &c.).

On the other hand, every time the Greens frustrate the ALP’s plans, supporters of the Greens see this as a triumph.  Take, for example, the asylum seeker debate.  By siding with the LNP, the Greens were able to take credit for blocking the ALP’s scheme.

Both parties (but the ALP in particular) now have to face a new reality in Australian politics.  If they preference the Greens, they create an entity in Parliament who will make the larger parties appear weak both when they work with them (through compromise) and when they do not (through siding with the Opposition).  It is in neither the ALP’s nor the LNP’s interests to support the electoral success of the Greens.

It’s weird, really.  It is a better long term strategy to support the party which will block you outright if it has the chance rather than to support a party which will work with you sometimes.

Locked up with all of my people… A closer look at the #Greens’ #asylumseeker policies

Regardless of the side of the political spectrum, politics has become about appealing to the unexamined prejudices of the voters.  This is as true for the ‘Boat people should be shot’ crowd as it is for the ‘No boat person would ever make a fraudulent asylum claim crowd’.

Why is the debate so poor?  In this post, I said it was because the megaphones in the debate aren’t interested in actually debating anything.  You either agree completely, or you’re somehow intellectually/morally suspect.  That both sides of the debate demonise the public servant policy makers (i.e. the people with the most amount of information and have the most amount of time to research options) says something really telling about the discourse.

More worrying, from my perspective, is the way that the Greens have been able to brush off any scrutiny of their policies.  Glib one-liners from various media commentators shields them from scrutiny.  ’Offshore processing is so they don’t die in our ocean but die in Southeast Asia.  LOL.  Here’s a picture of a cat.’

In the previous post, I noted that many people write off the problem completely.  ’It’s a wicked problem and there are no solutions.  We know that because John Howard didn’t succeed and we’ve never tried the ALP’s approach.  Induction proves that if the former government didn’t succeed, no future government will.’

I didn’t note the other end of the same spectrum: the people who deny that there’s a problem at all.  So there’s an incentive for people to undertake a dangerous sea voyage.  According to the #auspol Lotus Eaters, this is perfectly fine and not a problem at all.  Why, just last year Europe had many more people risking their lives.  By applying the law of ‘If there’s a bigger problem somewhere else, there’s no problem here’, Australia doesn’t have a problem at all.

I’ve often complained that the Greens don’t really have policies, they sort of have vague position statements.  They got a lot better since the last election, but they’re still kind of garbage.  In theory, they’re supposed to be on their website here.

It’s a bit of a hunt, but under ‘Care for People’ (seriously? Whatever) we find ‘Immigration and Refugees‘.

The Australian Greens want:

7. the elimination of the policies of mandatory detention, and other forms of harsh, punitive or discriminatory treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.
8. asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa to have their claims for asylum assessed while living in the community.

The Australian Greens will:

17.        abolish mandatory and indefinite detention of asylum seekers.

24.        house asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa in publicly owned and managed open reception centres, where entry and exit to these centres are unrestricted except where prohibited for medical or security reasons specified in clause 28.

26.         grant asylum seekers an asylum application visa (AAV) and assist without delay their move into the community provided medical and security checks are satisfied or after 14 days has passed, whichever occurs first.

28.         deny an AAV if security checks demonstrate the person poses a serious criminal threat to the Australian community or if the person has not remained housed in the reception centre while the medical and security checks were completed.

31.         ensure that, if refugee status is refused and the person cannot be repatriated, the AAV will remain in force until he or she can be repatriated.

So they are going to ‘house’ asylum seekers in a centre until they’re given a visa?  And they don’t remain housed in the reception centre until they’re granted a visa, they will have their movement restricted?  Oh, so you mean you want mandatory detention?  But, wait.  Didn’t the Greens say that they didn’t want mandatory detention?  Oh, they mean they want mandatory detention but they don’t want to call it mandatory detention and they want it to look a bit more hip.

So if an asylum seeker comes to Australia and thinks that their case for refugee status isn’t certain, there is literally nothing stopping them from disappearing into the community.  And people with shady backgrounds (like the ones picked up by ASIO)?  And how would the Greens system deal with alleged people smugglers joining the asylum seeker processing processes?

What the Greens save in ‘harsh’ detention centres, they lose in these ‘urban houses’ (cough, detention centres, cough) and tracking down those who flee having their protection claims assessed.

All the while creating a reason for stateless people and the thousands of displaced people in Southeast Asia to move towards Australia.  All the while creating a reason to pay people smugglers.

How is this the humane approach again?  How is this more humane than supporting the UNHCR supported regional processing model?

I’m naked under all these clothes… What would Bob Brown do? (flowchart) #auspol #greens

It’s flowchart time…

Senator Brown’s decision to step down from leadership of the Greens has resulted in strange commentary from both sides of politics.  Declaring my hand early, I’ve never been a fan.  I’m not a fan of populist politicians.  The Greens as a whole are just the National Party of the Left: attention-seeking, pandering, quick to confect faux-outrage.  Senator Brown has been the Joss Whedon of Australian politics: a man with the fanatical support of his admirers who are quick to blame his shortcomings on anything other than him.

Those in the ‘mainstream’ right (i.e. the crazies who make me look bad) have been stuck with two contradictory opinions: Senator Brown was the most dangerous man in politics; Senator Brown was a failure.  It’s hard to know how much is genuine opinion and how much is pandering to the readership.

But a similar problem has arisen on the left.  Senator Brown and the Greens have had a lot of success painting themselves as a ‘different kind’ of politician/political party, despite the ample evidence to the contrary.

I have had the following conversation six times with six entirely different people:

Them: ‘Bob Brown wasn’t like other politicians.’

Me: ‘Sure he was.  He was populist, misrepresented issues, and, when challenged, denied facts.’

Them: ‘But all politicians do that.’

The Greens were the most successful of the emerging populist parties (Democrats, One Nation, Family First, &c.).  The Democrats fell due to internal stupidity.  Family First rose and fell due to external stupidity (spiteful direction of preferences).  One Nation was killed off by Howard becoming a born again populist, effectively slashing the appeal of Pauline Hanson.

In a non-crazy universe, the ALP would have absorbed the Greens’ electoral support.  Instead, internal tensions, strange politics, and an utter hatred of Howard (resulting in a need to compete with him at his own game).  With no natural predators, the Greens were able to grow all kinds of wackiness.  Senator Hanson-Young, for example.

This doesn’t fit the manifest destiny rhetoric of Greens supporters.  So Senator Brown’s decision to leave politics has initiated his apotheosis.  The success of the Greens has to be told in terms of unwavering conviction, integrity, and vision: the alternative is that it was merely a quirk of our senatorial election system and populist politics.

Stand in the place where you live, now face north… Cherry picking ‘facts’

In a debate about homosexual marriage, a friend of mine trumpeted: ‘Christians weren’t even interested in marriage until the 13th Century’.  When I noted that there were references to marriage in Ephesians, my friend was unaware that Ephesians was a book of the New Testament.

I find it increasingly strange that people will ‘know’ all kinds of wacky, obscure ‘facts’ which support their position, but won’t know basic, entry-level facts about the subject first.  My friend is lovely and I don’t think it’s a reflexion on her.  We see it far too often in public debates.

Consider people who deny climate change and anthropogenic climate change.  Holy crap, those people must be reading all of the journals published everywhere in order to find tiny ‘factoids’ which support their position.  Don’t worry that 98% of climate scientists agree with anthropogenic climate change; we’ve found the one crank who disagrees.  Mention very basic things about climate science and their jaws slack gape.

We are building an information landscape in which people never have to be confronted by anything which does not agree with their prejudices.  We’ve even got people arguing that children shouldn’t be exposed to things which disagree with their parents’ biases.  How did we get to this point?

This morning, I read more of George Orwell’s essays.  In an unused preface to Animal Farm, Orwell complained that:

If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion.  In this country intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.  [Source: George Orwell, 'Proposed Preface to Animal Farm']

The newspapers, he noted, were ‘extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics.’

Instead of silencing ‘alternative’ viewpoints, there is money to be made in drowning them out.  It makes me cringe to think that I just referred to best available science as an ‘alternative’ viewpoint, but that’s what it’s become.  Just as in Orwell’s day, the publishers are frightened of public opinion.  Views which challenge readers will get overlooked if readers are able to shield themselves from challenging views.  If readers shield themselves, then they can’t look at the pretty adverts publishers are trying to sell.

But surely there are places for public debates in the media.  Doesn’t Andrew Bolt appear on Insiders every week or so to provide a contrasting view?

Not really.  Dissent is okay so long as it’s arena-style combat, providing a spectacle which will attract advert-reading viewers.  The point is not to challenge the reader: the point is to attract attention.  The reader has their champion in the field ready to use whatever rhetoric device is necessary to shield the viewer from being challenged.

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t think this is a right-wing/left-wing thing.  My Greens friends are generally more shielded from reality than my Nationals friends.  For every ‘Climate Change is Crap’ chanter on the right, there’s a Green blowhard on the left chanting similarly asinine mantras.  Post what you like to refute their arguments; they’re not going to listen (and try to justify why they’re not going to listen).

Infotainment killed news, but when did we all start thinking that it was okay to just cherry pick convenient ‘facts’?

When you sleep, where do your fingers go?… Election time again!

It’s election time in Victoria and the question of preferences is upon us again.  Some might remember that I complained about the Greens’ lie that giving preferences to the Greens could not possibly result in a Coalition victory.  While reading through some notes, I discovered that Lewis Carroll (the author of Alice in Wonderland) had already noted this problem.  Adopting his example (which he wrote in A Discussion of the Various Methods of Procedure in Conducting Elections):

Imagine there are eleven people in an electorate and four possible parties: Greens, ALP, Libs, Nationals.

1 Greens ALP Nats Libs

2 Greens ALP Libs Nats

3 Greens ALP Nats Libs

4 Libs ALP Greens Nats

5 Libs ALP Greens Nats

6 Libs ALP Greens Nats

7 Nats ALP Libs Greens

8 Nats ALP Libs Greens

9 Nats ALP Greens Libs

10 ALP Greens Nats Libs

11 ALP Libs Nats Greens

To paraphrase, Dodgson: ‘There seems to be no doubt that [ALP]‘s election would be the most generally acceptable: and yet, by the [method of elimination whereby the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated], [they] would be excluded at once, and ultimately [the Liberal candidate] would be elected.’

Ipso facto. Using up your oxygen… things I forgot to say

A while back, I noted that the Greens were actively deceiving the public about the election result.  Since that post, I’ve been startled at how widespread the spin and deception about the election result has been.  If a party could find some way of misrepresenting the election figures in their favour, they did.  The Coalition used extremely odd interpretations of the data to claim that they should have won the election.  The ALP was equally quick to claim 2PP entailed their victory long before the 2PP outcome (as irrelevant as it is) was known.

But the Greens’ claim that they ought to have gained 17 seats remains the most outrageous of the lies.  The sheer audacity of the claim is boggling, as is the fact that otherwise sane people believe it completely.  His comments on the outing of Grog are interesting.

What the Greens refuse to acknowledge is that they, alone, were the only party to contest all 150 seats.  Proportional representation of the whole only makes sense if there’s consistency across the whole.

But there isn’t.  Even the major parties didn’t contest every single seat (further making the primary vote proportions irrelevant, btw).

Imagine two fishermen.  One goes out every day of the month.  The other goes out one day of the month.  The former catches 30 fish, the latter catches 10.  It would be laughable for the first fisherman to claim that they were the better fisher on the basis of the total number of fish.  Yet that’s exactly what the Greens did (and continues to do).  So consider the Australian Sex Party who only contested a few seats but got a strong number of primary votes in those seats.  What’s curious is that they, in their inaugural election appearance, performed better on a per-candidate basis than the Greens did when it established itself as a party.  The Greens, in comparison, fared rather poorly: their per-candidate outcome was less than they should have received if the votes were distributed at random.  Therefore, far from being a legitimate third voice in the parliament, the two major parties still represent the vast majority of people.

Using a basic rule that a party with a per-candidate vote should recieve twice the number of seats in the lower house, the Greens only scrapes through with eight seats.  ASP got two.  How refreshing that the Australian Sex Party — not wishing to lower itself to the stunt political party that the Greens is — hasn’t lowered itself to whining that it was robbed due to the system not being entirely different.

We are building a religion. We are building it better… No thanks to the Greens

Despite what some people have said, this election result is terrible.  Hung governments are impotent governments.  I had a lot of sympathy for the ALP; how could anybody achieve their reform agenda when they’ve got an irrationally hostile Senate?  Now they’re going to attempt their agenda with a hostile Senate and House of Representatives.

There were a few good points.  I’m yet to find a seat where the informal vote was lower than the primary vote for the Secular Party.  I’m an atheist and even I can’t stand them.

There were some surprising points.  Check out the distribution of votes for the ALP and the Greens in Melbourne.

ALP Primary: 27,771

Greens Primary: 25,387

ALP 2PP: 31,154

Greens Primary: 39,172

Notice how little the ALP vote changed after preferences?  There were 14 thousand people who voted for the Liberal Party, but the ALP vote doesn’t move nearly that much.  Therefore, the bulk of Liberal voters gave their preferences to the Greens over the ALP.  How extremely weird.

And then there was the just plain stupid.  I feel sorry for Senator Steve Fielding.  As downright silly as he is, he’s a genius in comparison to Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.  During the election coverage, she noted that if the rules were completely different and we had proportional voting, the Greens would have taken 17 seats.  What she neglects to say is that proportional voting would have given the CDP Christian and Family First parties several seats as well.  Thank Zeus, we don’t have proportional voting.  She also neglects to mention the huge number of seats where the Greens primary vote was less than the number of informal votes cast.  The Greens Party is just a stunt party who couldn’t even manage to draw the protest vote in places where people were literally throwing away their votes.

I propose a new system for elections.  Instead of voting for a candidate, you vote against them.  The candidate with the least number of negative votes wins.  We’d never hear from the Greens Party again.

In other news, congratulations to the Australian Sex Party for their excellent first time showing.  The question will be whether they can sustain it.  I’ve been trying to work out the number of votes per candidate (parties with more candidates obviously end up with more votes) and a rough measure seems to put it up at the One Nation level of support.  That makes me feel slightly better about Australia.

Bum bum bum badee badee bum… Election Day!

So… I’m still not entirely sure how I’ll vote.

I feel like this is less of a choice between candidates and more a choice between voting formally or informally.  Given the lack of candidates in my electorate, I feel like an informal vote is entirely justified.  I don’t support the political options we have and voting informally is a valid form of protest.

At the same time, a lot of the things for which I detest the current government was largely a creation of the Coalition and Greens Party acting in concert.  We shouldn’t be limiting our immigration growth, but the C&G vandals in the upper house have forced us into rather a deplorable public debate.  The inability to act on climate change was similarly a result of their vandalism.  And so on and so forth.  Instead of giving the Greens the balance of power, I think a much better political situation would be ALP dominance in both houses for three years.  Unfortunately, we’ll get the usual unrepresentative swill we always get with the Senate.

I guess I’m in shock that an election between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott could possibly be described as a cliffhanger.

For those of you in Victoria, vote for the Sex Party.  At least they’ve got principles.

If you could make everybody poor just so you could be rich… Greens policy part 3!

Only three sections left to do!  Caveat: My head hurts like an absolute bastard.  Fortunately, I had a packet of Nurofen in the house and it’s working well.  Thumbs up, Nurofen. Okay, I’ve got my iTunes set to ‘Soft Awesome’: let’s roll!

Policy Category E: Human Rights and Democracy

This section is probably going to irritate me because it’s the section I care about the most.  Our conversations in the public space on this topic are woeful.  They lack the rich flavour of past debates.  We don’t have the epic speeches or inflamed pamphlets.  With that in mind, I’m not sure that my criticisms of the policies advocated by the Greens in this space won’t extend to a criticism of the discussion in general.  Thus, a lot of this isn’t going to be critical of the Greens’ position but the general lack in the debate.  Put simply, I don’t think other parties perform particularly well in this space either.

The Australian Greens believe that [...]

3. Australia’s Constitution should express our aspirations as a community and define our rights and responsibilities as individuals and as members of the community.

4. Parliament is the central authority of representative and responsible government. — p58.

These are foundational issues and they set up the Constitution and Parliament as The Important Bits.  Should our Constitution express our aspirations as a community and define rights of individuals?  I’m of the view that it shouldn’t.  Constitutions should establish functional frameworks for maintaining effective governance.  Within the context of the Constitution, the society will express its aspirations and define the rights of individuals.  Why?  Because aspirations change.  The rights which are considered important and relevant change.  Constitutions are rigid documents and, as such, are not good vehicles for fluid and malleable aspirations. Parliament is increasingly demonstrating that it can’t handle the task of being representative.  Previous entries in this blog outlined Simpson’s Paradox showing why this has been the case.  This appears to be a particularly self serving belief (similar to ‘Gillard wasn’t elected PM by the People’ — the position of Prime Minister is not a popularly elected position and it’s a conceit of politicians to suggest that they do).

The Australian Greens believe that [...] 7. Australia should become a republic with an Australian head of state. –p58.

Apart from Tony Abbott, are there any Monarchists left in the mainstream?  It seems to be a worryingly one-sided debate.

The Australian Greens will: 15. enact a Bill of Rights. — p58.

http://onlythesangfroid.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/all-of-the-boys-and-the-girls-here-in-paris/ http://onlythesangfroid.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/i-like-to-wait-to-see-how-things-turn-out/

The Australian Greens will [...] 17. support the following electoral reforms [...] constitutional recognition of the powers and responsibilities of local government — p59.

This is a dreadful proposal.  We are already ‘overgoverned’ in Australia and suffer the politicisation of governance.  I mean that word ‘suffer’ in the strongest possible terms.  Creating further levels of government is not a useful ambition.

[...]reduced numbers of by-elections by allowing casual vacancies to be filled by a member of the retiring representative‟s party — p59.

Except we don’t elect parties in elections: we elect candidates.  We ought to have the expectation that candidates will consider their electorates before their parties but, sadly, we know this is not the case.  Party politics is a political disease in Australia and we should be seeking ways to reduce its influence.  The Greens, it seems, disagree and want to treat seats in parliament like party play things.

[...]public funding of elections to eliminate private funding – p59.

I’m not certain that I want taxpayer money going towards election campaigns (if that’s what this means; else, I don’t know which private funds are used to hold elections…).

The Australian Greens will [...] 18. uphold judicial discretion in sentencing, and repeal mandatory sentencing legislation. — p61.

This is a superb proposal.  I’m rather shocked that our system allows judicial discretion to be repealed through acts of legislation.  While I understand that it’s not unique to Australia, it is still outrageous.

The Australian Greens will [...] 19. allow customary law and other cultural or personal factors to be taken into account by judges in determining sentences. — p61.

This is problematic because I don’t feel that customary law or other cultural/personal factors should influence the length of a sentence.  The justice system should provide an equal playing field: that’s lessened if some groups in the community are held to different standards of culpability.  Mind, I’m not speaking of people who have a real incapacity.

The Australian Greens will [...] 22. increase funding to community legal centres as an adjunct to legal aid and private legal practitioners.  – p61.

I agree 100% with this.  It is an embarrassment that the poor routinely receive legal services of a quality less than those who can afford to pay snazzy lawyers.  The various state Bar societies should be nationalised and all barristers should be state employees.

The Australian Greens will [...] 14. allow and encourage the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate alleged and potential human rights abuses in Australia, and comply with any recommendations.  – p63.

Any recommendations?!  Here’s a list of the current members of the UNHRC.  Do you really want Libya, China, and Cuba making recommendations to Australia about human rights?  Really?  Are you insane in the mind?

The Australian Greens will [...] 19. ratify all United Nations Human Rights Conventions, including their optional protocols.  – p63.

Even the dreadful ones?  That’s the problem with most of these proposals: they’re so incredibly vague.

The Australian Greens will [...] 21. oppose the death penalty in all cases and support campaigns for its abolition.  – p64.

My usual arguments in favour of the death penalty don’t hold here particularly well because the Greens also oppose — in principle — the use of prisons (preferring rehabilitation and the like).  Even so, it seems reasonable to believe that the Greens think that there will be cases of people being sentenced to life imprisonment.  If they do, then they’re happy for people to be punished by slow institutionalisation rather than give people a mercifully quick death.  Admittedly, I doubt that I’ll see any other parties say: ‘Hey, we’re okay with the death penalty and advocate for its reintroduction’, so it’s a bit of a non-issue.

The Australian Greens want [...] 8. extensive structural reform to democratise the UN.  – p65.

Holy frijoles.  There is a good reason why there are a few big countries with permanent positions and veto power: it’s because you need to keep those countries engaged in the process.  It’s no shock that countries in the UN system ‘group’ together to create powerful blocs.  Do we really want a system where the ‘region’ (not all regions are regional, weirdly) with the most members gets what it wants?  Is that what the UN is for?

The Australian Greens will [...] 35. seek support within the United Nations for a democratic process of self determination under autonomous governance in the West Papua Region. 36. support the rights of the Palestinian peoples to statehood through the creation of a viable state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, based on the pre 1967 borders and the right of all peoples in the region to peace.

So Indonesian occupation is bad, but Jewish occupation is good?  How does this work in the minds of the Greens?

The Australian Greens will [...] 33. end the ANZUS treaty unless Australia‟s membership can be revised in a manner which is consistent with Australia‟s international and human rights obligations.  – p70.

… They’d do what?!  If somebody started saying this around the water cooler at work, you’d think they were insane.  Why, of all things, would you attack the ANZUS treaty?

The Australian Greens will [...] 43. support positive reform of the military justice system and measures to reduce discrimination and harassment amongst ADF members.  – p70.

Okay.  At this point, the policy should have said something about the Greens position on the Australian Military Court.  It’s the number one issue of military reform regarding discrimination and harassment and the policy document is mysteriously silent.

The Australian Greens want [...] 12. the level of Australian overseas aid increased to a minimum of 0.7% of GNP by 2010, as mandated by the United Nations, with provision for greater increases should natural disasters or conflicts requiring major humanitarian interventions occur. — p71.

By 2010, you say?

The Australian Greens want [...] 14. a non-commercial aid program; aid must not be used as a means of subsidising Australian business. — p71.

An excellent idea.  For more on this, read Crikey’s articles here.

Policy Category F: Science and Technology

The Australian Greens will: 14. institute a funding program for scientific research that specifically addresses community needs and national goals.  – p73.

Eugh.  That made me cringe: why would you base your scientific research specifically on community needs and national goals?  Surely, you’d say: ‘What are the promising new research endeavours and how can federal funds help bring those endeavours into fruition?’  Else, we might was well set up ‘Scientific Idol’ and let people phone in their votes for which research should receive funds. No, that makes me cross.  Since when is it the role of the State to tell academics what to study?  Do you know why we need these funds so much?  Because we underfund universities.  Instead of making grants and whatnot, why not just inject those funds back into the tertiary education system?  Oh, because there’s not enough funds.  Silly me.

The Australian Greens will [...] 20. increase funding to the Australian Research Council and abolish the capacity for the Minister to veto board decisions. — p74.

So much for their earlier position (on p58) that Parliament is the central authority of representative and responsible government.  The Ministerial veto power is to stop ARC from being too weird.

The Australian Greens will [...] 32. make funding to the SBS and the ABC comparable to current per capita funding models for public broadcasting in the United Kingdom.  – p77.

Using the BBC’s annual report, we can work out how much this actually is.  The BBC’s revenue is 4,605.7 million pounds.  The population of the UK is 61,414,062.  Thus, the per capita funding to the BBC is 75 pounds.  75 pounds is about $130.  Multiply that by the population of Australia and we get $2,743 million for two stations.  Remember, that figure includes revenues which the BBC generates itself and given that the BBC gets funding from television licence as well as from the government, it’s unclear how much of that $2,743 million is expected to come from a Greens government.

The Australian Greens will [...]

35. ensure that appointments to the boards of public broadcasters are subject to approval by the Parliament rather than the Prome [sic] Minister and Cabinet.  – p77.

Yes, because the ABC board isn’t political enough without it being a question for Parliament.  Golly hell.

The Australian Greens will [...]

37. legislate to ensure truth in political advertising.  – p77.

Could you imagine the nightmarish legal battles regarding this?

39. phase out alcohol promotions from times and placements which have high exposure to young people – including banning TV advertising of alcohol between 7am and 9.30pm.  – p77.

Le whut?!  What sort of Nanny State are we after here?  And I’m not the sort of person who usually cries about Nanny States making this really weird.

Since when is the Greens the anti-fun party?

The Australian Greens will [...]

40. ensure independent and transparent review of the ACMA website blacklist.  – p77.

I thought they were against the blacklist?  Admittedly, it’s hard to work out given the huge number of policies making repeat performances in later categories.  I must say, the Greens aren’t making it particularly easy to navigate their policy document.  Obscurantist, much.

The Australian Greens will [...]

43. maintain the ban on parallel importation of books.  – p77.

Except we have historical precedent to help us here.  There used to be a similar ban on importation of music.  One of the outspoken opponents of it was none other than our current Minister for Environment and Misc., Peter Garrett.  Opponents were absolutely certain that it would spell the end for Australian music and Australian music retailers.  Lo and behold, it didn’t and now people can get their music less expensively.  Books are needlessly expensive because of this ban and it’s not helping anybody.

Policy Category G: Sustainable Economy

Sweet merciful Zeus, the last category!  Five pages to go: let’s rock it out.

The Australian Greens believe [...]

3. the free market economy, by externalising the environmental and social costs of greenhouse gas emissions is creating the greatest market failure of all time, namely climate change.  – p79.

Ideological economics?!  In Australia?!  It’s more likely than you think.

The Australian Greens believe [...]

7. sustainable, equitable economic progress is best achieved by government ownership of natural monopolies and new government investment in strategic assets.  – p79.

I’m not exactly quiet in my distaste for Libertarians (sorry Tory and Stephan), but even I’m left stunned by this.  The question here is why natural monopolies necessitate the requirement for government ownership.  For the life of me, I can’t think of a good reason.

The Australian Greens believe that [...]

11. social, political and economic institutions must allow individuals and communities to determine their own priorities.  – p79.

Except climate change is market failure?  How is this in any way consistent?

The Australian Greens will [...]

22. reduce inequities in the current personal tax system by [...]

abolishing the 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate in order to increase funding for public hospitals  – p80.

I agree entirely.  Health services — like legal services — are not a valid commodity and private health insurance schemes cause unhealthy societies where people have to choose between their health and their wallets.  Health insurance schemes in the U.S. have bankrupted people and we’re eerily close to going down similar paths here in Australia.

[...] introduce a new top marginal tax rate of 50 per cent on incomes of $1 million or over. — p80.

Does it shock you that the demographic of the Greens voter base doesn’t typically involve the wealthy?  How is a 50% tax rate anything but punitive?  A person earning $999,999 will pay $424,849 in 2009-10.  If the Greens had their way, if that person had earned an extra dollar, they would have paid $75,150 more in tax.  That’s an expensive dollar!

The Australian Greens will [...]

40. reduce Australia‟s foreign debt and foreign ownership through use of trade, financial and regulatory measures to ensure more productive use of foreign capital and strengthening of Australian manufacturing, recognising the need to support economies in developing countries.  – p81.

Wow.  Talk about spin.

The Australian Greens will [...]

31. abolish the requirement for secret ballots before industrial action.  – p83.

I think unions are great, but non-secret ballot is used to intimidate people.  It took me a while to realise that self-interested groups were behind the opposition to secret ballot: union leaders wanted to ensure ‘solidarity’ through bullying.  Secret ballot protected individuals from stand overs.  It’s appalling that the Greens would oppose it.

The Australian Greens will [...]

43. restore the right of all employees, including casual, fixed term and probationary workers, to challenge termination of employment where it is unfair, with reinstatement to be the remedy except in exceptional circumstances.  – p83.

If this were changed to ‘with compensation to be the remedy’, I’d agree entirely.  Reinstatement forces people into hostile situations.  Compensation is significantly fairer and acts as a deterrent to rogue employers.

The Australian Greens will [...]

46. increase casual loadings to a minimum of 30% and introduce the ability for casual employees to convert to permanent part time work after 3 months of continuous employment, where employment is on a continuous ongoing basis. — p84.

Brilliant idea.  Casual employment should only be used to fill short-term gaps in employment.  Leaving people on casual rates for months and months on end is entirely unfair.

The Australian Greens will [...]

12. remove Australia from existing bilateral Free Trade Agreements, where possible.  – p87.

Who the devil thought up this policy?!  FTAs have contributed enormously to the wealth of non-Anglophone countries.  Breaking down barriers to trade improves opportunities for wealth generation.  Why would the Greens oppose them?

Aaaaah:

13. enter into multilateral trade agreements, except where a bilateral trade agreement favours a developing country.  – p83.

A problem with this is situations where you want to apply sanctions to a particular country.  Imagine five countries join a multilateral FTA and one of the countries goes rogue and starts a campaign of genocide.  In order to apply trade sanctions on that country, they need to be removed as a party to that agreement.  That means more negotiations with the other countries.  It is much easier to just terminate your bilateral agreements individually.  There are no advantages to a multilateral agreement over a bilateral agreement, and multilateral agreements are more problematic.  So why change?

The Australian Greens will [...]

17. prohibit the trade in goods that have been produced through the exploitation of children and other vulnerable people.  – p87.

Brilliant idea.  A better idea is to tax imported goods such that the average salary cost per item is equivalent to local minimum standards.  For example, imagine a product costs 38c in wages to create here in Australia but only 9c in wages in Libertopia.  That product should have a tariff of 29c.  It means you don’t get an advantage by cutting out local labour.

The Australian Greens will [...]

22. support abolition of, unless radical reform can democratise, the IMF, World Bank and WTO. — p88.

Here I am on the third last page and I’ve reached some kind of nirvana: I’m no longer shocked by the outrageously crazy proposals of the Greens.  I have become desensitised.

The Australian Greens will [...]

36. eliminate level crossings in urban areas, and ensure the presence of signals on all crossings in rural and regional parts of the national rail network.  – p90.

Yes, the Greens will protect us from the menace of level crossings…

The worst part about this policy is that it was clearly derived from the hysteria drummed up by Today Tonight and A Current Affair.  Oh, they’re so dangerous.  I don’t know anybody who knows anybody that’s been injured due to a level crossing.

And there we have it.  90 pages of the Greens policies which are mostly vague waffle mixed with a few outrageously crazy ideas.  It’s sad that just about every single person who votes for the Greens at the upcoming election won’t read through that document, especially considering the conversations I’ve had with people lately about the Greens have revealed how little people know about the party they support.  Only one person knew that the Greens opposed reproductive cloning (which is a major issue for some people, including me), and that person wasn’t going to vote for the Greens anyway.

“Just paint your face” the shadows smile… The policies of the Greens, part 2

Despite being informed by one of their supporters that the Greens don’t seriously advocate their stated policies, I will assume (forgive me, Jeremy) that the party actually does advocate its policies.  It is, after all, only charitable to believe that a political party supports its stated policies.

So this was the first part. Here’s the second:

Policy Category B: Agriculture and Natural Resources

I must admit, I’m not terribly knowledgeable about agriculture and natural resources.  I suspect this will be short…

The Australian Greens believe that:

1. genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs), their products, and the chemicals used to manage them, pose unacceptable threats to natural and agricultural ecosystems.  – p19.

They… they do?  Here was me thinking that blanket statements about GMOs were sensationalist and devoid of reason.  I’m fine for caution, but to say that they pose unacceptable threats is manifestly false.  Humans have been bio-engineers ever since dogs bio-engineered us.

The Australian Greens believe that [...]

4. as living organisms – plants, animals and micro-organisms – are not inventions, patents on life are unethical, against the public interest and should be banned. — p19.

Wait… wait…  There is a distinct and real difference between living organisms which exist already and living organisms which are deliberately constructed in laboratories.  The first should be unable to be patented (and the category should be extended to bio-products, such as individual genes, &c.).  The second is very sensibly the world of intellectual property.  For example, imagine I’m working on a cure for cancer and it’s a drug.  Should I be allowed to patent it?  Obviously, yes.  Now imagine that the cure I develop is a laboratory-created bacteria which attacks cancer cells then dies and flushes out of the body.  Why shouldn’t I be able to patent my creation?

The Australian Greens want:

8. a moratorium on the release of GEOs into the environment until there is an adequate scientific understanding of their long term impact on environmental and human health and animal health. (NB: most GM products are fed to animals)

It’s a weird double-standard here.  Our best science says that GM food doesn’t pose an existential threat to us, and selling the products of research will help fund further research into the field.  Our best science says that climate change is happening and that we need to limit our greenhouse gas output.  In the one instance, the Greens point to the science.  In the second, the Greens ignore it.  You can’t be dedicated to our best science only when it’s convenient.

Policy Category C: Climate Change and Energy

Phew.  Most of the rest of Category B was fairly boring.  A few ratifications.  A few bans.  Climate Change and Energy sounds exciting.  A bit worrying that ‘Climate Change’ doesn’t fit under ‘Energy’ but indigenous Australians do.  I’m still in shock about that.

The Australian Greens believe that:

1. climate change poses the greatest threat to our world in human history and requires urgent local, national and global action.  – p24.

Only because the Greens don’t believe in Cthulhu…

I am 100% behind the ‘Stop polluting; climate change’ march but I still think the greatest threat to our world in human history was/is the nuclear arms race.  The superlatives tend to cheapen the public debate.  A minor criticism.

A more significant criticism is the lack of meat on their Climate Change policies.  They seem so lacklustre and mediocre.  The very worst of these was:

26. create a new ministerial position, Minister for Climate Change and Energy, to oversee the national response to climate change and the implementation of energy efficiency programs and standards. — p25.

As if we need more ad hoc ministerial positions.

The Australian Greens believe that:

1. there is a strong link between the mining and export of uranium, nuclear power and nuclear weapon proliferation.  – p27.

Gosh.  Really?  A strong link between mining uranium and nuclear power?  You don’t say.

The Australian Greens believe that [...]

4. nuclear power is not a safe, clean, timely, economic or practical solution to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.  – p27.

See above comments about ‘best science’.  Australia’s history with nuclear power is a fascinating one and definitely worth further reading.  It seems odd that we could have access to comparatively clean forms of energy, and the Greens oppose it in favour of less efficient forms of energy production.

Policy Category C: Care for People

Things get interesting in the ‘Drugs, Substance Abuse, and Addiction’ policies beginning on page 31.  How do you reconcile:

The Australian Greens believe that:

1. The Australian Greens do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs.

with

5. the regulation of personal use of currently illegal drugs is best addressed primarily within a health and social framework, with legal support.

6. imprisonment for personal use of illicit drugs, when not associated with other crimes, is not an appropriate solution to drug dependence.

I’m guessing decriminalisation.  So the Greens believe that they don’t support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs, but they’re fine for the current sanctions against drug use to vanish.  Look, I am not particularly worried about their drug policy (despite being conservative) but why not just call a spade a spade and be done with it?

The Australian Greens will [...]

14. reform the social security system to ensure an adequate income for all.

15. simplify the system of targeted pensions and allowances into a universal guaranteed adequate income (GAI) scheme.  – p50.

Is this in any way practical?  I’m a big fan of systems which minimise the impact of poverty.  The focus on providing an adequate income seems flatly implausible.  In what way is this a sustainable policy?

The Australian Greens will:

14. support the right of people from the age of 16 years to vote.  – p52.

Oh God no.  Could you imagine the horror of this system?  Why not just replace elections with Australian Idol contests?

17. increase Youth Allowance to the level of a living wage to enable young people to study full time without recourse to casual work.  – p52.

This is incomplete.  A fair system would provide both job-seekers and students the same amount of support with ‘study’ replacing ‘searching for full-time employment’: people shouldn’t be penalised because they’re studying.  Part of the problem is that it’s considered ‘Youth Allowance’ and not study assistance: moving to the city from a regional area was fraught with difficulty because I was still considered dependent on my single parent and, as such, received a Youth Allowance.  It’s a nonsense system.

The Australian Greens will [...]

21. ban the advertising of junk food during children’s viewing hours.  – p52.

Yes, because it’s the advertising’s fault and definitely not the fault of consumers.  Perish the thought.

The Australian Greens want:

9. all schools to be funded and required to provide opportunities for appropriate sport and physical recreation for all school children up to and including year 12.

10. sporting events of national significance to be available on free to air television or other free media.  – p55.

The problem with schools is that they’re considered a panacea for everything.  Schools should provide this.  Schools should provide that.  School is not the place for sport.  After school is for sport and recreation.  Saturday morning is for sport and recreation.  Why can’t schools be about education for once in somebody’s policies?

And if there’s one thing I love about pay-TV it’s that it gets the hours and horrible hours of sport of the television.  Sport remains a hotspot for corruption and illegal activity: why we need to support it as avidly as we do, I have no idea.

The Australian Greens will [...]

16. work with the Australian Sports Drug Agency to promote a drug free sporting environment.  – p55.

I remain 100% in favour of a drugged-up sports environment.  It’s entertainment.  Saying you’re going to ban drugs in sport is like saying you’re going to ban cosmetic surgery for actors.  People become weirdly self-righteous about sport, as if an athlete has committed some unpardonable sin by being caught taking more drugs than everybody else.

The Australian Greens will [...]

21. facilitate the televising of top level women‟s sport. — p55.

More sport on television?!  Do you know what I miss on television?  Daria.  Bring that back.  I will vote for — and encourage everybody I know to vote for — any party which promises to bring Daria back on television.  Put it on ABC3 before Degrassi so kids can have a proper toolkit for dealing with the horrors of high school.

Okay…  I need another break.  Actually, what I need to do is read through the policies of the Australian Sex Party.  At least their policies will be interesting and engaging.  I now understand why so few people have bothered to read through the Australian Greens’ policies.  They’re so utterly banal, vague, and dull.  And bureaucratic.  ’We’ll create a ministerial position/we’ll create an office in Prime Minister and Cabinet/we’ll create a regulatory body who’ll do random checks on people’.  Do we really need more public servants to make everything better?  That said, if somebody would like to defend some of their policies, I would be very grateful.  This exercise in being a responsible voter is depressing me.

Ah, well.  The last three categories of policies from the Greens will have to wait until later.