Friday 26 December 2014

Inside Tony Abbott's new menistry

Inside Tony Abbott's new menistry



1



Tony Abbott's new ministry after being sworn (Image screenshot ABC 7.30)


Sarah Brasch takes some time out from refining her household budget to analyse Tony Abbott's new ministerial line-up.



SORRY, but I have just got to stop bothering about the all-consuming household budget — but only for a few minutes, mind you, because that is all I can spare from the search for $550 in carbon tax savings.



Tony Abbott’s third ministry
deserves closer examination. There has been far too much store placed
on the so-called “winners and losers” so far framed around the celebrity
personalities, such as they are.




There are other ways to skin this cat.
Rather, it is horses for courses so the best runners in wet conditions
get to be in the right jobs. That is the theory anyway.




There is not a lot to see in the new Abbott line-up and certainly no
breathtaking moves in portfolio rankings. It is more some fiddling down
the back-end of the list, where the bottom-feeders scrap.




The top seven portfolios were untouched
other than a new face or two in the junior jobs while the next two down,
Pyne and Macfarlane, got changes of title to add words like “Training”
and “Science, thereby dealing with two of the smallest barnacles.




All this means is that there will be
some public servants reporting to new big bosses and some different
ministers, or the same ministers talking about new topics, popping up by
the end of January — other than Scott Morrison fast out of the blocks
on the case of his new enemies from Day One.




Machinery of government changes, as they
are called, get bedded down very quickly in Canberra, even if they
occur four days before Christmas and more than a few people are not
going to get much of a holiday. The public workforce is flexible and
very good at this sort of thing, contrary to the myths pedalled about
it.




Shame on Abbott for spruiking Senator David Johnston in Defence as capable, trusted, on Team Australia
and so on, and then moving him out. Loyalty and that first rule of
being a minister: “cause no trouble, ruffle no feathers and do as you
are told” obviously counts for much with the PM and, no doubt, Peta Credlin.




We know this because Arthur Sinodinos
was retained on the books for nearly a year when he should have been
dropped immediately. Abbott also held open a place in Cabinet for his
special chum going back to republic referendum days, Sophie Mirabella, in the hope she could scrape into her seat, long after it was prudent to do so.




Four things about the portfolio rankings in Abbott’s new ministry stand out.







Firstly, the important health portfolio
is in last place at number 16, with a brand new minister from the
National Party, of all places. In fact, both Sussan Ley and Fiona Nash – “the Nationals’ girls” – however capable, are languishing at the end of the table.




What do they say: “Put women in jobs where there are unpopular
decisions to be made”? Thought so. Ley, of course, has copped the
unforgiving assault on Medicare and co-payment debacle.




We won’t see much of her on TV as the frontbench seating is also
dictated by Cabinet ranking. Only the first among equals get to sit
behind the Prime Minister in Question Time.




When the chips are down, there is not much money to throw around and
the finance minister is hovering, you want to be as high up on the
ministry list as possible. That is when your ranking in the Cabinet
pecking order really counts. Good luck to health and sport.




Secondly, environment remains stuck at 14. This job is much too
important to be left cellar-dwelling but, yes, we’ve got the drill and
it is Direct Action. If there was ever an economically important
portfolio, it is this one. Greg Hunt should be on Expenditure Review Committee (ERC).




But Scott Morrison now in social services at number nine got the nod
for ERC and will have a finger in the pie of every decision about the
budget. Looks like he’s being groomed for the top job if you asked me,
but no one will because I am fittingly consumed by the homefront finances.




If Julie Bishop is going to be able to seriously challenge Abbott for
the PM’s job, she would have wanted a move like the one Morrison got.
It is hard to be taken as a serious player in Cabinet and have a high
domestic profile if you are hardly ever around.




What is new is to have the social services minister as a permanent
member of ERC. To have a junior minister in Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg also a member is unheard of. That move is clearly a warning shot across Joe Hockey’s bows.




Frydenberg may have the gift of the glib and is said to be on Team Morrison but is mostly an ideology-driven motormouth.



They have a smart answer for everything, don’t listen and talk too fast. Kelly O’Dwyer also needs to watch this habit.





Lastly, the important communications job headed two places south from
Number 11 to 13, taking Malcolm Turnbull with it. This tells us
something is on the slide ... Malcolm, probably.




For all the talk about Scott Morrison’s “promotion”, the social
services portfolio has only moved from up one place from 10 to 9,
swopping spots with industry and science.




Peter Dutton must be an Abbott favourite. He moved from health at
number 12 to immigration and border protection at 11 — work that one
out. Dutton’s elevation to the National Security Committee should be setting off alarm bells. We need smart brains and cool heads on there.




Finance creeps off last spot from 16 to 15, also moving Matthias Cormann up one place. As finance minister, Labor’s Lindsay Tanner was number four in the Rudd ministry. How things change.



While it was notable that the Cabinet representation of women doubled from
one to two and we now have a permanent female presence at the table to
cover Julie Bishop’s absences, it is equally notable that no women but
two men were made assistant ministers, the stepping stones to Cabinet.




The two new women, Kelly O’Dwyer and Karen Andrews, only got to
Parliamentary Secretary so will be stuck answering correspondence and
doing little, low profile tasks that the real Ministers cannot be
bothered with. There is not much chance to shine in one of these jobs
that have little input to policy direction and decisions.




Simon Birmingham,
a senator from South Australia, moved to assistant minister in
education and training. He is a republican, being one of only two
ministerial appointees not to pledge allegiance to the Queen of
Australia in Abbott’s first ministry, preferring the oath of allegiance
to Australia, as did Human Services Minister Marise Payne.




Two out of 42 thus far was not much of a show for the country to put
it mildly. At time of writing, it is not clear which option the two
newbies chose at the 23 December swearing-in but, whichever way they went, it is not going to make much difference to advancing our government.




That brings me to the subject of the representatives for women, still
the Prime Minister himself and sidekick, Minister Assisting Senator Michaelia Cash — not in Cabinet and who has had little impact in this role. Publicly, she’s well-tethered.






Abbott could have followed his “bro” Stephen Harper in Canada and appointed women to nearly one third of an impressive cross-section of a ministry
[.] But no, not enough merit can be found. Antennae should start
jangling as soon as any (conservative) man starts talking about women
and merit in the same breath.




In fact, the best thing that the PM could have done for women this
year, given no sweeping gestures Harper-style could ever have been
contemplated, would have been to command all his male Ministers to wear
ties of any colour other than blue, follow his own diktat and then get
rid of the speedos. Peta Credlin really needs to do a good throw-out of
all the polyester horrors Abbott routinely turns out in.




Still defying Gillard, in her face and ours, after all this time. It is a pathetic badge of honour.



Sarah Brasch is the National Convenor of Women for an Australian Republic.

Wednesday 24 December 2014

En Passant » At a time of hope Abbott gives us fear

En Passant » At a time of hope Abbott gives us fear

At a time of hope Abbott gives us fear







Christmas and the New Year is a time of hope. Yet all this Abbott
government and its media spruikers offers is fear – fear of terorism;
fear of asylum seekers and fear of the unemployed are its current
playthings.



Thus Abbott tells us about terrorism ‘chatterings’, fitting well
into his initial narrative of the Sydney siege as our ‘ brush with
terrorism’ and the Daily Telegraph lyingly painting the hostage crisis
as being carried out by the IS death cult.



Now two men have been arrested as part of the show trials of
Australian justice, one of whom, shock horror, breached his bail
conditions by making a phone call from a pay phone.



This government has no jobs to offer the unemployed, no real wage
increases for workers, nothing for the homeless, and cuts for health and
education. Its only recourse is scaremongering about security and the
treats Islam, refugees and ‘dole bludgers’ pose to normal, so called
peaceful, society.



It hopes its climate of fear will distract from the increasing
unemployment lines, the cuts to real wages, and the engineeered decline
in social welfare and public services. It hopes in this climate its
ruling class unfairness, as exposed so well by its rotten Budget and its
attacks on the poor and working class, will disappear into the
background.



At times of job insecurity like today, scaremongering can working class supporters.


Normally this type of fear is the enemy of resistance. Yet such is
the depth of anger against this government of the 1% that the
anti-Muslim rhetoric didn’t catch on and so now Abbott is shifting to
the threat of terrorism, seemingly as a cover for Islam, nudge, nudge,
wink, wink.



It is possible that some alienated individuals could undertake
violent actions, perhaps superficially cloaked in the flag of IS or
similar (Monis comes to mind) but to date the terrorist scare campaign
seems based more on vague suggestions or misleading interpretations (for
example of Monis, of plastic swords) than hard evidence.



Meanwhile, the government 3 days before Christmas announced massive
cuts to funding for homeless organisations. As unemployment grows the
number of homelss will increase and all this government can offer is
scare campaigns.



The appointment of Scott Morrison as Minister for screwing the
unemployed will see the targetting of the 780,000 unemployed when only
150000 jobs are available. His mate, the Daily Telegraph, led with a ‘
Stop the bludgers’ headline. The real bludgers of course are the ruling
class, those who live off our labour, and the politicians, Liberal and
Labor, doing their work.



The best way to counter the ruling class climate of fear is to
resist their attacks, not fall for their racist, xenophobic and
anti-working class rantings and actions. As Orwell said: ‘If there is
hope..it lies in the proles.’


Monday 22 December 2014

Three not so wise men - The AIM Network

Three not so wise men - The AIM Network



Three not so wise men














Firstly, Tony Abbott. As if he had not
embarrassed himself enough during this year, the latest but not
necessarily the last effort was his astonishing suggestion that removing
the carbon tax was his greatest achievement in 2014.



“Well, you know, it is very important to do the right thing by families and households,” Abbott said. “As
many of us know, women are particularly focused on the household budget
and the repeal of the carbon tax means a $550 a year benefit for the
average family.”



What a comment bereft of inspiration!


Then, when questioned about the number of women in cabinet he said, “The
challenge for all of us is to get more women into public life, more
women into the parliament, once we have got more women in the parliament
we will have more women in the ministry and more women in the cabinet.”



abbottWhy
is it a challenge? Does he mean that there is no one of sufficient
competence or that the challenge is for him to overcome his own
difficulties relating to women? One would think that there are plenty to
pick from already; many of whom would clearly outshine some of the male
deadwood he has there now. So, do we conclude that he is the problem,
not the women?  Or should we just let Anthony Albanese have the last
word? “There is no issue too big for Tony Abbott to show how small he is as a thinker,” Mr Albanese told Fairfax Media.



Now let’s look at Joe Hockey. If ever we needed
proof that his budget measures and his actions since were creating a
defence line for his elite, excessively wealthy neo liberal support
base, we have it with what we read on page 117 of his MYEFO statement.



In short, his broken promise to impose new tax avoidance rules to stop multinational companies from loading debt on their Australian subsidiaries, says it all.


It was the Gillard government that planned legislation to abolish
section 25/90 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 that enabled tax
minimisation deductions for global corporations.



hockeyIn
November 2013, Joe Hockey announced that the government would not
proceed with the package but instead would introduce a targeted
anti-avoidance option after consultation with the participants involved.



In this month’s MYEFO statement we find hidden way back on page 117 the following announcement: “The
government will not proceed with a targeted anti-avoidance provision to
address certain conduit arrangements involving foreign multinational
enterprises, first announced in the 2013-14 MYEFO.”



The reason? That it would cause, “unreasonable compliance costs on Australian companies” with subsidiaries offshore. “That means more revenue flowing out the door to multinationals, which means worse services and higher taxes for Australians,” according to Andrew Leigh, Shadow Assistant Treasurer.


What a pathetic cop-out by Hockey. How hard would it be to exempt Australian owned companies from the legislation?


On his Facebook page, Wayne Swan says, “This decision leaves open
a huge loophole that will bleed our tax revenue for years and is yet
another example of how this Government is reneging on essential
structural reforms required to make our budget sustainable.”



Swan concludes by saying, “Joe Hockey’s deceptive rhetoric about
all Australians needing to pay their fair share is yet again exposed by
this decision to give further tax breaks to large multinational
corporations.”



Then there is Scott Morrison whose actions as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection betray his self-professed Christian principles
of standing up for the truth, standing up for justice, standing on the
side of the poor and the hungry, the homeless and the naked.



Contrast this with the circumstances on Manus Island that led to the
death of Reza Berati, with the recent transfer of Sri Lankans at sea,
with blackmailing the Senate cross benches promising to release children
in detention on Christmas Island in return for the reintroduction of
Temporary Protection Visas.



morrisonMany
politicians cloak themselves with so-called Christian principles when
describing themselves publicly, so in that sense Morrison is not alone.
And it is easy to recall such obvious contradictions in one’s words with
one’s actions as we can with most of them. So we should not be
surprised when so-called Christian principles employed to win votes are
quickly dispensed with in favour of pragmatism.



Now he had been given the Social Services Ministry as a reward for
stopping the boats, as if stopping the boats was an achievement; as if
engaging a nation’s Navy to stop a handful of desperate people trying to
find a safe haven was considered clever.



However, he may well find treating Australian citizens similarly is a
different kettle of fish. We shall see if his belief in standing up for
the truth, standing up for justice, standing on the side of the poor
and the hungry, the homeless and the naked continue to conflict with
pragmatism. If it does, he might well find himself and his government in
a different kind of struggle.



So, what is left to say about 2014 that hasn’t been said? The ongoing
incompetence and absurdity of the Abbott government has provided a rich
canvas for political commentators. We can only hope they keep providing
us with similar material in 2015. I certainly expect they will.



liarsThis
constant harping on about removal of the carbon tax, the mining tax and
stopping the boats only serves to highlight the absence of any vision
for the future. They represent an ideas vacuum; a government that won by
default, that was never prepared for what lay ahead and doesn’t know
how to move forward.



Meanwhile the world will face some pretty ominous challenges in 2015
and there’s not a lot of confidence that those who lead us will manage
those challenges well.




Thursday 18 December 2014

I won't be carrying a gun, and I don't want you to either - The AIM Network

I won't be carrying a gun, and I don't want you to either - The AIM Network



THE DEMENTED SENATOR



I won’t be carrying a gun, and I don’t want you to either














“What happened in that cafe would be most unlikely to
have occurred in Florida, Texas, or Vermont, or Alaska in America, or
perhaps even Switzerland as well,” Senator Leyonhjelm told ABC Radio — adding at least “one or two” there would have had a concealed gun.

If that’s the likely case, then I’m to assume that dozens of people
would have been carrying arms at Port Arthur on April 28, 1996. Somebody
could have taken out Martin Bryant.



And guns might have been blazing at Julian Knight in Hoddle Street, Melbourne, August 9, 1987.


But despite our gun laws at the time, Australians simply weren’t in
the habit of entering restaurants, using public transport, visiting the
zoo or going to the cricket armed to the teeth.



Senator Leyonhjelm would like to see us get into the habit. He wants
us to carry a weapon so we can, in a nutshell, kill people should the
need arise. Just how many nutcases does he want to see armed?



It’s ludicrous for him to postulate that the outcome that evolved in
Martin Place would have been ‘unlikely’ in America because armed
citizens could have easily dealt with the perpetrator. He needs to do a
bit of research on the mass shootings in America and note how many of
the murderers were taken out by an armed citizen. I think he’ll find
that all – or if not all, then close to it – were left to the police to
deal with.



What happened in Martin Place was tragic. Very tragic. And despite
the deaths of two innocent people I’d rather live in a country where
such situations were always left to the police.



I won’t be carrying a gun anywhere, and I hope don’t want you too either.


Sunday 7 December 2014

Ærchies Archive - Digital Detritus

Ærchies Archive - Digital Detritus

I Have Sold My Conscience







 
 
 
 
 
 
4 Votes

I was once a proud Australian.


Then I took part in an electoral process which led to tony abbott becoming Prime Minister.


tony abbott, who began by lying about something his predecessor said
and who, after his election, continued to lie about everything he said
and ignore all facets of truth.



beginningHe lied about how he was going to tax us. He did say that there would be no changes to the GST.


He lied about no changes to Pensions even as he reduced the increases.


He lied about cuts to the ABC and SBS, calling them “efficiency dividends” before finally admitting they were cuts.


He lied about his education policy.


He, and his Ministers, lied about so many things.


Australia’s foreign aid was changed from being aid to help the needy to aid to help Australian Business people.


All of which made me sad
but not discouraged for these are the actions expected of a Tory
Government. Even if they did lie about them before the election.



What has destroyed my faith in Australia is what we have done to those refugees seeking our help.MrMorrison


We used to be the country of a “Fair Go”, of “Mateship”. Now we are a
Nation which has chosen to ignore our international obligations to help
others.



We have chosen to thumb our collective nose at the UNHCR. We have
chosen to incarcerate the innocent. We have chosen to lock up children.
All in the name of “saving lives at sea”. And we have accepted the
secrecy our Government has imposed so that we do not even question
whether lives have been saved.



Yes that has destroyed my faith in my Nation.


Yet even all that did not cause me to reach the depths I have reached in this past 48 hours.


I now must give up my conscience.


We have a Prime Minister who was once intending to become a Priest,
with an Immigration Minister who is a member of an Evangelical Church,
with most of the rest of the front bench and a large group of
back-benchers being avowed Christians of assorted persuasions. Yet those
Biblical strictures appear to have no relevance.



TONY ABBOTT BUSINESS PRESSERThey
have, individually and collectively, broken almost all of the Old
Testament’s Ten Commandments and the New Testament’s New Commandment
which Jesus gave to all who follow Him. “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.



So we have a Government of Christians who, in other circumstances would be declared “Apostate”.


It is this Government which has destroyed my faith in my country.


Now my taxes, your taxes, will be going to schools set up to educate
new priests, parsons and ministers. The ones who hope to be a part of
Churches which have histories of Child Abuse.



That’s correct.


Our taxes are going to support and educate child abusers.


That is the final straw.


That is the real cause of my anger and my tears.


I need to join the rest of my Nation and sell off my conscience!

Saturday 6 December 2014

New law gives Morrison unprecedented control over asylum seekers

New law gives Morrison unprecedented control over asylum seekers



New law gives Morrison unprecedented control over asylum seekers





Immigration Minister Scott Morrison now has unchecked power to
decide the outcomes that will affect the lives of asylum seekers and
refugees coming to Australia. Previous immigration ministers have had…














No other minister has the same unchecked control over the lives of other people as the immigration minister has.
AAP/Lukas Coch








Immigration Minister Scott Morrison now has unchecked
power to decide the outcomes that will affect the lives of asylum
seekers and refugees coming to Australia. Previous immigration ministers
have had this power, but the passage of the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014 this week handed Morrison unprecedented, unchallengeable and secret powers to control the lives of asylum seekers.




So, what does this mean for Australia’s obligations under international law?



It means that Australia is now no longer obliged to adhere to the UN Refugee Convention
– a treaty Australia was instrumental in constructing and implementing
after the Second World War. Australia was, at that time, at the
forefront of human rights in terms of the status of refugees. It signed
the initial UN convention and the subsequent 1967 Protocol. This had previously set the framework for Australian immigration and refugee policy.




It also highlighted and placed Australia as a “good world citizen”
with an agenda to uphold human rights, and, in this case, treat people
seeking sanctuary with dignity, fairness and compassion.




Refugee law is built upon the fundamental principle of non-refoulement:
that is it is forbidden to return a person to a country where they may
still be persecuted or tortured. This is recognised by every country and
exists in the Refugee Convention.




Morrison’s bill, now Australian law, states that:



… it is irrelevant whether Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.


This is saying that Australia is now entitled to return an asylum
seeker to a country where they have been, or know they may be, tortured
or persecuted.




Arrivals by boat will also no longer have access to the Refugee
Review Tribunal. They will have an appeal mechanism which is not a
hearing but only a paper review. This too is an alarming and worrying
development.




Evolution of ministerial powers



Asylum seekers first entered the Australian psyche in the late 1970s
when Vietnamese “boat people”, as they became known, reached our
northern shores.




To the then-Fraser government’s credit, the Vietnamese asylum seekers
were well received. The government acknowledged Australia’s legal
obligations, recognising the interests of the asylum seekers but
complying with the UN declarations. Various waves of asylum seekers have
arrived from other countries since then, with differing and hardening
treatment of them.




Immigration ministers have extended powers compared to other
ministers. The refugee determination system is an administrative system
based on ministerial discretion. This means the immigration minister of
the day has powers to overrule any decisions made by tribunal
determination panels and to have individual decision-making in any
determination application.




Ministerial discretion powers were inserted in to the Migration Act in a 1989 amendment
to provide an outlet to deal with difficult cases that did not fit
statutory visa criteria. Under the act, the minister may substitute a
more favourable decision than the one handed down by a tribunal:




… if the minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so.


Significantly, the discretionary powers are non-compellable,
non-reviewable and non-delegable within domestic law. This means that
the minister does not have a duty to exercise the discretionary powers;
the powers must be exercised personally by the minister and cannot be
delegated.




This has led to inconsistencies in the refugee determination system
over the decades when ministers have changed. Some have used this power
extensively, for example Philip Ruddock in 2003. Others, such as Robert Ray in 1989, have relieved themselves of the discretionary powers.




The passage of Morrison’s bill gives a new interpretation to these
powers. Australia will now follow a new, independent and self-contained
statutory framework, and this will have the government’s own
interpretation of international law. Australia now regards itself as
free from the bonds of the Refugee Convention.




Any checks and balances that were previously in Australia’s refugee
system have been stripped away, removing basic protections for those who
arrive seeking asylum. No other minister – not the prime minister, the
foreign minister nor the attorney-general – has the same unchecked
control over the lives of other people.




Morrison now has unchecked power and control over asylum seekers' lives. His decisions cannot be challenged.

A Most Immoral Act - The AIM Network

A Most Immoral Act - The AIM Network



A Most Immoral Act














In a lifelong experience of following politics I have, until now,
never witnessed children being horse traded, and senators being
blackmailed, for the passing of legislation. In this case to reintroduce
Temporary Protection Visas.



It looks as though Immigration Minister Scott Morrison (and the senators) have taken the yes side on the ageless Christian ethical dilemma “Does the end justify the means”.


It is a fascination to me as to why people assume that religion has
some form of monopoly on morality. And even worse, they pretend to speak
on Gods behalf in dispensing it.



Morrison said:


“I will not take moral lectures from Bill Shorten or
Sarah Hanson-Young when it comes to border protection on that or any
other issues,’’

Abbott said:


“So this is a win for Australia, it’s also a win for humanitarian values, it’s a win for human decency’’

Jesus said:


“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

We are all wired for decency and conscience with or without religion.
Some understand it better than others illustrated by either what we do
or don’t do. By our mercy and compassion or deficiency in it.



Morrison like many of the Cabinet are serious practicing Christians
who interpret God’s word to fit snugly with their political ideology.
They easily accommodate policy with their own definition of scripture,
justifying their immorality to themselves. An evil in itself.



As someone who spent many years in a church environment similar to
Morrison s (now an open-minded atheist) I can assure the reader that
there are many who think like Morrison. They worship their politics and
religion without demarcation. In doing so they believe that telling the
truth isn’t necessarily in their best interests.



This government seems intent on imposing its own particular form of
Christianity on an unsuspecting population. And I might add, one that is
completely at odds with current Papal uttering on social inequality.



The decision to sack highly credentialed social workers, doing
excellent work in high schools and replace them with accredited
Chaplains is outrageous.



And now it seems that taxpayer funds are to be used to fund the training of Priests in religious institutions.


What ever happened to the secular society?


The fools that frequent the senate.


The inexperienced cross-bench senators buckled into the ransom
dangled before their collective conscience and awarded the executive the
power to ‘’play God ‘’ with the lives of those seeking safety from this
supposed Christian nation.



In all fairness it could not have been an easy decision.


Senator Muir, said he was:


“Forced into a corner to decide between a bad decision and a worse decision, a position I do not wish on my worst enemies”.

Maybe the Palmer United Party senators felt the same.


It has also been reported that Morrison’s department had children on
Christmas Island phone Muir and beg their freedom even giving them the
phones to do so. Now that’s something straight out of the “classic
hostage situation” handbook. That’s what terrorists do with hostages.



So, with the passing of this Bill what have we ended up with?


Crikey put it this way, calling it an immoral disgrace:


“At 8.06 this morning it was done: the House of Representatives
passed the government’s Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation
Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, following
its passage and amendment just after midnight in the Senate.
Parliamentarians then got to go home for Christmas, having delivered the
Immigration Minister extraordinary powers that in effect obliterate any
further pretence that Australia regards asylum seekers as human beings.



The bill restored the failed Howard-era policy of temporary
protection visas, a mechanism that actually increased boat arrivals when
last attempted. Whether Clive Palmer seriously believes that there is a
pathway to citizenship contained in a kind of homeopathic form within
the legislation — or it merely suits its purposes to pretend there is —
we don’t know, but Scott Morrison has been crystal clear that TPVs will
never provide permanent protection.



But the bill goes much further, freeing Australia from any
obligations associated with the Refugee Convention, including giving
Morrison and his department — which has repeatedly demonstrated it is
profoundly incompetent and resistant to the most basic forms of
accountability — the power to return people to torture and persecution
without judicial review.”



On the one hand cross bench senators like Ricky Muir, Nick Xenophon
might argue that the end does indeed justify the means. After all there
will be many freed from their dreadful incarceration and the migrant
intake has been increased. But did they consider that Morrison already
held powers to resolve these issues, to release people. Especially
children. His threat was that unless they passed his legislation they
could rot in hell.



They could have called his bluff.


Their pretentious anguish at having to deal with such a choice can’t hide the grim reality of their actions.


Greg Barnes (a spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance and barrister) put this way:


“But in passing this legislation Senator Muir and his colleagues
have done what many would think is unconscionable in a society that
supposedly subscribes to the rule of law – allow the executive to “play
God” with the lives of those in our world who want to put their case for
asylum to a rich, developed world country with ample capacity to take
them.”



Morrison is now effectively above the High Court and our conformity
to the International Convention on Refugees has been written out of our
law.



The bill, in all probability is the most immoral ever passed by an Australian Parliament.


Not only that, it is also bad policy. It says much about the leaders
of this country and their shameful misrepresentation of the faith they
profess to follow.

No matter in what sphere of government policy (immigration, health,
pensioners, education etc) one looks, you find the hand of Abbott’s hate
on those who refuse to join Team Australia.



He seeks to reward those who follow and punish those who don’t. In
the past week much has been written about the horrendous failings of his
government.



A lot has centered on Abbott’s credentials as a leader. Therein lies
the fundamental problem. For those of us who have followed his career
closely, it’s easy. He has none.



Leviticus 19:33-34

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him
wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native
among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in
the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Like this:

Monday 27 October 2014

Silencing dissent and the mastery of fear

Silencing dissent and the mastery of fear



55





The power elite are using well-worn, time honoured
methods of silencing reputable sources of dissent to keep ordinary
Australians in a docile, compliant state of perpetual fear, writes Kellie Tranter.




FROM THE review of the National School Curriculum to the relentless claims of bias by both our public broadcaster and in our academic institutions,
there is a concerted campaign playing out in this country to implement a
model of thinking that occupies the entire intellectual and cultural
space.




Whether or not you call it social engineering, its purpose is to
aggressively block unwanted progress, to maintain tribalism and to
insulate the power elite. The mechanism is fear, and the main vehicles
are media of all kinds and government policies.




No one can make progress or speak out until they master their fear;
until they isolate which fears are worth listening to and how that fear
is engendered in them; and until they understand how the political class
and the power elite manipulate those fears in order to maintain
discipline and control of the population.




As Marilynne Robinson, American novelist and essayist, pointed out in a recent interview with the New York Times:



“Fear has, in this moment, a respectability I’ve never seen in my life.”




In July 1962, Martin Luther King Jnr wrote the sermon:



The Mastery of Fear or Antidotes for Fear’.




His words are still prescient over 50 years later:



‘Today it is almost a truism to call our time an “age of fear”.
In these days of terrifying change, bitter international tension and
chaotic social disruption, who has not experienced the paralysis of
crippling fear? Everywhere there are people depressed and bewildered,
irritable and nervous all because of the monster of fear. Like a nagging
hound of hell, fear follows our every footstep, leaving us tormented by
day and tortured by night…’







While Martin Luther King Jnr prescribed the cure for fear as facing
them without flinching, through love and through faith because of the
consciousness of deficient resources and of consequent inadequacy for
life.




Howard Zinn ‒ American historian, author, playwright and social activist ‒ suggested that collectivity reduces
fear. Community reduces fear. Doing something with other people reduces
fear, because being part of a movement you believe in and being
associated with other people who believe in the same thing, helps to
overcome fear.




Perhaps it is fear of a critically thinking population who have
mastered their fears and who join together to challenge the existing
political and economic system that scares the power elite the most.
Particularly if, as some experts suggest, the goal of state terror is to
isolate and separate social movements.




In Australia, we have witnessed the gradual introduction of a range of laws which affect non-violent resistance — including anti-protest laws, the expansion of National Security laws, Preventative Detention Orders, ASIO and AFP spying on environmentalists, proposed bills disallowing political activists from disrupting companies and the gagging and punishment of public servants and whistleblowers. Riot police are even called in to university campuses as a ‘precautionary’ measure.



The list is more extensive than most of us probably realise.



Of special relevance in understanding what’s happening today is a 1971 memorandum from Lewis F. Powell Jnr to the Chair of the Education Committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.



Titled ‘Attack On American Free Enterprise System’, the memo outlined ways in which business should defend and counter attack against a ‘broad attack’ from ‘disquieting voices’.



The tactics and recommendations he put forward to block any assault
on the economic system still reflect the mindsets of those in power and
the beneficiaries of that power.




Powell writes:



‘The most disquieting voices joining the chorus
of criticism, come from perfectly respectable elements of society from
the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary
journals, the arts and sciences and from politicians. Yet these often
are the most articulate, the most vocal, the most prolific in their
writing and speaking.’







It seems that the ‘hostility of respectable liberals and social reformers’ is what the elite fear the most because, according to Powell:



‘… it is the sum total of their views and influence which could indeed fatally weaken or destroy the system… [because they] … exert enormous influence far out of proportion to their numbers.’




The lesson is that people protesting, including the left, need to
recruit and encourage conservatives to raise their voices about issues
of concern because, as Susan George describes in her satirical book How to win the class war, the target of their foes is, and always has been, institutions, groups, organisations, or centres of power ‘where ideas are developed, discussed and disseminated’ and which may ultimately shape the thinking, attitudes and emotions of the population.




Powell’s tactics to maintain the status quo and block change can be
clearly seen throughout Australia today: concerted attempts to try and
silence critical comments from ‘respectable elements of society’.




Conservative think tanks yield a constant stream of critics of
progressive ideas, who are given disconcertingly regular and
disproportionate airtime. The Australian newspaper regularly disparages intelligent critical commentators and their opinions.




But the attacks aren’t limited to publishing opposing views on television or in print.



A perfect illustration is social media sensation Father Rod Bower’s interview with Chris Kenny on Sky News
in August this year during which he was accused of directing his church
signage to the Green/Left end of the political spectrum, for not being
able to separate religion from politics, for favouring the former
government instead of the current government and for criticising the
current policies of the government.




Kenny litters the interview with false premises and unjustified assumptions, as Father Bower attempts to point out.





Whether its trouncing the views of Cate Blanchett for participating in a climate change advertisement, litigation against Professor Jake Lynch
for his refusal to sponsor an application for a fellowship in Australia
by an Israeli academic because of Lynch’s support of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel, or continued complaints that conservatives are not employed in prominent positions, all are tactics raised in the Powell rule book.




When you understand the tactical rationale of this institutional
criticism and its methods, it becomes an object of contempt, and
something that can be dealt with rather than a source of fear. The same
applies to publications online and in social media which always attract
similar disparaging comments from pseudonymous trolls — and there’s an
army of them out there.




Speaking out almost always attracts some sort of criticism, but
different viewpoints and rational criticisms are a fair price to pay for
being able to say what you need to say. Living your life without ever
speaking out, suppressing your need to be heard in support of things you
regard as socially good and your need to express your questioning of or
opposition to things that are socially bad, is no way to live at all.




We all have an obligation, both to ourselves and to society, to speak
out and to act when we see unfairness, injustice and the orchestrated
manipulation of true discussion of issues that affect us all.




Kellie Tranter is a lawyer and human rights activist.  You can follow her on Twitter @KellieTranter.



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License