Obituary: Australian Democracy

Today, the eighth day of November 2011, my good friend, one who I loved dearly, passed away; I am speaking, of course, of our dear friend, Australian Democracy. We are gathered here today to celebrate Australian Democracy's life, but also mourn its untimely and, ultimately, unnecessary passing. I still remember the first time that we met... it was a state election, sunny day where we all got to cast our vote and have our say. While one side always wins and one side always loses, the process was orderly and peaceful, which is something not to be taken for granted.

This passing is not entirely unexpected; we all knew that Australian Democracy had been unwell for some time. It suffered a blow in 2007 from which it never really recovered from. While many were misguided enough to believe Australian Democracy's new physician, Dr Rudd, some of us saw the beginning of the end. It wasn't until Australian Democracy's significant decline in 2009 that the medical board, spooked by the publics outraged, switched to a new physician, Dr Gillard. Unfortunately with her came the naturopath loony 'Dr' Brown. Dr Gillard, under direction from Dr Brown, attempted some radical surgery, such as removing the profits growth from the mining gland using a Resource Rent Tax-lobotomy. In addition Gillard tried (and failed) to shore up Australian Democracy's immune system from foreign pathogens - boat flu - using an untried Malaysian solution. In a final, last ditch attempt to keep Australia Democracy (and her career...) alive, Dr Gillard tried to insert some Carbon Tax Implants into Australia Democracy legal system, despite clearly stating that she would not perform such a procedure prior to her promotion...

The procedure was a success, thanks to Dr Brown and his band of quacks... however the shock was just too much, and Australian Democracy died on the table. Cause of death: gross malpractice and incompetence. While we may all be angry now we must always remember the good time that we had with Australian Democracy... and hope and pray that the Abbott can resurrect our dear friend before it is too late...

'Clean Energy Future': Gillard's WorkChoices?

I find it incredibly ironic that the woman who played such a key role in dismantling WorkChoices (and who revelled in it with smug joy...) is now facing an almost identical scenario with her so called 'Clean Energy Future' scam - I mean 'scheme' - otherwise known as the Carbon Tax. The key arguments which brought down WorkChoices, and the Howard Government, are as follows...

1. Pushing such a far reaching reform through parliament is undemocratic: Howard had what most government’s dream of, control of both the House of Reps and the Senate. However such a rarity proved to be a poisoned chalice; where the Senate was once a counter balance to the government's power, a place for review and debate, it was now seen as a rubber stamp, blindly approving Government legislation. This made a lot of Australians anxious, with some believing that due to the makeup of the parliament that the government had too much power and that there was nothing to keep it in check. Australians a pretty accepting of new reforms, provided that we believe it has gone through a proper, rigorous review.
2. Tax-payer dollars for party policy adverts: There is nothing wrong with a government advertising and educating the public on new policy and reform. However when that policy is viewed by the public as being more around ideology as opposed to national interest, it ruffles feathers. Australians do not like to see their hard-earned tax dollars funding party policy... especially unpopular policy. The more the Howard Government tried to sell and promote WorkChoices, the more cynical and jaded the electorate became. It was viewed as a shallow attempt to sell Liberal Policy as opposed to Government Reform.
3. Dial 'M' for Mandate: "How can you do this?!" The unions and Labor decried, "You have no mandate to introduce WorkChoices! How dare you make such far reaching reforms of Industrial Relations without first getting approval from the people!" Nothing had been said before the election about WorkChoices, so how could the Howard Government claim that it had a mandate to introduce? If all large, far reaching reforms need approval from the electorate the responsible thing would have been to go back to the electorate and seek their permission to do so... At least Howard did not say "There will be no IR reforms under any government I lead"; could you imagine the uproar if he had...?

Sound familiar? Gillard, with help from Bob Brown, is pushing this tax that will be felt across every sector, through the parliament with no discussion or debate (and certainly no consensus!) while spending over $200,000 PER DAY advertising this [Greens'] policy, all the while lacking a mandate! Instead of crowing over the fall of the greatest government we have ever had the privilege to have, Gillard should have been learning the lessons of WorkChoices...

The Grand Deception, the Ultimate Betrayal...

Only hours ago the Carbon Tax legislation passed through the House of Representatives and Julia Gillard completed her ultimate betrayal of the Australian Nation and its people. Gillard's unholy alliance with the Greens has now been sealed; irrevocable and beyond redemption. The government of Australia, regardless of its ideology, is charged with protecting and promoting the interests of this, the greatest of nations on Earth. By doing this deal with the Greens Gillard has demonstrated her casual disregard for the people, with her sole objective being maintenance of power, regardless of the cost. And make no mistake, there will be costs...

The Labor Heartland will bear much of the economic burden, as manufacturing is forced off-shore, unable to compete with economies that are not held back by this illogical tax. Families will find their struggle to keep their heads above water even harder, with this unnecessary tax simply adding more pressure to already tight family budgets. Scraping some money together for luxuries or treats for the kids will become impossible, as Gillard and Brown pursue their doctrine of economic suicide. The pair of economic illiterates will wring every last available dollar out of hard working Australians, all for the single-minded goal of advancing their socialist agenda. To borrow - and alter sightly - a quote from the great Winston Churchill: "Never before will so many lose so much because of the incompetence of so few..."


The kiss of death, for the Australian economy...

 That is the crux of the matter: economic pain. Make no mistake, there will be pain. Never before in the history of our nation have we seen such a legislative abomination, the likes of which will destroy the livelihoods of hard working Australian families. While the Green elitists, sitting in their inner-city cafes sipping soy lattes, may be happy and able to pay this tax that does not mean Australia families should be made to carry this burden. It must be nice to be an eco-nut, with no ability to see or confront reality. The economy is not as strong as you think! People are losing their jobs and families are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet! Why would you want to cause economic devastation?! For what, so that you can save the environment? I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but this Carbon Tax will do NOTHING to help the environment! Perhaps you should take your sanctimonious, self-righteous eco-propaganda and have a chat with you comrades to the North! Without China, India or the USA taking action there will be no benefit to the climate. Why embark of a program of economic self-harm when all you are going to end up doing is wrecking havoc on our economy, our way of life?

This is truly a say day in the history of Australia. Gillard and Brown will end up hurting all Australians with this poorly conceived tax. "There will be no Carbon Tax under any government I lead", the grand deception, the ultimate betrayal. One promise I know that will come true is that there will be no family celebrating this sad day.

The ABC of Media Bias...

Ok, so I probably should preface this tirade by disclosing the context within which this whinge takes place. As a strong willed, opinionated man I like to let it be known what my views are on various issues. That is, after all, why I blog; I'm a passionate conservative and, by God, everyone needs to know about it! So not only do I write The Right Side but, occasionally, I write contribution pieces for other sites, with my latest up on Menzies House. I have, also, sent quite a few submissions to the ABC for their consideration... quite a few... And what has been their response? Silence; absolutely no response what so ever... not even a polite e-mail... not even a generic, computer-generated e-mail response...

Now, I admit, that at some points I may stray from Centre-Right to more Tony Abbott-Right, but whenever I put forward a submission to any external website I make a conscious effort to stay in the middle of the road, writing so that all might enjoy what I put forward, not just those who share my political colours. So, after sending my latest submission piece to the ABC (the same as I sent to Menzies House, which I have since posted here on The Right Side), which I thought was a nice apolitical analysis of the current federal landscape, and again receiving no reply, I was a tad dissatisfied with our national broadcaster. When you see the calibre of the ABC's contributors, such as Geoff Lemon and Jeff Sparrow, you begin to wonder about their selection process. Well, actually, I don't wonder at all. It seems as though the process is: go Left or go home. Our national broadcaster is anything but politically neutral, especially when you see how stacked their opinion section is with what is, undoubtedly, the entire GetUp! organisation.


Beats to the same rhythm as Gillard and Brown's propaganda...


Now, being the cunning, deceitful, deceptive conservative that I am, I decided to set the ABC a little trap and test just how neutral they are. After having a number of my submissions ignored, I decided that, after a life time of thinking and writing from a conservative perspective, that I would put myself in the shoes (or should that be thongs...?) of a grungy, smelly hippie socialist. The Left-wing persona I fabricated for this rouse was a Bachelor of Arts student (shocking, right?) who likes ragging on the Righties and their evil capitalist ways. The article I constructed was by far the most politically biased piece I had put forward for the ABC's consideration, and the response I received left me speechless. I had barely clicked the send button before receiving a very friendly reply from one of The Drum's editorial staff. Complimenting me on the piece, the staffer was more than happy to report that the piece would indeed be run on the ABC website at the first available moment. And, sure enough, a few days ago in appeared, front and centre in all it's rhetorical, biased glory...

I would like to make it clear that I don't mind our national broadcaster providing a forum for strong political views; in fact I believe it is necessary for a strong and healthy democracy. What does frustrate me is the fairly obvious bias that the ABC holds, despite the fact it is a tax-payer funded organisation and, therefore, should provide views that reflect the diverse nature of the Australian political debate. The ABC has, in recent times, been one of the biggest - and loudest - mouthpieces for Gillard and Brown's propaganda on Climate Change and the Carbon Tax. They have, essentially, opened the doors to all who would heap praise and adulation on the 'Green Coalition' while simultaneously ridiculing and decrying all who don't agree. Case in point: the Convey of no confidence. There has been nary a mention of the event on the ABC website this morning and, the mention that there was, grossly underestimates how many are present. The piece instead ops discuss how Bob Brown believes it is a flop.



Brown says 'Flop', I say 'Lot's of angry people - justifiably so, I might add - who are sick of being ignored'

 I have no problem with media organisations having a political leaning; after all, they will reflect the views and opinions of their readers, not just on politics but across many social issues. What I do have a problem with is our national broadcaster, who was founded to be a neutral voice in Australia media, is wasting our tax-payer dollars to help shield this incompetent government.

By the way, I haven't revealed how to find my Left-oriented article on the ABC because this is a trick I may look to play on them again in the future. However I encourage you all to look over the opinion section of The Drum and see if you can't spot it. I would also state that I denounce everything which I wrote and needed to take a shower after writing it... worth it for the laugh, though...

The calm before the economic storm...

At the moment it is relatively calm, but it is an eerie calm. It is that stillness that makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on end. A subtle indicator that all is not right and that things are about to take a very horrible turn for the worse. While the stock market did well yesterday it continues to fluctuate wildly. The jobless rate is still low, but is begin to creep up ever so slowly. Every thing seems fine... yet still there is this uneasiness to it.

Perhaps I am just being paranoid or alarmist, but those little warnings linked to our autonomic nervous system - the fight or flight mechanism - are beginning to get twitchy. Mind you it doesn't help the nerves of either myself or those involved in the market when, amid all of this economic carnage, we have a government which seems quite insistent on crippling the economy. Despite data showing that the state of the global economy is not good, Gillard and Co. push on with their fiscal kamikaze mission, urged on by the zealots in Bob Brown and the Green fanatics.


I don't think that umbrella will help you much...


Now history is littered with false prophets proclaiming that the end is nigh, and I certainly do not wish to join them. I just can't help but think that this recent market readjustment, with the accompanying disappointing job data, indicates that we are not out of the woods yet. If there ever was a time for introducing radical policies and ridiculous taxes, this is not it...

A mandate, a mandate, my kingdom for a mandate!

Mandate (noun): An official or authoritative command; an order or injunction; a commission; a judicial precept.

There is a loud and righteous chorus ringing out in the public arena at the moment, a deafening, undeniable chant of a dissatisfied people. The message is clear: We, the people of this great Commonwealth of Australia, want an election... and we want it NOW! The most recent polling suggests that somewhere in the order of 60% of the electorate want to go to the polls early and pass judgement on the Carbon Tax. So poorly has this legislation been developed and communicated that the people of Australia want to have a second election in under a year. This is unheard of given our general dislike for elections, what with all the baby kissing and slogans and whatnot... Nevertheless almost 2 out of 3 voters want to have their say, and rightly so, I should add; after all, I am one of them...

Of course this leaves a minority, vocal as they are, who do not want an election. These are your Greens supports, extreme left wing socialists, and, of course, their mouthpieces in the liberal media, the likes of your Tony Jones and the usual suspects at the ABC. After forcing the Prime Minister into submission and gaining control of the government it is understandable that they would not want to relinquish their illegitimate rein over the parliament. Bob Brown, Geoff Lemon, Sarah Hanson-Young and Co. would probably much prefer that we never again go to an election, that we sacrifice our democratic right so as to advance their glorious green revolution. These pinko wanna-be revolutionaries are denying us our democratic right to vote on what Gillard herself has called one of the most historic and far reaching reforms in our nation’s history, all because they claim that she has a mandate to do so. This argument is flawed in several ways...

Let us assume, for a minute, that the PM does have a mandate. If she does then you cannot claim that it is a mandate from the people. Quite the contrary, actually, her ‘mandate’ is from the Greens and Independents, those few crossbenchers who, in and of themselves, only represent a tiny fraction of this nation’s population. That is not to say, mind you, that I believe that those in the electorates of New England, Melbourne or Lyne should not have a voice; I am simply arguing that this is a democracy, and a far reaching reform that will affect so many, such as the Carbon Tax, should not be permitted to pass on the backs of so few. If Gillard does have a mandate it is certainly not one obtained through democratic means...

The next point I would like to make concerns the so called Multi-Party Climate Change Committee which conceived and gave birth to this horrific beast of a tax. ‘Multi-Party’ is a bit of a stretch, only two parties are represented (after all, Windsor and Oakeshott abandoned both their party and its values, it appears...); essentially it is an invitation only affair, and the only way to get an invite is agree to whatever it is Comrade Brown wants. How can such a dictatorial system, built on exclusion and consensus by coercion ever produce legislation that will be in the best interest of the people, as opposed to the vested interests of those only concerned with their grip on power?

Let us continue to assume that Gillard does have a mandate which was achieved through dodgy backdoor deals and soviet style committees; all of this political horse-trading is, essentially, irrelevant, as the mandate itself, regardless of how it is formed in the parliament, is invalid. Gillard and the Labor party’s re-election platform was built on the undeniable foundation of there being NO CARBON TAX under their future governance. You cannot just change your mind post hoc because then any mandate which you may have actually secured is now invalid, therefore requiring you to obtain a new one. And how does one acquire a brand new, shiny mandate (I love that new mandate smell...)? Simple: an election where you are entirely upfront with the voters about your intentions should you win another term. This is all assuming that the PM has a mandate which, of course, I disagree with...

As you can see from the definition which I proved at the start of this post, a mandate is an official command, a commission awarded by those who elect parliamentarians; i.e. the voting public. Neither party secured enough seats to form government. Therefore neither side was commissioned by us – the people – to lead with our blessing and authority. Minority governments do not, by definition, have a mandate from the people. While they can function and fulfil the everyday requirements of government they should not be allowed to manipulate the system to pass dangerous, damaging legislation through the parliament for the sole goals of maintaining power and looking after their vested interests. If a minority government wants to initiate a reforming agenda, then that is fine... but first it needs to get the approval of the people by following the democratic process.

If you want a mandate, Prime Minister, then you have to get it from us, not Brown or his lackeys; only then will you be able to pass this legislation in good faith and save your otherwise damned political soul...

Those who live in greenhouses should not throw rhetoric

The ‘Red Menace’ of yesteryear has evolved into a decisively smug shade of Green. Forget the Reds under your bed for I am far more concerned about the Greens in their Priuses or, worse yet, on their soapboxes. The other day I came home only to find the unsightly visage of none other than Senator Bob Brown gracing my T.V.


“Tony Abbott is a puppet of big business!” He decried, much like a self-proclaimed prophet standing on the hill preaching to the true believers and curious bystanders who always gather to gawk at the mentally ill. “Tobacco companies! Mining giants! Multinational conglomerates! All have Tony Abbott and the devilish Coalition bowing at their feet! Follow them if you wish to descend into a tobacco and pollution haze of greed and corruption!” Ok, so the often sighted criticism of yours truly being slightly prone to hyperbole may, at times, be somewhat appropriate. This, however, is not one of those times... anyway, moving forward...


Every time I have the great misfortunate of gazing upon Senator Brown’s sickly face it is undoubtedly accompanied with either a self-congratulatory pat on the back or a rampant tirade about how the Coalition are the whipping boys of evil corporate forces, the likes of which who plot against him personally and, more broadly, anyone sporting a liberal agenda. Senator Brown’s paranoia over New Ltd. aside, the good senator does seem to derive a great sense of satisfaction pointing out that the Coalition does receive large donations from ‘vested interests’ (oh how Bob loathes donations, all the while gladly accepting them himself...). The clear inference being that large organisations can throw some money Tony’s way and –Hey Presto! – you have the Opposition opposing for opposition’s sake.


Plain packaging getting you down? No problem! For a nominal fee Tony ‘Action Man’ Abbott will take up the charge and defend your wicked organisation’s vile intellectual property rights...


So this got me thinking. Political parties, by necessity, collect donations to fund their election campaigns, etcetera. It makes sense, therefore, that non-political entities will support parties which champion causes which will lead to beneficial outcomes for them. The unions support the ALP because they believe that Labor will be a voice for the ‘working man/woman’. By extension, business groups will support the Coalition as their core values centre around lower taxation and limited government interference (i.e. the idea of ‘small government’). So far, this all seems fair; no ethical alarm bells sounding... Of course, a supporter becomes a vested interest when their contribution influences actual policy outcomes. For example, ensuring that one of your mates who supported your campaign lands a sweet government contract or that government funds are going to a sector which is a generous donor, even if the allocation of funds is to the determent of the Australian people.


This is the heart of Senator Brown’s criticism of the Coalition. The Coalition accepts money from the coal industry by the form of donations. Tony Abbott and the Coalition oppose the Carbon tax. Ipso facto, Tony Abbott is a slave to the vested interests of the coal sector. In the less astute mind of your typical Green support this may send those aforementioned ethical alarm bells into motion, screeching in a tone almost as annoying as the voice of Sarah Hanson-Young. To your average voter on the street this may raise an eyebrow and warrant a second consideration of the issue, but for the most part nothing more. This avenue of attack, ironically, is now one of the key vulnerabilities of the Greens who, up until now, have largely escaped the harsh spotlight of critical evaluation (nice work, liberal media!). If, however, the Greens want to play in the big league, then there are some serious questions that need to be asked...


The first dark corner which our spotlight must be shone is funding; where exactly is the Green’s money coming from? The renewable energy sector, of course! The green, environmental sustainability sector throws large sacks of cash in Senator Brown’s direction, supposedly because the Green’s want to move Australia to a low emissions economy. Is this really what the Green’s are trying to achieve, though...?


That brings us to the second corner on which we must shed some illumination: the Carbon Tax. Emissions reducing saviour or false prophet aimed at swelling the pockets of those nasty ‘vested interests’? The $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation (colloquially referred to as ‘Green Bank’) is essentially tax-payer dollars being funnelled to approved green initiatives (direct action, anyone?). Now Green Bank is the creation of Bob Brown and was the key sweetener to getting the Greens on board to support this wildly unpopular legislation. Who decides what warrants an acceptable ‘green initiative’ worthy of those hard-earned tax-payer dollars? Why Senator Brown and his ilk, of course! And who do you think those funds are likely to go to? The Green’s largest and most generous financial backers, perhaps? Did I hear someone say “conflict of interest?”


Does anyone seriously believe that those who financially supported the Greens will not be the first in line to collect their recycled-plastic Government funded ‘Green Visa’ from Green Bank, with the Australian tax-payer picking up the tab? Is this not a blatant case of mates helping mates, of vested interests coming before national interests? If you are unconvinced, just considered Senator Brown’s reaction to the use of Green Bank funds to assist in the development of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. Clearly not the reaction of a man considering all of the options in the nation’s best interest... Is there an allegiance you are putting ahead of the interests of the people, Senator?

A note to a Carbon Lemon...

I have been spending a lot of time thinking about the Carbon Tax since Sunday (and for quite some time previous to that fateful day) and I have, exercising great restraint, resisted the urge to jump on my computer and start ranting. No, I thought to myself, I will sit back and actually THINK about what has been proposed, consider the alternatives and not just rage against the most incompetent Government/Prime Minister this country has ever had the misfortune of having... and, for the most part, this is what I have done... until I came across this particular article . Now on my path to comprehend both the Carbon Tax and the public sentiment around it, I have read and watched a lot on the topic from both sides of the argument. While I already have a view on the matter, I believe that my opinion and understanding of the subject matter should be tested against the views and attitudes of others. Otherwise, how can I say that my position has been well thought out and considered if I have only been looking at views which coincide with my own? If the method was good enough for Socrates then it is good enough for me. However this article by ABC contributor Geoff Lemon – the ABC pushing a leftist agenda, shocking! – left me speechless. I’ve included the link again here and would suggest that you look it over. Feel free to tell me if I’m overreacting when I say that this article, and the comments it generated, have me questioning the intellect of my fellow Australians...


Geoff’s argument is that because Australian citizens do not live in abject poverty, then the Government should tax them into the third world squalor he seems to want to inflict on the hard working families of Australia. All so that he could witness “...the squawking indignant right-to-luxury crowd learning how to live in the dust, scraping out dried plants from the earth and hoarding their remnants from the Beforetime.” I can just imagine Geoff with the other Lemons, notably Bob Brown and Sarah Hanson-Young, sitting on their high horses, overseeing the destruction of the great Australian economy – and with it, the great Australian dream – just so that they could finally justify their pointless existence.

The left seem to think that their argument that ‘Australia can afford to do it, so we should do it’ is a valid one; nothing could be further from the truth. Just because you can do something does not make it a good idea! I do not need both of my lungs to live, but that does not mean that I should go and have one removed just so that I limit my output of CO2. Why would I subject myself to painful, ultimately unnecessary surgery, if it is not absolutely required? Likewise, why should the Government take a sledgehammer to the economy and subject the people of Australia to the subsequent economic pain when there will be no benefit to the environment? I hate to rain on the Greenies’ parade but Australia only emits 1.47% of global emissions! To give some perspective, at current emissions levels, it would take Australia 13 years to release the same amount of carbon that China emits in a single year. I’m going to repeat that for all of those who actually think that Australia cutting emissions would actually achieve anything: What it takes for us to emit in a year China does in under a month. Perhaps Geoff Lemon and his friends in the Greens should be waging war with their comrades in China, as opposed to the Australian people...

This widespread view held by the socialist element within our community is, ultimately, a selfish one. They want to shut down ‘evil big business’ simply so that they can have that warm fuzzy feeling akin to the joy they feel when riding the [free range] unicorns at Uncle Bob’s Unicorn Refuge, where the majestic creatures eat pollution and fart out rainbows and candy for all the children. What they fail to understand (an inability to comprehend basic ideas is common amongst Bachelor of Arts students...) is that evil big businesses actually EMPLOY PEOPLE! Not everyone gets their income from Centrelink; some people have these things called ‘jobs’. Furthermore, these organisations also invest in Australia, as opposed to fiendishly exporting all of the profits to devilish ‘foreign’ investors. Just a sidenote: it always fascinates me how the Greens want to let every single refugee into the country and slam Australians who do not share their view as being racist, yet Bob Brown seems very xenophobic when it comes to foreigners who have money and, God forbid, want to invest it in Australia’s growth...

I was hoping to complete this post without it deteriorating into a rant... oh well... I’ll just make the promise “that there will be no partisan rhetoric under any post I write”. On second thought I retract that promise, especially after what has been going on with the Prime Minister and how angry people get when lied to (justifiably so, I might add). So I will conclude by saying this to Geoff Lemon: You are wrong, Australian families and the broader economy as a whole is hurting and we do not need this tax. While you may be happy to pay this tax do not be so quick to judge those that do not share your enthusiasm for another ill-conceived – and what will ultimately be a poorly executed – initiative from a Government that fails at everything is attempts... [Damn rhetoric, how did you sneak in there...?!]