Back to the future

It is clear, then, what Abbot's policy is as he appoints Bronwyn Bishop, Ruddock and Andrews to his front bench.

While there is no doubt that this group of 'tried' politicians have had measured success in a reactionary sort of way in the past; it is difficult to see that they will not alienate the very sections of the electorate that the Opposition need to attract back.

No wonder Turnbull will break with their reactionary sort of stuff. [I am trying not to invoke Godwin's law (here) and it is difficult.] One wonders if there will be a party split. I imagine Malcolm is unlikely to be bothered with such political nitpicking, but I guess we shall see.

Personally I think that Ruddock is one of the most divisive ministers we have had, how ever well (or not) he may have dealt with issues of immigration, he presents as a hard, callous and unbending individual. Bronwyn is almost a caricature, and Kevin Andrews recent participation in the leadership shenanigans leaves all sorts of questions unanswered.

Maybe he never thought he would be a potential leader and was just precipitating a crisis but even the bookies didn't give him any chance of being elected the other day. I was also bemused by one very senior journalist's radio comments about his putting himself forward, the disdain was palpable.

I personally don't think they have done themselves any favours.

The electorate will easily perceive that this is a "tried" team...but I wonder if they will also think that it is 'true'

The cost of freedom

We will no doubt be embroiled soon in the resignation/byelection scandal. As is predicted, and seems an inevitability, senior Liberals will resign in the next few months; ill-suited to sit on the backbench they will no doubt employ their talents elsewhere!

But at what cost?

The first ever election for the Commonwealth of  Australia in 1901 cost £56 331. The Australian Electoral Commission's figures going up to 2005 show that the 2004 election cost in excess of $117 million.

Of great interest are  the various  by-election costs which show that since 2000 a by election cost in excess of $400,000! (see the interesting document here)

At least 4 senior Coalition MPs are being flagged as disappearing before the end of their term, maybe in the next few months (Downer, Andrew, McGauran and of course Costello). This "I didn't win so I'm taking my ball and going home" mentality will obviously be costly to the taxpayer.

I suggest that some reimbursement, perhaps from the more than generous superannuation payouts, could be expected.

They will all of course go on to very highly paid jobs, probably better paid than the Parliament, so I don't have much sympathy.

Loyal Citizenry

I was interested to catch a story on the ABC's Landline yesterday (coming here soon)about helping Zimbabwean farmers to come to Australia. It was a good story about positive immigration, and did not pretend to be easy.
At the conclusion of the story one of the English, (I think) commentators made the observation about receiving Australian citizenship that "An Australian born here will never understand how wonderful it is to have a piece of paper that says "Australian Citizenship". I know this feeling well, and have sometimes voiced similar sentiments to all the members of my family who (unlike me) happen to have had the good fortune to have been born here. Mrs C being a fourth generation Australian, and the little Cs therefore being fifth.
We take so much for granted. Our recent jaunt overseas, as enjoyable and wonderful as it was , did not diminish our delight at coming back to Australia. And I have no doubt that I am an Australian, and I am pleased to be able to say it is not just an accident of my birth.
It was interesting to read a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald by Richard Ackland (here) about the Haniff affair. Interesting because, in a way, everything has quieted down.
But he notes (amongst other things) how protagonists of tighter immigration laws, indeed the present Minister, wear the paraphernalia of citizenship...lapel badges and the like, almost in inverse proportion to their proclivity to breach values like the rule of law, freedom, and the right to a fair go. He has a point. Even if it is a little far-fetched to blame the lowly lapel badge for so much.
But at a time when we are talking about what sort of statements new citizens will have to sign up to...we should perhaps be prepared to seriously address the issues of what words and expressions like "the rule of law", "fair go", and "mateship" mean.
Personally if I was a Digger of the First War I would laugh every time the PM declares mateship to be one key value. While one can see how the filth of the trenches and the camraderie of war may indeed breed something so powerful called "mateship" that it can almost not be defined, but what suffering have Howard and Andrews endured that is anything like that supreme bonding experience.
From the comfort of the Parliament, and the bastion of power it is easy to call everyone your mate; and bear none of the consequences.
My piece of paper is worth more to me than that!

With bated breath

We are all waiting with anxious anticipation to see what information Immigration Supremo, Kevin Andrews, is going to reveal about Mohammad Haniff that justifies the continuing revocation of his work visa.
Haniff appeared on 60 Minutes last night some what at pains to protest his innocence ( a little too 'butter wouldn't melt in my mouth' for my liking but perhaps I am as tinged with xenophobia as my fellow compatriots (here)).
One thing we can be sure of, if there is nothing forthcoming from Andrews, who can hide behind the excuse of confidential information.....then we can be pretty sure there will be no apology.
In fact this feels like the same sort of 'no-apology' land that we have visited before.
The protestations that no apology is necessary because he has acted within the law only stands up if evidence is presented that shows that there was indeed niggling doubt about Haniff's soundness. We wait in vain.
It begs the question about what the right way to act is. Ethics 101 tells you in tutorial one that there is huge difference between what is legal and what is right. Holy Writ tells us recourse to the legal system is the last resort and things should be settled before that stage....Andrews should know this since he is one of the klatsch of Christian politicians (instrumental you may remember in overturning the Territory's euthanasia legislation) who seek to have their faith-voice heard. I find his recent action strangely lacking in Christian character.
So I wait with baited breath for the information....and will not hold the same breath for the apology that Haniff deserves if he is, as he claims, a coincidental player.

We do not presume

The presumption of innocence is a wonderful thing, if not a little risky. It really undergirds the whole of our legal system.
It is indeed a risky thing, because our presumption may sometimes be mistaken. It is the price we pay for not having a system which presumes guilt, which is also a risky thing, because the consequences of presuming an innocent person is guilty can be devastating (if not fatal) for ...well...an innocent person. In our civilised way we think this is worse thing to risk than occasionally letting a guilty person go free.
Now, I don't know whether Mohammad Haniff (here)is innocent or guilty. I am therefore disturbed by the immigration processes used to detain him yesterday, after the presumption of innocence had been effected by a legitimate court.
This indeed is one of the fatal weaknesses of the whole framing of immigration law (not just this case) we presume guilt. Now no doubt a Minister, in this case Kevin Andrew, may claim knowledge of special circumstances (and may indeed have such); but we have courts to test the veracity of this sort of 'special knowledge'. We are on a slippery slope indeed when authorities, however august, outside the legal system presume to effect the processes of the law.
I hold no hope that any of this will be heard by those in power (on either side) or that forthcoming elections will change their stance. Ever fearful of the electorates' anxiety they will not risk being thought 'weak'.
But it seems to me that the true 'weakness' here is not being prepared to stand up for the fundamental principles of our way of life. Presumption of innocence is one such.