A failure of logic

Daily we hear Gillard and Bowen bleating that they don't want to be responsible for another dreadful accident like the sinking of the asylum seeker vessel at Christmas Island on December 15 2010. They therefore go on to say that it is necessary to process asylum seekers off-shore, in order to "break the people smugglers' business model" and thus to prevent a further tragedy of that sort.
By so doing they create a much greater tragedy - they leave asylum seekers without any of the protections that they have a right to expect under the Refugee Convention and other international obligations that Australia has signed up to.
So long as there is unrest in the world, there will be asylum seekers. So long as there are asylum seekers there will be people offering to transport them to places where they might reasonably expect to be safe. So what's the failure of logic? Simply this: Both the opposition and the government seem to think that it's OK to treat asylum seekers in contravention of our international obligations; in an inhumane way; to imprison them; to turn them back in leaky boats...simply so they won't have a chance to end up, graphically on our nightly television news. Gillard and Abbott don't want that sort of footage - it suggests that they might not be being humane or sensible in their policies. So perhaps it's not a failure of logic. Perhaps if you are Gillard and Abbott it makes perfect sense: if boats sink at Christmas Island, and asylum seekers drown then current policies come into question. If boats sink after they've been turned back to somewhere in Asia, or they disappear without trace (yes one of those was reported this week) then that's much less likely to cause concern in Australia. So, let's just let them rot in Manus, Nauru, or better yet send them to Malaysia. That's logical!
Sorry it must be me that's having the failure of logic. When put like that, Abbott and Gillard make perfect political sense. It's a great, great pity that it makes no sense at all to me as a human being.
How about we adopt  a sensible and humane approach here? If asylum seekers are driven to board leaky boats then that is not ideal, however it will be a reality, whatever we do. So why don't we just treat them decently when they get here? It's their (undoubtedly forced by circumstances) choice to jump on those boats and the reality is we can do little to stop it. What we can stop immediately is the inhumane mandatory detention whilst asylum seekers are processed. We can stop immediately Gillard and Bowen's proposed watering away of our international obligations. We can stop immediately any plans to process off-shore or to send asylum seekers to third countries for processing.
I wonder why we wouldn't do what we can, rather than bleating about what we can't change?
Footnote: It was edifying to see Bowen berated by protesters yesterday. His riposte? Not a very mature way to carry on a debate. Well Chris I couldn't agree more, the approach you have taken to asylum seekers is neither mature nor effective. Your engagement of the Australian and international community is neither mature nor effective. You reap what you sow Chris. If you take a more humane and mature approach you'd be surprised what comes back to you.

A burnt offering: Carbon Pricing doesn't have to be like this

Australian politics has done something over the last couple of weeks that I had thought impossible: it's taken a turn for the worse!

Before we get down to the specifics of that malaise, let's just look at the environment. The US is critically close to a situation where it won't be able to meet its obligations. That's an amazing and frightening situation. Unless Obama reaches agreement with the Republicans to increase the debt ceiling and unless he does it in the next few days we are faced with the very real spectre that the lurching situation in the US could get a lot worse. Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Fed, took the most unusual step of warning Congress that if they didn't act then the resulting default would be catastrophic. I find it amazing that he even felt it necessary to state the bleeding obvious to Congress. Make no mistake that if the US enters a crisis of default then we, along with the rest of the world will catch a mighty chill.

Meanwhile in Europe, one economy after another finds itself in strife, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, with the UK not much better. A default in any of those economies will set off ripples that will be uncontrollable and unpredictable.

So back home to our hopeless government. Throughout the Howard years, with the dubious exception of the GST, the march of economic reform ceased. Howard fooled around at the edges, Reith ran little hate campaigns on the docks but little changed and the regressive and draconian Work Choices has been rightfully wound back. So the momentum of the Hawke/Keating years was lost.

Rudd made no headway and thence to Gillard. She has had 3 opportunities for major reform, each dragged through the Rudd period and each a failure. The Henry review gave her and Swan an ideal opportunity to really make some much needed changes to a complex, unwieldy and counterproductive tax system. Score on that to date? A dismal failure.

Next, and as a subset of the Henry review a more effective way of sharing the wealth from mining with the broader community - the so called mining super profits tax. Well there's the first mistake, why choose an emotive title like that? We're merrily mining Australia into becoming a great big, bankrupt, hole in the ground. Miners' shareholders are getting rich, countries receiving our mineral wealth are getting rich, but an insufficient share of that wealth is being invested in the future of Australia. What was required was a simple, broad based tax that equitably shared the spoils of mining between the miners and the owners of the resource - the Australian people. The outcome was an example of how to completely fuck up a reasonably minor piece of economic reform. An example of how to become hostage to a bunch of loud-mouthed doomsayers - the miners. What we are therefore getting is a narrow and insufficient tax and a failed opportunity for the future of Australia.

Finally we come to the carbon tax - again wrong with the name. We now have a repeat performance, an imperfect tax, a failed sales effort and a deeply sceptical and divided community. Australia has a unique opportunity to be ahead of the curve on this. The world, whether it likes it or not, will have to come to terms with these reforms, and more quickly than it expects. To be early on this curve, to get the structural changes through our economy before others, will leave us in a highly competitive position. Instead we have a tax that is insufficiently broad, and too gradual and because of that it will have insufficient impact on the economy, will drive insufficient change. We need this carbon pricing arrangement for two reasons: firstly we don't want to have to deal with the real costs of global warming when they reach catastrophe point and secondly we would prefer to lead the world than to follow in a way, not of our own choosing.

Gillard and Swan have failed completely to sell this much needed reform. Meanwhile Abbott is a national disgrace. He roams the country stirring up fear uncertainty and doubt, all for only one reason: his own perceived political advantage. He is creating deep social division, all for nothing. What Abbott must realise, and what Australia must hold him to account for is that his behaviour is having a very, very serious effect on confidence - consumer and business confidence. It doesn't need to be like that, the carbon price is a good thing, it's insufficient but nevertheless it's a good thing. It will have only a minor impact on the economy. Abbott and business need to stop whinging and start being the market driven capitalists they claim to be. This carbon price will give gentle and long term market signals and we need to get on and respond to those signals in a timely and effective way.

It's about time that Australians started to judge Abbott for what he is: a wrecker. When you feel economic pain over the next few months, as the Australian economy worsens - as it will on the back of failed confidence - remember that Abbott had a hand in destroying consumer and business confidence with his senseless and inane yelling about this sensible reform.

We are entitled to better than the current mob we have on both sides of parliament. The only man or woman who impresses me is Tony Windsor. We'll have lots more of him please.

One small step for Australia...

Listening to the discussion around Go Back on SBS this week has given me some heart that we might have moved a fraction of an inch from a hate and fear filled rhetoric towards a clearer view of asylum seekers as people who are in difficult situations and worthy of our support.

The difficulty is the entrenched political positions in Australia. But even there I see an avenue for major change. The change could come with one, small, step. This small step would in one fell swoop drastically lower the cost of asylum seekers to Australia, puncture completely the hate-filled rhetoric, radically improve the lives of asylum seekers and turn this from a major political issue to what it is in truth: Australia's miniature contribution to helping those displaced in an unsettled world.

The one small step is simple: move to a community-based processing system now.

Asylum seekers would simply be held for a duration not exceeding one month whilst they were identified and a security assessment was undertaken. They would then be released into the community with access to Medicare, to education and to transitional support from Centrelink. They would have a right to work and would reside in the community whilst their claim was decided. Those who did not pass initial processing steps would continue to be held in detention centres.

Those asylum seekers released into the community would be free to stay there whilst their claims were assessed and whilst they continued to meet minimal criteria around location and compliance with Australian law. If they were assessed as refugees they would remain in the community whilst waiting permanent residence in Australia or resettlement to a third country.

Whilst we would need to support asylum seekers in the community it would be much cheaper and more humane than the current situation. It would also allow them to receive community support from volunteer organisations and existing compatriot groups whilst waiting.

The only other thing I would ask is for Australia to increase its total refugee intake to something which approaches a recognition of our wealth and resources. A level certainly above what we accept now.

I note that Malcolm Fraser, in a speech last night in Adelaide, also made this point and another point I have previously written about: make ASIO accountable and make it perform in terms of security vetting.

I believe that we should focus our efforts, those of us who are appalled by the current situation, by simply seeking this one vital change. It would be good for us as Australians, good for asylum seekers and good for the Government. Why would it be good for the Government? It would be a positive change to the budget and it would allow the Government of the day to move on and deal with real issues instead of endlessly playing political ping pong.

I think we are increasingly ready for this change as a community.

The grass is Greener!

An important milestone is coming soon. From July, the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate. In addition Adam Bandt is one of the numbers keeping Julia Gillard in power. This makes for interesting times for the Greens and interesting times for Australia.

Before I go any further I want to make one thing clear: I am NOT advocating for intemperate behaviour on the part of the Greens that would lead to continuing instability in the Reps. I think that would be bad for Australia.

Having said that, this is crunch time for the Greens. My premise is that Australian voters did two things, deliberately in 2010. They refused to place their trust in either major party; and they substantially increased their support of the Greens. I'm a great believer that nothing happens without a reason. I believe that the Australian electorate has given a mandate to the Greens - a mandate to show some real leadership in Australia. Whether the Greens choose to accept that mandate will determine the future of their support.

We reposed similar trust in the Democrats once. We believed their "Keeping the Bastards Honest" line and we gave them enough votes in the Senate to deliver on their promise. What did they do? They supported an unpopular GST, they negotiated with the Devil and delivered for the Devil. The electorate never forgave them and we can see the inevitable outcome now.

The same holds true for the Greens. We've given them our votes as a mediating force, as an opportunity for them to show real leadership. We haven't seen such leadership in this country since Paul Keating and Bill Deane - each in their own way - showed us leadership on things that were "right" but unpopular. They convinced us that we needed to accept and support things that were initially unpopular.

Federal politics is currently a moral vacuum. When I use the word "moral", I'm not using it in some trumped up Judaeo-Christian sense. I'm using it in a lower case, low key statement of our obligations, as humans, to ourselves and others. Neither Gillard nor Abbott are offering anything to the population in terms of moral leadership. Instead they have their stethoscopes firmly pressed to the opinion polls seeking for any advantage in their race against each other to the bottom of the cess pit. We are mired in the tip-toe politics of pragmatism and political advantage. Self interest is the order of the day along with short term political gain.

Meanwhile the train wreck that is increasingly Australian society continues.

Most concerning is the use of the politics of fear. In 1788 the First Fleet arrived here, sent from England and full of convicts. Transportation was driven by the disparity between the haves and have nots of English society and the fear, on the part of the haves, that the have nots would somehow hurt or harm them. The response on the part of the haves was a draconian legal regime and the transportation of even minor transgressors to the ends of the earth.

Unfortunate parallels are apparent in our society today. We hear this ongoing whining that society is not safe, tougher laws are needed, more jails...; we hear mining bosses forecasting the end of the world as we know it if tax rises by even a cent; ditto for a carbon tax or any attempt to curb and change our profligate use of hydrocarbon resources; refugees are vilified and cast as the devil incarnate. What is worse these fears are fanned and encouraged by the baying of the politicians from both sides of politics, seeking to harness fear for their own political advantage.

When was the last time a politician stood up and said things like: "Refugees pose no threat to this country and we should welcome them"; or "The community is safer than its ever been, more punitive laws do not contribute to community safety and we're not going to play that game"; or "A sensible mining royalty regime is critical to the future prosperity of this country, the miners are not contributing sufficiently and unless we change that we'll end up as a bankrupt hole in the ground".

On and on it goes. NOBODY at a State or Federal political level is providing leadership, nobody is seeking to help the populace understand real, complex issues. Instead we see politicians of all flavours chasing each other to the bottom.

Do we have the politicians we deserve? Are we increasingly a population of gutless, craven losers, focused only on small-minded self interest? Well the evidence on both counts suggests to me that the answer is yes.

However we are susceptible to listening to our leaders when they have something meaningful to say to us, and we did vote for the Greens and the independents in increasing numbers. That gives me hope.

So here's the challenge for the Greens and it's a tough one! I predict that if the Greens cannot find the skills and the backbone to step right up to the plate and provide vocal, moral leadership to this country, then we will treat them the same as we have treated the Democrats - as a waste of electoral resources. We have lots invested in the major parties, we're not prepared to trash either of them because we sense a need for the necessary electoral tension between them. Our "bet each way" always comes with the minor parties and we are quick to judge the success of our flutter and move on if it isn't working. That means that when we entrust our faith in a group like the Greens the stakes are very high for them. Their demise will take time, if it happens, because of the duration of Senators, but it will be inevitable if they don't step up.

If on the other hand, they step into the massive vacuum in public life in this country. If they start to show real leadership across a range of issues...then they may just have a future.

I hope they do, I really hope they do.

An open letter to Bob Brown

G'day Bob,

I decided it was time to write to you, because the country is pretty fucked and we need you to act.

At the last election an interesting thing happened. The collective mind of Australia created a hung parliament. We also gave the Greens a bigger vote than we ever have before. In my electorate we elected the first lower house Green in Federal Parliament.

We did all that for a reason. It wasn't a mistake, it wasn't chance: it was Australia's collective consciousness saying we trusted neither Abbott nor Gillard with the reins of the place.

Well we've been proved right. The two of them are chasing each other to the bottom, playing up the fears of the populace and competing to be the most effective dog whistler.

Meanwhile in Victoria Ted Baillieu and the central committee of the Victorian Liberal Party have embarked on their 5 year plan - commonly known as the Great Leap Backwards. Swearing is now a focus for police action (simply another avenue for police harassment of the poor, the young, the homeless and the Aboriginal people); the anti discrimination legislation has seen changes rammed through to allow religious groups to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, gender, marital status...mandatory sentencing has reared its ugly head, new prisons are on the agenda... You get the picture - a race to the bottom, playing on fear and forgetting 50 years of progress as an aware and tolerant society. Greg Barber where are you?

But back to the important subject of Federal Parliament and asylum seekers. Abbott and Gillard and competing to be "toughest" on asylum seekers. Gillard's "Malaysian Solution" even has the Liberals calling foul. As it should. I'm repeating myself, but nevertheless: asylum seekers and refugees are good for this country, arriving by boat is a plus not a minus. Somebody needs to show some leadership here and the only person left standing Bob, is you!

The populace doesn't need to be told that they need to fear these people. Somebody in public office needs to stand up and take a moral stance on asylum seekers. Somebody needs to do the thing that people in public office haven't done since Bill Deane and Paul Keating took leadership stances on what is good for Australia and what is good for humanity.

Nobody is doing that at the moment. Every political figure is...playing politics, playing the polls.

Well Bob, I'm looking at you. Here's your opportunity. It's what we put you and Adam Bandt and the rest of your team there to do. At the moment all we get are minor noises from Sarah Hanson-Young.

Do not mistake this: the reason the Green vote improved so much this time is because we didn't trust Gillard and Abbott and we were right not to. When we need you however we find you wanting. No vocal leadership, no moral leadership. Instead a committee of inquiry. We don't need a committee! We need you and your team to stand up and call the shots.

The refugee policies of Abbott and Gillard are unacceptable, contrary to the best interests of ALL Australians and inhumane.

You've got a choice: do something pretty effective about it or face annihilation at the next election. This is the reason your team were trusted with our vote. At the moment it doesn't look like you are living up to our trust in you. Do you intend to change that?

Immigration Detention

Yesterday, I had the most depressing interchange, on Twitter, with a fellow called @StreetSmarts111 . His profile called out his conservative political bent. The reason the interchange was so depressing, and indeed the reason I ultimately blocked him, was that there appeared no intent on his part to engage in an exploration. This Tweeter simply wanted to pound a mandatory detention path.

What frustrates me also is that 140 characters is only the first intake of breath on a subject like this. So here goes.

Firstly about Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard. Reprehensible is the only word that works for me when I think about their refugee policies. They and the parties they lead continue to chase each other to the bottom of a very unpleasant slope. They are both playing to first world paranoia. They are seeking to garner even a few voters by playing to anxieties and misapprehensions amongst the population. They are doing this by causing irreparable damage to the lives of asylum seekers and, increasingly, damage to Australia's international reputation.

@StreetSmarts111 stubbornly equated mandatory detention with the need to "process" people. Let's just unpick that. Australia engages in mandatory, indeterminate, arbitrary detention of asylum seekers arriving by sea.

• Mandatory - you come in by sea, you must be detained;
• Arbitrary - the mandatory nature of detention means that, no matter who you are and what your risk, origin or claim you are nevertheless detained;
• Indeterminate - it is impossible to say how long you will be detained for.

Now @StreetSmarts111 argues that all that is necessary in order that we be able to "process" what he chooses to call "illegal immigrants". Firstly let's put the illegal to bed. It's anyones' right to seek asylum in another country. That other country has the right to determine their view of the veracity of that claim. These people are not "illegal immigrants" they are asylum seekers.

So let's look at processing. What does Australia need to do in this regard? I'd argue that the necessary components of a processing system are:

• It focuses firstly and quickly on simple things like "who are you?", "where did you come from?" and "who came with you?". That check is done daily at our airports to thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people. Not all of them have pre-issued visas. That system does not lack integrity suggesting that such immediate information should be accessible, even for quite large boatloads in 24-48 hours. That information also allows the commencement of security checking (more on that later);
• Health checks. We would reasonably want to know whether arrivals were suffering from a communicable disease. We would also want to know, for the sake of the arrival, whether they were suffering from medical conditions requiring treatment;
• The next step is to determine the nature of the claim that each person is making for asylum. This is a longer step, but in fact does not require continued detention for its conduct. By now we should be in a position to know who each arrival is and to have made an accurate assessment about whether they pose a security risk, or whether there is a high level of uncertainty about their identity, or the risk they pose. In default of such risks they are ready to be released from detention. That is not to say that they have a place in Australia as a refugee, it is not to say that they are in fact a refugee. It's simply to say that we have adopted a risk-management approach and formed a view that they can be released into the community pending a decision on their status and whether they will be granted Australian residency.

Such an approach would leave the vast majority of arrivals in our community within a month or so. Some small proportion would be detained on the basis of their risk and perhaps even removed to their country of origin (after the exhaustion of their avenues of appeal under Australian law).

So what are the risks to Australia from such an approach, rather than mandatory detention? There are none. You are more likely to be run over by a car on your way to work than harmed in any way by one of these arrivals with such a sensible managed, streamlined processing system in place. There is no physical risk beyond that which already exists through homegrown extremists, organised crime and bikie gangs - none of which have anything to do with people arriving by boat. There is no economic risk. These people in the main are hard workers, delighted to be in a place of opportunity. They contribute to economic growth which we all benefit from. They do not steal jobs from "Australians".

But there are a couple of issues. Firstly the government needs to deal with both the legislation and the performance of ASIO with respect to security vetting. As I understand it, if you receive a negative security vetting you cannot find out why and on what it is based. You simply have a negative vetting. Why is that acceptable in a democratic country? Where is ASIO's accountability to parliament, the courts and the populace? How do we know what standards are being applied by ASIO? How can we know whether their standards are hopelessly laissez-faire, entirely appropriate to the needs of modern Australia or based on utter, unfounded paranoia? We can't under the legislation and the recipient of a negative vetting is unable therefore to effectively challenge it. The legislation needs to be changed to allow proper scrutiny and review of decisions.

Equally as important, the process of security vetting needs to take place at a brisk clip, not the current inefficient, glacial pace. If it's a matter of resources then the government needs to act. If it's a matter of priorities then the government needs to set ASIO straight about what's required. In any event the current pace and framework seems unacceptable.

So what would be the benefits of ending mandatory detention and briskly processing arrivals?

• The massive cost of mandatory detention - the financial cost - would end;
• The irreparable human damage caused by indeterminate and arbitrary detention would be greatly reduced, perhaps eliminated;
• Australia would begin to benefit rapidly from the contribution of these people to our society and to our economy. Yes there's a cost - people need access to support and to healthcare and education - but that cost is minuscule compared to the costs of mandatory detention and it is a cost that accrues for every member of society.
• Australia's international reputation would cease taking the battering it is now.
• The politicians could focus on matters of real national importance such as overhaul of the health system, implementation of an appropriate carbon strategy and ensuring the country enjoys long term benefit from the "minerals boom" rather than ending up as a bankrupt hole in the ground.

Let's not either begin imagining a mass exodus from countries around the world, all attracted to Australia by these new arrangements. That's simply a paranoid fantasy. Asylum seekers are "pushed" to leave the place they know by circumstances we can barely imagine. They are not "pulled" from the comfort of their homes by some vision of an Australian nirvana.

Asylum seekers make up such a small proportion of the immigrants coming to this country each year, that even a doubling of the numbers would have an almost negligible effect...except for the massive burden that we have imposed on ourselves by our mandatory detention policy.

There is only one thing that is needed in order for this situation to change: some sensible, ethical and moral leadership from our politicians. Our politicians need to start informing the population, they should lead the change in thinking about this situation. Instead they resort to the politics of fear, they dog whistle to those who fear everything including their own shadow.

All we need is a clear political message that asylum seekers are a positive and welcomed part of Australian life for this whole issue to vanish.

That won't unfortunately happen whilst we have the current morally bankrupt political leadership that we have - on both sides of parliament. I'd rather spend a day with any of the refugees that I know than be caught in the same room as our current political "leaders".

People Smugglers, Refugees and Confusing Push with Pull

There's a continuing misguided swirl of political rhetoric in Australia with respect to the role of "people smugglers" and the issue of "queue jumpers". I'm prompted to write this, in part, by an ongoing conversation on Twitter with @kristinmoore2 and @timhollo. 140 characters simply isn't enough sometimes.

Let's try to get some clarity through the middle of this highly charged argument. Firstly to the issue of refugees. That's what they are properly called. The Australian political rhetoric is all about queue jumpers trying to get to Australia quickly. This is a "pull" argument and is both fatuous and wrong. It relies for its validity on some view that the allure of Australia is so great that there are queues of people around the world with their eyes fixed on the shiny attractions of Australia. Under this argument arriving by boat is simply unfairly jumping these veritable queues and is not to be countenanced. People must be made to see that they cannot jump the queue. It's simply crap and what's most disturbing is that it only takes about 10 seconds of thought to understand that.

The alternative and accurate argument is a "push" argument. This argument says that refugees find the situation in their homelands so intolerable that they have little option but to seek an alternative place to live. The "push" arises through war, persecution, torture or other substantial perils in their homeland. People do not uproot themselves and look towards an unknown future unless there are huge pressures that close off all other options.

I go to sea in small boats a lot. Each time I do I focus intently on the safety of what I intend to do. If I'm not the skipper, I carefully evaluate the vessel, the skipper, the plans and make a decision about whether the safety meets my standards. I have on more than one occasion made a decision to stay on dry land.

Imagine being a refugee in the hands of people smugglers. These smugglers are business people: for a fee they offer to provide transport, by sea, from one point to another. From their point of view it's a one way trip for the boat - it very probably isn't coming back. So the boat is a cost and of course they must be sorely tempted therefore to scrimp on that cost. As a refugee, you get no chance to check out the crew, the boat, the plans, the safety equipment (should there be any). You simply cast yourself on the services of your chosen service provider.

I have met very few people of any nationality who do not have a care and concern for their own personal safety and that of their family, particularly their children. How must it feel to put your lives in the hands of someone whose motives and track record are unknown to you?

As @kristinmoore2 has pointed out, this issue of paid escape has a long precedent in recent history, no more so than in the run up to and during World War II. What is wrong with paying a service provider if you are under threat of your life and feel that you have no option to escape? Wouldn't you if faced with that choice? Of course you would. The lack of payment does not therefore lead to some moral high ground.

Please be clear however that I am not arguing that the people smugglers are shiny philanthropists. I am not making that point at all. I suspect that many are shady and careless of the lives of their human cargoes. Nevertheless their existence and the service they provide should be of no surprise to any of us.

What is most worrying is that both major political parties in Australia seem intent on continuing their false rhetoric about a "pull" theory with respect to asylum seekers. Please, let's all do away with that fiction and deal with the real issue: The world is in turmoil, much of it is turmoil on our doorstep. Indeed Australia is involved militarily in some of that turmoil. Under such circumstances refugees are part of what we should expect. People are being pushed from their land and the things that they know. They are being pushed into the hands of service providers they do not know and onto leaky boats for a perilous sea crossing. These are people under enormous pressure, displaying grit and determination that we should all show due respect for. We should expect refugees to arrive by boat and we should provide a proper and humane welcome to Australia for them.

The resolution of the election

There's been a lot going on, so these are just some random thoughts about the (non) election which, whilst indecisive, I believe is all to the good. Already we've seen Tony Abbott in his true colours, first refusing to submit his policies to Treasury for costing and then, inevitably having to agree to do so. Why didn't he just agree in the first place? He looked very silly behaving the way he did: result shot in foot with own gun!

Julia Gillard on the other hand is desperate about this: she wants to "win" this election so badly she can taste it. By that I mean that she wants to be able to form a government. If I was her I wouldn't want to be the shortest lived Australian PM. It also appears that she isn't sleeping very well - she looks tired and drawn.

What we are seeing, despite the missteps from Abbott, is that both sides realise that this is the end of their picnic. They can no longer behave like they have been and expect the Australian public to cop it. I hope the independents keep whoever forms government on their toes. In this regard we want no backsliding.

The other thing we want no more of is Julie Bishop's heckling from the sidelines. As a deputy leader of a major party she has a very limited repertoire and none of it is either very useful or very flattering. My view is that she would do her party a great deal of good by learning a new repertoire that had some positives in it, which focused on what her party was going to deliver and how, and which stopped with the bagging of all and sundry. Enough already from you Julie.

Now to the "independents", Katter, Oakeshott, Windsor, Wilkie and Crook. This is where it gets interesting. The first three are tending to hunt as a pack, Wilkie has said he wants none of that and Crook has simply said that whilst he's a National he won't be on the coalition benches. Whilst Alby Schultz might claim that Crook has "done a deal with the ALP" I think we can be pretty certain that Crook won't help the ALP form government. There's the matter of the mining tax. Julia Gillard is in the position where she can't win on that: if she drops it Crook might well support her but a great big chunk of Australia will say "they've done it again, first the ETS now this". That would be pretty terminal in terms of public trust in the ALP. On the other hand Crook is on the record as saying he can't support the tax.

Andrew Wilkie may well be the first to show his hand, and maybe as early as today. Adam Bandt has already shot his bolt, saying very early on that he would support Labor. So the next cab off the rank is Wilkie. Ordinarily I would expect him to support Labor - that represents a win-win for him. He will keep the Labor voters happy in his seat and he will be able to exert independent leverage therefore keeping his own voters happy. However I suspect it is not that simple. Andrew has moments when he appears to be a zealot of the purest type. That being the case he won't do what appears logical to you or me. Watch this space.

As for the other three, whilst Bob Katter points out that the three state electorates within his seat all vote Labor and that his vote is personal rather than party aligned, I nevertheless believe that it will be hard for him to align with Labor. More importantly he is appearing to act as a bloc with the other two independents. Whilst he might want to align with Labor I think that Oakeshott may well be the stumbling block.

My guess, and that's all it is, is that we'll end up with a coalition government supported by the bloc of three. Please note Julie Bishop that has nothing to do with who got the greatest two party preferred vote or any other measure - all that's irrelevant. The only thing that matters is who can go to the Governor General and form a government and who can survive on the floor of the house. But I'm sure you don't get that - you show no public signs of doing so.

The next few days will tell and it will be interesting. What will be perhaps more interesting is whether, in the longer term, the independents and Adam Bandt can move beyond a pork barrelling mentality to understand that they have obligations to the whole of Australia and that they will be badly punished if they don't live up to them.

What a (non) Result!

I went to buy fish at my usual place in Victoria Street, Richmond, today. As I walked in the Vietnamese guys who run the place were all watching the TV on the wall, Gillard was talking. They jumped on me and said "What was the result? You explain please. We don't understand". I thought 'well you're not alone in that boys', and tried my best to explain that there is no result and there won't be for a while. They love Labor, the shopkeepers along that strip, and this was a big disappointment to them.

Whilst there mightn't be a result there are some things that are clear:

1. The ALP got what they deserved, they were a crappy, presidential style, failure of a government;
2. We didn't give Tony Abbott a mandate - and that was on purpose - we don't like him that much either;
3. Having said both of those things, the party most responsible for the result - whatever it is, and therefore the party with the greatest obligations is the Greens.

So let's work this through. I think that Australians showed a great collective consciousness. You couldn't have orchestrated this result if you had tried. It's basically a hung parliament and it's doubtful that any one party will get to form government in their own right. There's still water to flow under the bridge and there's still an outside chance that the coalition might just get over the line in their own right. I doubt it at this stage though. Therefore the Australian public has chosen to trust neither major party. A good call, and with certain caveats I think it's good for Australia.

That means a parliament with 4 independents of various persuasions and a Green. Adam Bandt won in his own right in Melbourne and more on that in a minute. Neither major party has the requisite 76 and probably won't get there. So whoever forms government needs at least some of those 5 votes in order to survive any motion of no confidence on the floor. And that's all that's required now to govern. One of those independents is new and took the seat from the ALP with Green preferences, he came from third spot in the primary vote to do it.

Here's the thing about Melbourne though: Adam Bandt's election is a sign of the yuppification of the seat and indeed you might argue that he typifies the local yuppy! A review of some of the booths is instructive. St Mark's Church in the heart of the yuppy belt of the electorate saw the Greens polling more or less double the ALP, over in Mooney Ponds it was line ball and in Elizabeth Street in Richmond, amongst the Housing Commission flats Labor won the booth. So it's not all clear cut. Adam won the seat in decisive fashion but the electorate did not uniformly vote for him.

The Greens more than any other party have delivered this result. They took votes from the ALP, they took a seat from the ALP and they have a commanding hold on the Senate - or will have from next July. That delay is a farce in itself.

The obligation that the Greens now face is to deliver not only warm fuzzy policies but good government. The stability of the Australian government will almost certainly rest with Adam Bandt and Andrew Wilkie - the new member for Denison who whilst not a Green in name is certainly a proto-Green.

Are they up to it? Are they up to the hard yards of being part of a government, a government with no clear majority? Are they up to grappling with the difficult, pragmatic realities of delivering to Australia in all the areas of government, not just the warm ones? I'm not belittling the environment by saying that, rather I'm saying that a solid economic and social support base is imperative if we are to have the choice to deliver on environmental needs. It's no coincidence that developing countries generally have poor environmental records and that stable financially sound governments have choices when it comes to good environmental management.

One thing's for sure: If Adam Bandt fails to deliver on his responsibilities for sound, stable government, then Gen X, Gen Y and the older yuppies will ditch him quick smart at the next election. They'll also run far and fast from the Greens in the Senate. Witness the downfall of the Democrats.

Happy days Adam, I hope you're up to it. We all rely on you.

Election Campaigns and Musings

Deep into the second week of the Australian election campaign, I'm struck by the fact that we appear to have not one but two sub-par offerings from the major parties. Tony Abbott doesn't have it and doesn't get it, but he is busy promising us anything we want. Want a backflip on the company tax anyone?

Meanwhile Julia Gillard is promising to review, consult, plan, hold a forum and do anything but make a decision. In what passed as a debate the other night, the worm turned firmly against her every time she said something like "we'll work it through" or "we'll consult". The public are heartily sick of this current government's failure to deliver. There's a clear message out their Julia and if you want to win you better get it. Paraphrased the Australian public are saying: Just Fucking Do It! Sadly I don't think she gets it.

As for Tony, he wants us to think that he's moved into the 21st Century, he really does, he also wants us to think he's no longer a zealot. The truth is I suspect that Tony would be much happier back in 1955 having a cuppa with Jeanette Howard on his way to an Opus Dei meeting. Sorry Tony, the zealotry shines clear and bright about you.

The thing that troubles me is that old saying "you get the politicians you deserve". If that's the case then, as a nation, we've done something pretty bad to offend the Gods. These two are seriously not up to scratch. I find myself longing for an honest, straight shooting larrikin. Come back Bob Hawke...all is forgiven.

Seriously, next time you frown about a politician rooting his secretary, being seen leaving a gay club, abusing a waiter or using the wrong stamps on her campaign letters, I think you should pause. If what you think we need are seriously sanitised, one dimensional morons, then by all means run in on the attack. If you want people with no flair and no brains then by all means nod sagely when a carping opposition complains that some government member isn't married when they should be. If you want a set of decent innovative politicians then cut them some slack. Don't try to hold them to standards higher than the rest of the community and don't expect them to be colourless conformists. If you carry on like we've been carrying on the cut of our politicians can only get worse.

I'd far rather a politician who could identify a scumbag in the opposition and called it as he saw it (go Paul Keating) than the colourless lot we've got now.

Julia Gillard is doing her best to lose the election that is hers alone to lose. Maybe we don't want her, maybe we do...all I know is that it's a pretty sorry spectacle right now.

Apologies Dear Readers

I think I do owe you an apology. I've been incredibly busy over the last few weeks and so I've let the posting slip a bit.

What a few weeks it's been: Kevin Rudd off to obscurity; Julia Gillard in, via a very snappy coup; Lindsay Tanner calling it quits in Melbourne; a "deal" with the miners and announcements about asylum seekers from both sides of the fence.

The real interest for me though is the plight of Labor in Australia. In NSW they are simply rotten to the core and despite there not being any sort of opposition worth worrying about the NSW government is about to change. It will be an utter rout, a rout that will take a few years to claw back from.

In Victoria we're fairly likely to get a change of government as well. This government is not on the nose like the NSW government; they're not rotten to the core, they are however trailing in the polls quite badly. They backed themselves into a corner over the bushfires and the likes of Justin Madden have done them no good. Again there's no worthwhile opposition but it seems like people have decided it's time for a change. John Brumby seems sound but he has the charisma of a piece of roadkill.

The real game's in Canberra however, at least that's what federal politicians think! My problem with the current leadership of the Labor Party is this: if Kevin Rudd can be characterised as a wolf, then I fear that Julia Gillard is simply a wolf in sheep's clothing. The problem for the Labor Party is that they are pushing and shoving to occupy just the same ground as the Liberals. That's not new, but it's increasingly stupid. In image terms Labor used to be the party of the people, connected, earthy, left wing, brash and at times machiavellian. Just like a large disordered family really. The Libs on the other hand were haughty, austere and had strange accents: think Andrew Peacock and Malcolm Fraser.

The lurch to the right of both parties - the ascendancy of the "dries" over the "wets" in the Liberal Party, and the ascendancy of the right in Labor - has seen them stuck on the same dance floor. Not comfortable and indeed it makes the dance floor mighty crowded at times, hard to distinguish one from the other.

Meantime the Greens have taken up the space vacated by Labor, the inner cities are their's for the taking, the connected earthiness of Labor of old is now increasingly the style of the Greens. They look more and more like a chance in several lower house seats, not the least of those being Melbourne - Lindsay Tanner's current seat.

Here's my difficulty though: the Greens that I see around tend to strike me as power-hungry, inner urban yuppies. Not pleasant, not what I'm looking for in a politician. Bob Brown and the old guard of the Greens are genuine, on the money with their messages, but ultimately not a political force. The new Greens should not be mistaken for the old guard. The new Greens are politically savvy but they carry none of the really important stuff that the old guard does. They are Greens in name only.

Should the greens become a force, as they well might given the stupidity of Labor, they too will disappoint us as mere politicians, more interested in power than principles. That'll make 4 parties like that in Australia, because that's always been the case with the Nationals.

Autumn

I've always had mixed feelings about Autumn. When I was younger - still at school - I disliked autumn because I knew that meant the rain was coming. We'd have to work outside on the farm in wet weather gear, we'd never be dry, and there'd always be mud. It would be like that until October usually.

I like summer, I don't like the searing heat of the really hot days but the milder days of summer are just right for me. Autumn has its own share of beautiful days but it means winter is coming. Shorter days, colder and (with luck) some rain. This year autumn has been like an Indian summer, the days have been warm and sometimes hot and the nights mild. We've had little rain until the last week or so.

For us it's also the time of the year when we can at last grow a decent garden. We only have a small rooftop area and so we plant in containers. The summer makes such an approach very inefficient in terms of water use so we have given up. Instead we focus on getting seeds and seedlings in as soon as the fiercest part of summer is over.

This year we're growing rocket, coriander, lettuce, cima di rapa, curly and flat leafed parsley, buok choy, cavolo nero, radichio, mint, basil and chives. I miss Italian winter vegetables, they're hard to get in the shops and they are closely connected with winter in my mind. So we're taking the opportunity to grow them for ourselves. It's pretty rewarding because the cima di rapa in particular is so fast growing. It germinates in a week and is ready to eat from about 40 days.

It also gives me a real feeling of satisfaction to wake up in the morning and to see the garden, the plants seeming to have grown overnight!

What's been particularly interesting is the lettuce. We planted mixed red and green lettuce. The green lettuce has been a pretty dismal failure but the red lettuce has really boomed away and we've had several lovely salads from it already.

Enough of the garden however. What's perhaps more interesting is that we have the winter parliamentary recess coming up and then sometime soon after that a general election. The incumbent government have done the impossible and despite their substantial majority and first term status it is a real possibility that they may lose the election.

The core issue for this government is performance - or a woeful lack of it to be exact. They're great at making announcements but they just can't carry through. They either try to deliver and completely stuff it up (the insulation program, the aboriginal intervention, the schools infrastructure program) or they simply fail to get off the ground - computers in schools anyone?

I think that part of the issue is that the Australian population is turned off by Kevin Rudd. He's shown himself as, by turns, querulous, ill-disciplined, incomprehensible and arrogant. Not a good mix I wouldn't have thought.

The question is: can we bring ourselves to vote for Tony Abbott? He is too right wing for many, he alienates women, he has the light of zealotry in his eyes and he just appears a little flakey across the board.

Still it will make for an interesting few months. That situation is made more interesting by a state election in Victoria due around the same time. So we have plenty of politics to keep us warm this winter.

Note: If you are interested in getting some Italian vegetable seeds then have a look at the Italian Gardener. They are the Australian agents for Franchi Sementi - a premier Italian seed producer. The range is excellent and the customer service is great. Give them a ring for great advice.

Misery, Distress & Disappointment

Increasingly in places like the UK and Australia it seems that the voters are prepared to give the government of the day a fair shot at it. In NSW a Labour government has been in power for 13 years. Ditto in the UK where the conservatives have just come to power. John Howard and the Liberals (conservatives for those overseas) were in power here for 11 years.

That means that over a period of time the country (or state) moves towards the direction of the party in power. I mean that in an institutional sense. Appointments of judges tend to reflect the political persuasion of the day, laws and policies reflect the ideology of the mob in power.

When governments change we, the voters, expect that the new mob we elect will stamp their mark on the country. In so doing the pendulum, which may have swung too far one way, now gets the opportunity to swing back the other way.

What it also means is that governments can expect voters to support them as they make those changes. Voters in Australia do not vote a party in. Rather they decide they've had a gut full of the mob in power and, if there is a half reasonable alternative, they throw them out.

That brings us to the current mob. They came in - on one of those moments of change - with a sizeable majority. That's normal and expectable. But that's where the fun ended. They've proved, in their first term to be a massively ineffectual disappointment.

Here's why:

1. Instead of carving a path, and delivering on it, they've inherited that Howard era sin: they've sniffed the wind at every step and sought to follow a path that they think will displease the minimum number of people. In so doing they've made no meaningful change to the way the country runs and displeased the majority.
2. They have demonstrated an utter incapacity to deliver on anything. Computers in schools? Emissions trading and climate change legislation? The NT "intervention"? The insulation scheme? Meaningful and humane changes to asylum seeker policy? NAPLAN - a shambles? Health reform - nothing to show except words? All trumpeted loudly and all not delivered on.
3. A massive belief in their capacity to "spin" anything. To the point that the Prime Minister speaks only gobbledegook. The only person who comes close to speaking in a straightforward manner and giving the news, good or bad, is Lindsay Tanner. By the way Lindsay, don't think that's a compliment - it's not, you're simply better than your colleagues.
4. An arrogant failure to understand the political imperatives of an unfriendly senate. If you want to implement things then you'd better do your deals before you go mouthing off in public and alienating the people you need to pass your legislation.

What it amounts to is a massive and unacceptable failure. We get a Labor government less than twice a generation. My son was born during the Hawke/Keating years and became a voter in the Howard years.

What right do you, Kevin Rudd, have to fail your country in such spectacularly miserable form? Where is the tough team of reformers that you need in order to make real change? Where is the self discipline and humility that delivers real leadership?

Just for completeness: I acknowledge that Australia has weathered the "GFC" remarkably well. I don't give you much credit however. I think the credit goes to Ken Henry and Glenn Stevens (although Glenn's too quick on shifting rates) and our mineral resources.

Just as a bit of a score card. Here are the nearly-competents:

• Lindsay Tanner - at least he seems to nearly speak his mind and he has got one;
• Greg Combet - It's a pity he's relegated to cleaning up other peoples' messes;
• John Faulkner - It's a credit to John, strangely, that the Defence portfolio has gone silent since his arrival. Things must be working;
• Stephen Smith - dull as ditchwater, but maybe that's a good thing in a foreign minister. At least he appears to be a safe pair of hands;

Here are the failures - at least the most obvious ones:

• Kevin Rudd - Start delivering, that's all, stop spinning, stop being arrogant, and start delivering;
• Nicola Roxon - A term as health minister and we've seen what change precisely? What is the benefit of your latest excursion into health funding exactly? If you can't articulate it then why are you bothering?
• Jenny Macklin - You're a nice person, but the aboriginal population need more than a nice person. Deliver some real change in those communities Jenny and stop trying to take everything over;
• Wayne Swan - The Henry review, the opportunity of a lifetime, and the response from you is a great big fail. As for the mining super-tax, who haven't you alienated?
• Julia Gillard - you have delivered what Julia? What precisely? And attended by what ructions and disharmony? We expect much more.
• Peter Garrett - as a government minister you make a hell of a good singer. To the backbench and soon.

So Kevin and team. Are you going to be the ones who do the impossible? Are you going to be the ones who lose an election, after one term, to Tony Abbott? I mean losing to Tony Abbott for goodness sake - you'd have to really be trying to do that. But that looks like where you are going right now.

Or are you simply going to shrink your majority to a wafer thin irrelevance and lose a few more senate seats in the half senate election so that you can achieve even less in your last term than your first?

Or are you going to stop trumpeting announcements and then failing to deliver on them? Are you going to get fair dinkum, in the way Hawke and Keating were? In the way John Howard did? Are you going to deliver real reform and real change?

If not you might as well go at the next election because you are failing to deliver what we elected you for.

That is such a bitter, bitter realisation.

Political Extremism?

This week Liberal Senator, Cory Bernardi, wrote here that the "burka" should be banned. I understood by the way that the anglicised spelling was burqa.

Bernardi had two points:

1. That the burqa is increasingly being used as a disguise by bandits and that it also creates two tiers of "identifiability";
2. That the burqa is "repressive" and "un-Australian"

Let's take these points one by one. I have no evidence one way or another for the "[burka as] the prferred disguise of bandits and n'er do wells", as Bernardi asserts.

On the basis asserted by Bernardi you could also ban the wearing of scarves, bandannas and a range of other items of clothing for "security". Indeed if as Bernardi asserts, "the burka separates and distances the wearer from the normal interactions with broader society" then there is good argument for banning the wearing of any clothing that differentiates one wearer from another. We could reasonably take that to banning the wearing of all clothes. Really it's quite silly and not to be countenanced. It falls into the same basket as the Government's proposed Net Nanny filter. The utterly wrong response to issues best managed otherwise.

To the second point, Bernardi asserts as follows:

In my mind, the burka has no place in Australian society. I would go as far as to say it is un-Australian. To me, the burka represents the repressive domination of men over women which has no place in our society and compromises some of the most important aspects of human communication.

This is now starting to become overtly xenophobic, jingoistic and not terribly rational. Firstly let me be clear that I have no idea what the Qu'ran says about wearing the burqa, and to me that is not an issue here. But Bernardi draws a bow too far when he asserts that "To me, the burka represents the repressive domination of men over women". It's fine that he should feel like that, but not that he should urge change in public policy on the basis of how something makes him feel. How does he know that it's repressive? Has he ever spoken to a diverse group of women who wear the burqa? Does he know why they wear it? Does he know if they are forced to wear it or choose to wear it?

Next we get to the very heart of the matter. Bernardi goes on to say:

Perhaps some of you will consider that burka wearing should be a matter of personal choice, consistent with the freedoms our forefathers fought for. I disagree.
New arrivals to this country should not come here to recreate the living environment they have just left. They should come here for a better life based on the freedoms and values that have built our great nation.

Which values and which forefathers are those Cory? Are they the Afghani camel drivers who opened up the interior of Australia? Perhaps they are the Italian prisoners of war who chose to come back and settle here after the war? Perhaps they are the Vietnamese boat people who came here in the 1970s. Or perhaps it was the thieving Irish convicts sent here by the British government in 1788.

Get over it! Australia is a culturally diverse country. Bernardi's rant is simply ultra-conservative xenophobia. If he feels uncomfortable about women wearing burqas then perhaps he should do something about his discomfort rather than seek to change others.

As a final aside, if we all applied Bernardi's standard "I feel that it's..." then a bucket load of changes in clothing regulation would need to be made. Here's my (tongue in cheek for the most part) list, tell me yours:

• Police should get rid of their weapons, it makes me feel like the State is repressing me and I feel uncomfortable when I see them;
• Catholic clergy should get rid of their clerical garb - it's become the symbol of an organisation ridden with paedophiles;
• Judges and lawyers should get rid of their robes and wigs, they are a sign of 18th and 19th century legal repression;
• Politicians should be banned from wearing budgie smugglers - they make me feel really uncomfortable - and no I don't intend to see anyone about that. Just lose them!

The Bidding War

Politicians are mugs. They can't help but let the opposition wind them up. Then the poor, long suffering populace get....what they deserve. Yes, it's an election year.

Let's take the horrendous bush fires that Victoria suffered, almost a year ago. A very large number of people died and a very large amount of property was destroyed. It was a dreadful day, it had an apocalyptic feel to it. I never wish to see that kind of destruction and loss of life again in my lifetime.

The problem is that the Premier of Victoria, in my view pushed by the opposition, has spent the whole year asserting that he won't let it happen again. Read my lips: it can happen again and it will. I've been faced with the destruction of my house in a bushfire, it wasn't finally destroyed but that was by the narrowest of margins. What I know is that if you live amongst the bush in Australia then at some point you risk losing your house and your life. No government can change that. Any government that asserts that they can is not being straight with you. Any government that lets an opposition push them to assert that, well they're mugs.

So now in Victoria we are in the midst of a "law and order" bidding war between the government and the opposition. The opposition is pushing and the government is playing right into their hands. "We'll crush the hoons' cars with bigger crushers than you." "No we will."

Sorry guys it's all crap . The government can never win a game like this and whatever happens the only people who are really better off are the opposition who feel better and the companies that run the privatised prisons. They'll have their facilities full to overflowing and still the populace won't be better off.

All I can say is give it a rest!! Don't insult our intelligence and for goodness sake don't go the way of New South Wales where they think they're better off but they're not. All they've got is a problem with overcrowded prisons.

The Days of Christmas - Number 10 - Kevin Rudd's Report Card for 2009

This is a bit like my school reports as a kid: Kevin could do better if he tried. In fact Kevin could do better without even trying.

This has been a pretty disappointing year for those of us who had some hope for this government. Very disappointing indeed. Here's how I read it:

1. The internet nanny filter: Kevin, you and Stephen Conroy just need to get over this. I WILL vote against you if you implement this as you are proposing to do. I know I'm not alone by a long chalk. Let's agree on a few things first: paedophillia and other similar material is abhorrent but you don't need a net filter to get rid of that. You have ample laws in place now to stamp on that stuff. As for the rest of it, you would do much better if you looked hard at the violence in films and television. You want to filter out sex on the internet but it isn't sex that does harm, it's violence that does harm and the biggest feed of unacceptable violence is in television, film and video. Change the censorship laws to get stricter on violence and you will do a lot for society. As for censoring the internet (and it's not just sex you want to censor), sorry that's like China. We don't like it when they do it and we don't like it when you propose it. Beyond the obvious we are big people and able to decide for ourselves. Bluntly, we don't trust you, we don't trust you not to filter valid dissenting content like China or Iran do. We don't trust any politician with that sort of power. Spend your effort elsewhere not on this.
2. The intervention in the Northern Territory. Fail, Kevin, fail. The approach that the previous government took was one of command and control. You have followed that approach. You have insisted on taking control of community resources in return for action. You don't need to. What you need to do is things like working with the Territory government to get the housing money they have already, actually doing some good. You need to do something sustainable about health in these communities and you need to do it now. To much worrying about fighting for control and not enough action. Apologies are important but real, meaningful action needs to follow and it hasn't;
3. Rudd the International Statesman. It's a fine line this. We like to see Australia playing a meaningful role in world affairs; we like to see meaningful international influence. We hate hubris. Watching you through the course of the year I felt that you slipped from playing a sensible and competent role on the international stage to displaying unacceptable hubris. Copenhagen was the worst of it;
4. So let's talk about Copenhagen. Watching from the outside the appearance that we got was that a small group of nations, with Australia in the vanguard, tried to scam a deal and shove it through. You failed to get a meaningful deal and in so doing you appear to have created damage to our relationships with other countries, not the least being Pacific nations. Not good enough, we expected more and you promised more. The key issue was hubris in my view, an excess of it;

Kevin, those are the main things we want you to work on. Next year is a very important year, a lot rides on 2010 for you. You'll probably scrape through but you have that unpleasant fellow Abbott chasing you hard and I think he'll do a fair bit of catching up to you if he works hard. He won't catch you completely but he might give you a fright.

Whilst you're at it do something about the refugee issues that you've stuffed up. There are other things you'll have to work at but that will do for now.

The Days of Christmas - Number 1

Now I know that this isn't actually correct for the twelve days; and I know that Christmas isn't for everyone. But it is for many of us Downunder and the days are near enough.

I'm going to try and do one of these a day, to talk about some of the things I'd like and some of the things that have been sad/bad/shameful in 2009.

For the first day of Christmas the thing I'd like most is a decent agreement in Copenhagen. You can be a sceptic if you like, you can say that the climate isn't changing, you can say it's a natural cycle, it's not done by man, yadah yadah. Here's my point: Carbon costs money - whether it's coal or oil or gas or even wood. Carbon costs and so the less of it we use the better off the world is going to be. "What about the producers" you say? Same as anything really, markets change, demand changes. But I'm not that concerned. Our population is growing so even if we decrease per capita usage total demand will stay stable or increase. In any event it's a non-renewable resource in the main and so when it's gone it's gone. I'd rather not have that happen any time soon. So in default of climate change, reducing carbon usage and therefore emissions is IMHO a good thing.

I happen to believe that the ocean levels are rising and the place is warming however. Whichever case you take, the bottom line is that we have to make some tough decisions. The likes of Barnaby Joyce, Nick Minchin, Tony Abbott et al are simply trying to create a "spoiled brat" argument. "I want to keep being profligate with my resource use and you aren't going to stop me". Playground stuff. "Well we're not doing it unless he does it". Playground stuff again. We need to turn the tide, we need to change a couple of centuries or so of behaviour. We need to start somewhere and someone needs to start. It might as well be us. And please don't get on to that rubbish about jobs, terms of trade etc. I'd far rather see modifications to "free trade" designed to protect the resource-sensible and penalise the resource-stupid.

The most important thing here however is that we have to empower developing nations to come along with us. I'd rather that was with a combination of structural changes and money, rather than straight money.

So why don't we make a start as Australians and stop being the biggest per capita producer of carbon emissions in the world? That's a bit frightening isn't it? Not bad old China or the US but good old Australia.

That's what I want for Christmas a sensible commitment from as many countries as we can get to stop our profligate use of resources and get on with starting change.

Just for the record this 1970s greenie finds himself stunned that he's beginning to think that nuclear power might be a way to go.

An Open Letter to Kevin Rudd

Dear Kevin,

I said I was never going to do this - write anything about politics - but you've pissed me off so much over the last couple of days that here it is..

I've watched you on TV recently talking about people coming here in boats - I call them refugees, you call them some spin-doctor-invented thing or another. At one point I realised who you reminded me of in some interview or other: John Howard! That's right. You remind me of John Howard the way you haver and sit on the fence and try to find just the thing that you think will make the polls treat you right.

Have some guts Kevin. Do you think people travel for months from their homeland, pay money to all sorts of crooks, get in a leaky boat and spend weeks at sea, just because they want to? Of course they don't. These people are compelled by events, often beyond our personal ken, to up sticks and travel the hard way to make a new life for themselves. They don't pick Australia because it looks like a soft target or they think it will be easy. They pick us because if you are going to go to all the trouble and danger then you might as well get the destination right.

We should welcome these people with open arms - they are the kind of people who will strive and struggle to make a new life here. They will be contributors to our country.

Many of the current crop are Sri Lankan Tamils. They are coming here because they are being driven here by appalling events. Every Sri Lankan Tamil I know is a wonderful person...and I know a few, including an Australian Rhodes Scholar - you know the thing that people like Bob Hawke and Kim Beazley did?

So instead of madly trying to find a message that won't piss people off why don't you show a bit of leadership? The last time we had real agenda-changing leadership in this country was from Paul Keating over Wik and Mabo. The population didn't like it but Paul went out on a limb, he provided the moral leadership that was required. The result was that the population accepted the complexity of the issues around native title and the political danger went away. That's right Kevin, if you have a little guts, if you show a little leadership at home then you can do the right thing and avoid political danger. Leadership like that is long overdue - we haven't seen it for years and we're not seeing it now.

As it stands you are sitting on the fence trying to please everyone. You run the serious risk of getting a fence paling up your arse. This isn't why we elected you, this isn't who we thought we were getting as a Prime Minister. Why don't you stay true to the faith we had in you rather than pissing it away in a vain attempt to pander to the polls?

They are not illegals, they are not queue jumpers, they are people in need. Do the right thing and do it now.

Thanks Kevin.