The True Wilderness

After reaching the end of a long email about the aftermath of the floods in Queensland, the seriousness of occasion was broken by the signature file that was found at the bottom. It read “The only true wilderness is between the ears of a Green.” Needless to say the acronym ROFL applied here and it took sometime for the muscles in my face to return to normal.

When we think of the Greens, we generally think of party leader Bob Brown. He is not one of my favourite people in the world and I look forward to the day that he and his party disappears from our parliaments for good. That said, good on him for stepping up, having a go, and participating in our democracy. He has been a very successful politician for a long time and the good people of Tasmania are obviously very satisfied with his performance to keep returning him to Canberra.

But what of the true wilderness? We have heard the mantra from Bob Brown for several years now. Climate change. Climate change. The drought was caused by climate change. Climate change. Climate change. The Black Saturday bushfires were a direct result of climate change. Flooding on an unprecedented scale since 1974 was caused by climate change. And don’t forget the cyclones, climate change again. It matters not what the situation is, climate change is responsible. Or so he would have you believe.

If one was to take a non-refundable hour to peruse the website of the Australian Greens, we can see a number of policies that they support that is devoid of any sanity and reason. Banning live exports of cattle, sheep, and pigs would kill off 13,000 jobs and wipe $1.8 billion from the economy. Closing coal fired power stations and relying on wind and solar power for our future energy needs is a major problem when the population is increasing and renewable energy sources are only a fraction of the capacity and efficency of coal. The banning of political donations is interesting given that the Greens gratefully received $1.6 million from wotif.com director, Graeme Wood. Then we have the usual no nuclear position, with no nuclear power stations or uranium mining. That’s another $900 million gone, which if added to the closure of the coal export industry will total around $56 billion and the unemployment that goes with it. The Lucas Heights OPAL nuclear reactor in Sydney has long been a target for closure by the Greens, a move that would leave hundreds of thousands of cancer sufferers without treatment.

The latest escapade of the Greens has been a dip into the flood levy that Prime Minister Julia Gillard has proposed to pay for infrastructure repair and replacement in Queensland. A fortnight ago, Ms Gillard announced that she was cutting a number of programs to find $2.8 billion in funding for the rebuilding effort. On the chopping block were the Cleaner Car Rebate Scheme, the Green Car Innovation Fund, the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships and Solar Flagships programs, the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, the National Rent Affordability Scheme, and the Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

As you could no doubt imagine, the Greens were not happy with this announcement since it ran a scalpel through what are significant environmentally friendly programs. The problem with them, as the Prime Minister rightly alluded, was the fact that they are outrageously expensive. A good PM weighs up the costs and benefits of each program to ensure the taxpayer gets value for money. Ms Gillard herself stated prior to the election that she does just that. The evidence was slashing $100 million from the solar flagship scheme on the grounds that it was money wasted. “Cash For Clunkers” and the “Green Car Fund” went the way of the dodo because there were far cheaper ways of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

However, good governance disappeared out the window when Senator Bob came knocking…. The Greens would not support any moves to cut wasteful green programs and threatened to scuttle any legislation to impose the flood levy unless the Prime Minister agreed to reinstate the funds. Rather than telling Senator Brown where the exit was, Ms Gillard rolled over, forgoing an opportunity to paint the Greens as the treacherous opponents of flood victims everywhere. Given that a significant number of Green supporters are disaffected ALP voters, she missed a chance to bring those votes home.

So the Greens sold their vote on the flood levy for $100 million to restore the cuts to the solar flagships program, and another $264 million for the national rental affordability scheme. Just like that, one fifth of the levy’s revenue base went into inefficient Green programs in preference to infrastructure rebuilding and repairs. If that wasn’t bad enough, ex-Green Independent Andrew Wilkie siphoned off another $88 million for the Australian Learning and Teaching Fund. That totals $452 million spent by the Prime Minister just to win votes for a levy to raise $1.8 billion. Others might point out that Senator Steve Fielding exchanged his vote for $500 million for infrastructure repairs to Victorian flood effected communities. At least he remained within the spirit of the proposed levy to ensure that not only Queensland benefitted from the proceeds of the levy.

It seems to me that the Prime Minister is desperate for this bill to successfully pass through the parliament. In her quest for a significant political victory, Ms Gillard has left her brain in a jar on the desk. Identifying and cutting waste is the role of any government employee and she did it well, only to backflip and restore the funding at the first sign of pressure. Some would call that negligent. This lunacy makes me question the true wilderness further. Maybe it is not just between the ears of a Green that it is found…

No Love Lost For Julia Gillard

There appears to be no middle ground with Mark Latham. You either love him or you hate him. The former ALP leader has never been a stranger to controversy after a number of incidents that occurred during his federal parliamentary career. His unconventional approach won him a lot of support particularly as Opposition Leader, but there was always a niggling doubt that bugged the electorate as to whether this bloke was a suitable alternative Prime Minister. Although the electorate was tiring of John Howard’s government, the 2004 federal election proved that he was seen as a safer pair of hands than Mr Latham to guide the wheels of government.

To his credit, Mark Latham was not a political clone and he remained his own man. Following the 1998 federal election, he butted heads with leader Kim Beazley over policy and resigned from the shadow cabinet, leaving a political enmity that continues to this day. Add to that some widely publicised comments referring to then Prime Minister John Howard as an “arselicker”, the Liberal Party front bench as “a conga line of suckholes”, and US President George W. Bush as incompetent and dangerous. To top it all off, there was an accusation by a taxi driver that Mark Latham had broken his arm in a dispute over a fare.

Since his departure from public office, Mark Latham has popped up periodically to create some news headlines and some major headaches for his former party. During the 2010 federal election campaign, he emerged from the press pack as a guest reporter for Channel 9’s Sixty Minutes program and confronted Julia Gillard over a complaint she had allegedly made about his current assignment. He went on to demonstrate the power of one by urging people to leave their ballots blank on election day, a move that may have contributed to a slightly higher than usual informal vote count, and a pivotal point in the outcome of the election.

Last week, Mr Latham stuck his head up again as the media picked up on an opinion piece he had written for The Spectator Australia. In the article, Mark Latham observed of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s performance during the flood crisis: “She is not a naturally empathetic person - displaying, for instance, noticeable discomfort around infant children.” He was not the only person to remark upon her cold, distant, clinical interaction with flood victims, a demeanour that was magnified by the outpouring of compassion and emotion from Queensland Premier Anna Bligh.

Mr Latham went on to stick the boot into Ms Gillard by stating: “the femocrats will not like this statement, but I believe it to be true: anyone who chooses a life without children, as Gillard has, cannot have much love in them.” Current and former politicians from both sides of the political divide rightly condemned the remarks, with the office of the Prime Minister refusing to comment.

Like it or not, Mark Latham does raise an interesting aspect of Ms Gillard that has largely been ignored, that of her childlessness. In 2007, Senator Bill Heffernan was forced to apologise when he questioned Ms Gillard’s leadership credentials because she was “deliberately barren.” He said a politician needed to understand “family and the relationship between mums, dads and a bucket of nappies.” In 2010, following Tony Abbott’s “virginity is a gift” interview with the Australian Women’s Weekly, Senator George Brandis hit out at Ms Gillard’s understanding of parenting by saying: “I think that although Julia Gillard is a very clever politician, she is very much a one-dimensional person and I do think her reaction, her over-reaction to the, in my view, quite unexceptionable remarks Tony Abbott made as the father of daughters, is not something she would have said if she were herself the mother of teenage daughters.”

So, is Mark Latham right? Does Julia Gillard have no capacity to love because she has no children? Interestingly, it was Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce, who made the best defence case. He said, “It is absurd and cruel in the extreme to think that a person who doesn't have kids is a less deserving human being or has less of a capacity to love. I can assure you there are an abundance of people in this world without children - and for that matter with - who are caring and loving.” Think Mother Theresa. Think Florence Nightingale. Minister for Human Services, Tanya Plibersek added, “Julia Gillard is a fine leader and she demonstrates that every day, both as Prime Minister and when she was minister of education when she worked tirelessly for the benefit of millions of Australian children.”

The Prime Minister has been forthright throughout her political career about her decision to not have children. On the ABC’s Australian Story program in 2006, Ms Gillard recalled: “And so in my head when I was, when I thought about these things I guess I thought either-or. You're working at this intense high level or you're having kids.” She went on to say, “I've certainly watched some of my Labor colleagues in Parliament who have had children, and you just, you know you've got to be full of admiration. …You just look at that and say "I mean how does anybody ever make that add up" …but the pressure of that is obviously very, very acute …a lot of emotional pressure, a lot of juggling and it's very tough. So when you watch the women around you, there are a number who are just putting together looking after kids and having great Parliamentary careers. I'm in awe of it, but for me I don't think I could have done it like that. I can understand it all at an intellectual level and I do admire it but I think I just emotionally would have found that all very tough.”

Despite the reasons for her decision, Ms Gillard has been criticised as being selfish to seek the trappings of high office over having children. For some, it was felt that she was unelectable because she could not identify with the issues of working families. Her response was quite dignified, “No one person can encapsulate everyone's life experience. A man doesn't know what it's like to be a woman, a person with children doesn't know what it's like to be a person without children, a person from a wealthy background doesn't know what it's like to grow up on a housing estate.” She also pointed out that no-one seemed to question the leadership credentials of former US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who is also unwed and childless.

Ultimately, our parliament is meant to be representative of the people. We need talented people from all walks of life and from all sorts of backgrounds to participate in our democracy. Julia Gillard has made the sacrifice of family to devote her energies completely to the causes that are important to her. She recognises the toll that public office takes on those MP’s with children and appears to understand the commitment that having children requires. There is plenty of issues that I don’t agree with the Prime Minister on, but I accept her decision in this instance. There are many children in our society who are neglected because their parents are pursuing their own interests. It is a responsible choice to not have children if one knows that you are unable to devote your resources to properly raising that child. Which brings us back to Mark Latham. When Mr Latham resigned as Opposition Leader and as MP for Werriwa, he cited a desire to devote himself to his family. One can’t help but draw the conclusion from his words that balancing the demands of being Labor leader with the demands of raising young children was too hard.

The Phantom Farters of Malawi

Some years ago during my education, a paragon of enlightenment in an attempt to have me contribute more to class discussion told me that there was no such thing as a bad idea, just a poorly executed one. In the moments afterward as the teacher let that enormity of wisdom sink into my skull, I processed the words of this oracle and had thoughts to myself of the byproducts of the gastrointestinal system of the male bovine animal. If ever I needed proof of both a bad idea and a poorly executed one, it was given to me this week by, of all people, the President of Malawi.

Forget about multiple cyclones bearing down on the Queensland coast, and put the uprising in Egypt out of your mind because the years’ most earth shattering news came out of Africa with Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika declaring that farting would be made a crime. Naturally and most deservedly, he became the subject of ridicule all over the world. Like most people, I figured that if I was subject to a law like that, I would be on first name terms with the magistrate very rapidly.

It was not only internationally that the President was ridiculed. His own citizens questioned the workability of a law where the burden of proof would be so difficult to carry. After all, the evidence disperses after a short period and there is not always a sound to enable a finger to be pointed in the direction of. Often all that remains is a skidmark on the undies and the benefit of the doubt goes to the person who had an itch in that department.

Can you imagine the court system and the volume of cases this would generate? Mind you, each trial would be very short. The defense lawyer would address the judge by saying, "M'lud, my client is innocent of the charge. Bring his accuser before the court. It is a long standing legal principle that 'He who smelt it, dealt it'." The prosecution leaps to his feet and cries, "Objection! He who denied it supplied it, M’lud! I rest my case." The judge would then say “Guilty as charged! Fined the same amount as yesterday!” after which the defendant would say “Righto. Same time tomorrow?”

Seriously though. Is this effort by President Mutharika a case of too much sun or is he laying the foundation for something bigger, like a descent into despotism? Is this an attempt by the government of Malawi to exercise control over the individual on a very personal level and the beginning of things to come? Whilst despots and dictators are not an uncommon thing in Africa, Malawi appears to be in pretty good shape constitutionally after reforms in the 1990’s saw their self-declared “president for life” Dr Banda shown the door. Elections for the parliament and president are held regularly, with the current president emerging victorious with a solid majority. That said, there is a long memory on the part of millions of Malawians who lived under the oppressive Dr Banda and a great deal of suspicion about whether the current incumbent is setting himself to override the will of the people.

In announcing the Local Courts Bill, which contains the anti-farting law, it was said that the reason behind the statute was to "mould responsible and disciplined citizens". In and of itself, moulding responsible and disciplined citizens is a noble ideal that sets a course to build a strong society for future generations of Malawians. Like many African nations, Malawi has internal challenges including corruption, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, limited natural resources, and significant poverty (Malawi is the fourth poorest nation in the world). By attempting to address issues of personal conduct, some of the challenges that face Malawi such as corruption and HIV will be reduced and those resources diverted to the bigger problems of building the economy and national infrastructure.

The Local Courts Bill seeks to establish a local court system with powers to handle civil cases under the penal code and limited criminal cases including importation of prohibited publications, publication of false news, fighting in public, insulting the modesty of a woman, common nuisance, idle and disorderly persons, conduct likely to cause breach of peace, use of insulting language, common assault and, of course, farting in public. Whilst there is a lot of opposition to the bill due to concerns over government interference and impartiality, I cannot fault the apparent desire by the President to see a more moral society. The Ten Commandments similarly addressed the personal conduct of the Israelites and this underpinned the establishment of the nation of Israel. Such was its success, that it has been replicated many times throughout the world down through history. Maybe the President needed to start here as well.

It is obvious that President Mutharika needs to rethink some of the practical implications of his bill and address the concerns of the people on the street, especially those who had cabbage and beans for lunch. Banning farting is a bad idea and a poorly executed one. And while we might laugh and poke fun at the flag of Malawi in the context of this story as well as his rather dodgy proposal, perhaps we should not talk too loudly. This little gem can be found in Section 245 of the Queensland Criminal Code…

(1) A person who strikes, touches, or moves, or otherwise applies force of any kind to, the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person's consent, or with the other person's consent if the consent is obtained by fraud, or who by any bodily act or gesture attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other person's consent, under such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to effect the person's purpose, is said to assault that other person, and the act is called an assault.

(2) In this section-- applies force includes the case of applying heat, light, electrical force, gas, odour, or any other substance or thing whatever if applied in such a degree as to cause injury or personal discomfort.

Yep. Pulling one’s finger can land you in the clink in Queensland. In case those of you who know me well are thinking that this might slow me down a bit, think again. Getting locked up for farting might be just the touching human interest story that the chequebook journalists at A Current Affair and Today Tonight are looking for!