Pricing Carbon, Taxes and the ETS

OK - so I haven't posted for a VERY long time...

I HAVE been busy, producing a theatre show - but, excuses aside - here we go, finally:

For years I have been saying I wanted to write a post in defence of the ETS. Many people - many intelligent and knowledgeable people - have asked me why the Australian Government (and this goes back to the days of PM Howard here) supports an ETS over a carbon tax.

I actually think an ETS is a good idea. I think it's the only practical idea, in the long-term. I think it's the only effective idea, given the practicalities of government and I think it's the most efficient solution economically speaking. I'm THAT convinced.

But, as we all know, the Rudd government did an AWFUL job of explaining themselves.

We can excuse the Howard government for not explaining it properly, because, if you probed far enough, the truth was, they didn't want to do anything about the problem. They just proposed the ETS as their preferred option ... "if we have to choose something I guess we'd prefer an ETS".

But Rudd - that's where it really failed. He really wanted to do something (didn't he?).

In 2007/08 we had the Rudd-Slide - and I thought I'd missed my opportunity to explain why it was good idea, because it would just happen. Then in 2009 I thought I missed my chance to explain why it was a good idea because Copenhagen was going to ignite interest in the issue... then in 2010... well that’s when I should have got around to it - because it was damn clear the government wasn't going to explain their own policies to anyone.

So here we are, at the end of 2010 - and STILL no one is clearly explaining why an ETS would be a good idea. So I'm going to try, in my own little way, to do just that...

Before I try to lay it all out though... I must pre-empt the end of the story. Another idea has occurred to me, which I believe nullifies the only good argument I've ever heard against the ETS (that of the difficulty of getting people to report clearly in the lead-up years). But you'll have to read to the end, to follow the argument.

The Argument

Any possible solution for the problem of Global Warming (I'm taking that problem as a given, by the way... if you need to discuss that topic first, this probably isn't going to be a very useful discussion for you) should be judged on 3 basic measures:

1. Effectiveness: It's ability to reduce carbon emissions
2. Efficiency: It's cost to the overall economy
3. Practicality: It's likelihood of succeeding in the given political system

In a broad sense there are 3 basic models put forward:

1. Direct legislation to limit carbon emissions
2. A carbon tax
3. An ETS

Effectiveness

So basically, the question is - how effectively does your plan reduce carbon emissions? How well does each given plan reach the particular goal of desired carbon output? And the answers are as follows:

1. Direct legislation: quite effective, actually, but sometimes unknown or unpredictable (can go over the top and damage the industries involved more than necessary - but that's not what we're discussing at this point)


2. Carbon Tax: completely unknown - depending on the level of the tax, it can completely kill the industries involved, have no effect on emissions or, if you get the value just right (and I mean "just right"), reduce emissions the amount you want.


3. ETS: This is where the ETS really shines - you set the amount of maximum carbon output for the economy as a whole, and the market makes it happen by setting the right price for carbon. No more, no less - you get exactly the amount you said you wanted (ignoring illegal output, which applies to all 3 plans anyway).

For a really clear summary of the mechanisms involved, from some industry experts, listen to ABC Radio National - Australia Talks episode on carbon pricing. [I will add a link to the specific section I'm talking about, when I get time to edit the file]

The whole talk is quite interesting, in fact, and includes parts near the beginning where an expert from an energy production company actually makes an argument for putting a price on carbon! Who would've thought?


Efficiency

Here, the question is - how efficiently does the given plan reduce carbon emissions (to the desired amount)? How much does it cost, in total, for the economy to adjust to the changes and find a new equilibrium? And the answers are as follows:

1. Direct legislation: There is some disagreement about this - but in essence the argument against it being efficient comes down to one idea: Government and Independent Bodies can't predict far enough in advance how best to reduce emissions. Don't legislate how it should be done... create incentives and let the cut-and-thrust of commerce and innovation work it out. Direct legislation seems, by all reports, the least efficient option.
   


2. Carbon Tax: While a Carbon Tax is not the least efficient, it does seem to have one particular inefficiency. It allows the worst polluters (often the polluters with the highest profit margins) to keep paying to pollute. A carbon tax then, also, has the greatest financial impact on the (often lower-level) polluters who don't have the same high-margins. [N.B. While some people complain about an ETS that it allows the worst polluters to quickly make money on the cap-and-trade market by making reductions that were easy to make and should have been done already... this is exactly why it's more efficient than a carbon tax - it gets the attention of those who can most easily (for "easily", read "efficiently") reduce their carbon output.]


3. ETS: By all reports, an ETS IS the most efficient way to reduce emissions across the whole economy. A similar scheme (to the one proposed for Australia) was introduced to reduce SO2 emissions in the US, in 1990. It was reasonably effective - and when the efficiency (total cost per reduction in emissions) is calculated it stands clearly above previous attempts to do similar things via other methods. For a more detailed summary of this program and the findings / lessons: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/eco/EmissionsTrading.htm#_Toc240944120

Practicality

And finally, the last question is - how practical is the given plan? How likely is it to succeed (in the long-term) given the changeable nature of politics and the personalities and pressures involved? And the answers are as follows:

1. Direct legislation: The problem for direct legislation, in the political arena, is that it's too easy to make a general argument that "that's not fair on me because X" - and it's too hard to balance out the differences for everyone involved. The moment you make a concession for one part of the economy, another will jump up and make a reasonable (sounding) argument for their own part of the economy. The only "fair" solution is one in which each area of the economy takes a chunk of the responsibility based on a range of sliding parameters. And politicians will never be able to wade through the sea of barriers that individual interest groups will put in their way (even if those politicians didn't have any self-interest involved, which of course they do).
   


2. Carbon Tax: A carbon tax, by comparison, is simple and much more likely to get through, in the first place. But what about after that? What about in 5 years time, when, by some miracle, the politicians managed to set exactly the right tax level, and have reduced our emissions to 90% of 1990 levels, but now the emissions are creeping up again, because innovation means it's much cheaper to produce carbon, and carbon producers can afford to pay more tax to do so... You've got the remember, it's the total carbon output, not the total cost, or revenue we're interested in here... who's going to guarantee that the next government would make the argument to increase the tax by the required amount to keep us on track to a sustainable level of output? No one, that's who... we'd be in the same boat, all over again - right back where we started... fighting the same fights.
   


3. ETS: In comparison, an ETS is a self-regulating system. Set-it-and-forget-it. Well, not quite, I hear you say... you still need to make the political argument to reduce the emission levels... Ah yes! But saying, to the voting populace, "we need to reduce emissions further, let's set the dial on emissions a little lower" is a MUCH easier political position than "let's increase taxes again". You tell me which you think is going to be more sustainable... Besides which, you could set-in a program of clearly defined year-by-year reductions, right now - and they are much less likely to need adjustment than tax levels... because when we set the level on an ETS we're saying exactly how much carbon we are going to allow, not guessing how much carbon a particular tax level will generate.

The Only Problem

The problem, with an ETS, that I have seen examples of, is this: how do you work out how many permits to create in the first place?

This problem was faced by the introduction of an ETS in Europe. And they failed to avoid it.

They asked people to report how much carbon they produced... and of course, they over reported, so that there would be too many permits - and permits would therefore be cheaper.

Conversely, a carbon tax has the opposite problem. It asks people to report - and they under report, in order to avoid tax.

And that's what brought me to the solution:

A carbon tax can be introduced much faster and more easily than an ETS... a carbon tax encourages under-reporting... an ETS encourages over-reporting.

So:

1. Introduce a carbon tax - in the next budget
   • A small introductory one, with indications that it will rise over the next 3 years.
2. Ask people to report their emissions, as they would need to, in order to calculate a tax
   • Obviously some form of auditing would need to check-up on people's self-reporting - as is the case for any form of tax or trading system.
3. BUT - and here's the important bit - make it very clear that there WILL be an ETS introduced at the end of that 3 year period

And, so what? Where does that leave you?

Well, it leaves you with companies, across Australia who all have a vested interest in reducing the reporting of their emissions, over the next 3 years, in order to avoid tax - but who are also clearly aware that any attempt to do so will mean not enough permits to go around and much more expensive permits, in 3 years time.

You have 3 year to prepare for the introduction of an ETS. The tax level can be adjusted in the s2n and 3rd years, as its effect becomes clearer over time.

You might still get some under reporting... and you might even get some over-reporting in the last year, on the calculation that paying a bit of extra tax, in the last year is worth getting more permits into the system eventually... but on balance I think most people will recognise that the most efficient way to report is honestly.

Thus, in my opinion, reducing one of the only major difficulties with the initiation of an ETS.

Until then, let's hope we can get SOME price on carbon soon - so that it starts getting factored in to future growth and planning.

It's sad to reflect that, after all this time... this blog post is still as relevant today as when I first started writing it in my head... more than 5 years ago...

Can we move on now?



Other References:

• http://www.mygreenaudit.com/arguments-in-favour-of-an-emissions-trading-scheme/
  

Budget '09 Roundup

Every year my best friend (who shall be, from here on, referred to as "C4") and I get together for a special event. One year, as there was no television at my house, he drove a television over to my house, in the car, especially.

No it's not the State Origin, or the World Cup (der, obviously - that's on every 4 years... isn't it?).

It's the budget. That's right, we get together... to watch... the budget.

As the major and most publicly anticipated political event of each year - we both find an embarrassed nerdy pleasure in making the time to watch it.

The main frustration in previous years has been wanting to comment in the middle of the speech - and rewind in order to catch details. This year (along with the beer, wine and cashews) I came to the party armed with note-pad and pen, so I could jot down points of interest without interrupting the flow of the speech. I needn't have bothered, however, as, low and behold, this year C4 brought his DVD recording system to the party so we could pause, discuss and rewind - what a revelation! Someone should tell someone... I don't know... maybe, sports fans, or something, might like this kind of thing too.

Every year I am inspired to write a roundup. So this year...

On top of this, however - C4 was kind enough to point out the discrepancy between the name of my blog and the regularity with which it's updated... perhaps my "ramblings" have not been quite as "incessant" as I would have hoped...

What better time to pick up the pace with my posts again!

So now, for the roundup:


The Roundup


Initial Thoughts

So - once you get past the contemporary need for a "catch phrase" or a sound bite:

"and tonight's budget is brought to you by the expression 'Nation Building for Recovery'"

the first issue with this budget is the fact that it was billed as a "tough budget". In his opening preamble, Wayne Swan says that "economic leadership is about making the tough decisions, no matter what the political consequences might be".

That may be so - but if it is, then this budget does nothing to prove Labor's commitment to economic leadership. Quite the opposite - they have obviously made some less "tough" decisions in order to minimise the political consequences in their most contested constituencies, and other "tough" decisions have been made precisely because there were no political consequences to speak of.

Yes of course - expecting politicians not to be political is like [insert drole comparison of two oxymoronic concepts here]. But still, to claim the actual decisions within this budget as anything approaching "tough" is simply taking the piss. Wayne Swan claimed that "We couldn't raise the pension without hard choices elsewhere" - but apparently... he has.


Pension Payments

• Increase in withdrawal rate
• Increase in qualifying age
• Decrease in super concessions (some temporary)
  

for pensioners; all of these things are savings. But they could hardly be defined as "tough" or "hard choices". All of them are outweighed by increased payments to singles and couples.

Now, don't get me wrong. I support all of these measures. All of them seem fair and right. Or, at least, more fair than the previous system. But none of them should be defined as "tough".


Paid Maternity Leave

All this talk brings me to one of major problems in this budget - the plans for paid maternity leave.

Let's look at some of the big numbers:

• $22 billion - Infrastructure
• $4.7 billion towards a $43 billion PPP Broadband Network
• $5.3 billion - Tertiary Education

Amongst all of this, the government has made one of their "tough" decisions regarding paid maternity leave and postponed it for 18 months.

Now the TOTAL spend over 5 years for the introduction of a Paid Parental Leave system is $731 million - and yet the government sees the need to postpone this until after the next election.

The savings are minimal, and yet the potential cultural benefit so great.

Lets make this clear - we are in a club of 2 (along with the US) as the ONLY OECD countries who have no paid maternity leave. If they were worried about the effect on job security, in a time of economic downturn - they could have found a little extra ($731 million isn't much compared to the rest of the budget) to compensate (small?) businesses for some of the extra costs involved in back-filling staff.

The last thing we want to encourage people to do right now, is to hold off on having more children - and yet that's what this decision does. It's a small price for a great gain - and there's no reason, in my mind, to hold a carrot to the electorate and say "vote for me again - or you might not get paid maternity". In fact I find that insulting.

Does the Rudd government believe in it as a policy or not? Not enough to introduce it - apparently.

You could imagine that this might push some of the Labor faithful towards voting Green... and amazingly enough, this shift is borne out in the latest poles - where Labor have lost 5 or 6 points, and the majority of them have been picked up by the Greens.

"But wait", I hear you cry, "didn't you say the problem was the budget isn't tough enough? Isn't that at least a small saving for tough times?"

And this brings me to to my comment for the budget as a whole.


The Big Problem

The problem with this budget is not the fact that it isn't a tough budget.

The problem for this budget is that it was sold as a tough budget.

In trying to come up with some good "tough" measures that the government could have introduced at this budget - I came up with nothing.

The problem is, anything broad-based enough, tough enough and big enough in total value, to actually be defined as "tough" is, at the same time, dangerously deflationary. And deflation isn't a game we want to risk getting into in this climate.

The truth of the matter is, we missed the opportunity to save as much money as we should have, under the last government. They gave it all back in tax cuts, which were an inflationary measure in boom times. Now we're stuck trying to avoid deflationary cuts in bad times.

It's much like the frustration with the first Swan budget.

There wasn't actually enough difference between the Rudd government's position and the Howard government's. While still in boom times, the Rudd government handed back most of the boom time money in personal tax cuts (only slightly less tax cuts than the Liberals wanted to introduce - but let's take a moment to imagine how much worse the current budget would look if we had introduced the Liberals tax cuts).

So... the problem isn't that this budget isn't tough enough - on the contrary... we need to admit that, what we don't need right now is a tough budget. We need to support spending in key areas - in order to avoid deflationary pressures. And we need to (which this budget does) plan to pull back on that accelerator once things are looking good again.

I actually support much of what this budget puts in motion.

After a period of short-term injections, we now need some medium-term plans to increase productivity and support jobs.

There's money for Health and Education and some areas of Social Security (interestingly not Unemployment or Single Parents).

But - in holding off on introducing the Paid Maternity Leave measures until after the next election, the Rudd government has snubbed its nose at its heart-land voters. The argument, presumably, is "well, who else are they going to vote for?".

The Greens? Well, again, Labor may be hoping that all those votes will come back to them in preferences. And they may well be correct.

But - after years of barracking for Kevin Rudd, in response to this (and his last) budget - my current hope for the next election is that we can find dense enough collections of "Left swinging" voters to make a real splash for the Greens.

For some reason (call me naive), I still believe the Greens will push through policies that represent their core constituencies, and not just the people who might be swayed at election time.

This wasn't an "election budget" - that's coming next time. Rudd will have to do a lot more "voter pleasing" next year. This was his opportunity to introduce some real and valuable "Labor style" policies - and, from my perspective, he missed it. I understand that you need to stay in power - but if you don't take the opportunity to introduce some strong policies when the opportunity is there, what's the point in being in power at all?

Unless of course, he thinks this is an election budget? Just how much does he predict we might be heading for a double dissolution...? Hmmmm...


References:

• Transcript of the 2009-10 Federal Budget, second reading

The baby bonus

Not Fair: Nelson

"I would have thought that Mr Rudd - who's already tried to pick on seniors and carers - would find another group other than families to pick on and it's very, very important that Mr Rudd understands that every mother loves her baby and this should be an Australia where all babies are equal" - Brendan Nelson

Let's just pull that apart for moment.

"already tried to pick on seniors and carers"
Now by this, presumably, Dr. Nelson is talking about Labor failing to confirm that it would maintain the carers benefit. They failed to confirm that they would continue to pay "exactly the same" benefits, its true - but I think the language of "picking on" is hyperbole.

"find another group other than families to pick on"
Apparently Dr Nelson believes Labor should be picking on someone - but not families.

"every mother loves her baby"
1. Is this true?
2. Even if it is - what about fathers? Does their love not matter? I thought we might have left the sexism behind with the Howard government - but apparently its just a Coalition thing.
3. Even ignoring the sexism of that statement - and assuming it to be true... So what? What on earth does that have to do with support payment policies? If other people's love a were a reason to give government support, that would change a lot of policy, I think.

"this should be an Australia where all babies are equal"
Exactly! It should be! And here's the news flash, Dr Nelson - it's not. Not all babies are born equal - some are born with a lot more in this world than others. And one way to improve that imbalance would be to means test the support given new parents, towards the cost of having babies.

If we means tested stuff like the baby bonus then babies born in Australia would be more equal, and we would be closer to Dr Nelson's dream.


Too Expensive: Turnbull

And, on the idea that working out the baby bonus payments would cost more than it would save in tax dollars... we already do these calculations (quite complicated one's) to work out the value of parent's child care / day care payments... we just need to start working it out a year or two earlier - it's simply an addition to a process that's already in place - not a brand new expense. Give me break.

Bring on the means testing - even if I lose my benefit. It won't cost much more than calculating family benefits does already - and it would actually make Australia much closer to Nelson's stated dream of all babies being equal.

Vote yes to a fairer system. Vote yes to means testing.


Some more sensible words

For a slightly more serious take on the reasons to means test (or get rid of the baby bonus all together) and what to do with the money saved - Andrew Leigh

Mandate schmandate - the ultimate hypocrisy

My letter today, to the Australian:

To the Editor of The Australian,

RE: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23203982-7583,00.html?from=public_rss

Ms Albrechtsen has spent an entire article arguing against the existence of "Mandate Theory". She makes a very convincing argument. I happen to completely agree with her. In her own words "Mandate theory? Bunkum." I don't support WorkChoices, by the way - but I don't believe the Labor party has the right to roll it back unless it can get its law changes through both houses of parliament in the prescribed manner.

Mandate theory is, indeed, the hypocritical rhetoric of both sides, used, whenever they are in power, to attempt to subvert the checks and balances we have built in to our democracy. Howard was wrong when he claimed the Senate was getting in his way. He was wrong to put forward changes that might have decreased the senate's power to stop laws - and the Labor party is wrong now, to claim they have a mandate over and above the senate's right to stop any law change they wish.

I agree with all of that.

Janet Albrechtsen then commits the ultimate hypocrisy by calling on mandate theory to defend the continuation of IR changes made before 2004. She writes "After all, voters approved those changes at the 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2004 elections. Dare one remind Labor that the Coalition won four mandates for those changes?"

If every government had to maintain the laws of previous governents simply because they were once elected, and enacted them, then the Coalition should have been stopped from ever rolling back laws that Hawke and Keating implemented - after all, presumably they had a mandate to implement them when they were elected. By Albrechtsen's argument, no one should be allowed to change anything that could have ever claimed a "mandate" in the past.

She has gone from "no mandate theory", to the "hyper-mandate theory". Just think of the laws we would never be able to change.

Ms Albrechtsen spends much of her piece gathering evidence of the innate hypocrisy in most arguments that use mandate theory as their basis. Having spent so long making a reasonable argument against mandate theory, to call upon it to argue for anything at all is clearly the greatest hypocrisy of all.

Nicholas Gledhill.

So, what went wrong with Nelson?

There's been a lot of chatter - even in the small amount of time since the Apology - about Brendan Nelson's reply to the Apology.

But what really went so wrong?

For more on the Apology itself - have a look at some of the video links at the bottom of this post:

Apology for being so proud

Nelson's Speech

For a full text of Nelson's entire speech - see Nelson's reply to the Apology, the full text.

Many people have spoken about how they were offended by Brendan Nelson's words; how they didn't believe him... but what really went so wrong? He seemed to say the right things. He said sorry - he agreed to the policy initiatives. What really was so wrong with what Nelson said?

The important thing to remember here is that Nelson never said anything that can be argued with factually. At no point am I trying to dispute the details of what Nelson said. What I am interested in, is the implication of stating certain facts and details at this particular point in time. There are many points at which someone can choose to point out truths about the world - and when and where one chooses to do so has meaning over and above the truth of those statements.

OK! Starting from the top... I'm going to rush through some of this - I can't take too long on each point, or I'll be here all year.

• Right off the bat - Minister Nelson chooses to refer to "those Aboriginal people forcibly removed from their families through the first seven decades of the 20th century", which stands in stark contrast to Rudd pointing out that some people currently in parliament were in government when the last "stolen" children were taken from their families. Somehow the phrase "first seven decades of the 20th century" seems longer ago than "less than 4 decades ago". While they are the same thing, literally - the use of language, as ever, is important.
  
  
• In the very next sentence he says that we need to "reach from within ourselves to our past" so that we may have a "deep understanding" of it. Again - placing the behaviour of previous governments clearly in the past and, I assume, a deep understanding that is aimed at sympathy towards that past behaviour. I don't deeply understand the past governments laws. On some level, I believe they should have known that removing a child from its parents on the basis of race, was wrong.
  
  
• He asks us to "pause to place ourselves in the shoes of others... to see this issue through their eyes with decency and respect." This has two frustrating implications;
• 1) it implies that there was nothing objectively wrong with the behaviour of previous Australian governments - that we need to put ourselves in the Aboriginal people's shoes in order to see it as wrong. Personally, I think it's clearly wrong regardless of your point of view... it's not a subjective issue. I'm not sorry because the Aboriginal people feel bad - because of their point of view. I'm sorry because my government did the wrong thing;
  
• 2) it implies that we need to keep our mind open to seeing it from the other point of view (the previous government's) as well. It's an ambiguous sentence, and dangerous in its ambiguity... it doesn't say whose point of view we should be open to - and in the light of some of his later comments, I don't necessarily think he's aiming at the Aboriginal's.
  
  
• "This chapter in our nation's history is emblematic of much of the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians from the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788." Sorry? Is he saying that things are now much the same as they were when children were removed from their families, purely on the basis of race? If so, then we don't just need to say sorry for our past behaviour, we need to change our current.
  
  
• Brendan Nelson goes on to talk of one of "two cultures", "one ancient, proud" and "The other, no less proud"... so... we're proud too, don't think you've got a monolopoly on pride? Why point it out? Why do we need to compete with the Aboriginal people on pride, today of all days? Nobody disputes we were proud... so why the competition, Brendan?
  
  
• He talks of our (the settlers) "gritty determination to build an Australian nation" as if determination to succeed was an excuse for our government's behaviour.
  
  
• He claims that we were building this nation "for its early settlers and indigenous peoples"... well, I don't know about you, but I don't think that nation building for indigenous people was high on the agenda in a country that didn't consider those indigenous people citizens until 1967.
  
  
• "our non-indigenous ancestors have given us a nation the envy of any in the world". Only by taking it from the indigenous people in the first place, and then treating them badly - which is what we are apologising for... why do we need to rub salt in the wound, now, by pointing out how much we've profited from it?
  
  
• "But Aboriginal Australians made involuntary sacrifices, different but no less important, to make possible the economic and social development of our modern Australia"... see last point.
  
  
• And now a long bit:
  
  "We cannot from the comfort of the 21st century begin to imagine what they overcame - indigenous and non-indigenous - to give us what we have and make us who we are.
  
  We do know though that language, disease, ignorance, good intentions, basic human prejudices, and a cultural and technological chasm combined to deliver a harshness exceeded only by the land over which each sought to prevail."
  
  All of this is true... but what does it say? When the non-indigenous people of Australia made sacrifices, they did so as a result of their own decisions or because of bad luck. When the stolen generations were taken from their families they weren't the victims of bad luck or the repercussions of their own decisions - they were victims of laws enacted and enforced by our own government. If the harsh Australian conditions could say sorry to the first settlers, maybe they should - but they can't. We can.
  
  Quite frankly, Minister Nelson, how dare you compare the losses, hardship and difficulties of the non-indigenous Australians with those of the Aboriginal people. We are responsible for their problems, they are not responsible for ours, or even their own. That's the point. That's why we're saying "sorry"; and the fact that you tried to link the two only makes it clear how little you understand.
  
  
• "and churches heeded their Christian doctrine to reach out to people whom they saw in desperate need". Wrong actions done in the name of Christianity are still wrong.
  
  
• Nelson continues in this vain for while, now - outlining the difficulties that indigenous people faced at the hands of the first non-indigenous Australians, while still excusing the behaviour as "of its time".
  
  
• "Our responsibility, every one of us, is to understand what happened here, why it happened, the impact it had not only on those who were removed, but also those who did the removing and supported it". Thank you Minister Nelson, I am sure that there is a time and place for considering the psychological damage done to those who realise they did the wrong thing, after the event, but to bring it up now is simply to diminish the power of the moment as a heart-felt apology. The apology was from the government to the indigenous people of Australia - if we also need an Apology to the people who carried out the governments instructions, we can have one - but lets not confuse the matter now. Not today.
  
  
• "Our generation does not own these actions, nor should it feel guilt for what was done" - that's as close to saying "I'm sorry if you feel bad" as he could have gotten, and is as close as he could have come to not apologising at all.
  
  Besides which, again, "our generation" is not apologising - our government is.
  
  
  
  
• He continues, shortly after, "...in many, but not all cases, with the best of intentions". If good intentions were a reason for not feeling guilty I, personally, could have saved a lot of guilt in my life.
  
  
• "each generation lives in ignorance of the long term consequences of its decisions and actions." But we have to try! We have to make an attempt to know how what we do today will effect the future. And when we get it wrong, we say "sorry". Just like we did today. Without reservation or excuses. This is simply a cop-out; an excuse for not being careful about the reprecussions of our actions.
  
  
• "Even when motivated by inherent humanity and decency to reach out to the dispossessed in extreme adversity, our actions can have unintended outcomes. As such, many decent Australians are hurt by accusations of theft in relation to their good intentions." But they were stolen. The children belonged to someone else and they were taken without their guardian's permission. They were stolen by people who were told to do so by the Australian government - and the Australian government is apologising for telling them to do it. Decent and humane people do the wrong thing, sometimes. It doesn't mean they didn't do it, shouldn't be accused of doing it, and shouldn't be sorry.
  
  
• Brendan Nelson then quotes two stories of children being taken from their families and follows it up with this: "It is reasonably argued that removal from squalor led to better lives - children fed, housed and educated for an adult world of which they could not have imagined." Or in other words, Aboriginal children lived in squalor and it was good for them that were removed from it... why didn't you just not support the Apology?... no really - why didn't you?
  
  
• As if that wasn't bad enough - having basically stated that it was better for indigenous kids to be taken from their "squalor" he tops it off with this: "from my life as a family doctor and knowing the impact of my own father's removal from his unmarried teenage mother, not knowing who you are is the source of deep, scarring sorrows, the real meaning of which can be known only to those who have endured it." [my emphasis]... or in other words, it happened to white people too, you know - it was really bad for them as well. We may have saved you guys from squalor, but I understand it was difficult because my dad went through the same thing. Yes, I realise, that's not what he said... but again, why bring up this stuff now? Black children saved from squalor and Mr Nelson's pain... why are we bringing these things up? We're supposed to be apologising because we realised our government did the wrong thing... not making more excuses and telling our own woes.
  
  
• "No one should bring a sense of moral superiority to this debate in seeking to diminish the view that good was being sought to be done." Again, this is true - but so what? We can all accept the fact the people thought they were doing the right thing - we get it. We all agree. What we don't seem to agree on here, Mr. Nelson, is the fact that wrong was done, and we should apologise for that wrong, without reservation. I'm starting to sound a bit repetitive - but its hard to avoid... Nelson keeps repeating the same excuses.
  
  
• Now here, Nelson goes on to quote another victim of the period who says "I don't want people to say sorry. I just want them to understand the hurt, what happened when we were initially separated, and just understand the society, what they've done." That's fine Brendan, I'm glad you managed to find one victim who didn't particularly want people to say "sorry". But it doesn't sound to me like saying sorry is going to upset this woman either... and I promise you there are a lot of directly effected people who do want us to apologise. Again, surely using this quote at this moment in time can have no implication other than "we shouldn't be apologising". A little hypocritical, maybe? I will apologise, but I don't think we should be.
  
  
• After a quick reference to the fact that no amount of money could completely compensate for damages (and therefore, apparently we shouldn't give anything, or even try)... Nelson goes on to "Separation was then, and remains today, a painful but necessary part of public policy in the protection of children." Now I've heard this argument from other people, before. I'll say the same thing to Brendan Nelson I say to others. Yes, we sometimes take children away from parents today, for their own protection. But 40 years ago we were still removing children based purely on race. No white children were taken away under the same instructions - only "half-cast" and indigenous children. To compare today's policies of child protection to the previous governments' policies is, as ever, to completely miss the point - and to fail to understand what the Apology is actually for.

From here on in Nelson repeats the same mistakes, over and over again - and I really don't need to document all of them separately.

He mentions the generations that went to war, as if to say that, because they once did a grand and noble thing, they shouldn't ever have to apologise for anything ever again.

He refers to "neglectful indifference" and implies that those people who live in "comfortable, modern Australia" are "seeing their actions in the separations only"... as if to say, we wouldn't be sorry if we saw their actions from their pint of view.

He spends a long time combining a list of terrible things that still happen to Aboriginal people as a result of past atrocities, with a list of policy failures that his own party oversaw over the last 11 years - as if to say that because things are still really bad for Aboriginal Australians that we shouldn't bother apologising for the period when things were even worse.

But then he seems to defend our current position by quoting how much money we spend on the issue. Again, all true facts - but why bring it up now? Are you saying we shouldn't be sorry because we spend so much money on it?

He mentions "political buck-passing" and then has a go at state governments because they "resist the extension of a Northern Territory-style intervention."

• "I challenge anyone who thinks Aboriginal people get a good deal to come to any of these communities and tell me you wish you'd been born there." I know he's probably not doing it intentionally - but, in context, at this point in the speech, after everything else he's said, he sounds like he's saying "we should still be saving these children by taking them away from the squalor"?

And finally - to top it all off - his closing words:

"We honour those in our past who have suffered and all who have made sacrifices for us by the way we live our lives and shape our nation."

Considering the content of the rest of his speech "those in our past who have suffered and all who have made sacrifices" includes non-indigenous Australians who "sent their sons to war" and all those "early British settlers" who started this great country - not just indigenous Australians. So even in final summary Bredan Nelson made yet one more attempt to apologise without actually apologising.

No fault can be found with Brendan Nelson's facts or figures, but his sentiments, in context, at this moment in time are offensive to the reconciliation process in general and to those Aboriginal Australians who came today to hear an apology.

The only thing I can say in its defense is that it is honest. I believe it clearly and honestly reveals the true nature of the Coalition's attitude towards reconciliation and indigenous affairs - one of dismissive indifference to its importance and relevance.

Brendan Nelson, I digitally turn my back on your speech and hope that you come to realise what an oportunity you missed here today.

Apology for being so proud

I am not a man easily driven to feelings of pride.

I have a long standing argument with one of my dearest friends who often asks me why I'm not "proud of Australia" or "proud of being Australian".

To be honest, over the last decade, Australia, as a nation and political entity, simply hasn't given me that much reason. We are a lucky country - we are a wealthy country - and there are many reasons to recommend Australia, and living in Australia, over and above many other places on the planet.

But what we have chosen to do with that luck and those riches has often left much to be desired.

When I left Australia in the early 90s I was too young to know just how lucky and blessed we were, and by the time I came back, in the late 90s, we were already on the path of division, short-termism, selfishness and fear that has guided our behaviour as a nation for a decade since.

I also simply don't give my "pride" away that cheaply. I value it very highly. When I say I'm proud of something that I'm a part of, I want to know that there is good reason - and that the pride I'm giving away means something.

And that is why, with tears in my eyes, I am happy to say the last 48 hours have made me very proud.

I won't spend anytime analysing why it was so great - it just was. "I'm sorry", it just was.

The same dear friend of mine that hassles me for not being proud of my Australia, also pokes fun at me for apologising too much. And so... it now behooves me, obviously, to apologise profusely for being so god-damn proud of my country.

The "Welcome to Country" was inspirational, and will remain a yearly reminder of where our nation came from and who had it first.

The Apology said what it needed to say. It covered some great policy initiatives and had a real sense of having been planned in consultation with those people for whom it was designed - the Aboriginal people of Australia.

To see the whole thing for yourself, scroll down this post and watch the YouTube postings below.

"The apology" is, like the signing of Kyoto, very late. But, none the less, the way with which it was handled today by Rudd and the rest of the Australian government made me proud. It was a great moment.

SO...

what went wrong with Nelson?

OH... MY... GOD!

Could he have done a worse job? I don't think so.

If that was the line he was going to take - he should have simply said he didn't support the Apology. It would have made more sense.

I only heard one explanation today that went anyway towards explaining why he might have said what he said... because he wasn't speaking to the people of Australia but to his party - the conservative side of it... staying in power in his party was more important than speaking to the people of Australia in a politically positive way.

But what was so wrong with what he said then?

I wasn't sure, while listening to Nelson live, what was making me so uneasy... everything he said was potentially "salvageable" in the moment... but none of it was ever salvaged... none of it was corrected... and as a whole, the speech was simply an insult to the reconciliation process.

For more details of what I'm talking about, have a look at So, what went wrong with Nelson?


For a great summary of what happened today:



The "Welcome to Country":



Apology - part 1.



Apology - part 2.



Apology - part 3.



Apology - part 4.

Nelson's reply to the Apology, the full text

Aboriginal people across the Australia reacted angrily to Opposition leader Brendan Nelson's speech. Here it is in full.
[For my commentary on the speech and what went wrong with, So, what went wrong with Nelson]

Mr Speaker, members of this 42nd Parliament of Australia, visitors and all Australians.

In rising to speak in support of this motion, I recognise the Ngunnawal, first peoples of this Canberra land.

Today our nation crosses a threshold.

We formally offer an apology to those Aboriginal people forcibly removed from their families through the first seven decades of the 20th century.

In doing so, we reach from within ourselves to our past, those whose lives connect us to it and in deep understanding of its importance to our future.

We will be at our best today - and every day - if we pause to place ourselves in the shoes of others, imbued with the imaginative capacity to see this issue through their eyes with decency and respect.

This chapter in our nation's history is emblematic of much of the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians from the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788.

It is one of two cultures; one ancient, proud and celebrating its deep bond with this land for some 50,000 years.

The other, no less proud, arrived here with little more than visionary hope deeply rooted in gritty determination to build an Australian nation; not only for its early settlers and indigenous peoples, but those who would increasingly come from all parts of the world.

Whether Australian by birth or immigration, each one of us has a duty to understand and respect what has been done in our name. In most cases we do so with great pride, but occasionally shame.

In brutally harsh conditions, from the small number of early British settlers, our non-indigenous ancestors have given us a nation the envy of any in the world. But Aboriginal Australians made involuntary sacrifices, different but no less important, to make possible the economic and social development of our modern Australia.

None of this was easy. We cannot from the comfort of the 21st century begin to imagine what they overcame - indigenous and non-indigenous - to give us what we have and make us who we are.

We do know though that language, disease, ignorance, good intentions, basic human prejudices, and a cultural and technological chasm combined to deliver a harshness exceeded only by the land over which each sought to prevail.

And as our young nation celebrated its federation, formality emerged in arrangements and laws that would govern the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The new nation's constitution though, would not allow for the counting of natives or for the Commonwealth to pass laws in relation to Aborigines.

Protection Boards and Reserves were established.

Aborigines in some jurisdictions were excluded from public schools, episodic violence in race relations continued, assimilation underwrote emerging policies and churches heeded their Christian doctrine to reach out to people whom they saw in desperate need.

Though disputed in motive and detail and with varying recollections of events by others, the removal of Aboriginal children began.

In some cases, government policies evolved from the belief that the Aboriginal race would not survive and should be assimilated. In others, the conviction was that half-caste children in particular should, for their own protection, be removed to government and church-run institutions where conditions reflected the standards of the day. Others were placed with white families whose kindness motivated them to the belief that rescued children deserved a better life.

Our responsibility, every one of us, is to understand what happened here, why it happened, the impact it had not only on those who were removed, but also those who did the removing and supported it.

Our generation does not own these actions, nor should it feel guilt for what was done in many, but not all cases, with the best of intentions. But in saying we are sorry - and deeply so - we remind ourselves that each generation lives in ignorance of the long term consequences of its decisions and actions.

Even when motivated by inherent humanity and decency to reach out to the dispossessed in extreme adversity, our actions can have unintended outcomes. As such, many decent Australians are hurt by accusations of theft in relation to their good intentions.

The stories are well documented. Two are worth repeating:

" was at the Post Office with my mum and auntie (and cousin). They put us in the police ute and said they were taking us to Broome. They put the mums in there as well. But when we'd been gone about 10 miles they stopped, and threw the mothers out of the car. We jumped on our mothers' backs, crying, trying not to be left behind. But the policeman pulled us off and threw us back in the car.

They pushed the mothers away and drove off, while our mothers were chasing the car, running and crying after us. We were screaming in the back of that car. When we got to Broome they put me and my cousin in the Broome lock-up. We were only 10 years old. We were in the lock-up for two days waiting for the boat to Perth.''

In his black oral history, The Wailing, Stuart Rintoul records the thin pain of an Aboriginal woman from Walgett;

"Something else that never left my mind, my memory was of a family of children being taken away and this little girl, she must have been about the same age as myself, I suppose she might have been about six. But I can still see that little person on the back of the mission truck with a little rag hat on, and she went away and we never seen her anymore. She was crying. Everyone was crying.
Things like that never leave your memory.''

It is reasonably argued that removal from squalor led to better lives - children fed, housed and educated for an adult world of which they could not have imagined.

However, from my life as a family doctor and knowing the impact of my own father's removal from his unmarried teenage mother, not knowing who you are is the source of deep, scarring sorrows, the real meaning of which can be known only to those who have endured it.

No one should bring a sense of moral superiority to this debate in seeking to diminish the view that good was being sought to be done.

This is a complex issue. Faye Lyman's life is one of the Many Voices oral history at the National Library of Australia. Faye left her father when she was eight; ``Personally I don't want people to say,
"I'm sorry Faye' - I just want them to understand.

"It was very hurtful to leave Dad. Oh it broke my heart. Dad said to me, It's hard for daddy and the authorities won't let you stay with me in a tent on the riverbank. You're a little girl and you need someone to look after you. I remember him telling us that, and I cried. I said, `No, but Dad, you look after us.' But they kept telling us it wasn't the right thing.

"I don't want people to say sorry. I just want them to understand the hurt, what happened when we were initially separated, and just understand the society, what they've done. You don't belong in either world. I can't explain it. It hurts so much.''

There is no compensation fund, nor should there be. How can any sum of money replace a life deprived of knowing your family? Separation was then, and remains today, a painful but necessary part of public policy in the protection of children. Our restitution for this lies in our determination to address today's injustices, learning from what was done and healing those who suffered.

The period within which these events occurred was one that defined and shaped Australia.
The governments that oversaw this and those who elected them emerged from federating the nation to a century characterised for Australia as triumph in the face of extraordinary adversities unknown to our generation.

In offering this apology, let us not create one injustice in our attempt to address another.
Let no one forget that they sent their sons to war, shaping our identity and place in the world. One hundred thousand in two wars alone gave their lives in our name and our uniform, lying forever in distant lands; silent witnesses to the future they have given us. Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians lie alongside one another.

These generations considered their responsibilities to their country and one another more important than their rights.

They did not buy something until they had saved up for it and values were always more important than value.

Living in considerably more difficult times, they had dreams for our nation but little money.

Theirs was a mesh of values enshrined in God, King and Country and the belief in something greater than yourself. Neglectful indifference to all they achieved while seeing their actions in the separations only, through the values of our comfortable, modern Australia, will be to diminish ourselves.

Today our nation pauses to reflect on this chapter of relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia. In doing so however, spare a thought for the real, immediate, seemingly intractable and disgraceful circumstances in which many indigenous Australians find themselves today.

As we meet and speak in this parliament, Aboriginal Australians continue to die long before the rest of us.

Alcohol, welfare without responsibilities, isolation from the economic mainstream, corrupt management of resources, nepotism, political buck-passing between governments with divided responsibilities, lack of home ownership, under-policing and tolerance by authorities of neglect and abuse of children that violates all we stand for, all combine to still see too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living lives of existential aimlessness.

Indigenous life expectancy is 17 years less than their non-indigenous counterparts. An indigenous baby born while we speak still has only a one in three chance of seeing age 65. Diabetes, kidney disease, hospitalisation of women from assault, imprisonment, overcrowding, educational underperformance and unemployment remain appallingly high despite gains in some areas over the past decade. Annual indigenous specific spending by the Commonwealth has increased by 38 per cent in real terms to $3.5 billion, plus $500 million this year on the Northern Territory intervention.

Sexual abuse of Aboriginal children was found in every one of the 45 Northern Territory communities surveyed for the Little Children are Sacred report. It was the straw breaking the camel's back, driving the Howard government's decision to intervene with a suite of dramatically radical welfare, health and policing initiatives.

The Alice Springs Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers with great courage revealed to the nation in 2006 the case of a four-year-old girl drowned while being raped by a teenager who had been sniffing petrol. She told us of the two children - one a baby - sexually assaulted by two men while their mothers were off drinking alcohol. Another baby was stabbed by a man trying to kill her mother.

So too, a 10-year-old girl is gang raped in Aurukun; the offenders going free, barely punished. A boy is raped in another community by other children.
Is this not an emergency, the most disturbing part of it being its endemic nature and Australia's apparent desensitisation to it?

Yet state governments responsible for delivering services and security resist the extension of a Northern Territory-style intervention.

I ask the prime minister to report to this parliament regularly on what his government is doing to save this generation of Aboriginal Australians from these appalling conditions.

Our generation has, over 35 years, overseen a system of welfare, alcohol delivery, administration of programs, episodic preoccupation with symbolism and excusing the inexcusable in the name of cultural sensitivity, to create what we now see in remote Aboriginal Australia. With good intentions - perhaps like earlier generations - we have under successive governments, created lives of misery for which we might apologise; I certainly do. The best way we can show it is to act and act now, as we did last year.

I challenge anyone who thinks Aboriginal people get a good deal to come to any of these communities and tell me you wish you'd been born there.

The first Aboriginal Australian who came to this parliament was Neville Bonner. A Junggera man abandoned by his non-Aboriginal father before his birth on Ukerebagh Island in the mouth of the Tweed River, Neville was born into a life hardship known only to some who are here today.

Neville grew up in a hollow carved by his grandfather under lantana bushes. The year before his mother's death when he was nine, she sent him to a school near Lismore. He lasted two days before the non-Aboriginal parents forced his exclusion.

It was to his grandmother, Ida, he attributed his final success. Arguing at 14 that the boy must go to school, she had said to him, ``Neville, if you learn to read, write, express yourself well and treat people with decency and courtesy, it will take you a long way.'' It did. Through a life as a scrub clearer, ringer, stockman, bridge carpenter and 11 years on Palm Island, it brought him to this parliament in 1971, as the events of this motion were nearing an end.

He said in prophetic words to the Liberal Party members who selected him, ``In my experience of this world, two qualities are always in greater need - human understanding and compassion.''

When asked by Robin Hughes in 1992 to reflect on his life, Neville observed that the unjust hardships he had endured can only be changed when people of non-Aboriginal extraction are prepared to listen, to hear what Aboriginal people are saying and then work with us to achieve those ends.

Asked to nominate his greatest achievement, he replied, ``It is that I was there. They no longer spoke of boongs or blacks. They spoke instead of Aboriginal people.''

Today is about being there as a nation and as individual Australians. It is about Neville Bonner's understanding of one another and the compassion that shaped his life in literally reaching out to those whom he considered had suffered more than him.

We honour those in our past who have suffered and all who have made sacrifices for us by the way we live our lives and shape our nation. Today we recommit to do so - as one people.

We are sorry.

Civil partnerships for gay and lesbian Australians

After a quick holiday - almost a month I guess - let's get going again. I'm feeling refreshed and highly opinionated - and raring to blog!

I've got lots to say... "Wow - yay!" to the anti-whaling movement. "Oh my god!" to the paid-maternity discussion. (You know that we're the only OECD country other than America not to have paid maternity, don't you?)

But first - a small disappointment.

I started my special list of "Things that make me happy" in this blog, some time ago - but it wouldn't be right to only list the positives. Let it not be said that I won't see the negatives in Rudd's rules. I have always supported Kevin's attempts to keep the people happy, in the name of politics - if it means taking power and using it to slowly guide our country back towards the liberalism, openness and fairness that we all deserve. But this time, I feel, his actions are not directed by politics or by the dictates of liberalism and fairness - they're formed in religious bigotry.

Yes, that's right - it's not all sunshine and roses in the new Labor-governed Australia. Even Kevin with his left-wing religious leanings can disappoint sometimes.

Of course, we'd all rather liberal religious attitudes to Liberal religious attitudes... but even lefty-pinko Christian politicians, it turns out, draw the line a pink civil partnerships.

For those of you who want to know the details - the ACT Government wants to introduce legislation allowing gay couples to enter into civil partnerships and have an official ceremony. The Territory's first attempt to pass similar legislation was quashed by the former Federal Government and the new Government has raised concerns about some aspects of the proposal.

For details of the previous bill - see the a.c.t. legislation register.

Of course I would like to see what the government's "concerns" are - but it doesn't sound like the language of a government who wants to find a solution, and change a few details - it sounds like the language of a government who wants to squash the legislation.

That's a guess - and hopefully I'm wrong - but Kevin has made his position on civil partnerships clear before. Let's be clear on this - this isn't a broken promise - this isn't something surprising or contradictory with Kevin's stated position... it's just a shame. It's the first time I can honestly say I the new government hasn't gone far enough in reversing the Howard governments position of social conservativism and divisiveness.

More than 100 people rallied outside the Legislative Assembly this afternoon in support of the planned new laws. The ACT's Attorney General Simon Corbell told the crowd the issue is as much about recognising gay relationships as it is about self-government. "As a community, we should be able to decide these things for ourselves," he said.

That may be so (as the federalism debate continues under the new government) - but the question remains as to whether the rest of Australia would also like to see the introduction of civil partnerships for gay and lesbian relationships. Does the federal government actually have a "mandate" to try and direct the ACT government in its law making? Of course, I realise that some of Australia's population won't be in support of these ideas - but is it at all clear that a representative government actually has enough support from the negative side to use its power to sway this debate?

I propose having a poll. On this page (and on all my blog pages) you should be able to find a poll, on the right-hand side that I have designed. It is designed, I hope, to allow everyone to have their say and make their position on the topic clear.

If I get enough respondents, I will forward the results to Kevin's office and to the minister in charge of the issue (as well as the appropriate ACT government members - for use in their assessment of the situation)*. If you believe strongly in this topic please forward a link to this page to as many people as you can.

If you think I've left an option off the list of possible answers, please feel free to say so in the comments on this page. I will try to incorporate your ideas and combine the results of all versions of the poll, if I end up changing the options later.

Let's show them what modern Australia really thinks on this issue.


* and with Kevin's recent creation of an office to read petitions - we actually have a chance of having it listened to :-) More about that later.

Bring the troops home from the war...

... the lawyers home from the culture wars - that is.

For a history of this log of Labor Party successes see:

Thing that make me happy
The national conversation

Signs of support for the poor and disadvantaged

Once again - here is evidence of the way that modern governments control the news cycle and the way we understand and discuss issues.

The Labor party won slightly more than 2 weeks ago - and have been in power for little more than 1 week - and yet last week they had a "public service reshuffle" and changed the role of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.

Apparently they (the Department) have been wasting millions in Legal fees chasing thousands in incorrect payments, under the Howard Government, and penalising the already disadvantaged for being, well, disadvantaged... but can you imagine this being discussed in this way if Labor hadn't won?

SHM Article - Millions lost in legal war on the poor

Let's celebrate the culture of support that this change represents. I realise we've got heaps of money lying around Australia, and sometimes it's hard to know what to do with it all, but using it to chase down people with very little and take even that from them does seems a little bit of a waste to me.

The National Conversation - how political language guides the opinions we admit to in public

When I came back to Australia, somewhere in Howard's first term as Prime Minister, I was immediately struck by how much my country had changed.

Somehow, I realised, the choice of language coming out of Canberra was having an effect on the populous.

People who, in the early nineties, would have been afraid to voice their innate (and often subtle) racism, class-ism and other "ism"s of small-mindedness and prejudice, were suddenly vindicated by some of the arguments being made by the government of the time. Ways of defending and supporting the sexism of misplaced "family values", used by the Howard Government, gave similarly minded people a way of voicing their opinion, and sounding like they had thought about it and were expressing a well considered and carefully framed point.

It makes sense, in fact.

A politician's job is to present their position and sell it to as many people as possible - offending the fewest number possible along the way. And as such, the language of either side will always be in danger of softening and excusing extreme positions with wording designed to make the offensive palatable.

And so I found Howard, having taken the middle ground from Keating in the '96 election, was quickly using his power over the national dialogue to excuse fear of the different, to encourage dismissive arrogance towards the unlucky and socially needy, and to foster love for the culture of the individual.

Obviously, I have to admit, the same thing is done by "the other side", when the chance is given. It happens naturally as a consequence of our modern democracy, the influence of national "sound bite" driven media and the culture of celebrity we live in. But considering I'm a staunch supporter of Political Correctness for the sake of social improvement, I think that the future of our planet's ecology is a moral issue and not just a practical one and I don't believe that an obsessive focus on improving fairness in our society can go too far - when "my side" gets a go at guiding the national dinner party conversation, I don't mind. :-)

The point of all of this?

For many long long years, under a Howard Government, I was often asked, by people who didn't know any better, why I hated him so much.

Besides simply being one of those questions that's hard to answer because it's so bleeding obvious that it's hard to explain... it was also difficult for me to remember all the small ways in which Howard had, over the last week, month, year used his influence in a way that annoyed me.

I would end up quoting things like "50% off higher education", "the Tampa affair", "Children overboard"... did I mention he took 50% off the higher education budget in 1996?

I could never remember it all. The details - the little daily niggling bits. So I prevaricated. I sounded soft and unclear - like someone with an instilled view who didn't know why they believed it.

I wanted to make a list. A list of daily frustrations and reasons why he annoyed me... But I'd missed many years of evidence - some of the best stuff had already gone from my mind, I was sure... besides which - after he was elected the 3rd time in a row, I was too depressed and seriously considering leaving the country in defeat.

So! Fast forward another 6 years and Labor finally managed to put up a reasonable candidate, who could out-Howard Howard - and we won.

As I lift slowly out of the fog of depression I have been living in... as I watch the television, and the language out of Canberra takes an about-face... as I start to realise that this is the same process, in reverse - and how much that excites me... I reaslise that I have a chance to start a new list. The list of great moves made by the new government.

I decided to do this the other day when I was sitting watching the television - the announcement in Bali of Australia's signing of the Kyoto protocol. I do not exagerate when I say, it made me cry. I sat in front of the television as tears came to my eyes.

Yes, of course! it's years too late. I know that. But I was so proud. Proud in that way that a parent is when their wayward child doesn't do the wrong thing again. I wanted to cry, because I was so used to news in that arena upsetting me - it shocked me... like someone kneeling and expecting to be beaten finding the strike never comes.

I still twitch every time they mention the "opposition" and I realise they're talking about the coalition - every time they mention the Prime Minister and I have to remind myself I may not hate what he's about to say.

Enough of my this... here is the beginning of my list - it covers the whole first couple of of weeks of the Labor Party in power, all at once - as it has taken that long for me to realise I could use the words "John" and "Howard" in the same sentence, in the past tense.

Go to the list here:
Things that make me happy

...

Howard's End Director's Cut

It has come to light that, on the night of the election, John Howard's concession speech was, in fact, pre-recorded and broadcast in place of his actual speech.


A certain member of the Liberal party, who thought it important that his final message to the electorate be revealed, recorded this on their mobile phone.


This is what he really said.