Category Archives: Politics-Related Things

Here’s the Thing: Why it’s your ABC

Posted on by
Reply

Originally published at TheVine, 2 December 2013

What’s the ABC actually for? Glad you asked!

290334_ABC_Mobile_Studio_Caravan_591w

As you’re no doubt aware, the government is slashing funding to the ABC. You know, just like they promised they’d do the night before the election. It’s not like the soon-to-be Prime Minister himself explicitly denied that the government were going to make any cuts to public broadcas…

…Oh. Sorry, scratch that.

One of the best things about the ABC, as far as the government goes, is that they can’t complain about reductions to their own services because then they wouldn’t look impartial and therefore clearly be deserving of punitive cuts.

Communications Minister Malcolm “you don’t seriously think I’m a secret lefty these days, surely?” Turbull announced the cuts earlier this week and even went on QandA on Monday to tell them that losing 500 jobs before Xmas was basically nothing to worry about and that $50 million per year in cuts should be easily absorbed.

The cuts will also force the closure of Adelaide production studios – leaving only Sydney and Melbourne operating – which has resulted in the bizarre spectacle of seeing Education Minister Christopher Pyne (and MP for the Adelaide electorate of Sturt) petitioning against his own government’s policy.

Turnbull also explained that commercial networks were all doing it tough these days and that therefore… um, the ABC should also suffer, despite not being a commercial network?

And here’s the thing: it’s a distinction that needs making because the ABC is not just a fancier version of channels 7, 9 and 10 paid for by the public purse. It’s a completely different beast.

—

Let’s start with the question of what commercial networks are there to do. The answer is very simple: make money from advertising.

And that’s it.

That’s what they exist to do. A network that doesn’t make money is a failing network. There’s nothing wrong with being profit driven business – that’s the entire basis of capitalism, after all. But providing you with entertainment and information is a means to an end: they want you to watch the commercials they sell. That’s the business model.

You’re not the audience: you’re the product.

It’s true of all free services. Want more proof? Lovingly cast your eyes to the left and right hand sides of the page you’re currently looking at. And hey, why not click on them while you’re at it? It all helps.

The ABC, however, is not there to make mad dollaz, yo. And that’s because of the ABC Charter, enshrined in section 6 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983.

—

One of things said by the dumber end of the political spectrum is the ABC should be able to compete with commercial networks if it’s so gosh-darn good.

The problem with that is that it’s specifically forbidden to do so by the aforementioned charter. Specifically, section 2(a)(i): one of the jobs of the ABC is not to duplicate “the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and community sectors of the Australian broadcasting system”.

So it’s not meant to compete with the commercial networks. Fine. But what isthe ABC meant to do?

Glad you asked, possibly imaginary interlocutor:

Here’s section one, in its entirety, laying out what your ABC is all about.

The functions of the Corporation are:

(a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and community sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:

(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and

(ii) broadcasting programs of an educational nature;

(b) to transmit to countries outside Australia broadcasting programs of news, current affairs, entertainment and cultural enrichment that will:

(i) encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs; and

(ii) enable Australian citizens living or travelling outside Australia to obtain information about Australian affairs and Australian attitudes on world affairs; and

(ba) to provide digital media services; and

(c) to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia.

… so the axing of the Australia Network makes (b) kinda tricky, and since (ba) has been the main thing they’ve been sinking development money into, that’s going to be where a lot of cuts are likely to be made: which makes it harder for them to live up to the terms of their charter, which gives the government another stick with which to beat them.

You can already imagine the conservative argument: heck, if they can’t even do what they’re obliged to do under law, why are we wasting money on it?

—

Editor update: Inspired by the ’80s campaign “8 Cents a Day” in funding negotiations for the ABC, 8 cents being the estimated cost of the ABC per head of the population per day for the service, we’ve worked out the numbers for the ABC in 2014.

At the moment the ABC is operating on $1.04 billion per year. The current Australian population is approx 23,868,684 (you can watch it tick up on the ABS website), and that averages out to around $45 per year per person, and about 12 cents per person per day. Not bad when you take into account inflation, expansion into internet services, and digital output (leading to more channels on radio and TV), a 4 cent increase ain’t bad at all over 30 years.

Plus, there’s that leaked report from KPMG which proves the ABC is working as efficiently as it possibly can be, and is in fact underfunded.

—

But there’s another point worth making here, which is that the ABC isn’t just a radio and TV network. It’s a nation builder. That’s the main reason why the government decided to consolidate the country’s metropolitan public radio stations in 1932.

Furthermore, like government itself, the ABC is yours. It’s there for the betterment of you, your family, your community and your country. That’s why you pay (practically nothing from your own pocket) to support it.

We’re a small, geographically disparate country with a tiny population by global standards. One of the few things that unites us across this wide, brown, sea-girt land is Our ABC. That’s what makes it powerful, and – if you’re a government who currently sees electoral value in creating division and fear – that’s what makes it threatening.

Without getting too high-minded about it, there is nothing more important than a free press and an informed electorate for the functioning of democracy. Thomas Jefferson, that American chap who knew a thing or two about democracy, memorably said that representative media is a better curb on tyranny than even representative government:

“The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”

Who is more representative of the people of Australia: a media organisation obliged by law to provide timely, accessible services to the nation, or a for-profit conglomerate?

—

And ultimately that is why the ABC is so important. It’s not beholden to anyone except the people. It’s entire explicit purpose is to be clear, accurate, accessible, and to support our local culture without being concerned if it’s going to get a solid 12 in key demos on Sunday evenings.

We are not merely a nation of customers. We are citizens.

More than that, we are Australians.

And it’s our ABC.

The official Tony Abbott glossary

Posted on by
Reply

Originally published in Time Out Sydney 24 October 2013. At by Robert Polmear

Dear The Internet,

aps-abbottglossary

(from the upcoming children’s edition)

With the news that your immigration minister Scott Morrison has issued an edict that the term “asylum seeker” be stricken from all official departmental communications and replaced with“illegal maritime arrival”,  commentators have been making the unfair comparison between the Abbott government and the “newspeak” adopted by the dystopian ministries of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Such hyperbole is obviously ridiculous, since a) creating a standard term of reference for all staff will help streamline the dissemination of policy in a clear and accessible manner, and b) we have always been at war with Eastasia.

It’s only one of a raft of new terms and with that in mind, we contacted the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, and communications minister Malcolm Turnbull graciously faxed us a copy of the government’s forthcoming official glossary.

Keep these terms in mind in all communications going forward, including your personal correspondence. Remember: ASIO and therefore the CIA will be taking notes, and you really don’t want to embarrass yourself in front of them.

Seriously. You really, really don’t.

Former Term New Official Term
Asylum seeker Illegal maritime arrival
Refugee Terrorist
Australia (in context of Federal Constitution) Australia
Australia (in context of dinkum fair-go mateship) ‘Straya
Australia (in context of human rights obligations) Papua New Guinea
Love Penis-in-vagina intercourse conducted exclusively in the marital bed
Homosexual man Bachelor
Homosexual woman Lady bachelor
Bisexual person –
Child Dependent
Wife Dependent
Single mother Careless slattern
Student Mr/Mrs Fancy who thinks they’re so big with all their la-di-dah book-learnin’
International student University funding
Pensioner Post-employed scrounger
Medicare Financial sickness/injury incentive
Unemployed person Domestic terrorist
Increased Federal borrowing limit (Labor) Economic disaster
Increased Federal borrowing limit (Coalition) Prudent fiscal strategy
Climate change Positive temperature growth
Environmental scientist Pervert voodoo priestess
National park Future mine
Marine sanctuary Future mine
Lower socio-economic area Future second airport flightpath
Experts “Experts”
Press (non-Murdoch) Mewling naysayers
Press (Murdoch) Clarion call of truth
Area ravaged by bushfire Economic combustion opportunity zone
Taxes Profits
Social responsibility –

Yours ever,

APS

Patriot or Traitor: the Tony Abbott Quiz!

Posted on by
Reply

Originally published in Time Out Sydney October 3, 2013. Art by Robert Polmear

Dear the Internet,

Everybody wins!

Everybody wins!

Your Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been in Indonesia assuring president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono that he is “fair dinkum about doing what we can to help Indonesia in every way” in terms of their sovereignty, which is Abbott-speak for “protect our northern oceanic borders for us and we’ll continue to ignore your human rights atrocities in Papua New Guinea.”

And heck, you might see yourself as being a pretty dinkum sort of a cobber – but are yousufficiently dinkum to contribute in a proactively bonza manner in this brave new Abbottscape?

Fortunately, with the help of senior advisors to the Departments of Immigration and Foreign Affairs & Trade (and not Science, obviously, since we don’t have one of those anymore), we have constructed this quiz to establish quickly and definitively whether you are a patriot or a traitor.

Incidentally, this will also form the basis of our citizenship test just as soon as the new Senate takes power in 2014 (after Palmer United senators add the necessary extra questions like “Australia was specifically founded to be mined, the industry for which should therefore never be taxed or subject to environmental regulation: agree, strongly agree, violently agree, threateningly agree”).

Come let us rejoice, Australians All:

1. A neighbour’s child has run into your yard to escape a gang of bullies. Do you:

a) Tow the child into the yard of an entirely different neighbour and insist that the child is now their responsibility,

b) Forcibly hand the child back to the bullies while explaining that the child should have asked for help through more appropriate channels,

c) Lock the child in your shed, insisting all the while that the accommodation is, if anything, too luxurious and that the child should be more grateful about being trapped in there, or

d) All of the above.

2. The wall of your living room is growing increasingly warm and smoke seems to be filling the house. Your family speculate that you’ve left the oven on and now the kitchen is on fire. Do you:

a) Insist that the heat and smoke is part of the natural cycle of temperatures and airbourne particulate content within the house and that it’s premature to take action until further data has come in,

b) Point out that heat and smoke can have a number of entirely natural causes and that allocating resources exclusively toward extinguishing technologies would be both short-sighted and irresponsible,

c) Angrily accuse your family of pursuing some sort of anti-oven agenda which is typical of their attitude toward electrical goods and that you will no longer discuss whether or not the place is ablaze, or

d) All of the above.

3. Birds are occasionally landing in trees within the boundaries of your property. For no clear reason you have told your family that you will Stop the Birds, yet the number of birds landing seem entirely unaffected by your rhetoric. Do you:

a) Insist that it’s now your neighbours’ responsibility to prevent birds flying across their property and into yours,

b)  Keep insisting that there were more birds landing in the backyard during the lease of the previous tenants,

c) Make family discussions of birds punishable and insist that you will provide all necessary information about the number of bird arrivals as and when you deem it appropriate, or

d) All of the above.

4. Two men are hoping to move into a sharehouse across the street. Do you:

a) Accuse them of defiling the sanctity of leases,

b) Consider allowing them to move in, as long as they are called “non-commercial property co-inhabitants” rather than “tenants”,

c) Insist that while your own sibling has shared a house with a same-gendered friend, you feel that leases should be reserved only for people that can cause biological dependents, or

d) All of the above.

5. Respect for women means:

a) Having not killed your non-male offspring on principle,

b) Angrily accusing the previous tenant of not taking care of the place because she didn’t have a husband,

c) Permitting 5 per cent of your colleagues to be penis-free, or

d) All of the above.

6. Prior to having your application for your house accepted, you promised that you’d help one of your neighbours tidy up his yard during the first week of your lease. You’ve now been in the place for over a month and are avoiding this neighbour’s calls. Does this make you:

a) An excellent neighbour

b) A community leader

c) A man who sticks to his word, or

d) All of the above.

RESULTS: If you chose a-c for any answer, you are guilty of treason. ASIO are already making arrangements.

Yours ever,

APS

Why An Abbott Election Victory Would Be Good

Posted on by
Reply

Originally published at TheVine, 5 Sept 2013

Look, we can’t all move to New Zealand – but this election might actually be a positive thing…

The nation, September 2013

The nation, September 2013

Dear Fellow Left Wing People,

First up: yes, I know. I feel it too. That desperate confusion, that disappointment, that anger. We’re not a small-minded, petty, terrified people… are we? Really?  At a time when we have the planet’s most robust economy we’re going to ignore the fact and sniffily proclaim that we want more, all the while refusing to help desperate people – in comparatively tiny amounts, by international standards – who are so in love with the idea of Australia/not being persecuted that they risk their lives in the hope of enjoying freedoms that most of us take for granted, and some of us actively resent. Voting? That’s a Saturday morning pissed away. Thank you very much, democracy.

But when I think of an Abbott victory, I think the following:

Good.

Not good because he’ll be a great leader – we’re about to get our own George W Bush, a man who can’t open his mouth without providing the world with a new malapropism and who is prepared to destroy his country rather than entertain the possibility that his political and economic philosophy is flawed, not to say straight-up mistaken.

Not good because it will be a positive time for anyone who’s not a mining magnate or a media baron. If you’re not wealthy, you’re in for a difficult few years – and if you like things like education, healthcare, environmental protection, workers rights, refugee rights, gender equality or any of that kind of thing, you’re going be getting angrier and angrier.

And that’s what’s good. That’s what we need.

Think about it. Even if Rudd sneaks in on Saturday via some mathematically-improbable fluke, what’s the likely scenario?

We’ll get three years of Labor desperately trying to keep the middle ground – no shift on asylum policy, probably some destructive efforts to get an entirely-symbolic budget surplus – with a probably uncooperative Senate and a stronger opposition leader – my money’s on Joe Hockey – with the weight of the Murdoch press behind them hammering home the message that everything would have been better if you’d just voted a Coalition government in. Rudd will be an ineffectual leader in an even weaker position than Gillard was in, there’ll be another election, a Libslide, and we will welcome another Howard-esque conservative dynasty.

But if Abbott wins?

We already know he can’t open his mouth without saying the exact wrong thing. We already know that he’s terrible on policy, can’t think on his feet and dodges responsibility. At the moment he can largely get away with blaming the government; once he’s Prime Minister, that’s not an option anymore. He will look like what he is: a man of narrow views and narrower knowledge woefully out of his depth.

And look at the Abbott front bench: it’s a viper’s nest. They’re not supporting Abbott because they think he’s an inspiring leader, since he’s demonstrated comprehensively that he’s not: they’ve backed him because the greatest strength they have had against Labor over the last 18 months has been in presenting a united front.

Once they’re in power this bunch of smart, ambitious and shrewd politicians are going to be a lot less forgiving of a leader who’s an obvious and embarrassing liability. Hockey isn’t going to fade back into the benches. Neither is Turnbull. Neither is Bishop. Neither is Morrison. Those squabbles have been sublimated for the time being because they had a common enemy: Labor. Once in power, they’ll have a different common enemy: each other.

Abbott will also almost certainly face a hostile Senate, with Greens and most of the sitting independents already indicating an unwillingness to pass many of his tentpole promises. He’s already implied that he’ll ask for a double dissolution if his agenda is not passed, which means that Labor, the Greens and the minor parties now have a chance to buy themselves another year of campaigning ahead of another election. Don’t worry about winning on Saturday, hopefuls: worry about winning after the Libs implode a bit down the track.

If there’s a double dissolution we will see an ineffective leader throwing a tantrum, and the Australian public are not going to thank him for calling us all back to another Saturday at the polls before we absolutely have to (and incidentally, it’s easier for a Senator to get up in a DD scenario as the quotas are halved. Want to get more independents and small parties clogging up your upper house? Call a double dissolution).

Meanwhile Labor in opposition will be stripped back to the MPs and Senators who’ve kept the faith of their electorates. The embarrassments and the dead wood that have made the last two years so difficult for the party will be gone. And those that are likely to survive – Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong et al – are no fools.

So what do we do for the next three years? We fight. We hold on to every asinine headline in the Murdoch press this week, and we use it as a stick to beat them with when the Coalition fail to deliver. We stop bitching on Twitter and start campaigning for the progressive causes we support (hell, it’s an early summer, the weather’s lovely for marching). We give Labor an incentive to move back to the left, because there are enough of us to be worth listening to.

But most importantly, as those depressing numbers come in on Saturday night, we remember that there is one great final secret about the Left, and it is this: in the long run, we always win.

Change never comes as quickly as we want it to, and it’s often in a frustrating two-steps-forward-one-step-back waltz rather than a decisive sprint, but look at the Australia of 2013 compared with ten years back. Or twenty years back. Or forty. There are always new battles to fight, and specific issues like asylum seeker policy or workplace rights or interventions in remote indigenous communities have seen some humiliating retreats in recent times, but eventually things progress.

The Coalition wasn’t at all interested in carbon schemes or marriage equality under Howard; now they know that they have to at least acknowledge these issues, if only to stall movement on them – and stalling only works for so long. These changes are often slow and incremental so we can be forgiven for not noticing at the time, but when you look at the bigger picture it’s clear: Australia progresses. Consensus takes time but ultimately we’re going to win. We always do.

But in the short term we need to stop being lazy, we need to stop being complacent, and we need to start working together. Hell, I’m more guilty than most in thinking a snarky Facebook status or a punchy tweet has fulfilled my community obligations: I need to lift my game, and so do you. It’ll be easier if we all do it together, and then we can totally get a drink afterwards. I’ll get the first round in.

And that is why I look at the forthcoming Abbott government as an emetic: it will make us feel incredibly sick, absolutely, but that’s how we vomit the poison out.

Your comrade,

Andrew P Street

Mayor blames city for his sexual misconduct

Posted on by
Reply

Originally published in Daily Life, 6 August 2013

You know what? It’s just so gosh-darn hard to be a powerful man in 2013.

There are all these rules about how one should and should not interact with people and it’s a maze that’s near impossible to negotiate. If they followed some sort of rhyme or reason, like common sense, basic respect or literally thousands of very public examples demonstrating the legal and personal consequences of unacceptable treatment of female staff by powerful men, that’d be one thing – but now we’re at a mysterious, opaque point where what appears at first to be perfectly respectable behaviour, like telling your female employees not to wear knickers or putting them in a headlock and dragging them around the office while whispering sexually-themed comments to them, is seen as somehow “inappropriate” conduct for someone in a position of authority.

San Diego mayer Bob Filner, human piece of shit.

San Diego mayer Bob Filner, human piece of shit.

That’s the sorry situation in which San Diego’s mayor Bob Filner has found himself in recent times, with nine women having come forward as being victims of sexual harassment at his hands.

Poor Bob is a 70 year old human adult who spent two decades in Congress before becoming San Diego’s mayor last December, and is undergoing an “intensive therapy” program in order to curb himself of these workplace impulses. He is is also laying blame for his behaviour firmly at the foot of the responsible party: the City of San Diego, who failed to provide him with a training program that educated him as to what was and wasn’t suitable Mayoral behaviour.

It’s an ambitious defence, since the city are countersuing on the grounds that they didattempt to provide him with exactly that sort of course in January, but Filner cancelled it and refused to reschedule. Furthermore, the City of San Diego has also declined to pay Filner’s legal expenses in suing the City of San Diego. Say what you like about Filner: at least he’s consistently brazen.

And heck, we understand that everyone is time-poor and can’t necessarily find the time to work out how to walk that blurred and ambiguous line between “professional respect” and “sexual assault”, and so if there are any other mayors out there looking for guidance, allow us to present some instructive tips and handy memory-jogging mnemonics to help bring clarity to these hard-to-interpret situations.

1. When one’s deputy campaign manager is complimented for having “worked her ass off” for the campaign, should one pat said deputy campaign manager’s behind and say “no, it’s still there?”

Correct answer: no. That’s where Bob went wrong with Lara Fink, who subsequently demanded an apology from Filner over email, cc’ing in his chief of staff (who was subsequently to resign in disgust at Filner’s behaviour). The bottoms of your staff are not considered company property and, much as you might ask before taking an employee’s calculator from their desk, you should always get explicit permission before getting you start playfully pressing bits of it. [http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/23/politics/california-san-diego-mayor/index.html]

Handy mnemonic: “Good rule of thumb / don’t stroke the bum!”

2. Should you demand your director of communications not wear panties to work?

Correct answer: no. It’s reasonable to expect a certain degree of professional dress within a work environment, but this is limited to the visible levels of one’s attire. Underwear preferences are, within office-based places of employment, very much up to the individual, and the use of the term “panties” adds a creepy infantilism to the situation if the addressee is a grown woman like Irene McCormack Jackson. “I had to work and do my job in an atmosphere where women were viewed by Mayor Filner as sexual objects or stupid idiots,” she said in an illustrative statement after becoming the first woman to publicly accuse the mayor of harassment.

Handy mnemonic: “Her dack choice is / Just not your biz.”

3. Is it OK to publicly hit on a woman at a church fundraiser for African refugees while holding her hands and preventing her from leaving?

Correct answer: no. First up, if you’re there as a representative of the people of San Diego it might be considered gauche to also be visibly on the pull, but asking someone who has come up to say a nice professionally-motivated hello “Do you have a husband? Are you married?” might make them a little confused and uncomfortable, especially if you’re holding both their hands at the time. This is what one Renee Estill-Sombright discovered in June at the breakfast event at La Jolla Presbyterian Church, according to her claim.

Handy mnemonic: “For refugees / Quit macking, please.”

4. Headlocks and sexual threats from your employer: playful fun, or terrifying invasion of personal space?

Correct answer: terrifying invasion of personal space. Again, Ms McCormack Jackson’s patience for being dragged around the office while Filner whispered sexual comments in her unwilling ear was not as boundless as her boss assumed it would be. As a rule, unless your office is collpasing in an earthquake or suddenly invaded by swarms of killer ants, it is not considered appropriate to grab your employees in any way without their freely-given consent. A firm handshake is almost always acceptable, although note that this does not include the go-ahead to explain to the recipient what you would like to do to them with your penis.

Handy mnemonic: “Are you a dope? / Headlocks? Nope.”

Keep those handy rhymes in your head and you might be able to not only govern a large municipal area but also create a pleasant and respectful work environment in which the female staff who rely on you for their rent to be paid each week will not be terrified of your presence and/or end up suing you for harassment. Mayor Filner, by taking on these guidelines we are confident that you could sleep easy in the knowledge that you won’t, say, attempt to feel up a Marilyn Monroe impersonator performing at a fundraiser for your campaign while she’s just trying to do her j…

What’s that? Pardon? Emily Gilbert?

Ah. As you were.