Budgets, Bodgies & Budgie-Smuggler’s Buddies.

The Australian Labor Party has historically faced antagonism from the conservative press, most often for not having the economic credentials needed to be trusted with the national balance. To Tories the government’s role is to place financial capital and security at a higher priority than social capital and security – if the latter is lacking it can be propped up through philanthropy and charity. As the ALP often (though not always) places great importance on fostering social security – thus restricting the free market, redistributing wealth and generally acting for the masses rather than the classes – it is not to be trusted in government.

The Australian, this country’s premier conservative rag, has always maintained a close relationship with the conservative parties. Lately, the veneer separating The Australian’s staff and the Coalition has been found rather thin as The Australian assisted in Christopher Pyne’s efforts to oust the ex-Speaker, Peter Slipper, and the paper’s Foreign Editor found himself tangled up in an impromptu action against Tony Abbott that interrupted their dinner during the latter’s recent visit to Melbourne.

When the Coalition attacked Labor over the mismanaged Pink-Batts programme, The Australian was there. Likewise when the Coalition spent 18 months accusing the Labor Party of rorting the Building the Education Revolution scheme. Underlying these campaigns was that characteristic criticism of Labor being financially irresponsible and economically inept.

Prior to the Global Financial Crisis this “Axis of Conservatism” lambasted Labor’s lacking economic credentials (as epitomised by the “L-Plate Latham” campaign during the 2004 election). When Kevin Rudd was elected in 2007 the Axis was savvy enough to use the new government’s huge spending commitments as evidence of Labor’s inherent profligacy – never mind that after 11 years under Howard and with the international economy crumbling Australia needed more than a lick of paint to be brought up to scratch.

Post-GFC, the Coalition and The Australian focused their efforts on criticising the ALP’s commitment to return the country to surplus by 2012-13 on the grounds that spending commitments and the international financial scene would not permit it. I wonder whether they were surprised when Mr. Swan announced a projected $1.5bn surplus for 2012-13 as part of the 2012 Budget Speech.

Whatever the emotional response The Australian has been quick to change tack upon announcement of the surplus; within a few hours of the Budget Speech the front page of The Australian’s website was updated with a prominent cartoon of Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan (in an “Occupy Treasury” hoodie) striding forward under a hammer and sickle banner, the backdrop a clear allusion to Soviet style propaganda.

“Smash the rich, save the base”

was the first article under the cartoon, describing the Budget as “unashamed push to reconnect with the nation’s battlers and middle class.” Following that was an op-ed from Dennis Shanahan who accused Mr Swan of using “capitalism to save socialism”; a confusing statement made all the more ridiculous by reference to an article written by Kevin Rudd – on faith in politics – as an example of using “socialism to save capitalism”.

Oddly enough, Andrew Bolt’s brief response to the Budget was mostly accurate: it is largely an effort to prevent a drubbing at the next election and to mitigate what one would expect to be a brutal campaign waged by the Axis when the Carbon Tax comes into effect.

What makes the conservative criticism of the 2012 Budget most absurd is that it is hardly a “Robin Hood budget”, nor is it accurate to say it is geared towards the most needy. The giveaway should have been in the government’s choice to resurrect that most deceptive and insidious Howardism: the “Battlers”.

As Wilson and Turnbull discuss in their paper, “Wedge Politics and Welfare Reform in Australia”, John Howard used the “battlers” metaphor to cut welfare provision to vulnerable elements of the community while maintaining public support. In doing so he reintroduced the concepts of the “deserving” and “undeserving” poor to a level that had not been seen since the dark days of the 1930s. The Government’s choice to describe the Budget as one for the “Battlers” plays directly into this and is indicative of the regressive social policy contained within.

As the number of retrenchments in the eastern states skyrocketed during the first quarter of 2012 articles gradually emerged in the mainstream press about the poor living conditions of Australia’s most needy. Particular attention was given to the unemployed as it was revealed that the decision to severely restrict welfare payments (to provide an incentive for the unemployed to find work) meant that Newstart recipients were unable to meet the cost of living without going into debt. ACOSS, the Australia Institute and The Greens all spoke out about the inadequacies of welfare payments, calling for the Government to increase payments by at least $50 a month to relieve the pressures upon the unemployed.

One would rightly expect that a Labor treasurer, during a period of sustained retrenchments, would act to support the unemployed and move to create greater employment. Perhaps Mr Swan’s speechwriter did not realise that justifying welfare cuts to make sure the unemployed would “go back to work” was tantamount to labeling those workers whose employment had been sacrificed to greed and profit as part of the “undeserving poor”; the “bludgers”. While not as obvious as Stanley Bruce’s Joe Hockey’s attack on welfare recipients’ “sense of entitlement” it is nonetheless of a similar vein.

In the eleventh hour before the budget announcement the Government leaked details of payments for low and middle-income families with boosts to the Family Tax Benefit A and some welfare programmes. When the Budget was announced extra measures to redistribute wealth were announced: the removal of tax concessions on Super contributions and (some) termination payouts for high-income earners as well as reforms to non-work income of minors to prevent parental tax dodging (or bludging, as it were).

This appears to have mostly distracted the media from reporting on the important and targeted cuts to vulnerable groups in the community. As well as failing to grant a rise in Newstart as suggested by ACOSS et al., the Government has decided to revoke parenting payments to unemployed parents with unemployed couples losing the benefit on the child’s sixth birthday and single parents losing it on their eighth. For single mothers, who undoubtedly comprise the vast majority of single parents, this is an additional burden on an already susceptible section of the community.

The decision to sacrifice the social security of the needy to post a surplus is evidence of Labor’s abandonment of traditional values (contrary to their claims the Budget supports them) and of moral bankruptcy on the part of our country’s economic planners. The only people demanding an immediate return to surplus are the conservatives and it is to the chagrin of the entire labour movement that the ALP has decided to play their game. Prioritising financial security to the detriment or destruction of social security has devastating effects on the less fortunate and, as the riots in Europe show, can have catastrophic consequences.

Though my confidence in the matter wanes daily I still believe the Labor Party is very much the lesser of two great evils. A Coalition government, whether led by Tony Abbott or any other, still poses a greater threat to Australia and should be avoided and fought at every opportunity. The Labor Party also deserves constant, and harsh, critique.

In closing, a short quote from a very unlikely source; the Herald Sun:

“If I ran my family finances this way, I’d be in jail.”

Newstart and the Inadequacies of Australian Welfare

Rachel Siewert’s recent  ‘social experiment’ – pretending to live on Newstart payments – for a week is little more than a cheap political stunt that demonstrates her own naïveté and ignorance as much as it does that of the wider public. One would have thought that Australians did not need the simple truth of Australian welfare leaving workers in a parlous situation rammed down their throats in such a crude manner. Yet, as if to prove me wrong, AMP yesterday released a report saying that we’ve never had it better.

“How can it be that we’ve had 20 years of uninterrupted economic prosperity with very low inflation yet the cost of living remains a hot topic?”

From the report it would seem that the worsening financial situation of part of the population is okay because a) they’re poor, b) it is necessary for the economy to function with inequality and unemployment and c) they probably brought it upon themselves anyway.

Ostensibly, an attempt to point out the deficiencies of Australia’s welfare programme should be welcomed. However, I fail to see what Senator Siewert could have learned from her ‘experiment’ that could not have been learned through basic research and enquiry: frankly, her time and effort would have been more wisely invested in consulting with those in the situation she was trying to imitate.

Even the emotional impact would have been but a shadow of the reality: the Fairfax article covering the Senator’s ‘experiment’ begins by mentioning that the strict budget would not permit her to buy toothpaste if she ran out midweek and later mentions her apprehension about car troubles given that “the $12 in her wallet would not cover a new battery let alone a tow truck.” I find it hard to believe that someone on a base salary of $185,000 a year[PDF] would experience the same dread and cold-sweat panic that comes when you think that you won’t have enough money for the items being bagged and that you don’t have any other money to call on.

Senator Siewert could not have been more accurate when she declared her experience “would only scratch the surface of what jobseekers on Newstart have to go through” given that she continued to live in her “four-bedroom, two-bathroom house” rather than the one room apartment that she had budgeted for. Maybe the Senator didn’t have a sufficient credit rating, appropriate referees or enough money to pay the bond. It is also worth pointing out that, according to the ABC, 60% of Newstart recipients remain on payments for over 12 months, lowering to 20% after five years. One week is not long enough to experience the full mental and physical effects of being forced to live day-to-day.

It would be hard for such an ‘experiment’ to be completely useless and Senator Siewert does raise some valuable points, particularly on budgeting for a proper diet. In the ABC’s The Drum:

“Eating well on Newstart was impossible, even for a vegetarian. I ran out of vegetables on day five, and by the last day was down to eggs on toast for dinner.”

Amongst the several dangers of prepared meals and fast food are their cheapness. For those who are unused to having to budget strictly or who do not have fantastic cooking skills it may seem more economic and easier to just buy a prepared meal from the local butcher or get takeaway; there’s a reason students are renowned for living on Ramen noodles and EasyMac. It is also difficult when trying to cater for people with fussy eating habits: anyone who has cooked for a man over the age of 40 who has ever described salad as “rabbit food” or generally regards it with suspicion knows that, up until their first heart attack, most efforts to change their diets are futile. Considering a leg of lamb might cost $40 and even chicken breast can be up around $10-12 per kilo, sausages and products made from mechanically separated meat may be the only viable choice. With this in mind I find AMP’s inclusion of prepared meals in the ‘luxury item’ category unfair and quite disingenuous.

AMP’s report also includes tobacco and alcohol in the ‘luxury’ category and I was quite surprised to see no mention of either in the media surrounding Senator Siewert’s ‘experiment’. One might judge smokers and drinkers for lacking personal and moral integrity but this glosses over the fact that both tobacco and alcohol are addictive and that both can and are used as coping mechanisms. Obviously both are self-destructive habits and people who find themselves relying on either need to be given assistance but addiction is not something guaranteed to be solved by quitting cold turkey. In any case, having a go at someone for squandering their pittance on an addiction is rather pointless.

I also notice that Senator Siewert did not mention the process of applying for Newstart, the requirements of receiving payments or the impact of means-testing on her final payment level. Though Youth Allowance and Newstart are administered differently I would be surprised if Newstart recipients were not also subjected to the same level of invasive scrutiny as Youth Allowance recipients that results in swingeing cuts in the final payment level, being instructed by Centrelink staff to end relationships, liquidate and disburse any assets and to increase expenditure so that the Commonwealth can see that you are in need. I would also have been interested to learn of the impact of Centrelink on the suicide rate of Newstart recipients and applicants given their appalling treatment of ‘customers’.

Finally, I am curious about the Greens’ call for a $50 per week raise in Newstart. A report conducted by The Australia Institute suggested that Australians consider $454 per week ($65 per day) to be the amount necessary to support a single adult and that unemployed people should get $329 per week ($47 per day). If the Greens were successful in their bid to up Newstart, recipients would still be receiving $60 per week less than the population thinks they should – nearly $200 less than the amount needed to support a single adult. I do not know whether the Greens and ACOSS chose this number because it would be more palatable with the electorate but in any case it is still insufficient.

The harshest criticism must go to Wayne Swan for refusing to grant the rise in order that Australia might post a minor surplus at the end of next financial year and to Jenny Macklin for continuing with plans to quarantine welfare in low socio-economic areas after July this year, thus normalising and spreading the unjust discrimination and moral judgement that drives the Northern Territory Intervention.

Critical Thinking and #stopkony

#Stopkony is a worrying viral campaign conducted by Invisible Children Inc. Already claims are coming out that Invisible Children is a pretty terrible charity for passing on funds to their targets and they are also reputed to be linked to and financiers of the Ugandan military.

ICI Founders pose with weapons and the Ugandan military.

Perhaps it’s crap – I’m not sure you really can support any side in Uganda without being an accessory to rape, murder, kidnappings and all the rest.

Either way, violence will never solve the problem until it reaches genocidal proportions and either one or both sides are completely killed off. Something needs to be done to break the cycle of poverty and violence and get Ugandan society on the track to something more constructive.

The outpouring of unthinking support for the #stopkony campaign seems to me the result of a largely jaded or uncaring population finding an inkling of humanity within themselves and then beating their chests with the issue as penance. Worryingly, many people seem to have gotten behind #stopkony with very little critical thought and even when presented with evidence that ICI favours violent interventions, funds the military and only passes on about 1/3 of all donations to Uganda still refuse to reconsider. I also find it morally reprehensible that a charity that made nearly $5m last year would ask people to BUY posters and ‘action packs’ to raise awareness – most charities and activist groups either give away the posters or make them free for download. This is just profiteering.

Here follow some of the more worryingly blind statements I’ve found regarding #stopkony on the Melbourne awareness page alone.

“…if it all turns out that this is a big manipulation, oh well…i know i will still sleep at night knowing at least i fucking botherd, lost a few bucks and had to watch a video, and hang with my buds for a night…shit! who cares…”

“Honestly if you can do one thing to help the world, why NOT do this? yes, maybe $1 of 10 goes to Uganda but that’s $1 more than they had”

“I’ve just donated on the Invisible Children Site, then come on here to find people whinging and moaning. It’s money, who cares. We make more of it everyday.”

“There will ALWAYS be critics!!!! You negative people make me sick. Finally someone is doing something TRULY significant about this horrendous issue and people protest. Jealous much visible children organisation supporters?????”

There was also this curious post which I think illustrates the lack of understanding being shown by a lot of people:

“It’s a war that needs to be fort . Governments are happy to go to war over oil what about over a child’s right to feel safe.
There a many types of war and I believe this is the type we should have more of …”

If both sides are conscripting children into their armies, who would the intervening armies kill? Children? If so, how can this ever guarantee children’s right to feel safe?

TPPA: Operation Lunchables

During a quieter period of our protest against the TPPA negotiations a group of us decided to walk along the Yarra do bridge-drops with our largest anti-TPPA banner. However, as we were making our way to the river we were given a tip off that the United States delegates were having a working lunch at the Hilton restaurant right next to us. Before the police or hotel security could block us off from the restaurant we gathered by the windows surrounding their table and let the delegates know we were watching.

American Copyright Delegates

The striped pattern along one glass wall and the reflection of the Exhibition Centre’s columns in the other wall made the corner of the restaurant the delegates were dining in look rather like a cage; a fitting environs for those inside. We had been warned off banging against the glass during the earlier action (because it kills the fish) so we refrained from doing so against the restaurant’s windows but we made ourselves heard in other ways.

Protesting the Lunchtime Deal

Shouting gave way to chants and when the police arrived to keep an eye on us we pulled out the loudhailer. Yikes was first, using the loudhailer to make noises that would make angry cats envious and from there it was passed around while other comrades handed out flyers to passers-by who were intrigued by what was going on.

Yikes Disrupting the Lunchers

One Occupier who had copped a bit of ribbing for sleeping in and missing the first action of the day managed to more than make up for it by being barred from the hotel restaurant for buying a coffee – he had employed that wonderful Occupy tactic of ‘looking like a normal person’ to walk straight into the restaurant, order his coffee and have a chat with a few of the delegates inside. When told by one diner that “he had ruined [his] lunch”, the Occupier responded by declaring that the TPPA would ruin more than his lunch if it was passed.

Scott, or ‘John’ to the police, was pulled aside when he emerged from the restaurant and informed by a policeman decked out in riot gear that he had been banned from the restaurant. The officer then tried to get ‘John’ to prove his identity but he knew his rights and refused, leaving the officer no option but to back down.

"John" Being Shown Where VicPol Keeps Their Notebooks

After about an hour and a half of harassing the delegates we decided to move on to our original task of showing off our banner and made our way to the Yarra. Starting at the Convention Centre footbridge we hung the banner over each bridge leading up the Yarra and made our way to Fed Square with Nick Carson speaking to the public via loudhailer at each stop.

Occupy TPPA

Bridge Drop Squad (Picture: Professor Jane Kelsey)

The Forgotten American Presence in North Shore (Geelong) During WWII

Recently a story came to light that a researcher in Queensland had uncovered documents that showed there had been a major mutiny amongst American soldiers stationed in Townsville during the Second World War. The mutiny was a very violent affair: black soldiers, fed up with constant racial abuse, turned machine guns and anti-aircraft guns on their comrades’ tents and held strong during an eight hour-siege that killed one person and injured many more.

The mutiny’s discovery was moment of felicity for the researcher, Ray Holyoak, who had been investigating the visit of Congressman (later President) Lyndon B Johnson to Townsville during 1942. As Townsville had a large American presence during the war there was quite a likelihood that the visit was just a routine affair but, as the documents show, it coincided with one of the worst uprisings in US military history.

Most interesting to me was the revelation that the documents confirmed local lore that told of an uprising amongst American soldiers stationed in Townsville during the war. The secretive nature of information collected by governments during wars means that it is easy for fascinating stories and events to be squirreled away and forgotten and without local legends to act as pointers for researchers luck quickly becomes the determining factor as to whether those stories and events will be lost forever.

A year or two ago I was given an essay to read: an auto-biographical account of Bryan Power’s childhood and adolescence in North Shore, Victoria during World War Two and the post-war years. Power discussed how the International Harvester tractor factory at North Shore had been taken over by the RAAF for war-time production of aircraft, a not unusual occurrence in industrial areas during the war. However, he went on to say that in 1942 the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) had taken control of the area, converted the paddocks into an airfield, brought in Kittyhawks and tested machine guns for the planes.

The conversions of factories in Geelong during the war is well known but, as I found out, the American base established at North Shore in 1942 is practically unheard of: when I first started looking for information about the assembly of Kittyhawks in North Shore there was a total dearth of information. There were a few articles from the Geelong Advertiser and other local papers about test flights and crashes during the war, information about a Spitfire base near Lara and a secret training base near Cressy but nothing mentioned North Shore or Kittyhawks.

Similarly, the RAAF Museum at Point Cook was unable to find out any extra information about an American base in North Shore, though they did confirm that the International Harvester factory had been used to assemble Fairey Battles and other equipment.

Finally I had a stroke of luck. On a whim I had emailed the American Air Force Historical Studies Office in Washington to ask whether they had any information about a training, testing or manufacturing base for Kittyhawks in North Shore and a few days later I received a reply with scans of documents containing information about the use of the International Harvester factory by the Americans.

From the documents I learned that on the 13^th of January, 1942, the USS Mariposa and USS President Coolidge had departed San Francisco for Melbourne. They carried a cargo of 51 P-40Es (Kittyhawks), 19 P-39Ds and 200 tons of aircraft parts along with a number of units including the Fourth Air Depot Group (ADG) of the Fifth Air Force. An internal report on the Fourth Air Depot Group says that when the men arrived in early February they found a thriving and humming city in Melbourne were surprised to land at a spot that resembled so closely an up-to-date American city.

Some of the men in the Fourth ADG were sent to Laverton, others to Essendon or Broome and a few were sent to the International Harvester factory in Geelong where they started work assembling the aircraft that had been shipped with them. Though brief, the documents did confirm that the Americans had operated a base in North Shore.

A little while later I stumbled across an article written by Walt Cornell, an American who had served in the Fourth ADG during the war and briefly been posted to Geelong. The section on his time in Geelong is brief (he only spent two months at Geelong before being posted to Essendon) but it does corroborate Power’s essay and the documents from Washington.

Of particular interest is Cornell’s claim that relations between American servicemen and the locals had remained good even after a man had been shot as a suspected saboteur after being caught climbing on one of the planes at the base. Power’s essay also mentions a saboteur being shot at on the base but with one major difference: he says the only casualty was Phil Widman’s cow. It is quite possible that they are both describing the same event.

On a lighter note, Cornell also elaborates on a fairly euphemistic note in an internal report on the Fourth ADG. After detailing the arrival of the Fourth ADG in Melbourne and the various bases it was stationed at the report mentions that the men “had a troublesome time acquiring a taste for the Australian methods of preparing food.” Or, as Cornell put it, “I believe then was when I began developing a strong dislike for mutton and lamb; a dislike that grew to gagging proportions and has remained with me since.”

Further Observations on the Tent Embassy debacle.

The night of the Tent Embassy protest I wrote this piece (below) and sent it off with hopes of it being published. The media portrayal of the protest had painted all involved as hellcats, violent and spitting fury, and only stopped short of describing Ms Gillard’s position as mortally perilous by the smallest of linguistic margins.

Since the protest there have been a number of developments: Julia Gillard’s press secretary was forced to resign after having been outed as the person who leaked the information about Mr Abbott’s whereabouts to someone connected to the movement; his contact was revealed to be a senior union member (I will admit to having had very limited dealings with her regarding the National Museum of Labour); Ms Gillard has absolved herself of all blame; the AFP has absolved itself of all blame; about half a dozen viewpoints from the protesters side have been made, some positive, others not; and the Liberal Party has been baying for Ms Gillard’s blood, accusing her of orchestrating the event for her own gain. Even Mr Wilkie, an unlikely contributor before the rejection of his pokies deal, has agreed to vote in favour of a no confidence discussion when Parliament resumes.

Reading the news now it seems that our Government is on the verge of collapse and that Ms Gillard is facing challenges from within and without; with pissed off independents and a recent poll showing the Coalition ahead in the 2PP vote it seems we may soon have a new Prime Minister.

But then again, the media has shown such a level of incompetence in the last few days that I doubt they would be able to report on their arse if they were sitting on a photocopier. News of Gillard’s government facing challenges from within and without has been printed so often that I’m beginning to suspect that it’s part of a game in which the reporter changes one word per article to form a secret code (hint: “We can’t believe you’re still buying this shit”). As Jacob Appelbaum said, the business of Government is information management; it chooses which bits of information get passed on or leaked and to whom. It seems that the Gillard government (or at least some of its members) wants people to know that it is held together merely by the desire to remain in power.

As for the efforts of the Coalition to force a criminal investigation of the protest I can’t help but remember the Grech affair when Malcom Turnbull and the Coalition carried on like pork-chops in a failed effort to embarrass Kevin Rudd and to make so much noise that no one would notice that they were lying. Politicians are generally well skilled in seizing on something small and blowing it completely out of proportion to embarrass their opponents and relish the opportunity to do so. I wouldn’t expect any less of them in this case.

So, wait. The Gillard government is in trouble, as usual. The opposition is carrying on and beating their chests, as usual. The media is hyping things up to make things sound more urgent, as usual.

I’m beginning to see a pattern here.

It’s not entirely inconceivable that the Government will lose power if a no confidence motion is debated. The real worry is that Tony Abbott might end up as Prime Minister and that the Gillard government will have set the bar for ALP amateurism even lower than Gough Whitlam’s record.

*

The Tent Embassy Protest and the Media (27/1)

When the news broke yesterday that the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader had been trapped inside a restaurant near Old Parliament House by violent Tent Embassy Protesters it sounded like things had turned ugly. Fresh news articles didn’t help the situation, describing the scenes as violent and chaotic and photos showing a terrified Prime Minister made it clear that things had gotten out of hand at the protest.

Oh, no, I thought. They’ve over done it. I could understand protesting Mr Abbott’s comments about the Tent Embassy being irrelevant but I didn’t think it required the response that had been detailed in the news.

Then Channel 9 released video footage of Ms Gillard being evacuated from the restaurant and I noticed something: there were more police officers and journalists near the Prime Minister than there were protesters. In fact, other than two or three protesters who had gotten caught in the scrum as they ran from the restaurant, there were no protesters near the Prime Minister. Claims of police having to push through a crowd just weren’t backed up by the footage.

When a friend who was at the Tent Embassy contacted me that afternoon I asked her for more information about what was going on so that I could try and get a clearer picture of the real story. Some of what had been reported was true: there were about 200 people protesting; they were angry and noisy; the protest had been called in response to Tony Abbott’s comments earlier that morning.

But there were also large errors or omissions that had not been reported widely. While various outlets had described a violent, rowdy crowd surrounding the restaurant the worst of the violence before Ms Gillard was evacuated was people banging on the glass. Not, I would have thought, grounds to scramble the riot squad. After she was evacuated there was violence: one or two protesters threw water bottles and water at the ComCar with Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott in it and, as various videos show, a number of protesters were hit in the head by police officers. Probably the most violent person at the protest was the police officer photographed waving a large can of capsicum spray near the faces of protesters before pushing over two protesters and a journalist.

The aim of the protest was to get Mr Abbott to come outside and elaborate on his comments about the Tent Embassy being irrelevant and needing to be moved on; the protesters didn’t even know Ms Gillard was with him until about 10 or 15 minutes after arriving and, when they realised, their aim became to get both of them to come out and address the crowd. When the small crowd of riot police ran into the restaurant and locked them in the protesters thought that they were planning to form some sort of guard around Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott so that they could address the crowd.

Instead they decided to evacuate the two of them and, to be honest, I’m not surprised Ms Gillard looked terrified: her bodyguard practically dragged her to the car, the Prime Minister tucked under his arm like a red-haired football, and then proceeded to almost throw her into the car head first. Mr Abbott, on the other hand, got into the car quite casually.

Though angry crowds are quite intimidating I seriously doubt that Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott were at any serious risk. I think Ms Gillard will come to rue her evacuation as John Howard did his appearance wearing a bullet-proof vest following the Port Arthur Massacre.

Maybe Mr Abbott should have been more tactful in his remarks; maybe the protesters should have lined up and politely made their point or remained quiet so as not to disturb those inside; this article isn’t intended to address those concerns. Nor is this an attempt to label all Australian Federal Police violent and incompetent – I was in Canberra when there was a massive factory fire last August and had to be evacuated in the middle of the night. I only have praise for their efforts that night and would not like to tar them all with the same brush.

Yet, on Australia Day, they over-reacted to a perceived threat, made the Prime Minister look ridiculous and managed to get a non-violent protest labelled a violent riot. The protest was neither a riot nor “an unprecedented outburst of violence” (compare it to the eviction of Occupy Melbourne) and before the media sets about patting itself on the back it should address these discrepancies and report the incident more accurately.

Poll: Who Do You Think Is To Blame?

 Loading ...

The Tent Embassy Debacle from A Protester’s POV

In Canberra, in front of Old Parliament House (also known as the Museum of Democracy) is the First Nation’s Tent Embassy, first established in 1972 by four Aboriginal activists who wanted to draw attention to the plight and inequality of Indigenous Australians. 2012 is the 40^th anniversary of the establishment of the Embassy and so a large gathering was organised for this Australia/Invasion day.

The Tent Embassy managed to get a lot of press today (26/1) after a large protest was held that resulted in Australian Federal Police and protective services dragging Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to their ComCars and massively over-reacting to the presence of protesters at the site. But what really happened?

Speaking to Sam Castro, currently at the Tent Embassy, I was able to get a run down of the day’s events.

The morning started with speeches being made at the Tent Embassy on a range of subjects until one person stood up and explained to the crowd that Tony Abbott had remarked to the media that he believed the Tent Embassy was no longer relevant and should be packed up and moved on; information had just come through that Tony Abbott was at The Lobby, a restaurant near the Old Parliament House, and the suggestion was made that the group should go there and ask Abbott to talk to the crowd and explain himself.

A contingent of about 100 protesters made their way up the road to The Lobby and surrounded it. Though they were loud and noisy they were non-violent. Security blocked the protesters from getting close to the restaurant for a while but it didn’t take long for a few protesters to break the line and soon the rest had gotten close up against the restaurant’s walls. As the walls of The Lobby are made of glass the protesters could look in and see Mr Abbott and the others pretending not to hear them and, after about ten or fifteen minutes Julia Gillard’s white jacket was recognised and the protesters realised that she was in there along with Mr Abbott.

The aim of the protest had been to get Mr. Abbott to come out and talk to the crowd – now it wanted to get Ms. Gillard to come out and do the same as well. Yet they continued to ignore the protesters, drink champagne and take photos of one another while their constituents tried to get their attention.

A short time later a contingent of riot police and protective service officers arrived at the restaurant. All up there were about 50 to 60 officers there and protesters watched on as a group of about 20 riot police hurtled past them in V-formation, bursting into the restaurant and then locking themselves inside.

When I spoke to Sam she said that the protesters thought the riot police were arranging to form a sort of guard around the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader so that they could come out and talk to the crowd but, as the rest of the media has shown, the riot police’s real objective was to ‘escort’ the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader to their cars.

As more protesters made their way to the restaurant, the riot police charged out the doors, practically dragging Ms Gillard along, while the onlookers began to shout “where are you going?” and “why won’t you talk to us?” As the cars drove off, some people threw plastic water bottles and water at the cars.

At this point things began to get fairly nasty; one protester was knocked into the rose bushes and one gigantic cop started brandishing a can of tear gas or capsicum spray (reports differ on this point) in people’s faces and shoved Sam, another girl and a female photo-journalist in the head. When Sam told him to calm down he reportedly bared his teeth and grinned so widely his eyes nearly popped out of his head; to many on site it was fairly clear that the officer was barely under control.

Then the police began to link arms to form a line against the protesters and the protesters followed suit, ending up with a Mexican standoff. Some of the Indigenous Elders called for the protesters to return to the Tent Embassy but a female Elder began a non-violent sit-down protest in the road just down from the café and soon a line of Indigenous women, female Elders and non-Indigenous women had been formed across the road.

The women declared that they were not going to be intimidated by the police and that they would not move until the police stood down. While some of the other protesters returned to the Tent Embassy, a large group (including some of the Occupy Melbourne contingent) remained to watch on and support their fellow activists until the police eventually gave in and stood down.

As the remaining protesters made their way back to the Tent Embassy they were greeted by applause and the female protesters went through a cleansing smoke ceremony.

*

A few final points:

• Contrary to some reports, the protest was not “an unprecedented outburst of violence”; in fact the only violence on the day was done by police and protective services (See 0:15, 0:41 and 0:42 in this video and 0:15 and 0:45 in this one).
• The protesters were unaware that Julia Gillard was in the restaurant until some time after the action had started.
• The aim of the protest was merely to get Mr Abbott to speak to the crowd, not to assault him or anything like that.
• The massive over-reaction of protective services and the Australian Federal Police resulted in Ms Gillard losing her shoe, protesters being assaulted and pretty much everyone but the protesters looking like a bunch of dills.

EDIT: The fact that the protest was neither a “riot” nor violent is best shown in footage taken by Channel 9 (of all organisations) that clearly shows a lack of protesters anywhere near the PM as they’re evacuated.

So, in summary: the protest was non-violent, the police over-reacted and Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott still won’t listen to ordinary Australians.

UPDATE: The Tent Embassy protesters retrieved Ms. Gillard’s shoe after it came off and are planning to auction it on eBay.

UPDATE 2: Ms Gillard’s shoe is reportedly going to be used as an incentive to open dialogue with Ms Gillard about a First Nation’s treaty.

UPDATE 3: Footage from the ABC (see below) shows protesters banging on the windows of the restaurant and shouting “Shame!” and “Racist!”, which some might construe as violent. Even so, those who did bang on the windows were n the minority and it has nothing on the violence used against protesters by police (shown immediately after in the footage).

UPDATE 4: Another eyewitness account dismissing the claims of violence/a riot has been added by Mike Stuchbery:

“After another 5 minutes or so, the crowd grew larger and the chants became a bit more organised and you could hear knocking on the windows. It is at this stage that a few police cars start to turn up and officers jump out and run towards the building. The police surrounded the restaurant to create a barrier, the banging on the windows stopped, and a constant chant of “always was, always will be, Aboriginal land” started up, which continued until the two were taken out of the Lobby. It was at this point that Em and John (wife and uncle) were walking around and having a look at what was going on. Now… as emphasised yesterday, Em is pregnant with twins… if there protests were in any way violent, I would have got all paternal and walked Em away. There was almost no prospect of violence.”

UPDATE 5: A THIRD eyewitness account dismisses claims of a riot (courtesy Amy McQuire of Crikey):

“But while there was anger, it was far from a “riot”. A riot involves violence and a disturbing of the peace. While it was definitely a loud demonstration, there was no damage. A few smudged fingerprints on the glass of the restaurant was the net result. There were about 1000 protesters around the café when Gillard and Abbott were rushed through their own mob of security guards.”

Wil Wallace: Jacob Appelbaum Visits #OMEL (The Digest, 24/1/12)

During the 20^th Century many journalists sought to make careers by traveling to distant and dangerous locations to interview rebel leaders, tyrants and criminals for stories that would titillate their readers. In the 21^st century this has continued, though the development of digital technology and communications has brought changes: media can now operate with much greater flexibility, transmitting footage and text from even the most hostile environments; and the role of the citizen has become much more important to media creation.

Changes in technology and communications have also had their effect on society (Australian, Western and Global) and in the 21^st century the list of exciting and alluring interview targets has been expanded to include hackers, cyber criminals and hacktivists.

When mainstream journalists write of hackers and hacktivists the characters they create often fall into one of two stereotypes: the nervous, fidgety and suspicious kind who, if they can be coaxed out for a meet, are laconic and somewhat coy; and the young, cocky and flamboyant types who have prospered from their efforts (illegal and legal). Maybe, if you’re lucky, they interview the hacker brought back to earth by the law or their colleagues.

Jacob Appelbaum fits none of these categories: he is a very normal person. When he spoke at Occupy Melbourne it was almost as though he had materialised out of thin air; wearing his characteristic shirt, emblazoned with the slogan “Be the trouble you want to see in the world…”, and softly spoken his positive and inviting rhetoric drew in a crowd that swelled from a dozen or so people to over eighty near the end.

Appelbaum covered a range of topics: the state and wrongness of American surveillance of civilians and activists; the collaboration of Facebook with law enforcement agencies; the stockpiling and exploitation of personal data by intelligence agencies and online businesses alike; the need for Australia to recognise that Julian Assange is an Australian and that our government has done all but nothing to help him; and the unconfirmed admission by someone in the Australian telecommunications industry that the Australian government had established interception and monitoring rooms within telecommunications facilities, much like the NSA in the United States.

Appelbaum also spoke about Tor (the Onion router) and its applications for online communications by activists. He was quick to assure us that Tor was not 100 per cent safe and that doesn’t provide anything more than anonymity (which can be undone with sufficient resources and patience) but offered tips on how to minimise the possibility of identification while using Tor.

Possibly most importantly, and definitely most controversially (Hi NOSIC!), Appelbaum also called on Occupy Melbourne and other activist groups to actively work to expose Government spying on citizens, to infiltrate spying organisations to learn from them and to create change and to use the tactics being employed against activists against those doing the spying.

Appelbaum’s visit to Australia has been assisted in no small way by Senator Scott Ludlam who wrote a letter of recommendation to ensure Appelbaum’s entry into the country and who accompanied Appelbaum as a speaker at “War on the Internet” (click for videos of the event), a speaker and panel session hosted by the Melbourne Trades Hall on Internet security and surveillance. We thank them both for coming down to Occupy Melbourne.

Wil Wallace: In Support of Reform [Rather than Revolution] (Occupied Times of London, 20/1/12) #auspol #OLSX

Nearly every activist has a place for revolution in his or her political toolbox. Some treasure it as their most precious tool, constantly polishing it up and yearning for the day when it can be put to good use; others hide it away at the bottom of the deepest drawers and instead choosing to use strikes, lobbying or legislative change to achieve their ends.

The appeal is obvious: with the option of revolution we can dream of smashing the system, destroying the structures that confine us and rebuilding our society for the betterment of all its members. Yet revolution is an unwieldy tool and indiscriminate in its manner. As Godwin said, “Revolutions are the produce of passion, not of sober and tranquil reason.”

One might also suggest that for a revolution to provide a satisfactory result for all involved would require a level of unity and common purpose that is not usually found in human societies. It might be possible to unite the masses to depose a brutal dictator or an unfair polity but, when they come together afterwards to define the new state, the dream can too easily be destroyed by factionalism and ego.

In Australia there is not much of a culture of revolution: the few incidents that resemble anything close to revolution (the Rum Rebellion and the Eureka Stockade) came early in our history and are only celebrated and remembered by descendants of the original participants or those who view them as the stuff of legend. This is not to say that there haven’t been struggles or that Australians are totally apathetic; we have a long history of dissent and protest. Instead what it means is that we have found reform a more accessible and effective tool for effecting change.

Reform is a slow and painstaking process but the small steps it takes can help to direct cultural changes that will, in turn, drive further reform. Reform is useful for those who want to effect change because the process of gradual reform softens the blow of change – this is something the Right knows and has put to great use to support the 1%. The Big 4 banks (the major Australian banks) are also employing reform as a technique to trick consumers into accepting their extortionate business practices and in talking to people and reading what they have written online it is clear that the Big 4 are enjoying a lot of success in this endeavour.

For reform to be effective for the progressive cause we must take the reins and direct it in favour of the most disadvantaged and disaffected, rather than the 1%. We can make major reforms to address serious and immediate problems and we can chip away with smaller reform; either way we need to utilise the cultural change inspired by the Occupy movement to help the 99%.