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?

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.”

On the Future of Occupy Melbourne. #auspol

Occupy Melbourne (OMEL) is in a dire situation.

For many reasons, some of which I shall go in to, we find ourselves in the situation where our numbers have been decimated, several of our most active members can not or will not come on-site and where a significant numbers of Occupiers are suffering malaise.

If we are to recover – and I am not at all confident that we can, or will – we need to decide whether OMEL is a protest or a movement, change or maintain our structures and processes accordingly and, in any case, take a more proactive role in finding solutions to the problems we perceive in Australia and the world.

The Occupy Movement came from a feeling of disenfranchisement and disillusionment with the system and recognition that conventional forms of dissent had proved fruitless. By Occupying, our discontent took on a physical form and we could create a community where like-minded people could come together, we could educate the public and through collaboration we could find solutions.

However, since the Eviction I feel that we have concentrated on voicing our discontent without taking real steps to have our concerns addressed. At first we could get away with dismissing people’s enquiries about what solutions we were proposing by inviting them to take part in the discussion and by relegating the need to find solutions to the more immediate concern of survival. Yet in doing so we lost the chance to attract and engage the large part of the population who were interested in OMEL and who might have supported us in person or otherwise. It is interesting and important to note that there are quite a number of people in the public who will admit to sympathising with the Occupy movement without explicitly supporting it.

More importantly, it is vital that we take stock of how OMEL is viewed by the public and written about in the mainstream media (MSM). When we have a mere handful of people loudly disparaging OMEL we might afford to ignore them; however, when the aggregate view of OMEL is that it is a movement for people who really like sitting in parks we need to accept that this is how we are viewed and act accordingly to fix it!

It is my belief that one way to fix this is to move from a position where we, as a group, say, “We are ANGRY!” to one where we say, “This is what we want to do about it!”

I do not expect us to have answers for everything, nor do I expect us to try and find a solution to every problem. Sometimes our role might be to lobby MPs, Unions or other people/organisations to pull their finger out and do something. Other times we might be able to put forward a solution and fight to have it enacted. When we discuss problems we need to quickly move from discussing the point that we agree it’s wrong to finding a way to rectify it.

Apart from anything else I cannot see how we could achieve anything by solely concentrating on making sure that people know we’re dissatisfied. I think they get it now – what people want to know, and what will get people back into the fold, is what we plan to do.

As I wrote in the Geelong Advertiser OMEL is a movement unified by a target rather than a doctrine and this gives us unique challenges. Apart from anything else it means that we don’t have a default position to fall back on when trying to find solutions. Taking the example of the Qantas lockout, other activist bodies might have been governed by a philosophy that would enable them, at the drop of a hat, to come out in support of re-nationalising the airline; others might have been able to immediately call for the dismissal of the Directors and the CEO. OMEL needs to take all of these positions into consideration and through consultation arrive at a policy that we can push through Direct Actions and Occupation. That we have not done this is a serious failing of OMEL.

We also need to make the decision about whether OMEL is a protest or a movement; are we using the tactics of Occupation and Direct Action to address a specific complaint or are we a movement concerned about a wider range of issues that can use various tactics as part of targeted campaigns against certain issues?

Both options have their merits, both have their problems. The second option (which I will openly say I prefer) opens up the possibility of OMEL assuming an educational role for the public while seeking change through action. If OMEL confirms itself as a movement we can create campaigns to educate the public about how greed, corruption and transparency affects them as Australian citizens; it means we can educate people about the follies of paying little attention to your Superannuation. Etc., etc.

And finally, I want to remind people that Occupying is only a part of a means to an end. It is a tactic. As the last month at Flagstaff and South Melbourne have shown, Occupying by itself achieves nothing. Occupying for the sake of Occupying is as dangerous as abandoning Occupying altogether.

Given our serious problems with numbers, the loss of prominent members of the movement for various reasons (temporary and more permanent) and our waning presence in the public consciousness we are in danger of reaching the point of no return or where, if we can return to some level of activity, we will be greeted with the response of “…you still exist?”

Going on my experience of how quickly things change in OMEL I believe that unless sincere and effective moves are made to revitalise the movement we will not survive in any appreciable way beyond a week, or two weeks at the maximum.

For those most invested in the movement this will be devastating but for the hundreds of people who have come and gone already, it will not be that surprising.

I think it would be a great pity to see OMEL fall apart like this and I think we can be proud of the huge cultural impact we have had in the past few months: when activists hold sit-ins the news and the people now say that they are “Occupying” something; the 99% has entered our cultural lexicon; and, above all else, people are actually thinking more about the economic unfairness of our world.

I suggest that we accept our past, refuse to dwell on it (though this doesn’t mean fail to learn from it) and instead plan for the future. If we don’t, we are doomed.

A Friendly Exchange With Sir Robert [Review: Letters to my Daughter, R. G. Menzies]

Letters to My Daughter is a collection of letters written by former-Prime Minister Sir Robert “Bob” Menzies to his daughter, Heather Henderson, between 1955 and 1975.

It might come as something of a surprise that someone of my political bent would have an interest in reading about Bob Menzies, father of the Australian Liberals, especially given that in my recent research Menzies featured as the spectre of evil, Money and Conservatism. There are numerous reasons why I decided to pick up Letters; suffice it to say I was interested to discover more about the man himself, about conservative Australian politics in the period covered by the book and to read about the man from a less hostile viewpoint than the Australian Communist Party.

And what a joy it turned out to be! Menzies and his daughter enjoyed a close and friendly relationship, as is evident in the letters, and they give the reader an excellent insight into the personal lives of the Menzies, of the Australian political scene and, to a lesser extent, British and American politics. Henderson has done an excellent job of editing the letters together and annotating them with information that makes sense of quotes and references that might otherwise slip by the reader.

Menzies was no less a writer than he was a speaker. Being a man of an age when education inspired rich, witty and intelligent conversation the letters are interesting and amusing at once when dealing with trivial matters and more serious concerns. On receiving news that his daughter had given birth to her second daughter Menzies wrote:

“When the news came during a luncheon I was giving at Parliament House, I fell into a sort of trance of pleasure. …True, as I wrote to you previously, I would have liked a grandson. As against this, and speaking solely from my own experience, I love daughters. There are other compensations. Probably on the principle of physics that ‘action and re-action are equal and opposite’, a boy would have grown up to be a Communist MP, treating my memory with proletarian disrespect!”

His analysis of issues in Australian and international politics are also very interesting and, more often than not, quite accurate. His views on American elections, John F. Kennedy, “Dick” Nixon are fascinating, especially when placed into the context of how events turned out.

After his exit from politics, Menzies felt that while the world “[had] moved on, and that [he perhaps had] not moved with it”:

“The London Times used to be regarded as the sheet anchor of the reflective man, but every time I open it now the front page is devoted either to the death of the manager of the Beatles (with a subsequent obituary notice to which I could never aspire myself), or to the caperings of some of the eccentrics in the current generation called ‘Flower People’ or something.”

Certainly his attitude towards Australian politicians and politics grew more critical as the years progressed; in some of the earlier letters Menzies writes of “Brother Bert” (H. V. Evatt) and other contemporaries more sympathetically than I had expected but by the early 1970s politicians on both sides of the House were subjected to Menzies’ sharp criticism. Perhaps the change is due to the evolving relationship between father and daughter; perhaps it is due to age – either way it is clear that Menzies had a dire opinion of the Liberal Party in his final years and did not think much of the younger generation that was taking over his party.

I specifically mention this because Menzies is often cited as an inspiration for modern-day Australian conservatives and members of the Australian Liberals; John Howard in particular. Yet Menzies’ politics are as different from modern conservatism as Ben Chifley’s are from the ideology driving the Australian Labour Party today. After reading Letters I can’t help but raise an eyebrow to claims that Howard was mentored or desired to emulate Menzies as his ideology and style, not to mention the thuggish approach to Parliamentary politics*, are remarkably different. But, I shall continue to read as I may be proven wrong.

Letters to my Daughter provides a unique viewpoint into Australian politics and history that otherwise would be lost – many thanks must go to Heather Henderson for making sure the letters were published. Unlike Lazarus Rising (which could only be more mind-numbing if it actually fell out of the bookshelf onto your head), Letters to my Daughter is an entertaining and captivating read and I highly recommend it to people of all political persuasions.

Rating: 7/10

Published by Murdoch Books, widely available. RRP: $39.95.

*Exhibited by the ALP and the Liberals equally.

A Quick Note About Two Ads I Saw Recently

The other day I went along to the cinema to see the new Tintin movie, my first cinema visit since Avatar. It’s rather a pity that movies are now so expensive that I can only go to ones that I know/hope are going to be worth the money but in this case I was more than pleased with the film (for exactly what I thought, read my review at Subterranean Death Cult). I’ll save the rant about the recent batch of crappy films for later; instead what’s playing on my mind is some of the ads in the pre-show reel.

I usually enjoy the pre-show reel; the ads are generally funnier, better written and less G-rated than their television counterparts (not all, of course) and the trailers are also good fun. Yet, when the first of a number of Xbox Kinect ads started playing I raised a critical eyebrow. Apart from an intense dislike of the Kinect (for reasons listed here) the ad got my goat for spending a minute and a half showing off things that the Kinect can’t even do!

At the bottom of the ad was a subtitle saying, “This ad shows future possibilities only” (or something to that effect) which roughly translates to “This ad is complete bullshit!” – I notice this text was lacking in the online version, above. I can’t imagine that other companies would be able to get away with a similar type of ad: if Ford ran an ad like it, 80% of the ad would have the actors driving cars out of The Jetsons. I’m also rather sceptical that musicians would choose to record music by miming in front of a Kinect and any bomb technician using a Kinect as part of their job would shortly have more use as a meat-based sandwich spread.

The second ad was one that can easily be summarised by “EPIC PENCILS ZOMG!!1!one”. I’m guessing that working a pencil contract must be one of the greater challenges in the advertising industry as pencils are products with little room for innovation but golly if they didn’t give it their best go!

The ad consisted of a disembodied hand twirling a pencil to a funky beat while the camera zoomed in and out for two minutes at an increasingly urgent pace before ending with epic thuds as pictures of each pencil in the range froze on screen. I tried looking for a copy of the ad online but the Internet hasn’t deemed it worthy of entrance to the digital sphere – which probably gives you an idea of how pointless an ad it is.

Normally I wouldn’t be tempted to write about the ads I’d watched before a film but the inanity of these ads burrowed its way into my brain and I felt it best to get it out. Fortunately they were more than balanced out by a set of excellent trailers (including a new Aardman picture) and a truly excellent film.