Showing posts with label Liberal Party of Australia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Party of Australia. Show all posts

Tuesday 23 April 2019

Australian PM Scott Morrison acting as an IPA stooge on the 2019 election campaign trail



The hard-right lobby group the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) told the Liberal Party of Australia to jump to it……..

IPA, on 12 April 2019, the day after the federal election date was set:

20 POLICIES TO FIX AUSTRALIA

15 policies the Coalition should implement but will not and 5 policies they should not implement but will

John Roskam, Executive Director and Daniel Wild, Director of Research PARLIAMENTARY RESEARCH BRIEF A research note from the Institute of Public Affairs distributed to all Australian parliamentarians 12 April 2019
For more information contact Daniel Wild, Director of Research at dwild@ipa.org.au

15 policies the Coalition should implement but will not

1. Remove all references to race in the Constitution Martin Luther King, Jr stated “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” But Australia’s Constitution currently divides Australians by race. Section 25 of the Australian Constitution, titled “Provision as to races disqualified from voting’, while today redundant remains an affront to Australians’ sense of egalitarianism. Similarly, Section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution gives the Commonwealth government the power to make laws on the basis of race.All Australians are equal and should be treated as equal before the law. Therefore, both provisions should be discarded and references to race in the Constitution must be erased.

2. Repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) Free speech is inextricably linked to the Australian way of life. Australians should be able to enjoy and participate in open and unfettered discussion about issues of import to the future of our democracy and our nation. Section 18C stops this from happening. It is an unconscionable and egregious limitation on the free speech rights of all Australians and must be abolished.

3. Withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement The Paris Climate Agreement will increase the cost of electricity production by at least $52 billion by 2030 without making any noticeable difference to the environment. The four largest greenhouse gas emitters in absolute terms are not in the Paris Agreement (the United States) or their emissions are not constrained by the Paris Agreement (China and India) or are not on target to meet their obligations under the Paris Agreement (the European Union). It is not in Australia’s national interest to remain party to the Agreement.

4. Implement a flat income tax Australia’s income tax system punishes success and discourages upward economic mobility. Its interaction with the welfare system also creates welfare traps through high effective marginal tax rates which keeps too many Australians poor and trapped in a poverty cycle. To reduce poverty, expand economic opportunity, promote equality, all Australians should face the same income tax rate.

5. Reduce the corporate tax rate to below 20 per cent, in line with competitor nations The top marginal company tax rate in Australia of 30 per cent is the third highest in the developed world, and well above the OECD average of 24 per cent and competitor nations such as the United States (21 per cent), the United Kingdom (17 per cent from 2020), and Singapore (17 per cent). Australia’s high corporate tax rate is a key reason why business investment is just 11.5 per cent of GDP, which is lower than the rate that prevailed during the Whitlam years.

6. Appointment of High Court Justices to be rotated between the six states and the Commonwealth The Commonwealth Government is too big, powerful, and interventionist, and state governments have too small of a role in the operation of Australia’s federation. A key reason for this is that the Commonwealth alone is responsible for appointing Justices to the High Court of Australia. This has unsurprisingly led to the appointment of Judges who favour an expansion of Commonwealth power at the expense of state governments. To correct this imbalance, state governments should play a central role in appointing High Court Justices.

7. Double the size of the House of Representatives, and halve the size of the Ministry Canberra is too detached and removed from the concerns of mainstream Australia. 

This is partly a reflection of the size of individual electorates. Almost every Federal electorate contains more than 100,000 voters. This is too many. To get government closer to the people there should be a larger number of electorates with fewer voters, resulting in each voter having a louder voice. In addition, the number of Members of Parliament who are a part of the Ministry at any point in time has grown rapidly over the past two decades. Appointing members to the Ministry, the Outer Ministry, and as Assistant Ministers is a deliberate strategy to silence debate and reduce the influence of backbenchers. For Australia’s democracy to become more robust as in the United Kingdom and the United States, the number of Members of Parliament in the Ministry, Outer Ministry, and as Assistant Ministers should be reduced from 41 to 20.

8. Privatise the ABC In a free society the government should not own and operate its own media company. The media market in Australia is highly competitive. Online platforms have transformed and disrupted traditional approaches to media. Consumers have never had more choice about where to source their news and opinions on current affairs. Moreover, the ABC is unremittingly bias. Its staff are five times more likely to vote for the Greens compared to the general population. The ABC is beyond reform. New leaders will not fix the problem, regardless of their experience or intention. The ABC must be privatised.

9. Re-introduce the debt ceiling Gross government debt is currently $546 billion, all of which must be paid back by today’s young Australians via higher future taxes. One approach policy-makers can take to reduce government debt, or at least reduce its growth, is to re-introduce the debt ceiling. A debt-ceiling places a limit on how much the Australian government can borrow. Raising the debt ceiling requires an Act of Parliament, which ensures the issue will be debated and receive the public attention it deserves. A debt ceiling was implemented by the Rudd government in 2007 and it was set at $75 billion. With the support of the Greens, the Abbott government with Joe Hockey as Treasurer abolished the debt ceiling in 2013 as debt approached $300 billion.

10. Hold a Royal Commission into the Bureau of Meteorology’s tampering with temperature and climate data The Bureau of Meteorology appears to have tampered with temperature and climate data and to have re-written history to make it appear as if the temperature is higher than it actually is, and that is has risen faster than it actually has. Australians deserve to know the truth about their public institutions. The only way to find the truth about potential temperature data manipulation is to hold a Royal Commission into the Bureau of Meteorology’s activities.

11. Abolish compulsory superannuation Compulsory superannuation is a tax on workers’ wages which is coercively redistributed to the Unions. Australian workers should be free to decide how much of their own income they are willing to defer until retirement, and how much they need in the present to spend on items such as housing, education, and health care. For more information contact Daniel Wild, Director of Research at dwild@ipa.org.au

12. Abolish the Renewable Energy Target and end all subsidies to wind, solar, and hydro-electricity generators Subsidies to renewable energy generation in Australia are expected to reach $60 billion by 2030. The Renewable Energy Target at the Commonwealth level, as well as state-based targets, have been the main contributors to this subsidy blow-out. Because renewables are uncompetitive, expensive, and unreliable, Australia’s electricity prices have increased by 120 per cent over the past decade – around double the rate of inflation. This has a disproportionate effect on the lowest income earners who spend a higher portion of their income on energy than others. Moreover, this cost comes at no noticeable benefit to the environment. For example, over the period of 2001 (when the RET was first implemented by the Howard government) to 2014, the RET resulted in 0.005 per cent fewer carbon emissions globally from human sources which in turn account for just three per cent of total emissions.

13. Introduce a one-in-two-out approach to reduce red tape Red tape is the single biggest impediment to business investment, job creation, and economic opportunity in Australia. Each year red tape reduces economic output by $176 billion, which is equivalent to 10 per cent of GDP.12 This cost represents all of the jobs which are never created, the wages which never rise, the businesses never started, and the dreams which go unfulfilled because of red tape. Governments should cut red tape by repealing two laws for every new law introduced.

14. Repeal the Fair Work Act The Fair Work Act denies hundreds and thousands of Australians the dignity of work. There are currently 1.7 million Australians who are either unemployed or unable to work the number of hours they want. This is largely due to the Fair Work Act which prevents employers and employees from reaching mutually beneficial employment agreements. The Fair Work Act is too complicated and broken to reform. It must be repealed in full. 15. Legalise nuclear power in Australia Australia has 30 per cent of the world’s uranium deposits, some of which we export to the rest of the world for power generation. Yet we forbid ourselves from using nuclear power for domestic energy generation. Meanwhile, Australia has the fourth highest electricity prices in the world. Section 140A(1) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) states there is to be “no approval for certain nuclear installations” including “a nuclear power plant”. These four words – “a nuclear power plant” – should be removed from the Section to legalise the development of a nuclear power plant in Australia.  For more information contact Daniel Wild, Director of Research at dwild@ipa.org.au

5 policies the Coalition should not implement but will

1. Do not hold a Referendum to divide Australians by race The proposal to establish the Constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Peoples would irrevocably undermine national unity and is a regressive throwback to the days when race played a central role in Australia’s Constitution. Similarly, the proposal to establish a separate entity in the Constitution to be ‘The Voice’ of Indigenous Australians is divisive and false - all Australians are represented by the Commonwealth parliament and are equal before the law. Race has no place in Australia’s Constitution.

2. Do not raise taxes Australia is a high tax nation and workers and families pay too much tax. Over the past decade real taxes per capita have risen by 11 per cent. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, over the past year taxes paid by households increased by around 8 per cent, more than double the rate of growth in household income.15 This means more money is going to the government and less money can be spent on household essentials such as housing, child care, and education. The Coalition should not raise taxes, and ideally should reduce taxes.

3. Do not raise spending The true cause of high and rising taxes is high and rising spending. Every dollar of spending must be paid back with higher taxes, either today or in the future via the accumulation of debt which is a tax on the next generation of Australians. Government spending has increased from 23.1 per cent of GDP at the end of the Howard-era to 24.6 per cent today (not including off-Budget expenses and liabilities such as the NBN).16 In absolute terms spending has increased by approximately 80 per cent, which is the equivalent to 6 per cent per year.17 This is well above the average rate of inflation of around 2 per cent per year.

4. Do not proceed with Snowy 2.0 The Snowy Hydro 2.0 project will be remembered alongside the NBN as a costly, ineffective, outdated, and inefficient bureaucratic program which won’t solve the underlying public policy problem of high and rising electricity prices and unreliable supply. The project will cost at least $4.5 billion, it won’t become operational until at least 2024-25, and it will be a net energy user, meaning it will be a drain on the energy grid. Instead, governments should provide policy settings which allow for the development of reliable and cost-effective coal-fired power generation.

5. Do not introduce new anti-discrimination laws In the context of the Religious Freedom Review, it has been suggested that new anti-discrimination laws be introduced to protect freedom of religion. However, adding new restrictions through religious antidiscrimination laws would constitute a significant threat to the freedom of conscience of all Australians. Freedom, whether exercised for a religious purpose or not, should only be limited where the exercise of that freedom impacts another person’s freedom or peaceful use and enjoyment of their own property. The only way to sufficiently protect religious freedom is to remove laws that currently place restrictions on religious thought and practice.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison asked how high he should jump, then realised he had exposed the pathway he preferred if the party won at the 18 May 2019 federal election and quickly dissembled………

The Canberra Times, 18 April 2019:

Prime Minister Scott Morrison says he has no plans to reverse a ban on nuclear energy, despite earlier saying he was open to the industry if it could "pay its way".
"It's not, not on the agenda ... but it's got to be self-sustaining," he told Tasmania Talks LAFM on Thursday.

"I'm not going to roll out tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, that's not the future for energy efficiencies."

Labor's environment spokesman Tony Burke took the chance to remind Mr Morrison nuclear power is against the law.

"It is extraordinary that Scott Morrison is now contemplating changing the law to allow nuclear power stations in Australia," he said.

Mr Burke said Jervis Bay, Townsville, Bribie Island and Mackay have all been flagged as locations for nuclear power.

"Where is Morrison proposing to put his nuclear power plants? Which coastal community is under threat?"

But the prime minister later on Thursday took to Twitter to step away from his earlier comment.

"This is not our policy and we have no plans to change that," he tweeted.


Monday 22 April 2019

Morrison & Co can’t guarantee delivery of promised tax cuts this year if they win May 18 federal election


The West Australian, 17 April 2019:

Scott Morrison has been forced to explain why his promise to deliver immediate $1080 tax cuts for low and middle-income earners from July 1 may not happen.

Treasury officials today confirmed a key plank of the Morrison Government’s re-election platform – immediate tax cuts for 10 million workers when they receive their 2019 tax returns – cannot occur without Federal Parliament’s support.

Treasury officials said the tax cuts had to be legislated before the end of this financial year – on June 30 – before workers could receive the rebates with their 2019 tax returns.

With the Federal Election on May 18, it means the Coalition has little time – if it wins the election - to pass the tax cuts through Parliament before June 30.

The Coalition has promised rebates of up to $1080 for low and middle-income earners, and up to $2160 for dual-income families, who lodge their tax returns from July 1.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, when he released the Budget weeks ago, claimed the timing of the Federal Election would be “no impediment” to the tax cuts being delivered quickly.

But Treasury officials appeared to contradict that claim today.

They said the tax rebates would require “the relevant legislation to be passed before the increase to the low and middle income tax offset (LMITO) can be provided for the 2018-19 financial year.”

They also warned if the tax cuts were not delivered by June 30 the revenue cost of the measure would “need to be reassessed.”

Friday 12 April 2019

Morrison’s plan to use whatever is left in Coalition MPs and Senators electoral communications parliamentary allowance to fund his national election campaign has been scuttled



Australian Senate Hansard, 3 April 2019, excerpt:

REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019 Disallowance Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (21:29): I move: That item 4 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019, made under the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, be disallowed [F2019L00177]. The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Farrell, relating to the disallowance of item 4 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019, be agreed to. The Senate divided. [21:34] (The President—Senator Ryan)
Ayes ......................34 Noes ......................26 Majority.................8

The New Daily, 4 April 2019:

The Morrison government has lost a bid to allow MPs to use taxpayer-funded electoral allowances to pay for TV and radio advertisements during the looming federal election campaign.

Late on Wednesday night – in one of this parliament’s last votes before the election is called – the Senate dumped a government regulation allowing $22 million of public money to be used for political ads in the lead up to May’s federal poll.

MPs have a budget of about $137,000 for electorate communications, while senators have up to $109,000.

Under existing rules, they cannot use office expenses money to pay for content on television or radio. The government’s changes would have allowed them to use printing entitlements to buy TV and radio ads for the first time.

The Coalition had argued lifting the ban on TV and radio promotions would have put Australian media on a level playing field by ensuring all communities had the same access to information from their federal MP.

But Labor frontbencher Don Farrell, who moved the disallowance motion in the Senate, accused Prime Minister Scott Morrison of wasting taxpayers’ money in a bid to save his job.

“Publicly funded office budgets are for members and senators to communicate with their constituents – not for spamming voters with hollow election slogans from the ad man, Scott Morrison,” he said.

With the support of the Greens and a handful of crossbench senators, Labor won the disallowance vote.... 

The heroes of the hour who saved us all from what was clearly an attempt to create a lasting rort at taxpayer’s expense were:

Bilyk, CL. Carr, KJ. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Di Natale, R. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. Faruqi, M. Gallacher, AM. Griff, S. Hanson-Young, SC. Hinch, D. Ketter, CR.  (teller) Kitching, K. Lines, S. Marshall, GM. McAllister, J. McCarthy, M. McKim, NJ. O'Neill, DM. Patrick, RL. Polley, H. Pratt, LC. Rice, J. Siewert, R. Smith, DPB. Steele-John, J. Sterle, G. Storer, TR. Urquhart, AE. Waters, LJ. Watt, M. Whish-Wilson, PS. Wong, P.

Well done one and all!

Thursday 4 April 2019

Scott Morrison just can't resist the urge to meddle in Liberal Party candidate selection


Latest version of Scott Morrison on the Net


Yet another 'captain's pick' is on the cards.....

The Canberra Times, 31 March 2019:

A Liberal vying to become the party's candidate for Craig Laundy's old seat has delivered an astonishing condemnation of the closed-door selection process, just as Prime Minister Scott Morrison prepares to name his captain's pick for the hotly contested Sydney electorate.

Controversial psychiatrist and writer Tanveer Ahmed - who is among a number of people under consideration for the job - slammed the process as unfair and undemocratic, arguing he had been denied the opportunity to confront his challengers.

It is expected Mr Morrison could recommend a candidate to replace Mr Laundy in the inner west seat of Reid as soon as Sunday, to be rubber-stamped by the party's state executive on Monday.

The Sun-Herald understands Dr Ahmed met with Mr Morrison's principal private secretary Yaron Finkelstein and factional powerbroker Alex Hawke, the Special Minister of State, and has been positively vetted.

But Mr Morrison is said to be considering other options including two women and failed state election candidate for Kogarah, Scott Yung. Liberal pollsters have also gauged support for Coca Cola executive Tanya Baini.

Wednesday 3 April 2019

It is likely to be tears before bedtime for many regional communities as Berejiklian Government restructures government departments



Government News, 2 April 2019:   
 
The NSW government will abolish key agencies including the Office of Local Government, the RMS and Jobs NSW under sweeping changes to the structure of the NSW public service.

A memo from the Department of  Premier and Cabinet obtained by Government News says the Office of Local Government, along with the Office of Environment and Heritage, will cease to be independent entities and their functions will be absorbed by a Planning and Industry Cluster.

The cluster will cover areas such as long term planning, precincts, infrastructure, open space, the environment and natural resources.

The RMS, coming under the Transport Cluster, will also be scrapped as a separate agency and as will Jobs NSW, which will be merged into the Treasury Cluster…..

Local Government NSW President Linda Scott said the peak would be seeking assurances from the new local government minister, Shelley Hancock, and the Premier, that local governments would be appropriately resourced within the new cluster.

“We’d hope, for example, that the inclusion into a larger cluster will facilitate real analysis of the massive amounts of data collected by Government, which should be shared with the sector to help them deliver great outcomes for the public good,” she told Government News.

“Local governments welcome a new opportunity to work with the State Government to set housing targets with local governments, not for them – to rebalance planning powers by working in partnership with councils and their neighbourhoods on planning decisions that affect them.”

However she said the appointment of Ms Hancock was a stand-alone Local Government Minister was welcomed and had long been advocated for by LGNSW.....

The memo says the structure of the public service will also incorporate the following clusters: Stronger Communities, Customer Service, Health; Premier and Cabinet, Transport, Treasury  and Education.

The following clusters will cease to exist by July 1:  Finance, Services & Innovation; Industry; Planning & Environment; Family and Communities; and Justice.

The Secretaries Board will be expanded in members to accommodate more senior public servants to “effectively drive implementation of the Government’s priorities”.

New appointments under the restructure:
Michael Coutts-Trotter – Secretary, Families & Community Services & Justice
Jim Betts – Secretary, Planning and Industry
Glenn King – Secretary, Customer Service
Simon Draper – Chief Executive, Infrastructure Australia

NOTE:
The Grafton Loop of the Knitting Nannas Against Gas and Greed will be holding a knit-in on Thursday 4 April 2019 at 1pm to peacefully protest the abolition of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. It will be held outside the electoral office of Nationals MP for Clarence Chris Gulaptis at 11 Prince Street, Grafton and interested people are welcome to attend.


Tuesday 2 April 2019

Morrison Government still refusing to tackle rising greenhouse gas emissions



The Guardian, 31 March 2019:

Cuts to carbon emissions from vehicle efficiency standards have been left out of government projections for meeting Australia’s Paris climate commitments, indicating the policy has been shelved.

The office of the transport minister, Michael McCormack, said the government had not made a decision on “how or when” standards to cut carbon pollution from vehicles might be implemented.

After almost five years of submissions a spokesman said the government “is not going to rush into a regulatory solution” with regards to vehicle emissions.

New data shows Australia’s emissions from transport are soaring and projected to be 82% higher in 2030 than they were in 1990.

Australia lags behind the rest of the world in setting vehicle efficiency standards, with most countries in the OECD adopting policies to reduce emissions and improve the efficiency of cars.

The ministerial forum on vehicle emissions was set up under the Turnbull government in 2015, and stakeholders are frustrated at the lack of progress.

Fact sheets produced by the government that set out how it intends to reach Australia’s emissions reduction targets under the Paris agreement suggest any policy on vehicle emissions standards has been abandoned.

In 2015, the government produced a graph indicating it expected to achieve cuts of about 100m tonnes between 2020 and 2030 through vehicle emissions standards.

The government’s latest climate package contains no mention of this, and projects only about 10m tonnes of abatement through an electric vehicle strategy, with no reference to vehicle emissions standards....


Monday 1 April 2019

PROPAGANDA: When Murdoch media asset joins with a hard right lobby group & inhouse commentator to run a line from the Liberal-Nationals election campaign playbook


“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” [Attributed to Joseph Goebbels, German Third Reich Minister for Propaganda 1933-1945]


Thursday 28 March 2019

“Every year, the world's five largest publicly owned oil and gas companies spend approximately $200 million on lobbying designed to control, delay or block binding climate-motivated policy”


Forbes, 25 March 2019:

Every year, the world's five largest publicly owned oil and gas companies spend approximately $200 million on lobbying designed to control, delay or block binding climate-motivated policy. This has caused problems for governments seeking to implement policies in the wake of the Paris Agreement which are vital in meeting climate change targets. Companies are generally reluctant to disclose such lobbying expenditure and late last week, a report from InfluenceMap used a methodology focusing on the best available records along with intensive research of corporate messaging to gauge their level of influence on initiatives to halt climate change.…..

The research also found that the five companies listed support their lobbying expenditures with a financial outlay of $195 million annually for focused branding activities which suggest they support action against climate change. The most common tactics employed are drawing attention to low carbon, positioning the company as a climate expert and acknowledging climate concern while ignoring solutions. The report said that the campaigns are misleading the public given that the companies listed continue to expand their oil and gas extraction activities with only 3% of spending directed to low carbon projects. Both Shell and Chevron rejected the report's findings and reinforced their commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and addressing climate change.



Since 2013 these tactics appear to have been quite successful in shaping the political debate within the Liberal and National parties in Australia.

One again the Liberal-Nationals Coalition goes into a federal election campaign without a genuine climate change policy or a viable energy policy.

The fact that the fossil fuel industry made political donations to the Coalition of an est. $270,717 in 2016-17 and the top 10 fossil fuel donors gave a further est. $512,261 in 2017-18 can not be ruled out as a factor in the continuing absence of genuine climate change policies on the conservative side of politics, 

Wednesday 27 March 2019

The Great Australian Ugliness: how supporters of conservative political parties act on polling day


Thursday 21 March 2019

Will Australian voters swallow Scott Morrison’s hypocritical volte-face?


In opposition or in government it didn't matter to Australian Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison, he happily hammered home the message that boat people, asylum seekers and Muslims migrants were or could be a threat to the nation and to every Australian. 

This self-confessed admirer of Donald Trump began his faux election campaign the day he took office shortly after the palace coup removed then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and, almost from the start there has been speculation that he was hoping that his rhetoric would goad someone into committing a violent act of terrorism.

These snapshots below are taken from 15 March 2019 televised remarks by Morrison barely hiding his glee that he finally had the pre-federal election terrorist attack he had been dog whistling for - even if the fact that this muderous attack was made on people at prayer in two New Zealand mosques allegedly at the hands of an Australian meant he had to do a 360 turn on who he could blame.


Snapshots by @sarah_jade_ 
 Mainstream media has noted the change the change of campaign tactics .......

The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 March 2019:

Something the Prime Minister said on Friday has been gnawing at me. For the most part, his statements in the immediate aftermath of the obscenity in New Zealand were admirably clear. He identified the victims: those of Islamic faith. He also clearly labelled the attack for what it was, a “vicious and callous right-wing extremist attack”…..

But another of the Prime Minister’s comments warrants attention. Speaking of the Australian gunman, he said: “These people don't deserve names. Names imply some sort of humanity and I struggle to find how anyone who would engage in this sort of behaviour and violence … He’s not human. He doesn't deserve a name."

I can well understand Morrison’s reaction. Watching him respond, it was clear he was moved, and disgusted. And of course I share that disgust.

But think for a moment about the implications of such rhetoric. This man is not even human, the Prime Minister tells us. He is alien, almost literally another species, and therefore illegible to us, the humans. He is not like us.

Perhaps, at the moment he fired the gun, that became true. But what about just before that moment - was he human then, and inhuman afterwards? Did he go from being comprehensible to incomprehensible in the blink of an eye? Of course the implication of Morrison’s words is that he was always different: never one of us, always already separate.

But this is a fairytale – and like most fairytales, it is there to comfort, with its suggestion that such violence must have nothing to do with the rest of us. The Prime Minister meant well. But what he said was absolute rot.

The point has been made elsewhere that anti-Islamic sentiment is rife in our politics, and that violence is its logical endpoint. It is a crucial point, it can’t be made enough,…. But right now I want to briefly examine another dominant strand of Australian politics.

A few weeks ago, the political world was aflutter with a single question: was this Scott Morrison’s Tampa moment? And we know, because Morrison told us, that he wanted it to be: “Australians will be deciding once again - as they did in 2013, as they did in 2001 - about whether they want the stronger border protection policies of…” and you can guess the rest.

The phrase "strong borders" is heard often in our political debate, but much of the time, especially when you live on an island, borders are abstractions – imaginary lines drawn on literally shifting seas. The vague and nonsense phrase is of course a euphemism, meaning "we are very good at keeping people out". And when is this an important skill? When the people to be kept out pose some threat. The beauty of "strong borders" is that it says all of that in two words.

The same goes for "Tampa moment", which in fact includes three separate events: Tampa, then September 11, then children overboard. Howard’s election campaign blended these events into one overarching narrative. The demonisation of refugees as ruthless people who would kill their own children and who might kill you was not a side-effect of the strategy, it was the strategy.

Howard argues that he would have won without Tampa. But it doesn’t really matter, because the real damage was not done at that election. As people like Peter Brent have argued, the real damage is the lingering belief that this is how elections are won. Emphasise strong borders, emphasise the threat.

Morrison’s absorption of that lesson is there for anyone to see. It was there in his comments in 2012 that asylum seekers might cause a typhoid outbreak. It was there last week when he warned that asylum seekers might be paedophiles or murderers or rapists, and when he backed Peter Dutton’s assertion that they would take housing and hospital spots from Australians. And it was there in his recent security speech, when he introduced the section on terrorism with reference to just one, specific type: “radical extremist Islamist terrorism.”

If our political leaders remain intent on depicting a world in which people from other countries bring disease, hatred, and violence to our shores, can they really be so shocked when it turns out that is precisely the world some people believe in?
[my yellow highlighting]

The Guardian, 17 March 2019:

There’s been less reflection on the fact that any 28-year-old in Australia has grown up in a period when racism, xenophobia and a hostility to Muslims in particular, were quickly ratcheting up in the country’s public culture. 

In the period of the country’s enthusiastic participation in the War on Terror, Islam and Muslims have frequently been treated as public enemies, and hate speech against them has inexorably been normalised.

Australian racism did not of course begin in 2001. The country was settled by means of a genocidal frontier war, and commenced its independent existence with the exclusion of non-white migrants. White nationalism was practically Australia’s founding doctrine.

But a succession of events in the first year of the millennium led to Islamophobia being practically enshrined as public policy.

First, the so-called Tampa Affair saw a conservative government refuse to admit refugees who had been rescued at sea. It was a naked bid to win an election by whipping up xenophobia and border panic. It worked.

In the years since, despite its obvious brutality, and despite repeated condemnations from international bodies, the mandatory offshore detention of boat-borne refugees in third countries has become bipartisan policy. (The centre-left Labor party sacrificed principle in order to neutralise an issue that they thought was costing them elections.)

The majority of the refugees thus imprisoned have been Muslim. It has often been suggested by politicians that detaining them is a matter of safety – some of them might be terrorists.

Second, the 9/11 attacks drew Australia into the War on Terror in support of its closest ally, and geopolitical sponsor, the United States.

Australian troops spent long periods in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting and killing Muslims in their own countries. The consequences of this endless war have included the targeting of Australians in Jihadi terror attacks and plots, both at home and abroad.

The wars began with a deluge of propaganda. Later, the terror threat was leveraged to massively enhance surveillance by Australia’s national security state. Muslim Australians have frequently been defined by arms of their own government as a source of danger.

Two years after the war in Iraq commenced, the campaign of Islamophobia culminated in the country’s most serious modern race riots, on Cronulla Beach in December 2005, when young white men spent a summer afternoon beating and throwing bottles at whichever brown people they could find.

Cronulla was a milestone in the development of a more forthright, ugly public nationalism in Australia. Now young men wear flags as capes on Australia Day, a date which is seen as a calculated insult by many Indigenous people. Anzac Day, which commemorates a failed invasion of Turkey, was once a far more ambivalent occasion. In recent years it has moved closer to becoming an open celebration of militarism and imperialism.

Every step of the way, this process has not been hindered by outlets owned by News Corp, which dominates Australia’s media market in a way which citizens of other Anglophone democracies can find difficult to comprehend.

News Corp has the biggest-selling newspapers in the majority of metropolitan media markets, monopolies in many regional markets, the only general-readership national daily, and the only cable news channel. Its influence on the national news agenda remains decisive. And too often it has used this influence to demonise Muslims.

[my yellow highlighting]

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 February 2011:

SCOTT Morrison, the Liberal frontbencher who this week distinguished himself as the greatest grub in the federal Parliament, is the classic case of the politician who is so immersed in the game of politics that he has lost touch with the real world outside it…..

The point of this story? Morrison is a cheap populist, with form. On that occasion, he was being irresponsible with the national economy. For him it's just about clever lines.

Morrison was powerless to influence the bank, of course. John Howard and Peter Costello gave the Reserve Bank independence to free it from people like Morrison. 

The bank raised rates three days after Morrison's comment.

This week it was race. Morrison decided to see if he could win some political points by inflaming racism and resentment. More specifically, he zeroed in on some of the most vulnerable people in the country for political advantage. Indeed, is there anyone more vulnerable than a traumatised, orphaned child unable to speak English, held in detention on a remote island?

Morrison publicly raised objections to the government's decision to pay for air fares for some of the survivors of the Christmas Island boat wreck to travel to Sydney for the funerals of their relatives.

Some were Christian funerals, others were Muslim. But all of them were foreigners, all of them were boat people, all of them were dark-skinned, and to Morrison that made them all fair game. Unable to tell the difference between the Coalition mantra of "we will stop the boats" and his emerging position that "we will vindictively pursue boat people suffering tragedy" he went on radio.

As the survivors were gathering to mourn their dead, Morrison said that with the government paying for the 22 air fares, "I don't think it is reasonable. The government had the option of having these services on Christmas Island. If relatives of those who were involved wanted to go to Christmas Island, like any other Australian who wanted to attend a funeral service in another part of the country, they would have made their own arrangements to be there."
All of them were dark-skinned, and to Morrison that made them all fair game
Again, for Morrison it's just a tricky game of politics and clever lines. A former director of the NSW Liberal Party, he inhabits a world where consequences for himself and his political party are all that matter. There is no other reality. He didn't care about the boat people, and - being as charitable to him as possible - he mightn't even have stopped to think about the consequences.

And again, there is a national interest at stake. Forty-four per cent of Australians were born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas. Australia is an immigrant society. Australia is a multicultural country. That is a simple fact. To foment ethnic, racial or religious frictions or resentments is deeply harmful to the national interest.

Kevin Dunn, professor of geography and urban studies at the University of Western Sydney, who next week is to publish a study on racism in Australia, says: "Research has shown convincingly that geopolitical events, political events and political statements don't affect Australian attitudes on race very quickly, but they do affect behaviour. People with a grudge feel more empowered to act on it." Racist abuse and discrimination follow. So again, Morrison was toying with a deep national interest, but this time, his remarks could carry real force. The Reserve Bank governor knows his business and ignores Morrison, but the vindictive and the vicious may feel emboldened to act on their hurtful urges. Who does this help?....

Morrison next day conceded that his timing was insensitive, but didn't retract his complaint. He denied that he had been influenced by One Nation, even though One Nation had been busily emailing and lobbying politicians on the matter.
[my yellow highlighting]