About Anthony « anthonyalbanese.com.au

ANTHONY ALBANESE OUR NEXT LABOR PRIME MINISTER

About Anthony « anthonyalbanese.com.au

Anthony
Albanese MP, Federal Member for Grayndler Deputy Prime Minister Minister
for Infrastructure and Transport Minister for Broadband, Communications
and the Digital Economy Leader of the House

• Home
• About Anthony
• Grayndler
  
  
• Photos
• Media Centre
  
  
• Links
• Contact

About Anthony

Anthony grew up in a public housing community in Camperdown and
recognised early on the need to fight for social justice so that there
was equal opportunity in society.


That is what led Anthony to joining the Australian Labor Party. He
developed his political activity working for former prisoner of war and
legendary Whitlam and Hawke Government Minister Tom Uren.


In 1996 Anthony was elected as the Member for Grayndler in Sydney’s inner west, where he has lived his entire life.


In Anthony’s First Speech in Parliament he said

I will be satisfied if I can be remembered as
someone who will stand up for the interests of my electorate, for
working class people, for the labour movement, and for our progressive
advancement as a nation.”

Anthony continues to be a progressive Member of Parliament and is a
passionate advocate for the environment, workers’ rights, refugees and
equality for all members of the community regardless of gender, race,
age, sexuality or religion.


He believes in opportunities for all through education and training,
universal health care and the need for Government to invest in local
communities.


He works hard for his constituents.


Among his achievements for the people of Grayndler:

• $2 million for the Cooks River to help manage storm water, reduce river pollution and improve water quality;
• Expansion of child care services including 50 new childcare places at the Infants’ Home in Ashfield;
• $2.2 million to upgrade Mackey Park in Marrickville
• $3 million to upgrade Leichhardt Oval
• $2.3 million for the Ashfield Civic Centre
• $14.5 million for noise insulation at Fort Street High School
• Upgrades to all local schools under the $16.2 billion Building the Education Revolution program;
• Funding of $150 million for a new integrated cancer treatment and
  research facility at the Chris O’Brien – Lifehouse, at Royal Prince
  Alfred Hospital; and
• Providing help and support for new migrants and those trying to reunite with their families.

Anthony has played tennis at Henson Park for 30 years and is an avid
supporter of the South Sydney Rabbitohs and the Newtown Jets.


Following the election of the Federal Labor Government in November
2007 Anthony became the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and
Leader of the House of Representatives.


Anthony was named Infrastructure Minister of the Year for 2012 by London based publicationInfrastructure Investor.


In June 2013, he became Deputy Prime Minister, and also took on
additional responsibility as Minister for Broadband, Communications and
the Digital Economy.


Anthony was re-elected the Member for Grayndler in 2013 and is now
the Shadow Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, and the Shadow
Minister for Tourism.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY GOUGH WHITLAM , A GREAT STATESMAN , A GREAT AUSTRALIAN.

AS PER DAVE BLACK  ( IN FACEBOOK )
Dave Black
 It was the Whitlam Government that:-
1. ended Conscription,
2. withdrew Australian troops from Vietnam,
3. implemented Equal Pay for Women,
4. launched an Inquiry into Education and the Funding of Government and Non-government Schools on a Needs Basis,
5. established a separate ministry responsible for Aboriginal Affairs,
6. established the single Department of Defence,
7. withdrew support for apartheid–South Africa,
8. granted independence to Papua New Guinea,
9. abolished Tertiary Education Fees,
10. established the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS),
11. increased pensions,
12. established Medibank,
13. established controls on Foreign Ownership of Australian resources,
14. passed the Family Law Act establishing No-Fault Divorce,
15. passed a series of laws banning Racial and Sexual Discrimination,
16. extended Maternity Leave and Benefits for Single Mothers,
17. introduced One-Vote-One-Value to democratize the electoral system,
18. implemented wide-ranging reforms of the ALP's organization,
19. initiated Australia's first Federal Legislation on Human Rights, the Environment and Heritage,
20. established the Legal Aid Office,
21. established the National Film and Television School,
22. launched construction of National Gallery of Australia,
23. established the Australian Development Assistance Agency,
24. reopened the Australian Embassy in Peking after 24 years,
25. established the Prices Justification Tribunal,
26. revalued the Australian Dollar,
27. cut tariffs across the board,
28. established the Trade Practices Commission,
29. established the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service,
30. established the Law Reform Commission,
31. established the Australian Film Commission,
32. established the Australia Council,
33. established the Australian Heritage Commission,
34. established the Consumer Affairs Commission,
35. established the Technical and Further Education Commission,
36. implemented a national employment and training program,
37. created Telecom and Australia Post to replace the Postmaster-General's Department,
38. devised the Order of Australia Honors System to replace the British Honors system,
39. abolished appeals to the Privy Council,
40. changed the National Anthem to 'Advance Australia Fair' (confirmed at 1977 Referendum),
41. instituted Aboriginal Land Rights, and
42. sewered most of Sydney. (Hard to believe, isn't it, that Sydney wasn't even sewered 40 years ago???)

Mind you it took 'em all of 3 years!!!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY GOUGH!

(I am grateful to various sources)

Bill Shorten's address to the 2014 New Zealand Labour Party Congress. In...

BILL SHORTEN ADDRESSING NEW ZEALAND LABOR PARTY

ALBO AS LEADER OF THE LABOR PARTY.
A true leader with the courage to do what is right for all Australians.
You can always trust that ALBO WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN.

The Fairness Test - - The Australian Independent Media Network

The Fairness Test - - The Australian Independent Media Network

The Fairness Test

• 
  
  June 24, 2014
  
• 
  Written by:
  Kay Rollison
  

• 
  Category: Politics
• 
  permalink
  
  
  
• 
  
  
  Kay Rollison
  
  
  
  

I recently wrote an open letter to Bill Shorten,
expressing my dismay at three particular policy stances the Labor party
has adopted – continuation of off-shore processing for asylum seekers,
support for the school chaplaincy program and for Abbott’s Green Army. I
wanted the party to show more leadership on such issues, and also to
have a more consultative way of coming to important policy decisions. My
post got lots of comments, with most people agreeing that these
decisions were disappointing, and urging Bill Shorten to be more
decisive in his opposition to the Abbott government. A few people went
further, suggesting that the Labor party is now a lost cause: ‘a pox on
both your parties’ they say.


I certainly don’t agree with this. Who else are you going the vote
for? The Palmer United Party – naked self-interest barely clothed with
populism? The Greens – worthy, but nowhere near in a position to form a
government until they learn that ideological purity is more suited to
activism than government? We need a strong and united progressive voice
and the only party able to offer this is Labor, now with around 40% of the vote.
We need the Labor party to become a formidable opposition and the
popular choice at the next election. And while I’m on this topic, I
don’t think that Bill Shorten alone can save the party; the messiah view
of political leadership is illusionary – just look at how Abbott as the
conservative saviour is working out.


I’ve heard several explanations for the opposition’s apparent lack of
drive at the moment. One is that the party is trying to avoid the
negativity associated with Abbott’s leadership of the opposition.
Another is that no party should reveal its policies too far out from an
election for fear that they are stolen, or otherwise countered. While
there doesn’t look to be much chance that this government will steal
from anyone other than the Tea Party, these arguments have some
validity. Furthermore, there’s the ‘don’t interrupt your opponent when
he’s making mistakes’ line, or in other words, be a small target and
coast to victory on the unpopularity of the government, as Abbott did in
2013. There’s probably truth in the old adage that governments lose
elections, rather than oppositions winning them. But all this
conventional wisdom is politics-as-usual stuff. It allows – even
encourages – the conventional mainstream media to frame Australian
politics as a horse race between two essentially similar parties. It
allows them to claim that Labor has no defining narrative, and that the
two parties are as bad as each other. And that’s the more progressive of
the mainstream media.


So what is to be done? Clearly Labor can’t come up with a full suite
of ready-made alternative policies at this point in time. Bill Shorten
has said that party renewal and increased membership are the priority
this year; policy review is for next year. Even so, there are a whole
raft of policies inherited from the Gillard/Rudd government that Labor
would presumably want to retain, including the full version of Gonski,
the NDIS, superannuation changes and so on. There is much that they
would want to reverse, most notably the Medicare co-payment and the
denial of unemployment benefits to people under 30. But then there are
other decisions that aren’t so straightforward, given the damage already
done, such as putting a price back on carbon, reviving the Clean Energy
Fund and the NBN, and re-funding higher education. Would they reverse
Abbott’s Paid Parental Leave scheme – assuming it ever gets through the
Parliament? Given the problems with the revenue side of the budget,
Labor might feel tempted to keep some of the revenue raising measures of
the current government, such as the changes to the pension age, and the
indexing of some benefits to inflation. And they will have to counter
Liberal scare tactics over returning the budget to surplus. In addition,
Labor needs to respond to the daily barrage of ideologically driven
conservative economic and social measures emerging from the Abbott
government.


This all sounds like a terribly difficult task. But I don’t think it
has to be that hard. It is not true that Labor doesn’t have a narrative.
It’s only true that they don’t always successfully put it front and
centre. As it says in the ALP’s platform:


At the core of Labor’s history, beliefs and aspirations is the need to make sure everybody gets a fair go.


A Labor narrative based on fairness is a no-brainer.


What I suggest is that Labor adopts ‘the fairness test’ as a measure for everything it says and does.


First, it gives a clear basis for opposition. It isn’t negative,
because it is based on a positive value and a stated position that can
be logically defended. It isn’t a scare tactic – it’s merely pointing
out consequences – ie increasing inequality – if certain measures are
adopted. Which of the Abbott government’s budget measures should be
opposed? Whichever of them don’t meet the fairness test, which, let’s
face it is almost all of them. Is the Medicare co-payment fair? No,
because it hurts to most vulnerable people in society. Are the changes
to higher education funding fair? No, because they decrease equality of
opportunity.  Is the high income levy fair? Yes, because it asks for a
contribution from those best able to afford it who are, moreover, the
ones already benefiting from other government policies such as the
failure adequately to tax the super earnings of the rich. Some examples
aren’t quite as straightforward; should Labor support the increased
excise on petrol? Probably not, because although it may result in less
petrol being used, and therefore lower carbon emissions, it’s not fair
that ordinary motorists should pay when large carbon emitters like
electricity generator don’t have to. This one’s arguable – but at least
the grounds for argument are clear. What is different from what already
happens? Labor members use the phrase ‘the fairness test’ when they ask
question, speak in Parliament, to the press or in their constituencies.
It becomes as much identified with Labor as ‘great big tax’ was with the
Coalition.


Second, it gives clear guidance for policy development. It already
does, as can be seen from the past policies of the party when in
government and in its National Platform. Gonski, NDIS, NBN – the list of
policies designed to increase equality of opportunity is extensive. But
it needs to be touchstone for the development of new, or modification
of existing policies: child care and aged care spring to mind. It should
also drive decisions about revenue raising. A fairness test demands
that a Labor government be an activist government, as opposed to the
small government mantra of the Liberals, which only benefits those
already privileged.


And when the next election comes around, the fairness test also helps
with decisions about which policies deserve the greatest prominence.
Policies most obviously designed to promote equality of opportunity and
to decrease social and economic inequality must be at the forefront.
Labor should not pander to the policy priorities of the Coalition, such
as balancing the budget at any social and economic cost, or decreasing
taxes for the already well-off at the expense of government spending on
health and education. The fairness test would not be an election slogan;
it would be a coherent message about what Labor stands for that runs
through all the policies it has consulted on and developed long before
the actual election campaign begins.


However much you might dislike the idea of a three word slogan, it is
clear this simple sound bite communication strategy was successful for
the Abbott opposition.  What I want to see it that ‘the fairness test’
becomes associated in the public mind with the Labor party. That it
becomes, if you like, the Labor brand. Labor already has the policies it
needs to support this overarching narrative. So now they just need the
words. A short, concise, simple way to frame Labor’s values. The
fairness test. As a Labor voter, I would happily wear this on a T-Shirt.
Would you?


Also by Kay Rollison:


Framing the budget


Queuing Up


Sloppy Journalism from Laura Tingle


Centre for Right-wing Apologist Politics (CRAP)

Dear Bill: Don't let yourself be Romneyed

Dear Bill: Don't let yourself be Romneyed

Michael Galvin 24 June 2014, 8:00am 38

Politics

(Image by John Graham / johngraham.alphalink.com.au)

Michael
Galvin sends a message to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, pleading with
him to show courage not to become Australia's version of Mitt Romney.

Dear Bill,

Have you noticed the way the steady stream of negative publicity about you has suddenly started to intensify?

Brace yourself, I think you are in for a lot more of it.

Do you remember Mitt Romney?

He
was the nice-enough guy who was convinced that he was going to consign
Obama to the dust-bin of history. He was so confident, he didn't even
bother to prepare a concession speech.

Do
you remember one of the main election strategies Mr Nice Guy Obama used
to defeat Romney? Obama went in hard and went in early with a costly,
dirty campaign to paint Romney as an elitist, out of touch, plutocrat.

Obama's successful strategy was to paint a picture in the electorate's mind of and about Romney before
Romney himself had a chance to portray himself. Once the paint on that
picture had dried, Romney could do very little to change it.

This
is the bad news for you, Bill. For whatever reasons, you have spent
nearly eight months on the sidelines of public consciousness. You have
not been able to spend this time building a strong personal identity in
words or actions. Perhaps your tactic has been to give Abbott enough
rope and expect that the dangerous weirdo will hang himself, and put us
all out of our misery.

The tactic has half worked.

Abbott has enough rope to hang himself and everyone else in his party room, but I don't see him swinging from any tree just yet.

That is why you are now going to get the Romney treatment. We are going to hear endless negative stories about you.

The current Union Royal Commission is just the start.

We
know that Abbott and his claque are world leaders in the art of
negative and unfair political character assassination. Why is it
possible that some of this mud will stick and you will not be able to
present a credible alternative to the Libs?

First,
because they will use the tiniest shreds of stuff about you (union
history and links, for example) to damn you. And, secondly, there was a
vacuum there which they will fill with their own bile.

Sadly,
you have not done enough in the time you have been leader to make a
strong, multifaceted, positive impression on swinging voters who care
very little about politics, or enough of the Labor base who do take an
interest and hate what they see about Abbott's Government.

Bill, in short, you are being Romneyed.

Hilarious Mitt Romney Gaffe Compilation

And it is partly, if not largely, your own doing — as it was Romney's.

But all is not lost.

You
are about to have your make-or-break moment. The new teams in the
ballgame are about to start playing. Actions will now speak louder than
words. Abbott's dreadful Budget measures will be either defeated or
passed in the Senate.

Two things have to happen for you to avoid Romney's fate.

One, all of the Budget measures that are unfair to ordinary voters must be defeated in the Senate. This is a sine qua non for you. You cannot fail to deliver on this.

And
two, you will have to show that you are the deft and strategic leader
who can work with the Greens, the Palmer mob and sundry others to
achieve this outcome.

It
won't be enough to defeat these measures if the Greens and/or Clive
Palmer end up all over our TV screens talking about how they have
defeated Abbott and saved the Australian people from disaster.

It
is a bad outcome for you and Labor if it appears that you are being
dragged or led by – rather than leading – the minor parties in the
gunfights that we are about to see in the Senate.

Whether
you like it or not, you are going to have to get your hands dirty. (All
of those players will want something in exchange for their vote; why
else would they bother turning up?)

If
you can pull this off, if the public believe in six months' time that
it is Labor – led by you – that was in control of the situation in the
Senate, who did the dirty stuff and wheeling and dealing in the
backrooms to get the required votes, then there is every chance that you
might avoid Romney's fate.

The battle is imminent. The issues are clear.

This is penalty shootout time.

Victory or defeat, your moment has come, whether you are ready or not.

Good luck!

In Full: Bill Shorten's budget reply speech

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

Under the shade of a Barcaldine gum tree - - The Australian Independent Media Network

Under the shade of a Barcaldine gum tree - - The Australian Independent Media Network

Under the shade of a Barcaldine gum tree

• 
  
  June 23, 2014
  
• 
  Written by:
  The AIM Network
  
• 
  30 Replies

Image by smh.com.au

• 
  Category: Politics
• 
  permalink
  
  
  
• 
  Tagged under:
  
  
  Australian Labor Party, Bill Shorten
• 
  
  
  The AIM Network
  
  
  
  

The response to Kay Rollison’s An Open Letter to Bill Shorten was
overwhelming, suggesting that many Labor voters are dissatisfied with
Mr Shorten’s performance as Leader of the Opposition. This, of course,
remains open for debate. We follow this up with another letter to Mr
Shorten, from Damian Smith, who is not so much dissatisfied with Mr Shorten himself, but the party he leads.


To The Hon. Bill Shorten,


Mr Shorten, I’m concerned.


My concerns regard yourself and the party that you lead and
represent. Recent reports speculate that you are considering not
blocking supply to this farcical attempt at fascism masquerading as a
budget, that you would consider doing so “undemocratic”.


Mr Shorten, this budget is undemocratic. It is a stretch to even call
it a budget. It would be more accurate to call it a summation of all of
the broken promises of this government, all the brazen lies these
cretins slathered on the Australian electorate in a craven grab for
power. All of what was promised in the election has been retracted. The
opposite has been put into effect. That is not, to my way of
thinking, conducive with democracy.


This is the time when the Labor Party should be at its most vehement,
jaws locked firmly on the exposed jugular of an overconfident foe. Yet
you look set to let this injustice slide, to once again do what the
Labor Party has become so good at in the last decade – capitulate.


Mr Shorten do you even remember the light on the hill?


I do, though every day it becomes even more dim and distant, as those
of us who still strive for it are waylaid by the tyrannies of evil men
and the sheer implacability of those that would set their will against
us.


I used to be a member of the Labor Party. I believe in the values
that the party was built on – equality, egalitarianism, “a fair go”. I
believe that the measure of a man is in the quality of his work and the
strength of his accomplishment, not the money in his bank or the name on
his birth certificate. Ben Chifley’s Light On The Hill.


In those values I still believe, though I fear the Labor Party does not.


I had to leave. I left as I watched the political landscape change and not for the better.


I watched as the right-wing of Australia migrated from “right-wing”
to “crazy, backwards, religiously extreme, flat-earth, young-earth,
creationist, f**ked-up right wing” and I watched as the Labor Party,
traditionally the “left”, in an attempt to claw back any and every vote
that it could, went from being left wing to being “just slightly left of
the Tea Party nutters”.


In the most Faustian of moves you sold your soul. You sold out the
people who truly believed in the cause to try to woo those whose vote
you would never have.


You neither had your cake nor the satisfaction of eating it.


That I could not countenance. So I left.


The right controls the media and so too do they control the paradigm.
They control the lexicon and by association the minds of those swayed
by such things. Climate change “debate”. Carbon “tax”. Budget
“emergency”. It doesn’t matter that these things are not true, the lies
will be printed anyway.


You can’t compete on this battleground, you don’t have the resources
and, I would hope, lack the inclination. You can’t fight on their terms.


They’re so powerful that they have convinced a disturbing number of
Australians that our greatest prime minister was actually our worst and
that the world’s best treasurer of recent times was an incompetent
buffoon who doomed our nation. You can’t win.


No amount of bipartisanship or flexibility is going to sway those who
are not already for the cause. No amount of compromise is going to
swing the vote of someone who has been convinced by a decade of Today
Tonight that you are responsible for a fiscal crisis that never existed.


The only way for you to win is to provide a clear alternative. A
better option. To offer people a glimpse of the light on the hill.


The answer is not to kowtow to the right but to provide a staunch and
uncompromising banner on the left, one that shines high and proud for
us to rally behind.


The right has convinced the people that socialism is a dirty word and
that unions are tantamount to gangsters. The solution is not to abandon
these principles, which are the core and the soul of the Labor Party,
in an attempt to shed the stigma which has been so unfairly attached by a
corporate agenda.


The answer is to embrace them, to wear them with pride and with
dignity and to say that we are by the people, for the people, now and
forever and that we will stand firm and implacable in the ebbs and flows
of the capricious public.


That is the Labor Party I want to be a part of.


I should be your man Mr Shorten. I’m a Mascot boy, Kingsford-Smith – born under Bowen and raised under Brereton.


I’m a member of a trade union and a proud socialist. I’m at once both
an artist and a blue collar worker – a comedian and an airport baggage
handler. I AM the Labor Party.Yet I’m not a member. That concerns me and
it should concern you.


Win me back Mr Shorten. Prove to me that this great party – Chifley’s
party, Hawke’s party, the god-king-made-flesh Keating’s party, is still
my party too. Lead by example. Lead by dissent, as our forefathers did.


Lead us to the light on the hill.


And you can start by blocking this blight of a budget.


Yours?


Damian Smith


This article was first published as An Open Letter to Bill Shorten on thedamiansmith.tumblr.com and has been reproduced with permission.


Follow Damian on Facebook, Twitter, or visit his web page damiansmith.com.au.

Cede power, Anthony Albanese tells factions | The Australian

Cede power, Anthony Albanese tells factions |
The Australian

Cede power, Anthony Albanese tells factions

• 
  May 02, 2014
  12:00AM
  

tefanie Balogh

Senior Writer

Canberra

Anthony Albanese in parliament. Picture: Gary Ramage

LABOR Left leader Anthony ­Albanese last night called on union
chiefs and power­brokers — including himself — to relinquish power and
influence to members because they have a “collective responsibility’’ to
reform the party.

And he hit out at some March for March protesters who overstepped
the mark, cautioning that those on the progressive side of politics
“should leave the abusive slogans and offensive posters to the fringe’’.

Mr
Albanese, who won the popular vote in last year’s leadership ballot,
backed calls for the party to be overhauled, saying critics who argued
internal debate was a distraction were missing the point.

“If we
can craft progressive policies and endorse candidates drawn from across
the community — not just from our existing circle of insiders — we can
make Mr Abbott a one-term prime minister,’’ he told Young Labor
supporters in Cairns.





His intervention in Labor’s reform debate is significant because the
former minister is widely respected, popular with members and heads the
Left faction.

“The bottom line for Labor Party reform is that
unless some people who hold power now are prepared to share it with
others, it will fail,’’ he said.

“You can’t give more power to the membership without taking it from the powerbrokers.’’

They
had a collective responsibility to act, even if that meant some lost
power. “I include myself in that,’’ he said. “This will mean uncertain
outcomes. But that’s the point.’’

He also called for civility in
politics. “Labor’s starting point on the road to political recovery must
be acceptance that negativity and name calling won’t ­advance our
political cause.’’

It was a shame, Mr Albanese said, that when
Australians joined the March in March protests, the “message was
undermined by some of the banners’’.

He said he saw one that “actually condemned democracy’’. “That’s not progressive. That’s unacceptable. Full stop’’.

Some protesters
also wore ­“F..k Tony Abbott’’ T-shirts.

“We should leave the
abusive slogans and offensive posters to the fringe,’’ Mr Albanese said.
“Labor seeks to govern with ­majority support of the nation, not to be
just a party of protest.

“We must change the culture of party
processes to harness the broader participation that will broaden our
access to new ideas and potential candidates. Ideas must come from the
parliamentary wing and workplaces, but also from business people, mums
and dads in the suburbs, young people, professional people, churches,
and ethnic communities, even the local footy club.’’

He also
backed the push by ALP national president Jenny McAllister and retiring
veteran senator John Faulkner for union chiefs and factional
powerbrokers to cede power.

“I support the rank-and-file
membership having a direct say in electing delegates to state and
national ALP conferences,’’ he said.

“The same goes for the selection of Senate and upper house candidates.’’

The light on the hill - - The Australian Independent Media Network

The light on the hill - - The Australian Independent Media Network

The light on the hill

• 
  
  June 21, 2014
  
• 
  Written by:
  Kaye Lee
  
• 
  11 Replies

• 
  Category: Politics
• 
  permalink
  
  
  
• 
  Tagged under:
  
  
  Ben Chifley, direction, Labor Party. light on the hill, vision
• 
  
  
  Kaye Lee
  
  
  
  

In 1949 Prime Minister Ben Chifley addressed a State Labor Conference, saying these words:


“I try to think of the Labour movement, not as
putting an extra sixpence into somebody’s pocket, or making somebody
Prime Minister or Premier, but as a movement bringing something better
to the people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass
of the people. We have a great objective – the light on the hill –
which we aim to reach by working for the betterment of mankind not only
here but anywhere we may give a helping hand. If it were not for that,
the Labour movement would not be worth fighting for.”


Compare these words with contemporary politics.  It seems every
decision is purely designed to put “an extra sixpence” in someone’s
pocket.  We equate wealth with worth and vilify those who have failed to
make it onto the gravy train.  We want our unions to extract every cent
they can for us.  We want our government to cut our taxes and increase
our concessions.


But money does not necessarily make better people.  As John Gumming said,


“Dignity and rank and riches are all corruptible and
worthless; but moral character has an immortality that no sword-point
can destroy.”


Chifley speaks of service and a vision to make the world a better
place.  He does not speak of personal ambition or winning elections –
the ideals of the movement are more important than the individual
politicians.


The “light on the hill” is the betterment of all humanity.  Instead,
we have closed our borders, ignored the pleas for help from a world in
turmoil, and refused to co-operate in global action on climate change
and income inequity.  We have slashed foreign aid and chosen instead to
ramp up military spending.


Society has been replaced by economy in the minds of politicians. 
The government is like the parent who devotes all energy to accumulating
money but spends no time with their family.  The means have become the
end goal.


Even with such a focus on the economy, we find our politicians either
sadly lacking in economic understanding or deliberately misleading the
populace for their own agenda.


They have chosen their advisers from a very narrow group of people
who share very similar views and who are most unlikely to offer any
criticism of the government’s stated direction.  In effect, they are
there to rubber stamp the Coalition’s policies.


They have also chosen to employ literally thousands of people to
“sell” their message.  I have always been of the opinion that if a
product is good enough it sells itself.  The hold that advertising has
taken on the world is frightening.  These people have absolutely no
qualms about lying and, in politics, we have no consumer watchdog to
punish them for false advertising.  Any government that would employ
Mark Textor shows how little regard they have for truth or integrity.


But what of the alternative?


Increasingly the public are expressing their growing concern about
the Labor Party’s lack of vision.  It seems apparent that ideals have
been forsaken for personal ambition as more time is spent on factions
jockeying for position than in defining the direction of what was once
the people’s party.  Preselections are handed out as favours rather than
on merit.  Policies are hidden until the next election.


Chifley said that if it were not for the light on the hill, the Labor
movement would not be worth fighting for.  That light seems all but
extinguished and, unless Labor can find the courage to articulate a
truly progressive alternative, it is time to look for honourable
individuals to step forward to represent us and to stop the laziness and
corruption that the two party system has allowed to flourish.

ABBOTT CONSERVATISM: Thinkers - John Roskam

ABBOTT CONSERVATISM: Thinkers - John Roskam: Thinkers - John Roskam Tom Cowie Tuesday, 24 January 2012 The man running the country's loudest -- and most right wing -- think tank ...

JOHN ROSKAM.



The man running the country's loudest -- and most right wing -- think tank



Executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs



Born in: He grew up in North Dandenong.



Friends: BILL SHORTEN | Andrew Bolt | Michael Kroger



Foes: The Greens | GetUp!



Home Town: Melbourne

excerpt from the article by THE POWER INDEX



note
: NOTICE BILL SHORTEN AS ONE OF THE FRIENDS OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE CONSERVATIVES THINK TANK . INTERESTING DON'T YOU THINK ?

ALBO FOR PRIME MINISTER

We need ALBO as Leader of the Labor Party.
Bill Shorten keeps betraying LABOR VALUES.
Shorten falls well shorten of a Good Leader, not to mention his baggage betraying two Prime Ministers.

An Open Letter to Bill Shorten - - The Australian Independent Media Network

An Open Letter to Bill Shorten - - The Australian Independent Media Network

An Open Letter to Bill Shorten

• 
  
  June 20, 2014
  
• 
  Written by:
  Kay Rollison
  

Photo courtesy of billshorten.com.au

• 
  Category: Politics
• 
  permalink
  
  
  
• 
  
  
  Kay Rollison
  
  
  
  

Dear Bill


I’m finally moved to write to you because of three decisions the
Labor Party has made this week that seem to me to be totally at variance
with what Labor says it stands for. I recently heard you speak about
the need for renewal in the Labor Party, and this doesn’t seem to me to
be the way to go about it.


Forgive me if I’ve got any of this wrong; I’ve only got the
mainstream media to go on. But from what I can tell, the Labor caucus
has this week voted in favour of continued off-shore processing of
asylum seekers– continuing the shame of Manus Island and Naru, supported
the continuation of the school chaplaincy program, and agreed to the
creation of Abbott’s Green Army.


There are many reasons why people like me oppose off-shore
processing. I would hope you understand what those reasons are, but just
to remind you, it’s because the policy is cruel and inhuman and in
breach of Australia’s international obligations. It also happens to be
far more expensive than other reasonable alternatives. I hope you’ve
read Julian Burnside’s thoughtful article about other possible policy responses. Here’s some of my suggestions.
But perhaps even more important, it undermines Labor’s whole argument
that it always puts the good of the community ahead of selfish and
bigoted interests. Labor can’t show moral leadership on anything while
it continues with this degraded and degrading policy.


I understand that the caucus is nervous about the electoral success
of ‘stop the boats’. It is also reasonable to be concerned about the
deaths at sea that are a result of people smuggling. I don’t expect you
to come up with a new policy tomorrow. But I’d like to see you start the
process. Admit that the New Guinea solution isn’t a solution at all.
Talk to stake holders. Set up a consultation process. Get the best
advice – consistent with Labor principles. Forget about the focus
groups. For goodness sake, show that you care. You want to lead
Australia? Start doing it by having a bit of moral courage on this
issue.


Free, compulsory and secular. That’s the battle that’s been fought
for public education in Australia in the past, and should still be one
Labor is committed to. OK, so it’s not free – there are some costs met
by parents – but Labor is rightly engaged in fighting for proper funding
for public education through the Gonski reforms. Compulsory? No
argument about that. And why not secular? It could be said that state
aid to private schools – increased dramatically under the Howard
government, and shielded from cuts in Hockey’s first budget – makes a
mockery of the principle of separation of church and state. But why make
things worse by supporting a program that aims specifically to support
the ‘spiritual’ wellbeing of students as well as their social and
emotional wellbeing? I know that the High Court’s decision finding the
program illegal is about the funding model, not the principle of
separation of church and state. But that’s no reason for not welcoming
the decision and suggesting it’s time for rethinking the whole program.
It’s not as if there was even any electoral damage to be done; it’s
hardly a popular program. Again, get some advice. Listen to some
experts. Look at where the resource could better be spent. And stand up
for principle.


The third area I believe the party is supporting – and where I
question their doing so – is the creation of Abbott’s 15,000 strong
‘Green Army’ of unemployed 17-24 year olds. Nine participants and one
supervisor will work for 20-26 weeks on projects that will be proposed
by the community. Even though touted by Greg Hunt as ‘an environmental
and training program’, this is essentially a ‘work for the dole’ scheme,
and Labor has supported these in the past; think Whitlam’s RED scheme.
But surely these programs have been reviewed? Do they really work either
as sustainable conservation projects or in upskilling the participants
in ways that help them find real jobs? In this case it is reported by Bernard Keane in Crikey that ‘participants would be paid as little as half the minimum wage for working up to 30 hours a week. OH&S and other workplace protections would not be available because participants would be exempted from the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, and, most importantly, the Fair Work Act.’ Is
this really something you think Labor should be supporting?
Participants will actually be employed by ‘Service Providers’ – private
sector bodies selected through a request for tender process – no doubt a
nice little earner for someone. What controls will there be to ensure
that appropriate training – the only justification for the scheme – will
actually take place? What about occupational health and safety? Pink
batts, anyone? Then there’s the whole question of what sort of projects
will be funded. Maybe there will be some good things done for heritage,
weed control, public amenity and the like, but let’s not pretend a
scattering of local projects can really contribute to a coherent plan
for conservation and biodiversity, let alone act as  a response to climate change.


But isn’t the Green Army supposed to be planting Tony Abbott’s 20
million trees? I’ve never read anything better on the tree planting
scheme than the list of questions
Ad Astra proposed in a post on The Political Sword in February 2013. As
far as I know, none of them has been answered. Could you perhaps make
it your aim to ask Tony Abbott these questions:

• From where will the trees be sourced? What sort of trees?
• How large an area will be needed to plant them?
• As you have stated that semi-arable land would be used, since all
  the existing arable land is needed for farming food and fibre, where
  will you find the large amount of land you will need?
• How will you transport the [Green Army] to semi-arable locations, house them, and provision them?
• How long will it take to plant 20 million trees?
• Once planted, how will the trees be watered and nurtured until
  growth is well established in their semi-arable locations? At what
  ongoing cost?

Bill, would you really want to be involved in this?


I’m not suggesting that the ALP make policy decisions by vote of its
members. But it needs some process of consultation beyond a caucus vote.
I understand that day to day decisions need to be taken quickly, and
that there are policy documents in place to guide such decisions. But
equally I’m tired of having to listen to the party getting it wrong,
sometimes disastrously so. Why can’t Labor collect and act on the best
possible advice? After all, we have a wonderful example before us of a
government that despises expertise, and relies wholly on its favourite
vested interests for policy guidance. Show how different you are. Mean
something by renewal. It’s not enough to know that we have the worst
government Australia has ever seen; we need a principled, vital and
informed alternative. And that’s your challenge Bill. You can’t imagine
how much I want you to succeed.


More from Kay Rollison:


Book Review: The Cuckoo’s Calling, by Robert Galbraith


Framing the budget


Book Review: The Black Box, by Michael Connelly


Queuing Up

Young Labor Left Back Revolt on Asylum Policy | newmatilda.com

Young Labor Left Back Revolt on Asylum Policy | newmatilda.com

Young Labor Left Back Revolt on Asylum Policy

By Pete Landi

Keywords: 

anna burke

melissa parke

pete landi

young labor left

asylum seeker policy

Members
of Young Labor Left in NSW have voted to withdraw support to candidates
who do not commit to a rethink on asylum seeker policies, writes Pete
Landi*.

The asylum seeker issue is one of the most important issues of race and representation in our generation.


The status of our so-called “Immigration and Border Protection”
policy is utterly debauched. And it is one the Liberal Party inherited
from the Labor Party.


The government contracted the man who beat Reza Berati to death with a
rock, clearly demonstrating the operation of the centre unviable,
dangerous and an exemplification of brutality against the powerless.


Richard Marles the Opposition Spokesman for Immigration continues to
endorse the centre’s operation. Even after the trauma of this event,
Marles initiated a cruelty bidding war with Scott Morrison, challenging
him to restate that no asylum seeker on Manus Island would receive an
Australian protection visa.


Young Labor Left took a step in the right direction recently; we
decided that we will not campaign for any candidate at the state or
federal election who does not publically oppose mandatory detention and
offshore processing.


In a practical sense this means that we will not door knock,
letterbox or call on behalf of any candidate that does not support an
end to the indefinite detention of asylum seekers in detention centres,
and encourages rank and file activists from Young Labor all around the
country to move similar motions in their respective branches, with a
view to putting pressure on the leadership from the ground up.


There is no reason why dissenting voices within the rank and file of
the ALP can’t create a movement internally to hold our representatives
to account.


After the PNG solution was introduced by the previous Labor
government, members of YLL convened in Newcastle, unanimously approving a
motion to petition the Senior Left, urging the party to change its
position on refugees.


Not alone in outrage at the actions of the Parliamentary caucus, the
Australian Council of Trade Unions also condemned the policy when it was
announced, yet this too was to no avail.


Although frustrated by the indifference shown by the ALP, even in the
face of dissent from both the parties own youth wing and the labour
movement at large, Young Labor Left continues to engage in community
campaigns around the issue.


This internal dissent is more than a way to show Anna Bourke and
Melissa Parke that they are not alone in their stand in federal caucus
against labor’s current position.


We should not have to rely on the benevolence of elected MPs for
direction on policy. Rank and file pressure needs to be immediate, and
the youth movement can play its part with a well-publicised boycott of
anti-refugee candidates.


To end this policy, all forms of agitation, both external and
internal to the Labor Party need to be engaged with to ensure the best
chance of success, and this cannot exclude the open criticism of my own
party.


Young activists in the Labor Party need to make a decision about how
they intend to reconcile their progressive views on asylum seekers with
their Party Membership, and what role they intend to play in changing
Party Policy.


* Pete Landi is a member of NSW Young Labor Left.