Never a better time to be alive?

Since Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was appointed back in September he has championed that there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. In a speech to the Center for Strategic and International studies in Washington DC on Monday, he reiterated this sentiment whilst advocating for a targeted, strategic approach to combating ISIL from the combined Allied Forces. His speech has been highly regarded and, so far the reception has been positive despite him quoting Thucydides... Twice. Whilst there may have never been a more exciting time to be an Australian, from my recent experience there is now a palpable hesitancy when traveling around the globe.  

In 2014/5 I spent six months studying in the United Kingdom and backpacking around Europe and over the last two months I have travelled back to England and am currently in the United States. Having traveled then, and being abroad right now I can see there has been a definite shift in how secure people are feeling living and working in major cities around the world. There is a real fear that something is going to happen. I was in Germany during the Charlie Hedbo attack, having just come from Paris, and even in the aftermath, with all the heightened security, never did I feel that people were overtly concerned about their welfare. Yes it was accepted that it was worrying to think a group of respected journalists could be targeted in such a gruesome crime, but generally, feelings were of sorrow not terror. Flying back into England a fortnight later I was greeted with a familiarity that I had come to recognise, a safe protecting environment, with everything returning to normal. A month later I spent time backpacking East and West Europe and it was almost as if the Paris attack had not happened. 

December 1, 2015 I left Australia, bound for the United Kingdom once again just a few mere months after the second, more deadly Paris attack and a feeling of trepidation fell upon me. Arriving in a country historically known for its pacifist nature, where police officers usually lacked armed weapons and citizens are generally known for their reserved nature, I could tell something that had changed. In just an eight month period, the country with whom I had fallen in love had transformed from a place of acceptance and endless possibilities to one of worry and hesitancy. In a city where months beforehand I could have counted on one hand how many armed guards I saw in six months, traveling along the Underground Tube system, at every station I saw a number Special Forces Officers. I spent some time visiting my old university, traveling to northern  England and at every train station there were armed guards standing on all the platforms. Back in London if the tube stopped unexpectedly between stations (quite a normal occurrence) people would actively look around the carriage expecting to see something out of place. It was a strange feeling knowing that fellow passengers are sizing you up to see if you are the cause of the problem. That is not to say that people no longer go out in London, nor are people necessarily targeting certain sectors of society; quite the opposite in fact  but rather there is an added layer of caution when planning to meet family and friends in a public place. Fear of the unknown. Fear of the unexpected. Worry.

Traveling back, I naïvely expected things to be the same as last time. I imagined a place that still shone with the beauty of history and the excitement of anything is achievable. A country that never sleeps. The stark reality of what I saw was frightening. That is not to say a walk along the Thames was fraught with danger, nor am I implying that England was not an enjoyable place; however in the three weeks I spend there, I got the impression that people had a definite feeling of inevitability, that something bad will happen. They do not know where or when but something will happen at some point; and that is truly horrifying. 

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in his speech that we need the right boots on the right grounds in a collaborative effort on many fronts to be be able to eliminate ISIL and I do hope that something is done soon, because is a country like England can change so rapidly in less than a year, what hope is there for 2016? 

Australia V UK

Australia: Backwards, no internet, koalas as pets. Australia politics: what? Is that even a thing? Umm Tony Abbott… and some red headed chick. England: Old, tea, The Queen, cricket. British Politics: Traditional, undemocratic, long history, Tories.

Politics by and large, in any country has the same common elements, a somewhat elected person leading some other elected people, who make decision on our behalf. Every so often we have an election to make sure the people think, the right people have power, and the wrong people don’t. We can usually see the process whereby our elected representatives make decisions that affect us, and our opinions are usually formed around what we see on television and read in the paper. Pretty standard stuff right? I mean when looking at Australia and the United Kingdom one would think the two political systems would be the same, England founded Australia, your Queen is my Queen and we are all in the Commonwealth, simple.

Not simple. In fact the differences between the two political systems are so vast I feel like I need a translation book just to get a grasp on what is going on.

First up, what is with voluntary voting? In a political system set up to represent the people, how is that even possible if not everyone votes? Australia has had compulsory voting at Federal (national) elections since 1924 and State elections not long after that, which means even if you decide to draw expletives and waste your vote, you have to get your name marked off.

Australians also hold elections on a Saturday to capitalise on BBQ sales and bake stalls, not on a Thursday when most people work and struggle to make it to polling stations before they close! Furthermore, having polling stations open until 10pm messes with the sleeping pattern of every political junkie and election guru who only hope to go to bed on election night after the results are in…. way past their bed time (unless they are watching from another time zone and in that case GO RIGHT AHEAD!)

Moving on to how votes are counted, using the First Past the Post voting system, means that even if you voted you may not have any preference towards the elected candidate as only first preference votes are counted. Back home the system of Preferential Voting (while flawed in its own ways) ensures, even if marginally, every voter has some degree of preference towards the winner, which in a democracy is what the founding fathers envisioned. And let’s not even think about the Upper House, with the UK appointing members rather than letting the electorate decide, half of the law making process is done by people who are in no way held accountable for their actions….

Once you arrive in the chamber, all those unelected peeps in the Upper House sit casting judgement over laws with no real accountability, whereas back home another name for the Upper House is the States House designed to keep the  Australian Territories and States able to have a say in national matters. I say designed because that is not usually the case anymore and party politics influence voting infinitely more than state loyalty. If all the current members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords sat in said chambers they would not all fit; that fact alone should baffle even the most politically obsessed. In the Lower House we have 150 members compared to 650 here and the Upper House consists of 76 Senators and here there a whopping 793 members. That being said the motions and procedures that take place inside the chamber are remarkably similar in both parliaments, despite all their other differences.

All in all, Australian and British politics have similar overarching systems but the devil and differences are in the technicalities. Aussies would say our system is more democratic but the British system pays more of a homage to its rich history. Neither is better, but it is just one more thing to talk about other than the Ashes….

What the Scott??

So, hey guys something pretty epic is going on right now and people, at least from where I am sitting, are losing their minds over it. I’m in England the land of tea and scones, the Queen and a total love fest over a lady called Catherine and her baby George, and for a moment there, the UK look set to say goodbye to Scotland, the land of haggis, all in the name of independence. Now this may not seem like a huge and epic deal to those of us who live ‘down under’, but let me tell you the world almost stood still as the Scotts voted from 8am until 10pm! And in the wee hours of the morning it was declared that the Scottish people wanted to remain and continue to get the perks afforded to them, by Britain.

Now I know you are thinking what does this have to do with me? Why do I care if some country on the other side of the world wants to break away from the Commonwealth? Let me tell you why, because if they did, half our pollies would have come out in favour of Australia becoming a republic and the other half would have been flying to England to show the Queen how much we love her. It would have been splashed all over the news and endlessly debated on a scale of sublime proportions! The republican issue in Australia has been quietly debated for a long while but was most popular during the early 1990’s which forced PM at the time John Howard, much to his disgust to hold a referendum, but is was due to his total devotion to the Queen the voting public decided leaving the queen was WAY too hard and if it ‘aint broke don’t fix it.

The outcome in the end was more like what happened in Australia, when we tried for the same thing in 1999 and failed. The Australian Republican Movement (whose biggest supporter BTW was Malcolm Turnbull, one of Tony Abbotts BFFs) convinced our pollies and the voting public that the issue was important enough that we needed to have a referendum on the subject. This then would determine once and for all, whether or not Australia would become fully grown up and leave the Commonwealth or not. Apparently that was one step to far for us and the security blanket tethering us to the UK was too strong as in the end overwhelmingly the answer was a big fat no.

While obviously Scotland withdrawing from the Commonwealth would have be significantly a bigger deal than Australia leaving, both times the night before, the outcome look pretty set. One reason for this is, because it is inherently harder to cause change solely through referendum alone. In Australia, of the 44 proposed referendums since federation, only 8 have been successful and 3 of which have significantly altered the power breakdown. Through all of the Scotland Decides televised coverage, commentators continually referred to this referendum as ground breaking with no way to judge the outcome, but to an Australian the writing was on the wall. Malcom Turnbull once said that a referendum could only be successful if there was unwavering support behind the cause and in both instances there was a considerable opposition. It is one thing to support the plight for independence but it is another thing entirely to commit and follow it through. The nationalistic view that every country should be their own, and that no matter what a sense of national identity is important is at the core of why countries strive to call themselves independent. One only needs to look at Australia to see that increasingly the Queen and the Royal Family is becoming more and more redundant in the political and social sphere, and while it is lovely to have a visit from a member of the Royal Family at sporadic intervals, it is in no way a necessity. The Australian constitution was even changed to remove being able to appeal to the Privy Council in 1986, forcing Australia to decide in house, its legal affairs.

The situation in Scotland obviously has its differences, one being that it shares a land border with England, but also the financial and monetary ties mean that the separation would be more severe than discontinuing dual citizenship for residents living outside England. The individuals who said that Scotland should become independent ran their campaign on the grounds that the people would be able to support themselves financially if independence became a reality, something the “No” camp strongly detested. Comparing the possibly separation between Scotland and Australia in most respects in untenable on the grounds that land mass proximity to the motherland, but the idea that a country will only be “grown up” when it reaches independence is an ideal that long surpasses 1999. As far back as 1776, the United States declared independence and decided to forge their own way in the world and today remains one of the global superpowers influencing and controlling world affairs.

 

That is not to say that if Australia or Scotland declared and gained independence they would turn into a world superpower, dominating global talks on the international stage, but on a nationalistic level the peoples of that country would be able to aspire to the highest form of government (if however unlikely for most people!). Whether or not independence or republicanism will ever evolve into something other than a figment of a sectors imagination remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain, the more polarised and the more controversial our political representatives get the less likely a successful push for independence will be. While the Queen/Head of State, is having less and less of an influence in Australia, the fact that if something was to happen they would step in, is a comfort to many people and one that cannot be changed in a mere matter of weeks or months.

 

 

 

PUP - A legitimate political force?

When most people think about politics they automatically think of the Government and Opposition of the day, and probably the last thing that was in the news, whether that be the Carbon Tax, Clive Palmer falling asleep during Question Time, fighting in a remote overseas country or some outlandish remarks made by a politician in the heat of the moment. Not at the top of that list would be the inner workings of the Senate, the chamber which makes up half of our parliamentary system and which holds enormous power when it comes to the passing and scrutinising of bills.

Since the introduction of the new Senators, who were elected last September, many have started to question the legitimacy of the new senators, and how just a handful of individuals can hold so much political clout, that the Government are seemingly being held to ransom. The Senate which consists of 12 representatives from each state and 2 from each territory and is commonly referred to as the House of Review, looks set to undergo a radical change in the way people think about its power and influence in the modern political system, given the influx of 2 minor parties and a handful of micro parties and Independents.

Famously called the house of “Unrepresentative swill” by former Prime Minister Paul Keating, the Senate is home to 76 Senators, each of whom are elected to the chamber for 6 years, and their term in power starts on July 1, irrelevant of when the election is held. Political experts will tell you that it is easier for smaller parties and single issue parties to get elected to the Senate, as the voting system we use, means candidates need just to reach a quota or a percentage of the overall votes rather than 51% of votes to win. It sounds simple enough but when it comes to determining who becomes a senator and who misses out, the count is a long and complex process which usually takes at least a couple of weeks to finalise.

From the 6 new senators usually elected at every election roughly 2 will be from the Australia Labor Party, 2 will be Liberal and the last 2 tend to me part of a minor party, who more often than not will be right leaning, or who have views similar to the Liberal and National Parties. Sometimes, there have been times when outliers have found their way into the Senate and have been hailed ‘true Aussies’ with their larrikin attitudes and who take on the persona of being “normal”, when in actual fact they tend to hold quite peculiar views. And so it seems that the Australian public, and particularly our Tasmanian and Victorian brothers and sisters have decided Canberra needed a shakeup, and believe me when I tell you, we are all in for one hell of a shakeup in the coming years ahead!

The Palmer United Party (and the biggest minor party after The Greens) with its eccentric and unorthodox senators, are already making a name for themselves by bucking the political trend, quickly becoming household names, for perhaps all the wrong reasons. With Tasmania’s Jacqui Lambie, Queensland’s Glen Larazus and Western Australia’s Dio Wang, and the acquisition of Victoria’s Motor Enthusiast’s Ricky Muir, it seems the Palmer United Party are fast becoming a force not to be reckoned with. That is unless you want to get burned, as the Abbott Government have recently found out, after they needed to compromise in order to pass the Carbon Price Repeal and other critical legislation that was the basis of their election campaign and win.

Our first introduction to these new law makers came in the form of an interview on channel 7 earlier in the year, where Ricky Muir was exploited as a media shy, underprepared senator who has a lot to learn about publically elected life and Jacqui Lambie who is quick with the one liners but from all accounts seems delusional when it comes to being held to the high standard of a Senator as opposed just another outrageous elected celebrity vying for media attention! Between her trivial comments regarding her becoming the next PM and wanting a man who is ‘well hung’ she seems to be new Nick Xenophon without a clue! Particularlly as time goes on, it is quite obvious that while she knows how to get media attention, sooner or later she will be nothing more than an outrageous individual Australia is ashamed of! Clive Palmer, ringleader and House of Representatives member extraordinaire, has always been a wild card claiming that Rupert Murdoch’s wife was a Chinese spy as well as condemning the carbon tax whilst in the same breath, claiming we need to be tougher on carbon pollution. This time however, it seems he has gone out of his way to find the most bizarre and peculiar Australians and thrust them into the Australian political sphere in the name of Australian democracy.

Traditionally minor parties have held some level of support in the Senate, but it has been a long time since we have had the breadth and variety elected to the Senate last September. It has become a common theme during election campaigns during the last decade or so, to say that voters have elected the lesser of two bad choices, with the major parties no longer being the obvious choice at the ballot box. But with such a shift towards the minority, many are asking if the system we have held dear to us, needs changing, or at least alteration. Voting trends suggest that although the overall domination of the major parties continues, people are increasingly voting against a party (the government) as opposed to, for the Opposition, which is creating this paradox of circumstances, whereby wild card candidates are being elected after preferences. Furthermore with the increase in smaller and single issue parties, coupled with a growing lack of confidence in the political sphere currently, the major parties are needing rethink who their core voter base are, and how to best appeal to their wishes and needs.

While it is true that only on a few occasions has the prime minister of any political party controlled both the upper and lower houses of parliament, think John Howard and his infamous industrial relations legislation WorkChoices was passed in 2005, many are disputing that it is quite a different matter for these so called minorities to have such a large amount of political impact, think The Democrats and the GST or the Palmer United Party in the modern day. However, given these minor and micro parties are becoming more and more influential, many in the know, are suggesting changes to the rules to ensure these so called fringe dwellers or extremities to the norm, do not have unguarded access and control over what legislation passes or fails. Further example of minor parties holding the government to this ransom, are The Greens and Independents in the last parliament, under the prime ministership of Julia Gillard. But while the press and the Opposition labelled that government as unstable and unworkable, one might be so bold as to say pot, kettle, black in terms of the new Abbott government needing to make deals to pass legislation, but that is the reality until at least the next election so it would seem.

The ABC’s fabulous psephologist (an expert on elections) Antony Green gave a televised speech in Federal Parliament House in February of this year on the need for electoral reform in the Senate, floating around the idea that Senate voting was well past due for modification. Due to the fact that voters can vote in one of two ways and the ballot still be counted, above or below the line is the simple way of defining the two. With 98% of people voting above the line and allowing the political parties themselves to dictate preferences, Green suggests it is time for parties to be held accountable and that backroom deals no longer play such a prominent deal in proceedings, especially as now 1 in 5 voters vote for a minor or micro party, a significantly higher statistic than in the past and going on the results from the September 14 election, if less than 20 people in the whole of Western Australia had voted differently, 2 different senators would have been elected!

Green however does suggest ways in which the system could be improved, one way would be to make candidates (or parties) achieve a minimum quota threshold on first preference votes to ensure that micro parties who receive under say 5% of the vote could not eventually get a seat. This does not totally discriminate against the minor parties, but does force them to have a sizable level of support before they can consider entering parliament or make to the criteria for being eligible to register as a political party stricter as there is an increase in parties of almost 50% prior to an election being called. Green also went on to advocate that change is inevitable, as the current system is unmanageable for modern day politics in its current form; but whatever form it takes, it must ‘ensure the Senate system reflects the will of the electorate’ rather than backroom deals and ‘voters must have the power over preferences’ rather than a complicated mess of party politics as is the case currently.

The Palmer United Senators have now been in parliament for a couple of months and yet we are still grasping at straws when it comes to what they believe in and what they want to see changed. Is Lambie an advocate for Viagra to be put on the PBS, is Dio Wang in favour of stricter control over election counting and is Muir in favour of nationalising learning to drive programs? We may never know, but one thing is for certain, students of politics will be kept entertained and some of us may even start… cough cough continue watching Senate question time. One thing the election of the Palmer United senators does, is make all voters aware of the power of their vote. It is very easy to believe that one vote cannot change the end result, but the proof is in the outcome, 480 people outright voted for Rick Muir in the whole of Victoria with an estimated 3.5 million voting peoples. If less than 20 people in Western Australia had voted differently, and with an estimated 1.6 million voting people that would not be hard to do, the results in the Senate could have been very different.

What does this mean for the current parliament, with its Jacqui Lambie’s, Nick Xenophons and Ricky Muir’s causing all this supposed havoc in the name of holding the government to account? A headache for the government to begin with, and a whole load of fun for the Labor Party, as the Government will have to negotiate and compromise in order to pass legislation. Something that is really quite normal but Abbott shot himself in the foot by labelling the ALP as illegitimate, when they needed to compromise with the Greens in order to pass their own range of legislation. The general consensus is that while the Palmer United Party will jump up and down at some of the proposed legislation from the Government, but at the end of the day they will help in passing the measures.

Whether you like politics or not, in the next couple of years it will be hard to escape the fabulous escapades of the quiet chamber, more often than not, the Palmer United senators will be the deciding factor when it comes to what passes and what fails. This is not new information, but the longer certain senators are in the public arena, and more importantly in the firing line when it comes to the Australian media, the more outrageous and more seemingly inappropriate these elected people become. Your vote is sacred and many people around the world die fighting for the right to cast a vote but one must seriously question the legitimacy and qualifications or lack thereof, of some of our newest parliamentarians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slow New Day

As a self confessed political junkie, who has already succeeded in one of her life goals, to be able to quote The West Wing and pretty much any speech given by Annabel Crabb off the top of my head, I shudder at the thought of the Federal Parliaments Winter Break. I mean if our ever-loved pollies aren’t making and debating bills in Canberra, what am I going to fill my days doing? Interacting with other humans? Making small talk in the corridors? I almost feel lost without knowing, come 1.30 in the afternoon I can turn on question time and get my daily dose of humour, politics and new story ideas all in one go. The other downfall of the mid-winter break is that it means our pollies have nothing to do, and when people have nothing to do, most turn loopy. Crazy loopy. Insane loopy. Loppy loppy.

 And so many have just scratched my head and laughed at the events that unfolded during the break as even though the population of Canberra reduced my half nothing is ever quiet on the eastern front! Not to make light of the situation but this dialogue from The West Wing seems scarily on par with what happened…

 

CJ (Press Secretary): We have nothing to announce today.  No policy, no summit meetings, not even a warm front meeting up with a cold front.  We've been over this. We need a hard news announcement each and every day, or the press runs amuck.

 

JOSH (Deputy Chief of Staff): This is Toby's job.  What am I, the White House complaint center?

 

CJ: You run the policy shop.  Besides, Toby's avoiding me.

 

JOSH: Maybe no news is good news.

 

CJ: No news is very, very bad news. If we're not running offense, we're running defence.  And if we're playing defence, then ... there's some clever sports analogy that explains what happens then.

 

JOSH: We're screwed.

And this pretty much sums up the federal government. In this day and age of a 24 hour news cycle, we are constantly looking for updates and new information and when nothing much is going on, all hell tends to break loose. The smallest most insignificant remark can be magnified tenfold, changed edited and manipulated and all of a sudden a Big Brother style fight has erupted before our very eyes. The argument is then played over and over, and before long every single person in the country knows what was said, by whom and where. And the examples are endless…

Joe Hockey’s comment that the “poorest people either don't have cars or actually don't drive very far in many cases" was made epic, as was Bill Shortens reply, that “Joe Hockey wants people to live in cars not drive them!” Clive Palmers comments about the Chinese was spectacular and a GIF of Penny Wong’s face was played repeatedly, for days.  Not to be disappointed by the big man himself, Prime Minister Tony be-my-friend-coz-i-am-awesome Abbott launched a book and gave away the ending all while trying to act super cool and nonchalant about the whole deal.

It is almost as if all the red cordial and lollies down under were mass sent to those who we put in charge, and consumed on an industrial level, as planes were leaving our nations capital on July 17.

That is not to say that our pollies didn’t conduct important duties while away from the capital, in light of the MH17 disaster the PM and Foreign Minister flew to Europe pledging Australia’s full support in the weeks and months following the incident, which many are calling international terrorism and condemnation of Russia supporting the rebels. Obviously the Government received a bump in the polls due to this and given the unfortunate circumstances have chosen to focus on boarder protection and nationalistic goals in the foreseeable future when it comes to policy announcements, which will continue when parliament resumes and for the most part of the rest of the political year.

 

Finally the issue that has divided the nation, the federal budget or the feral budget depending on who you are speaking to, is still being hotly contested. It seems like a number of measures aimed at reducing the debt are controversial as ever and protests (particularly at a student and young person/ left leaning level) are continuing. With the MYEFO (Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook) due out in a matter of month it will be interesting to see if the Government use that as a way of enforcing the need for their “pain for a purpose” budget.

Okay, so maybe stuff has been happening over the winter break, but it sure is boring only listening to one round of new news each day, and as someone who can speak with a mouth full of marbles I for one am glad I will have new things to discuss, now that parliament has resumed…

 

 

Outrageous Sexism? Yes No Maybe?!?

 

Last month Former First Lady, Former Secretary of State and potential United States Presidential candidate Hilary Clinton said in an interview that Julia Gillard faced “outrageous sexism” whist in the highest elected office in Australia. Now while it was true that the criticism surrounding her reign as prime minister was extraordinary, there is still a resounding level of doubt surrounding whether or not what she experienced was in fact sexism or something else. Outrageous ridicule? Yes. Outrageous coverage of her wardrobe choices? Yes. Coverage on her partner? Yes. On the fact she was not a mum? Yes. And that her choice made her unfit for office? Yes. But outrageous sexism? Not sure.

Outrageous (adj). 1. Grossly offensive or extravagant. 2. Being or having the nature of an outrage.

Sexism (n). Discrimination on the basis of sex, especially the oppression of women by men.

So by these standards, if Julia Gillard did experience sexism at the hands of the then Opposition and particularly at the hands of Christopher Pyne and Tony Abbott, she would have had to endure gross discrimination on the basis of sex, and by these standards she probably did not. Did she not get to be prime minister because she was a woman?!?! If she had been a Kevin Rudd 2.0 or a new and improved Bill Shorten would the personal attacks been different? Less personal and more ‘policy’ based? Less about clothes and makeup? Maybe, maybe not, but no other prime minister has been criticised about the colour tie they wore and whether or not the suits they wear cut them wrong…. So maybe yes…

It is no secret that the last Labor reign was plagued with controversies, stuff ups, unstable coalitions with minor parties and independents, but it was also a government –under both Rudd (with Gillard as Deputy PM) and Gillard, a party who stuck to its own ideological base with a focus on Education, developing the Asian century and in the end establishing the National Broadband Network and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Whether or not you agree or disagree with these policies and spending programs, one must give credit where it is due, and Julia Gillard conquered the feat of first female prime minister paving the way for future female leaders.

The idea that Julia Gillard experienced more deliberately personal attacks is without a doubt a fact to most people, but the question remains, was this just a new phase for Australian politics, along with Clive Palmer twerking and Kevin07’s selfie with Annabel Crabb, or was it a deliberate attempt to hinder the progression of females in politics in Australia? Taking a look at any parliament in Australia at the state or federal level and one thing is fleetingly obvious – it is overrun with men.

In 2011 and 2012 Australia saw a huge shift forward in breaking the class ceiling when it came to politics, and for the first time we have a female Governor General Dame Quentin Bryce AD CVO, a female Prime Minister Julia Gillard, a female Speaker, Anna Burke, a female Attorney General Nicola Roxon and as well as many females taking large roles in the outer-cabinet, Kate Ellis as Early Childhood Education Minister, Tanya Plibersek as Minister for Health and Jenny Mackin as Family Affairs Minister just to name a few. Perhaps we were spoilt for choice and evidence suggest that we are no longer inundated with females in top roles within the government, but why is that? Was it just that Julia Gillard suffered immensely for the sisterhood? Her internationally famous misogyny speech suggests it be so. “The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation. Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror. That’s what he needs.” Whether or not he took what she said on board, no one will ever know, but since that fateful day Tony Abbott has pledged to pass a generous paid parental leave scheme and appointed himself Minster for Women.

There seems to be this paradox whereby politics has become increasingly personal and yet equally distant. It is perfectly acceptable to wheel out your stunningly fabulous daughters who may or may not have ‘sex appeal’ but at the same media event shut down a very valid conversation about marriage equality and a woman’s right to choose. So my question still remains, how did we get ourselves into a situation where one of the most powerful female heavyweights in American politics can even single out a PM for enduring “outrageous sexism” while doing her job? Something in our political dialogue needs to change and soon, because whether or not Julia Gillard did experience outrageous sexism, the political atmosphere is toxic and navigation requires a hazmat suit.

A tax, a Levy and a Budget

A tax, a levy and Joe Hockey walk into a bar… it sounds like the beginning of a really bad joke, but the reality facing many Australians is there will be tough times ahead. Joe Hockey’s first budget was a real doozy! Not only are the days of entitlements coming to an end, if you are feeling poorly, a student, a young person or thinking about receiving the old age pension, times are a changing. Oh, and if you earn over $180,000 don’t think you are left out, you get to be part of the special group of people who will pay a Temporary Budget Repair Levy, which is NOT A TAX but a levy. Levy not a tax.

Do you know when politician are getting serious? When three word slogans are replaced with four word slogans, “pain with a purpose” and “building a better Australia” were phrases uttered early on by the Treasurer, while he went on to proclaim this is a “contribute and build budget” and that “prosperity is not a gift, it needs to be earned”.  Under the recent years of Labor, we have seen the Global Financial Crisis transform an economy which was in surplus and moving along, to what the Coalition has labelled a disastrous mess and now it is time for Abbott and his team to fix it with range of regimes that look to reign is spending.

The highlights include:

o   Fuel indexation increasing twice a year, with the money raised linked through legislation, to co-funding road building projects in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

o   $80 billion in Commonwealth funding will be taken from schools and hospitals over the next decade.

o   $7 medical co-payment to see a doctor and an increase of $5 on medication is expected to save upwards of $5billion in the forward estimates.

o   Deregulation of the University sector, with unis setting own fees from 2016 and HECS to be paid back when graduates earn $50,000. Hockey specifically said that "Through these once-in-a-generation reforms, the government will help build a sector that is more diverse, more innovative and more responsive to student needs" in his speech.

o   The pension age raised to 67 in 2023, and increasing to 70 by the year 2035.

o   The creation of a $20 Billion Medical Endowment Fund which will fund medical research into curing cancer, finding cures to diseases and paving the way for Australia to be contenders in world research.

o   Changes to youth benefits. People under 30 need to be unemployed for 6months before getting Newstart, and even then will need to be participants in Work for the Dole to be eligible for income help.

o   People under the age of 25 will be eligible for Youth Allowance not Newstart.           

o   Abolishing $845million in Industry Assistance.

o   Cutting company tax by 1.5%.

o   Family Tax Benefit B eligibility will be lowered to $100,000.

o   #itsnotataxitsalevy Temporary Budget Repair Levy for people earning over $180,000 per year for three years.

o   $535 million in cuts to Indigenous funding.

o   The Coalition has also saved $2.5 billion by stopping the boats.

o   Annual Seniors Supplement will be abolished on July 1 of this year.

o   Abolishment of the Carbon Tax and MRRT.

Many of these measures are not at all surprising and while the Government is playing hardball, it seems that some people will be taking a bigger hit than others. The good news, for those who are obsessive over deficit/surpluses however, is the budget deficit will $29.8 billion in the 2014-15 papers to be reduced further in the 2017-18 budget to $2.8 billion. “The time to contribute is now” and no one is exempt, including politicians and senior public servants, who will incur a salary freeze for one year, and ongoing reductions to former and current MP’s entitlements starting this year.

While many economists have praised Hockey’s budget as a step in the right direction towards fixing the structural deficit enshrined in the economy, important minor parties have spoken out in concern. Palmer United’s Clive Palmer, who will hold considerable power in the Senate come July 1, has labelled this budget a “nightmare” and the Greens have many issues with the majority of proposed savings. Interestingly, though The Greens do support the fuel indexation tax, which will have a direct impact on fuel prices when it becomes operational. This division within minor parties will prove fascinating as the Medicare co-payments and fuel indexation legislation will need to be passed separately to the appropriation bills (budget papers) and therefore can be blocked in the Senate. Also curious were the areas not brought up in the budget speech tonight, including any mention of the environment, funding the Paid Parental Leave scheme, any possible changes to the GST and the National Broadband Network.

Many Coalition MP’s in the weeks ahead, will be trying to convince the electorate that this budget is not only necessary but vital to the prosperity and building of our nation and that the promises kept far outweigh those that were broken.  What they don’t say, is this is only the start, the political love child of John Howard and Bronywyn Bishop has at least 2 more budgets before the electorate can think about replacing him, and as Hockey said, there might tax breaks in the pipeline but when will they come about, only time will tell.