Has the ALP become the DLP?

You need to know Australian political history to get the force of the heading above. The DLP were a splinter party off the ALP principally comprised of conservative Catholics. Bob Santamaria was their guru -- though not formally their leader. ALP figures always loathed the DLP

Perhaps it is time for the ALP to grant the political activist B.A. Santamaria posthumous honorary membership. After all, Kevin Rudd and the Labor team in the 2007 election campaign have been keen to stress their social and economic conservatism along with their support for the Australian-American alliance. The principal difference between Labor and the John Howard-led Coalition turns on industrial relations. But this should not be a bar to Santamaria's ALP membership, since the Catholic activist always favoured regulated labour markets and supported trade unionism as an institution.

The public stance of leading ALP figures indicates how Labor has changed in order to get ready for government and make itself attractive to voters. During an interview with The Australian Financial Review on February 7, 2003, Rudd described himself as "an old-fashioned Christian socialist". Today, the Opposition Leader still proclaims his Christianity but he has junked the "s" word. Now Rudd declares that he is an "economic conservative". But there is more. The Labor leader's political heroes now include, wait for it, the Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies - who just happens to be one of Howard's heroes.

Rudd first declared himself for Menzies in an article published in The Monthly last November. He repeated the message in Parliament on December 5 last year - just after he became Opposition Leader. And he returned to this message in April when he told the Herald journalist Peter Hartcher that, unlike Howard, Menzies believed in a social contract that recognised a "set of obligations binding those who have power to those who have none".

Menzies was a fine democrat in his time. Yet his version of a social contract included the banning of the Communist Party during the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in the early days of World War II, an unsuccessful attempt to ban the Communist Party during the Korean War in 1951 and a lifelong advocacy of the White Australia policy. It's difficult to reconcile the real Menzies with the hero Rudd recalls.

As Rudd indicated in his article in the October 2006 issue of The Monthly, he is a great fan of the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was murdered by the Nazis in April 1945. Yet, as with Menzies, it is not clear as to how far Rudd's admiration goes. The Labor leader's opposition to gay marriage, announced last week, would be consistent with the German pastor's position. But Bonhoeffer was also unequivocally opposed to abortion, a position which Rudd is yet to embrace publicly. Rudd does not regard a preoccupation with sexual morality as consistent with the spirit and content of the Gospels. But Bonhoeffer did.

Certainly Rudd has shown signs of economic and moral conservatism in the past. However, his deputy, Julia Gillard, appears to be a relatively recent convert to the cause of economic reform. Interviewed on Lateline on October 17, Gillard attempted to play down her one-time membership of the Melbourne-based Socialist Forum. She told the presenter, Tony Jones, that her connection with this organisation "occurred more than 20 years ago when I was in my 20s" and that her role merely involved "clerical and administrative work". Quizzed further on Meet the Press on October 20, Gillard acknowledged that her membership of the Socialist Forum "did continue for a period" beyond her student days but maintained that it was "a sort of debating society".

In fact, documents published in the Herald Sun reveal that the deputy Labor leader was on the organisation's management committee until 1994 and was a member until 2002, when it merged with the Fabian Society. The Socialist Forum was set up to facilitate the entry of former Communist Party members into the Victoria ALP. Around the same time, some supporters of Santamaria's National Civic Council were readmitted to the ALP.

In his book Crossing the Party Line, the former communist Bernie Taft described the Socialist Forum as an organisation of a broad range of people on the left who possessed a "socialist commitment". That was then. Now Gillard describes herself as "certainly a conservative person when it comes to government finances and accounting". Certainly Gillard was always a pragmatist but it was not until recently that she has presented herself as a conservative.

In her defence, Gillard has claimed that the Liberal Party deputy leader, Peter Costello, when he was a university student, was "hanging out in a group called the Social Democrats". Perhaps so. But the Social Democrats were just that - social democrats who opposed the communist, Trotskyist and socialist traditions within the labour movement. The right-wing Labor MP Michael Danby was president of the Social Democrats at the time. There is no evidence that Costello ever embraced socialism or any of the ideas of the extreme left.

Then there is the case of the Opposition spokesman for the environment and the arts, Peter Garrett. In his 1987 book Political Blues, the then rock star and continuing conservationist railed against "the devouring jaws of capitalism", dismissed the quest for sustained economic growth as "one of the holy writs of society" and opposed the Australian-American alliance. If Labor is elected on November 24, Garrett will be a member of a government led by confessed economic conservatives who believe in economic growth and support the Australian-American alliance.

In Political Blues, Garrett was dismissive of the contribution made by the Australian Defence Force in international conflicts. But as a member of a Rudd government, he would support Labor's policy to continue the ADF's commitment in Afghanistan and to withdraw only a third of the ADF's current members in Iraq. In recent times, Garrett has acknowledged his embrace of pragmatism. It seems we're all conservatives now.

Source




Auditor lashes $2.1bn frigate upgrade

This sort of thing is absolutely routine for the defence forces not only in Australia but also in the USA and UK. People forget that the defence forces are huge bureaucracies -- with all the irresponsibility and bungling that implies. All army men have known about that forever, of course

The Australian National Audit Office has launched a scathing indictment of the navy's $2.1 billion frigate upgrade. The upgrade is four and a half years overdue and projected to run tens of millions of dollars over budget. In its annual report, the ANAO says long delays had resulted in the number of FFG frigates earmarked for an upgrade being reduced from six to four. Under the 1999 program - implemented by the now privatised Australian Defence Industries - the warships were to be equipped with new radar, sonar, weapons and combat systems. ANAO noted the upgrade contract had to be redrawn after the number of frigates to be refitted was reduced to four from six.

Work on the first warship HMAS Sydney, which was scheduled for completion by August 2003 and finished on April 2006, although the navy is still unsatisfied with the result. The fourth warship is not expected to be returned to service until 2009. ANAO noted that as of September, "HMAS Sydney was experiencing continuing delays in obtaining Initial Operational Release by Navy''. The problems relate to the vessel's underwater warfare and electronic support systems.

"If industry and DMO fail to deliver the specified capability to schedule, then invariably the ADF (Australian Defence Force) experiences delays in achieving the anticipated capability,'' it said. "In the FFG Upgrade Project's case, there is a four and a half year delay in the delivery of the final upgraded ship and an over five-year delay in the delivery of the upgraded Combat Team Training facility.''

As of mid-year, only 83 percent of the project's funds had been spent, it said. "The contract did not adequately provide for the project authority (Defence Materiel Organisation) to excercise the necessary degree of control required.''

The report made nonsense of the Howard Government's credentials on defence procurement, Labor's defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon told The Australian. He said the report showed the folly of the Government's attempt to "pump up ADI's value'' prior to its privatisation. "The upgrade of these guided missile frigates is now four and a half years late. "Despite a $275 million cost blowout, the navy is now only getting four upgrades for the price of six,'' Mr Fitzgibbon said. He said DMO cost blowouts and delays was now running to $13 billion including the navy's Seasprite helicopter, the army's M113 personnel carrier upgrade, the RAAF's Wedgetail surveillance planes and the Tiger reconaissance helicopter.

Source






NSW hospital woes spreading

The state's crumbling public health system is sliding further into crisis, with ambulance crews revealing patients on the Central Coast have died waiting for treatment. As embattled Health Minister Reba Meagher today meets with staff at the beleaguered Royal North Shore Hospital, The Daily Telegraph reports the crisis in our state's health system is engulfing more hospitals.

Paramedics are the latest health workers to speak out, revealing their forced queuing at public hospitals because of a lack of patient beds is costing people their lives. Their warning comes as paramedics on the Central Coast are losing up to 1000 hours a month on the road waiting outside clogged-up hospitals. Documents obtained by the NSW Opposition reveal the seven Central Coast ambulance stations have this year lost the equivalent of 170 days queuing outside Gosford and Wyong Hospitals' emergency departments because there are no beds. Leaked figures from log books show 138 "cases" had to wait more than two hours at both hospitals.

One source said up to 80 per cent of the area's 18 ambulance day crews were regularly off the road and unable to answer triple-0 calls because they were trapped at hospital emergency departments. An ambulance officer with more almost 30 years' experience told The Daily Telegraph jobs were going unanswered. "We sometimes have to get crews from Hornsby or St Ives to answer calls on the Coast because 80 per cent of us will be queuing at the hospital," he said.

Patricia Marshall knows the tragic consequences of our over-stretched public health system - her sister Lynette Salmon died after being forced to wait 20 minutes for an ambulance - despite living just two minutes from an ambulance station. Ms Salmon, 37, suffered an epileptic fit at her Blackwall home last year, dying on her way to hospital. Ms Marshall believes her sister would be alive today if an ambulance had arrived earlier. "What a waste of a life," Ms Marshall said.

Head of emergency services for the Central Coast Dr Kate Porges yesterday backed the paramedics' claims. "We see them (ambulances) queuing outside but there is nothing we can do," he said.

Opposition health spokesman Jillian Skinner said ambulance crews were contacting her daily about the problems. "Our hospitals, not just Royal North Shore, are struggling to cope with patients coming through emergency," she said.

Source






Fathers unpopular with the Left

By Bettina Arndt

IS Kevin Rudd interested in men? The answer, sadly, seems to be no. Unlike John Howard, the Opposition Leader rarely talks about issues affecting many of his own gender, such as family law, child support, fatherless families, boys' education. Indeed, this potential prime minister seems content to hand over the running on most social issues to female colleagues renowned for their anti-male bias. For anyone keen to ensure men and boys receive a fair go, the prospect of a Labor government is all bad news.

As a prime minister, John Howard has been most unusual in his passion for social issues, his famous "barbecue stoppers" and his willingness to stick his neck out and speak about the role of men. Remember the debate about single women's access to IVF? While most politicians were cowed by the wave of women's rights rhetoric, Howard voiced the concern of many suggesting it isn't in our society's interest to encourage more fatherless families. Picking up on community discontent about children losing contact with fathers after divorce, he set up a bipartisan committee to look into the "rebuttable presumption of joint custody", where parents share care unless good reasons preclude it. But Labor's Jennie George and Jenny Macklin dug in and the committee was forced to water down their recommendations.

A 2005 survey of parliamentarians by Fathers4Equality showed 62 Coalition members likely to support a shared parenting amendment compared with six from Labor. Yet, resulting changes to the Family Law Act have done much to ensure children's rights to contact with both parents.

Labor reluctantly supported the legislation, with Kevin Rudd expressing great concern about the changes. He deferred to his then shadow attorney-general, Nicola Roxon, who played up the fear that children would be forced to spend time with dangerous dads.

Roxon previously dismissed the custody inquiry as "dog whistle politics to men's groups aggrieved by the Family Court". Labor's disdain for such groups is consistently demonstrated as Labor shadow ministers refuse to meet even the most respected of these organisations, despite strenuous efforts by a sprinkling of Labor backbenchers to encourage their party to take interest.

Labor MP Roger Price spent years tearing his hair out over his party's failure to implement the recommendations of the inquiry into child support that he chaired in the early 1990s. It was the Howard Government that finally tackled this controversial issue, implementing far reaching changes recommended by an expert committee to make the scheme more equitable.

Yet, Labor's determination to cater to lone-mother lobby groups shows in their recent announcement that they are monitoring the scheme to ensure the primary carer is not disadvantaged. They have also expressed concern about Government efforts to help lone mothers make the transition from welfare to work. Both policies could well suffer rollbacks if Labor ends up in power.

Labor doesn't just have it in for men. The party has consistently favoured women in the workforce over mothers at home with young children. The last time Labor was in power, families relying on one income lost ground compared with other families, suffering an average 4 per cent drop between 1982 and 1995, according to the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling in Canberra. At the time, Joe De Bruyn, national chairman of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Union blamed Labor's "femocrat advisers" for consistently refusing to support women who stayed home, choosing instead to promote child care to encourage workforce participation.

With more than 75 per cent of all families relying on one income when they have infants, Howard moved to increase their support. Between 1996 and 2001, a single-income, two-child family on average weekly earnings gained 16 per cent in disposable income. Labor's more recent support for the babycare payment is a sign the feminist ideologues may be losing some of their grip on the party, but there are clear signs biases remain. One major reason Keating lost power was the perception that Labor governed for some rather than for all. The 750,000 non-resident parents in Australia are one group who should be wary that their interests have no place on a Labor agenda.

Source







Many liberties being lost

Governments are taking our liberty in the name of protecting our health, writes Chris Berg

Are we freer today than we were half a century ago? That question is surprisingly hard to answer. The state control over the economy that characterised Australia in the 20th century is quickly being replaced with nanny state controls. Barriers to trade have been mostly eliminated, and state monopolies eradicated. But accompanying that has been explosive growth in social and environmental regulations. There are now more pages of Commonwealth legislation introduced every year than were passed in the first 40 years of federation.

In our social lives, freedom has both advanced and retreated. For example, restrictions on the sale of alcohol have eased. But they have been replaced by nanny state measures such as smoking bans. In the future, cigar bars will be as distant a memory as the six o'clock swill. Since smoking bans were enacted this year in Victoria and NSW, sales growth in pubs has dropped significantly. Hotel patronage may return to former levels - international experience seems to indicate that it will - but when smokers return to the pub, they will be less free than they were in October last year.

Unquestionably, advocates of individual liberty and personal responsibility have lost the battle on smoking. That's not surprising - smoking is reviled by everybody who doesn't enjoy it. In a liberal state, that disagreement would be sorted out by negotiation; before the bans, many restaurants and hotels already enforced non-smoking areas or disallowed it entirely. But in a nanny state, such negotiations are replaced by force of law. Similar sentiments lie behind restrictions on poker machines. The gaming industry is a political football to be kicked around at every state election, while individuals who value their freedom to enjoy the pokies are ignored.

In a nanny state, the government morphs into an over-eager insurance company, assuming the role of risk-manager for its citizens. Any risky or unhealthy endeavour has to be eliminated - individuals cannot be trusted to assess the risks themselves.

The next target is food. Numerous proposals are on the table to tackle our expanding waistlines, including banning certain types of fats, banning junk food advertising, and even taxing fatty food. Earlier this year, the Labor Party hinted that it was considering banning the use of licensed characters such as Shrek in junk- food advertising, should it win government. Last week, the Cancer Council of Australia came out in support of a general ban on junk food ads aimed at children.

However, there is little evidence that such bans work. Both Quebec and Sweden have tried them, but neither have seen any reduction in childhood obesity. There are twice as many overweight children in Sweden as there were 15 years ago, even though the Scandinavian country has had a ban on all advertising aimed at children since 1991.

Furthermore, politicians hurrying to make political capital out of medical problems such as obesity and lung cancer rarely think through the unintended consequences of their policies. Swedish advertising bans have not reduced obesity, but they have had other results. Losing the revenue from the highest-paying advertising has reduced the quality and quantity of children's television programs. Similarly, restricting the advertising market has raised the cost of toys in Sweden to 50 per cent above the average European level.

The Australian Government's hard line on tobacco has had similar consequences. Smokeless tobacco products have been swept up as the nanny state tries to purge society of everything that meets its disapproval.

It is unfortunate that Australia lacks a strong intellectual history emphasising individual liberty and personal responsibility. Our "she'll be right mate" attitude is easily swamped by our calls for government to intervene in personal decisions. Laws are passed with little reference to how they will affect our freedom. As a result, individual liberty in Australia is slowly being eroded by neglect.

Source