Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Is Kim Beazley leader of the opposition? If this is all we have, I am beyond despair. Time for a leadership challenge in the Federal Labor Party, as what we have now seems to be a total joke.

It's not over til the Fat Man sings.

Beazley seems to think this is yet another little Parliamentary word game rather than the serious issue that it actually is. Howard knows it is deadly serious - why doesn't Beazley get it??

This is bizarre. Does any long time ALP/Beazley watcher have a take on what the hell is going on? Besides of course Labor looking utterly foolish.

I say Carmen Lawrence for Leader of the Opposition and John Faulkner as Deputy. Nice to see that McMullan finally said something but he's been way too quiet for too long..

And Beazley wonders why his poll numbers are so poor? Could someone put him out of his misery. He has gotten beyond an embarrasment.

My preferred ticket would be Gillard/Garrett. Gillard cool and calm Garret passion.

Bill Clinton gave the Democrats some advice yesterday. Advice I suggest the ALP should heed. Basically he told the Democrats to get stuck into the Republicans. And if they didn't have the stomach for the fight they should look for a job elsewhere. Check this link.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Maybe there should be some quiet encouragement to Peter Andren, Tony Windsor and Bob Katter to ensure that a division is called in the end.

Jenny No, I do remember but I'd still rather have a leader who (a) can identify the critical issue properly and (b) who is prepared to speak up. I'd like to think she learned from that...Kim doesn't seem to learn from anything!

I agree with Rex Manson it is time Labor changed it's leader, they have not done it for over 6 months.
It's what they do best.

Russell and Grant, is it only West Aussies who remember Carmen Lawrence and the Penny Easton business? I think there is still enough rakeable muck there prevent Dr Lawrence assuming a leadership role (beyond the important role of leadership within the ALP expressing dissent on issues like this terror legislation and the faction control of the ALP).

Russell - I second the motion. Dr Lawrence is by far one of the most intelligent, experienced & rational in the party. Her leadership skills are far above & beyond those of Mr Beazley. John Faulkner is made of a very similar mould.

I am bewildered by the recent comments & actions of Mr Beazley since returning to the leadership position. Labor can't afford to continue with Kim's leadership. As I have said in another post, Labour is headed for more than a train wreck at the next election. Mr Latham's result will look very successful compared to what Labor will suffer under Kim Beazley. I certainly will not vote Labor with Kim as leader, as I believe many other Labor voters. Let's hope the party wakes up. SOON!!!

I could not help myself today, I sent this email to all Labor MP's (incl. Kim Beazley) local and senate, the executive and all the state offices. Not very articulate I'm afraid, but just a clear message. I know it takes time, but please think of sending your own messages of discontent - I know that Tony Kevinhas already sent his (on another thread)

Message to the Labor Party before it's too late.

Enough is enough, Beazley must go!
How much longer is the Labor Party going to fiddle away while other Australians have their freedoms and working lives destroyed.
Start doing what half the nation is asking of you - oppose!
If Beazley cannot, or will not, act in our interests, it is clear that he must be removed and someone with a vision and commitment to Labor principles be instilled eg Julia Gillard, Peter Garrett.
Get the big windbag out of office before he oversees the destruction of the once strong and progressive thinking Australian Labor Party.

Deborah Wands

John Thornton, 01/11/2005 2:13:53 PM we have the same ticket thoughts.

How is it that the leader of the Opposition so willingly surrenders Australian citizens’ civil liberties? His recent utterances regarding the new anti-terror laws were beyond belief. It led me to think up a plot for novel: a senior politician in opposition is working for the government in power etc. etc.. The state premiers are not much better. The smarmy conviviality at the end of the COAG meeting was a depressing sight. Thank God for the courageous Stanhope, a rare Australian politician indeed. As for Beazley, he is a somnambulist, a sleepwalker who is heading soon for a fall down the stairs. Well, I hope so.

Deborah Wands, "
If Beazley cannot, or will not, act in our interests, it is clear that he must be removed and someone with a vision and commitment to Labor principles be instilled eg Julia Gillard, Peter Garrett".
Surely you jest, a Rock Singer as leader of the Labor Party, why not try Kylie Minogue.

Terrence Ed. A bit like a movie actor as the US President.

Deborah Wands - I too sent emails to all Labor MP's and the progressive Liberals lobbying about the anti-terrorism bill - the only reply I got was from Petro Georgiou, who's office sent copies of some speeches he had made recently on the issue. I admire him for his stand on detention of refugee children, and am glad there are still some decent people left in the Liberal party.

The Libs haven't quite had a "Night of the Long Knives" yet, but this new legislation will make it easier to get rid of dissenters within party ranks. It's a travesty that the major opposition to this bill is coming from Liberal party back benchers. Beazley is more than just a complete waste of time - he's a red-necked fascist, widely referred to in the Asian press in recent months as "Herr Beazley" for obvious reasons.

I too sent him an email telling him he was alienating grass roots supporters. I was also disappointed in so-called left-wing MP, Anthony Albanese, but most disappointing were the state premiers, who agreed to the legislation without question at the start. At least Beattie has redeemed himself to some extent in the last week.

Alan Curran: why not Kylie? Because when she was asked during the apartheid era what she thought of the situation in South Africa (she was dating a white South African at the time), she said "I think it's terrible what they're doing to the rhinoceroses there."
At least Peter Garrett has been getting his political message across in his music for decades. The Oils performance at the Sydney Olympics was the highlight of the games for me.....those T-shirts with the word "SORRY" on them in big, bold writing, while the world watched and Jackboot Johnny sat in the audience squirming...sent shivers down my spine! Beazley hasn't done anything remotely as heroic.

See latest from Stanhope as just posted on ABC site here but keep the pressure up on the Premiers! They obviously are too cosy with Howard and not taking this job seriously enough...notice their comments later in the article.

Talk about being in fairy land. Appalling.

I've just returned to Scotland after 5 weeks in Australia. My mother, who is a typical irrational Howard supporter, told me that she thought politics is broken in Australia. She couldn't really find a good word to say about her little man.

I spent time in Canberra, Sydney, Northern territory and Queensland and spoke to dozens of people from all walks of life. None of them had much to say for the rodent either. His war is going badly, people are nervous about his IR reforms and are getting sick of the sound of his voice. People are looking for an alternative and until the Labour party finds one the Liberals will be re-elected through apathy and habit.

I found Julia Gillard's comments regarding John Faulkner's speech refreshing in their honesty - if she were leading the party, with Faulkner as deputy, I think our country has a chance.

With Kim Beazley all we have to look forward to is more of that horrible gloating from our prime miniature as he continues with his plan of creating an Australia which combines the worst aspects of the US with the worst of the UK while he sails on to his major goal of beating Menzies record.

Margo: Welcome back Spiderman!

Great idea, Mark Sergeant, because we NEED a division on this in the lower house, to see JUST how far ethical bankruptcy extends in "our" major parties...

So, to any Webdiarists in the electorates of said Peter Andren, Tony Windsor and Bob Katter, PLEASE exert yourself on behalf of the common good! Because, here's clearly an issue where even two dissenters could effectively force ALL the "good" team-players to declare their true colours.

And, we all need to see (exactly) what they are, eh?

Rex, I hadn't seen you post until after I had sent something similar to Mr.Beazley:

"Mr. Beazley a lot of people are wondering whether you have joined the Liberal Party in relation to these proposed laws." The title of the email had been "Anti-Terrorist and IR legislation".

Hopefully it will dawn on the Labor Party that they are meant to be the Opposition.

Beazley has to go. There is no way he can win and it is time for the next generation of Labor leaders to step up.

Having a handsome and loving partner, domestic harmony, a home, a bit of money, an engaging child or two can create a world so seductive that national/international problems shrink to oblivion.

The latter is obviously the case - the only question is why does Kim turn up in Canberra at all?

Russell, less compliant!!!!!

On your earlier question of why Beazley does it, could it be that pollies have become overly reactive to polling? That they see an adverse trend and adapt and adopt to suit, fearful of the electoral consequences of what appears, at first blush, an unpopular stance?

We live in a world of the 30 second grab and spin is spun on that perceived short attention span. Gone, it seems, for parties that could form power placing principle above pragmatism. Principles seem more the domain of the minor parties who have nothing to lose. Even they can falter.

For Beazley and those in Labor who share his approach there is a lack of learning from experience. They bugged out over Tampa and border protection and after lost just the same. Had they accepted that in the circumstances at the time (2001 election) they were going to lose, and stood up for principle then they would have had some credibility and place for people to go when the truth came out.

After the eventful Latham interregnum - he at least set the agenda for a while - back came Kim and back to the same old same old. Just when we need a strong and principled opposition most.

To Deborah Wands,
I also sent some emails but it was last night and I wasn't articulate, just a little more blunt. It follows,

----- Original Message -----
From: Rex Manson
To: Kim.Beazley.MP@aph.gov.au
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 9:58 PM
Subject: What do you stand for?

Dear Kim,
I am perplexed, what the ####### do you stand for? Have you joined the liberal party?
To quote,
"Labor is taking up the fight for all Australians. We're taking up the fight for the millions of working Australians whose wages and conditions are under threat from John Howard"

Those wages and rights are not the only things worth fighting for.

Why are you supporting laws link here that remove basic Australian rights of free speech?

Rex Manson
Box 263 Christie Beach
South Australia 5165

On Lateline tonight, Kevin Rudd appeared to be an apologist for Howard in regards to the 'breaking news' agreement 'between' Howard and the State leaders over the terrorism laws. When asked by Tony Jones why Beattie was not included in tonight's last-minute phone conference in which the four state labour leaders (plus Beattie that only equals... five?) Rudd said something along the lines of: "well, there's daylight saving and..."

'Labor: the Clayton's Liberals'. I can see some well known actor leaning against a country-pub bar doing the advert right now...

Since you're all 'fessing up to ALP frustration letters, below is the one I dropped on the ALP web-site. I'll bet they've received some gems and I wonder if they're preserved for posterity?

*

I can understand Howard's assault on democracy. That's what short-arsed megalomaniacs do; either for warped idealistic reasons or to perversely drive wedges through the opposition.

What I cannot fully understand is why the ALP appears to be mounting only token opposition. I mean, democracy's a bit like a circus tent. The spectators and menagerie shelter inside. Outside, political parties pull ropes in different directions to maintain stability. The ALP appears to have dropped it's rope and is currently pulling itself.

Bring on the Gillard and Garrett show. Passionate pollies who put principles first.

Bob, your comment about Beazley reacting to the polls is wrong. He stood with hand on heart & said he doesn't take any notice of the polls. He repeated himself & had a really sincere look on his face. (but i saw his fingers were crossed)

Jenny, the Penny Easton saga was absolutely ridiculous. State parliament should not have been misused for a personal vendetta which the sad result ended in Carmen being somehow held responsible. It should have been the fool that sparked the saga who got the sack, not Carmen.

I have a message that is short & to the point that i will be e-mailing to many Labor MP's tomorrow...

Hey Hey Ho Ho...Kim Beazley has to go!!

He's been doing more sidestepping, backing down, spins & turns, he should be nominated for "Dancing with the stars" (He is certainly off the planet".

Did everybody hear about the damages awarded for the botched ASIO raid. This certainly won't happen when these laws are passed. Botched raids will continue, but nobody will find out about them or be entitled to compensation. (The Gov't can't afford any more compensation, they spent all the money on Workchoices for the dole ads) How will covering up these sort of mistakes make the country safer.

Beazley had better allow a conscience vote on this legislation. Members face expulsion from the party if they cross the floor. How is that democratic. If we want the member for our electorate to vote against these laws it should be allowed. This applies to all parties.

It took a while for this thread to get going but I'm glad to see sort of, that I am not the only one frustrated by the so called federal opposition:

I sent this to my local member yesterday. It is not brief but it expresses my feelings:

Dear Mr Price,

I am a constituent of the federal seat of Chifley, which as your web site proudly proclaims, you have represented for 20 years.

You are also a member of the ALP. Let me remind you what ALP stands for. Australian Labor Party. A party born out of the labour movement over 100 years ago.

This was a party that not only looked after workers but also attempted to defend and nurture those in minority groups who had no political clout. It was a counter-balance to the excesses of what I guess was the ruling elite of that time.

I was born and raised in the Sutherland Shire which as you know has been almost exclusively a federal Liberal seat (Cook).

My father was a printer. He was a proud member of the PKIU. If you are truly Labor, I won't need to tell you what that stands for. My mother's father was a tram conductor and a member of the Rail, Bus and Tram Union.

I am a single parent who lost my wife to breast cancer nearly four years ago. I am trying to raise five children on the Parenting Payment and FTB. I am lumped in as one of John Howard's much despised 'single mums' who magically can start working again when their youngest child turns six. Clearly the architects of the welfare to work crap have never been in this position but that is not the subject of this email.

As you can see, labour ties run deeply in my family and I have also been a union member in days gone by and have voted Labor at all levels since I got the vote. It hasn't always been easy to vote Labor as to be brutally honest, there have been times when the ALP have deserved to be booted out on it's ear.

However, now more than ever, I believe the people of this nation deserve a strong and united Labor party. One with a leader who can articulate an intelligent and reasoned response to laws that are planning to be enacted by a government that looks more and more like the images portrayed in George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984. Who said that Animal Farms view was exclusively about communism. One could cite plenty of comparisons with the current Coalition Government. The PM living at Kirribilli instead of in the PMs residence in the nation's capital of Canberra for one.

The ALP of 2005 does not have that leader, nor does it appear to have any members who are willing to stand up and say enough is enough. I watched Kim Beasley on the news last night and he sickened me. Never in all my years of following politics have I seen a more insipid and pathetic, spineless jelly backed excuse for a leader. Contrast that with his concession speech at the last election he led the ALP. It was passionate and spoke of the dark forces that were conspiring to change our nation forever. And not for the better. He was right but the problem was, that speech should have been made at the start of the campaign, not in conceding defeat. Then last night there he was espousing the exact opposite. "The Howard laws do not go far enough". Well perhaps Kim should go the whole hog and switch to the Liberal Party because as far as I can see he looks and sounds no different to John Howard.

These so called anti-terrorism laws are the most appalling attack on the civil liberties and rights of citizens. Not only that but they are a blatant atack on the very basis of a democracy. Robust debate. The right to hold an opinion and state that opinion freely whether I agree with it or not. These laws will not stop one terrorist atack on our shores but they will breed and encourage the very thing they purport to stop.

In conclusion, I would like to advise you that if you vote with the Government on these laws then you and the ALP will no longer be able to count on me or any of my families votes for as long as you and any other member of the ALP who vote with the Government for these laws remains in the federal parliament. In fact I will actively campaign against you to ensure that you will never again be able to enjoy the privilege not right, to represent the people of Chifley. Cross the floor and you guarantee my continued support in the form of votes at the ballot box. Vote with the Government or worse, abstain (the cowards strategy) and my vote and the vote of many former rock solid ALP voters will be lost forever.

Regards
John Thornton.

Beazley must go. He is an undoubtedly talented man, but he is spooked. He is an easy picking for Howard's wedge. He doesn't have anything to counter it with other than his tried-and-failed roll over trick (learn from Tampa, dude - didn't work then, won't work now).

Beazley may not have much man love for him, but he should have learnt from the Mark Latham experience. Mark showed how to dictate the agenda - reducing MP retirement benefits, reading to kids, an independent Speaker in the house and a whole heap of exciting progressive policies. He made us feel that a better world was possible. We wanted to join to make it happen. That is the way the Labor party can become relevant again. (Of course, history will show that a handshaking moment of madness, and an ineffective response to the "cut and run" spin eventually brought Latham down. History will also show the remarkable manner in which, over a few short months, Mark Latham took the party from certain annihilation to a likely election-winning position.)

Labor must learn from both its mistakes and successes. They can still win the next election, but not with Beazley at the helm. We, the public, are deeply unhappy with Howard's war, Howard's IR, Howard's sedition, Howard's environment, Howard's free trade, Howard's cross media, Howard’s Telstra, Howard's lies and Howard's hard line on everything. We are begging you - OFFER US SOMETHING ELSE! You cannot scare the electorate to abandon the incumbent. You need to give them the courage to try something new.

I'd back a Lawrence/Faulkner ticket. Or a Faulkner/Gillard. Any chance of roping Bob Carr in (although my respect for him dived as soon as he took up his new job). There are a lot of exciting leaders there - sadly Beazley isn't one of them.

Beasley must go. He is an undoubtedly talented man, but he is spooked. He is an easy picking for Howard's wedge. He doesn't have anything to counter it with other than his tried-and-failed roll over trick (learn from Tampa, dude - didn't work then, won't work now)

Beasley may not have much man love for him, but he should have learnt from the Mark Latham Experience. Mark showed how to dictate the agenda - reducing MP retirement benefits, reading to kids, an independent Speaker in the house and a whole heap of exciting progressive policies. He made us feel that a better world was possible. We wanted to join to make it happen. That is the way the Labor party can become relevant again. (Of course, history will show that a handshaking moment of madness, and an ineffective response to the "cut and run" spin eventually brought Latham down. History will also show the remarkable manner in which, over a few short months, Mark Latham took the party from certain annihilation to a likely election-winning position.)

Labor must learn from both its mistakes and successes. They can still win the next election, but not with Beasley at the helm. We, the public, are deeply unhappy with Howard's war, Howard's IR, Howard's sedition, Howard's environment, Howard's free trade, Howard's cross media, Howard’s Telstra, Howard's lies and Howard's hard line on everything. We are begging you - OFFER US SOMETHING ELSE! You cannot scare the electorate to abandon the incumbent. You need to give them the courage to try something new.

I'd back a Lawrence/Faulkner ticket. Or a Faulkner/Gillard. Any chance of roping Bob Carr in? (although my respect for him dived as soon as he took up his new job) There are a lot of exciting leaders there - sadly Beasley isn't one of them.

Judy McIntyre, I'm no Beazley fan but don't you think that labelling him a "red-necked facist" may be just a tad hysterical? The word facism seems to be bandied around so often these days that people have lost all perspective as to what facism really means.

Also, as a person who spends much of my time living in South East Asia I'd be very interested to hear of who you may be quoting in the Asian press as referring to Beazley as "Herr Beazley". I must say I haven't come across that sentiment before. I doubt that the average person in Asia would even have any idea who he is!

I'm quite astonished at the support on this thread for a Gillard/Garrett Labor leadership. I find it very hard to believe that this team would be able to win over swing voters. In fact, they'd probably struggle to win 30-35% of the primary vote. The reason is that they both appear to be beholden to the Labor Left and an ideology that is fast losing traction in mainstream Australia.

To get back into power, Labor must have moderates at the helm, people such as Bob Hawke, Tony Blair or Bill Clinton who can appeal to traditionally conservative voters as well as the usual Labor diehards. Let's face it - Australian electors have only tolerated a true left-wing government (Whitlam) for 4 out of the past 50 years, and that experiment was so disastrous that they're unlikely to make the same mistake again.

The reality is that the vast majority of Australians support these new anti-terror laws, and any Opposition who attempts to block these laws would likely face at least a minor backlash at the polls, and at worst a major electoral disaster in the event of a terrorist attack in Australia between now and the next election.

And Andrew O'Connell, if you think voters are tired of John Howard's voice imagine how quickly they'll tire of hearing Gillard's gravelly tones every night on the news!

Margo: Miguel, I say yet again, most Austrailans donb't know the detail of these new laws yet. Why don't Beazley and co feel any obligation to let them in on the secret when Howard finally releases them? How about seeking their referral to a House of Reps inquiry? Why wouldn't Howard say yes to that - he'd have the numbers on such an inquiry, after all. What do we elect people for if they have no input into what our laws are? Is this democracy?

1. The draft terror bill was hasty, careless, vexatious, mischeivous and only vaguely true to it's stated purpose.

2. The bill works more effectively as a gag for the suppression of public dissent, enquiry, discourse and open speculation over the means, manner and motives of our nation's principal political players, with reference to their machinations.

3. Why therefore, am I NOT surprised to find that the leader of the opposition seems willing to go along with this one too?

You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to see that the criminality which began with the boat people has grown exponentially. The perpetrators have nowhere to go but straight on, full speed ahead. The lack of opposition cannot be explained by incompetence or cowardice alone. It cannot be that I, a greybeard loon, know more about the wrongdoings of this government than our stellar opposition.

I admit that Howard's tactics have engendered a sense of loathing in me, of an intensity that I didn't know I possessed. But at least I am galvanised.

But Beazley has shown me the depths of utter despair, and that's more debilitating.

After familiarising myself with some of Margo's writings on Bob Carr here and here (and learning how to spell "Beazley" correctly) I do hereby withdraw my support for Bob Carr as a leader of federal Labor. These modifications could be made to the original message without publishing this one, right?

Margo: Hi Joel. There's no shame in changing an opinion on the receipt of further info. I've done it myself. And thanks for reading my work!

EXACTLY, my dear Kerri, which supports what Mark Sergeant has proclaimed (and I have seconded, here). So that, given our current "opposition" have so (clearly) failed us to date, we must INSIST that our lower-house independents (and their electorates) perform their (basic) duties re freedom of speech and so forth.

And, it's long past time - I'd say - to stop pretending that "Labor" will reform its act - and damn-well about time to insist that all so-called "independents" stop playing the major's game (albeit by default) and start delivering exactly what their electorates want no matter how much the mass media attack them for doing so.

In which case - of course - there'd be NO doubt that Andren, Windsor and Katter would deliver a division in our lower house on ALL contentious issues irrespective of any pressure?

I really am surprised that so many people are surprised by the Labor backdown on this issue. The party itself has been anti free speech for a long time.

Also taking into account it was Labor Governments who drove the way forward with anti-vilification and discrimination laws. The things that these laws cover may be racist and ignorant but it still is freedom of speech.

Labor Governments have progressively made many of these things illegal which has lead to some often farce like procedings. There is more than one radio presenter that I can think of falling foul of these laws.

Whether or not people believe in these laws the left supported them. The Australian people have now been conditioned to believe rightly that there are things that can and cannot be said. I would not be surprised if many people except the terrorist laws as a logical extension to laws already in place. Therefore not effecting them or those around them.

Thats the thing with freedom of speech once laws against begin it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Much of the debate now going on should have been had in a honest way ten to fifteen years ago.

I am certainly not a fan of Hanson. One thing I do though agree with her about is that Governments may be able to control what people say but they will never control what people think. That is why any laws curtailing freedom of speech no matter which side of politics brings them in are always doomed to fail.

If the terror laws attempt to do this it will also join a long list of failures.

Margo: Jay, this is getting weird. I agree with you again! The difference with these sedition laws is that it protects the State against criticism, and only the State can charge people, so they'll selectively apply them to suit themselves.

It's been clear since the Tampa appeared. Beazley has nothing to hold onto, he has no ticker exactly as many have said. He is afraid to make a decision, take a stance or read the polls.

For those who have been trashing Latham for the last year, how's Beazley stacking up against him now? For all of Latham's mistakes, anger etc he at least stood up and opposed. That's what is missing, opposition in all senses of the word.

I see a few suggestions of alternate leaders and shudder at those names with the exception of Ms Gillard. I repeat thoughts I voiced a week or so ago " Who is the Opposition Leader going to be, Pete or Bob? State leaders off to Canberra?". As to Garrett, give us a break. He was imposed on his electorate and has offered absolutely nothing since he joined the Superannuation queue. Perhaps he could entertain us but that's it.

Jay White, I agree with your comments except one, being :

"I am certainly not a fan of Hanson. One thing I do though agree with her about is that Governments may be able to control what people say but they will never control what people think."

I can't agree with that simply because Western Governments since Bush/Howard/Blair do control what many think. They do so by creating fear and panic with the lies, misdirection, evasion and threats to our way of life.

This s a good thread so far but if it over-focusses on the absorbing game of Beazley’s failings as a ALP leader and who would be the better leader, it will lose its main and immediate objective which is – how can we help our Parliament find useful strategies to stop or slow down these dangerous and unnecessary laws ?

I am sure that we have to focus on the many politicians of goodwill and sound democratic instincts in all parties. They are clearly deeply worried at the dangers to our freedoms in these unneeded laws. That is the area we need to work on, those of us interested in a better and safer politics for our country.

Beazley is a spent force and history will deal with him sooner or later. The issue now is protecting our freedoms from these laws, while Howard is PM and Beazley remains Labor leader. That is the status quo, in which we have to fight these laws.

The strategies to be looked at are therefore:

1. Building backbencher and Caucus pressure within ALP to the point Beazley has to rescind his weak acceptance in principle of Howard’s laws. To an extent, that has started to happen this week – but not nearly enough, the pressure must stay on him or he will lapse back again into acquiescence with Howard as soon as pressure goes off him.

2. Working to support and encourage the brave band of small-l Liberals in the Coalition to question and defy the laws. Malcolm Fraser is showing them the way and I pray that many are heeding him in their private thoughts.

3. Most ambitious of all – urging politicians on both sides to see this as a conscience vote issue, and to declare NOW that they will vote accordingly, in their roles as parliamentarians, when they see the final bill. This is the best way to short-circuit Howards’s gameplaying on the text of the laws – 31 changes so far ? - which exhausts opponents’ energies. He has the CPS redrafting resources to go on playing this game for weeks. (Look at what they did to Brown in Estimates)

To me the third option is potentially the strongest because it is the only one that avoids the personally damning allegation “you are letting down your party if you do this ”. Because the answer is “No I am not, there are people on the other side who feel the same way, and are now doing the same thing on this nation-defining issue”.

I think Malcolm Fraser would support this strategy (I am not in contact with him but I admire what he said several days ago and again as reported in today’s Canberra Times here).

Jon Stanhope also maintains his brave campaign against the laws.

I have already advocated such a strategy on Monday, on the other thread “Beazley abandons his duty over Reign of Terror laws”, [Tony Kevin 01/11/2005 10:03:33 AM]. I reproduce the main ideas here for convenience:

“... I think that now is the time for Labor and Coalition MPs and Senators of good conscience to start thinking in terms of how they can jointly exercise their rights to conscience-based voting on these laws.

Because the two major party leaders are failing to support democracy, Members and Senators who believe in democracy and free speech, on both sides of the House, need to consider how they can make this a non-party issue. I am sure now that there are enough dissenters on both sides of Parliament to defy Howard and Beazley and insist on such a conscience vote.

They may well not win – for I am, sadly, not sure that 51% of the House of Reps and Senate members have the necessary courage to stand up for our democracy and freedom of expression, by throwing out these bad laws - but at least they will be able to hold their heads high before history, showing the cynical opportunism and cowardice of Howard and Beazley for what it was”

Once the news of such a strategy being seriously canvassed or thought about got out to the media, it would become big news, and now that the Cup is over, the general populace might finally wake up that something important and dangerous to Australia is being proposed under these terror laws.

The inevitable accusations of disloyalty to party discipline could be countered because it is my guess that there would turn out to be roughly equal numbers of conscience voters in the two major parties. Of course Beazley would try belatedly to jump on the bandwagon if he saw something like this gathering steam – as he did with the Georgiou-Moylan migration detention reforms – but that doesn’t matter, the public would understand the genesis of the movement as being based on men and women of conscience and loyalty to Australian democratic values and protections in both major parties. We know who they are now, and we will not forget their bravery.

I’d like to hear what other Webdiarists think of this idea? It seems to me it is in the spirit of Margo’s philosophy that our Parliament should, in time of great national need, act as a Parliament – not two obedient armies of mindless voting machines.

There are rare times of great challenge to democracy – I think this is one of them, as 1933 was in Germany - where MPs should have considered setting aside their party rulebooks (a test the Weimar Parliament failed).

If our MPs think of this as a national emergency, it may generate real creative thinking among them. I still have faith in our Parliament as a whole (while not, obviously, in the two current major party leadership incumbents).

Ideas/comments, anyone ?

The news today of the bungled ASIO house invasion of the wrong Bilal family, and the government’s disgusting efforts to discredit the well based allegations on Deb Whitmont's ABC Four Corners of gross torture and abuse of David Hicks, are warning bellwethers of where we going, if we surrender Australia to the discretionary detention powers of security authorities, ie., to a police state.

I don't think Peter Garrett could be seriously named as anything other than a potential minister at the moment, but in answer to Ross he did stand up in the Caucus in defiance of Beazley, and the main reason he hasn't been seen much is that he has been doing his job. He is the shadow parliamentary secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts. In the former capacity he has been touring the country, meeting with Indigenous Australians to get their views on reconciliation and what needs to happen next. It's not sexy, it doesn't get media attention but it's the right thing for him to be doing (would that others actually listened to their constituency!)

For today’s dose of blatant fear-mongering try here.

The article relates to ASIO’s annual report. The upshot is that it thinks there may be many Muslims in Australia, some having been born here, that “…have chosen to lean heavily on their perception of conflict as a battle between ‘Muslims and infidels’.”

Well, I wonder whatever gave them that idea?! It wouldn’t by any chance have something to do with the way Howard lied in order to get a Judeo-Christian Anglospherian Australia to attack a Muslim nation on the other side of the world would it?

Tony Kevin (02/11/2005 10:05:36 AM), I really like the idea of a conscience vote for both sides of Parliament. Although I do think that will frighten the pollies tremendously because they are then exposed to the public view and personally accountable for their vote, wonder whether most would prefer to hide behind the anonomous "party line" and be protected from our scrutiny.

Yes, let's "name and shame"

How will we get this idea/strategy up and running?

Surprise, surprise!! Johnny has announced information has just been received about an imminent terrorist attack. As well there is a story in OZ (that fiercely independent paper that somehow seems to scoop all others about security matters) about a home grown terror cell operating in Australia.

Somebody should read Johnny the story "The boy who cried wolf." If this turns out to be a scare tactic to supress objection and justify the need for these laws while also distracting debate on the IR laws "GOD HELP HIM." Sorry but this sounds just a little bit too convenient.

I note that Howard’s favourite apologist, SS-Rantenfuehrer Janet Albrechtsen, is at it again over in her Oz column this morning. She seems to think that the more the left complain about some legislation Howard wants to shove through, the more likely it is to get through. This time she’s on about the new terror laws. Albrechtsen calls this the ‘Fairfax Index’ law. Rather than explain it, read the article to find out why.

Like most laws, there is always a reciprocal law. In this case it’s the ‘Albrechtsen’s-getting-worried-so-feels-the-need-to-denegrate-someone’ law. It works every time. Howard trots out something that is criticised by both sides and the criticism starts to get traction and, when it starts looking like gaining too much traction for the right-wing’s liking, Albrechtsen re-reacts with this sort of garbage. It’s quite predictable – just go back over her archived material and see for yourself.

Yup, just a bit too convenient. And it was a "specific threat" too. But we were given absolutely no details at all. No suprises there.

No one in my social circle buys this stuff anymore, and a lot of them used to. I think Howard et al are really starting to push their luck on this one.

Margo, I agree that it is unusual for there to be such a high level of secrecy surrounding these new laws. What I don't agree with is that this necessarily constitutes a conspiracy or the death of democracy.

The fact that the legislation has bipartisan support is sufficiently persuasive to me that the legislation is necessary and relatively benign. The confidential briefs must have been pretty compelling to convince Labor State and Federal leaders to shelve their opposition. Contrary to many posters here I don't fear the sky falling in upon assent of this legislation. My reading of the situation is that the new laws are more or less reserve powers to be exercised only in extreme cases. For example sedition laws have been on the books for as long as I can remember but nobody has been charged under them for decades.

With regards to your point about democracy Margo, like any other decision it has made the government will live or die by it at the next election. In the end the government is accountable to the voters at the ballot box. The Australian public have an inherent distrust of authority and do not like to be duped. I'm confident that at the slightest indication that these laws have been abused by the authorities this government will take a huge hit in the polls. That alone should be sufficient to ensure that the government is kept honest.

Margo "The difference with these sedition laws is that it protects the State against criticism."

Not really. If you take for example anti-vilification and discrimination laws they in themselves protect to a large extent the state from criticism. In fact most people making comments that fall foul of these type laws are really complaining about the state policy regarding whatever their particular hobby horse happens to be.

Two particular people that do come to mind are John Laws in respect to gays and Alan Jones in respect to Aborigines. Really much of the criticism regarding what they had to say was an overall criticism of where they had felt society had been driven to by the Government.

The Alan Jones episode from memory revolved around Aboriginal housing and what he saw as inconsistances between Aboriginals and white Australians. The Laws episode was more or less a base attack on gay people. These sorts of attacks would be seen as average commentary in the USA and freedom of speech. In Australia however these things were seen as unlawful and I believe resulted in apologies and fines.

Whether people agree or disagree with any of these attacks it does indeed come under freedom of speech. As I have said before-once on the slippery slope of taking these things away it is very hard for any Government to stop. All Governments are power and control hungry, always have been and always will be.

The left in Australia are just as much to blame for the current situation in this nation as much as any other section of society. The lefts biggest mistake was to believe they could control what would and would not be eventually unlawful.

By the way I neither listen to or even like the radio shows of Laws or Jones.

Margo: Hi Jay. My point was that generally someone offended by racist comments under vilification laws can complain and get a mediation or compo etc. Under the sedition laws only Ruddock can authorise a prosecution, so he can protect mates of the government and prosecute its critics. For the record, I have always opposed racial vilification laws - I reckon such laws drive those who think this way underground. There's criminal laws against incitement of people to violence, and that's all we need, I reckon. This doesn't mean, of course, that I publish racist statements on Webdiary. I don't.

Why we need a new special, big jail term offence for criticising the governmernt or the parliamentary process etc I don't know. I can't see any reason for these sedition laws at all, except as a weapon for government to silence its critics and avoid being exposed for undermining democracy. Remember when Liberal MP Sophie P. said the Rebel 4 were 'political terrorists' for seekinga change to mandatory detention laws? Maybe she could have been charged with sedition if these laws had been in place, but the fact is she wouldn't be, would she, whereas if I called Ruddock a political terrorist for his terror laws I could be, couldn't I.

I don't know that Kim ever got over losing the Defence portfolio. Seems he longs to be back where the action is.

What is wrong with Labor? Can't they see that the same laws used to fight terrorism will be used against their own constituency at some later date should they care to be disaffectionate with the government about IR laws or the environment, or going off to a new war?

What we need is a joke, a song that will capture the capitulation by Beazley so that he will be laughed out of the joint.

Margo "This doesn't mean, of course, that I publish racist statements on Webdiary. I don't".

That is a fair call, being that you have the right to publish or not publish whatever you see fit. However should the Government become involved in what you do publish? Margo: No, but their sedition laws will let them. I'll say no if they try, by the way.

"There's criminal laws against incitement of people to violence, and that's all we need."

I agree. Does for example a book on the how to be a suicide bomber fall under these laws? Margo: My legal instinct would be yes - any takers from Webdiary experts?

"My point was that generally someone offended by racist comments under vilification laws can complain and get a mediation or compo etc."

What happens though if a person falling foul of these laws refuses mediation or refuses to pay compo? Margo: Then they're in breach of the civil law.

My whole point is that in a country such as the USA with true freedom of speech this process would not take place for any reason outside of personal unlawful harrasment. My whole point is that free speech cant be a bit of this and a bit of that. It either is free or it is not.

To me many of things being talked about are a logical extension of what is already. I thought about this a few years ago and it does not surprise me in the least that which we are seeing happening.

That it has got support across the political spectrum should be a expected given looking at the recent history and circumstances.

Margo: Jay, I'm a long time supporter of a bill of rights to enshrine the right to free speech. The High Court has implied a very limited right to free political speech, in limited circumstances, but its scope is uncertain and this government has argued in the High Court for it to be more and more limited. It's interesting, isn't it, that the Government, in denying any obligation on them to prevent junk food ads in chidren's TV time, for example, proclaims the absolute right of big business to market their wares in the name of free speech in marketing, despite the pressure this places on parents from their kids, yet is now acting to close down strong criticism of government or Parliament in the name of 'sedition'.

For Tony Kevin, you are right of course, the focus should be on how to oppose these changes succesfully. I like your ideas but note the issue Miguel raises, which is that bi-partisan support is being given to most, if not all of these changes.

He's right too - Federal and State Labor are supporting these changes if not actually instigating them. They don't have the guts to make a stand.

Why? Simply because they are afraid to be seen as soft on terror. That's it. They don't really care what the public thinks or how they are affected. The interest is only self interest. Nothing new, except perhaps for that wolf I just saw, or thought I saw.

Margo "It's interesting, isn't it, that the Government, in denying any obligation on them to prevent junk food ads in chidren's TV time, for example, proclaims the absolute right of big business to market their wares in the name of free speech in marketing, despite the pressure this places on parents from their kids."

Yep. However this type of double standard has been across the political board for some time now. This has been gradually taking place for about 15 years.

At the time people in politics including the Greens should have been remembering Pandora and a certain box when going about making laws to do with free speech in all their missionary zeal.

Margo: Yep, especially now that Gunns is suing them big time for criticising the company. Defamation laws - there for the rich to crush the poor.

Jay White, it's a LOT longer than fifteen years - or, have you forgotten banning cigarette adverts? Me, I'd simply - given that we have ample statistical evidence re the long-term effects of smoking/junk food - tax the bastards' promotional budget to the hilt to FULLY cover the medical costs of same under Medicare.

Therefore, no free speech issue hence, no slippery slope, eh?

Meanwhile - as a (fully) irrational human being - I continue to smoke/eat junk food on occasions, but, I'll be damned if I can see why those obscenely rich corporations who advertise same shouldn't cover the cost to OUR government.

Margo: The Yanks have just passed a law banning parents from suing junk food companies who push their products on kids with obesity and other bad health effects. Mutual obligation for big business be damned.