The fortnight began with the #MARCHinMARCH. Over 100,000 people took to the streets because they’ve already had enough of Abbott’s policies, which seem to be so driven by ideology. The IPA, a tea-party styled think-tank, and their itemized conservative wish list is being ticked off a few items at a time.
The mainstream media didn’t cover the #MarchInMarch events despite its turn out although various St Patrick’s Day marches received prominence on page 3 of most main publications. Social media was, as usual, bitingly sarcastic about the lack of coverage. This prompted various replies but the most interesting was Jacqueline Maley’s from the SMH.
It was a grudging apology at best, but quickly descended to justification about a digital coverage of the most offensive placards she could find. To be honest there weren’t that many. There is always going to be placards that offend present at any demonstration. I was surprised at how few there were. Of course this seemed to be that the angle that was taken by most in the mainstream media. Sky News air-headed reporter Laura Jayes had tweeted a request for people to send her their photographs of offensive placards. Well, we all knew at that point what angle Sky News was going to take in their coverage of this event. Silly woman.
Jacqueline Maley’s other main complaint was that the March in March was unfocused. I want to apologise at the outset that there isn’t a war in Southeast Asia on which we can all focus. She missed the most interesting and newsworthy aspects of this story.
This demonstration was organic in origin. It wasn’t organised by a political party, a trade union or any other institution, think-tank, association and the like. It grew organically from and through social media. It went on to resonate throughout the country. It wasn’t confined to the big cities. Marches occurred throughout all rural and regional centres. The MarchInMarch movement is a new phenomenon worthy of research and analysis by the media.
Not being driven by a single issue was one of the more newsworthy aspects of these demonstrations. Virtually all policy initiatives that have been presented by this government within the last six months were the subject of outrage by those participating.
That was the real story of #MarchinMarch.
As a result an eclectic coalition of concerned citizens has sprung to life.
THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT ARFUR:
To understand the significance of what a problem the Sinodinos issue is for the federal government you need to know a little bit about his background.
Arthur was one of the back-room mainstays of Howard’s term as prime minister. He left his job as Howard’s Chief of Staff with plenty of plaudits being perceived as super smart, highly competent, shrewd, intelligent and tactically astute. He went on to become the Treasurer of the Federal Liberal Party until his election to the Senate in 2011.
Sinodinos was, until a few weeks ago, the assistant treasurer as he was deamed numerate, unlike his colleague Joe Hockey who, in another highlight of the week, was challenged in understanding the difference between deficit versus debt, much to the hilarity of the other side of the House.
Sinodinos’s involvement in the highly questionable dealings of Australian Water Holdings, and his relationships with the Obeid family are currently being examined by ICAC. This is from a man who was regarded as one of the smartest on the Front Bench. In any normal government with consideration for their appearance as being clean and above board, his return to any position of influence or authority would not be considered for a second.
But then, this is Tony Abbott’s government.
Suspension of FUTURE of FINANCIAL ADVICE Reforms:
One of the items on the IPA’s agenda has been a reform of the Labor Government’s Future of Financial Advice legislation which outlawed the previous practice of financial advisers taking commissions from companies whose investment packages financial advisors then on-sold to their clients.
Many small investors and self-funded retirees always thought this outrageous as it easily exposed them to being ripped off. Financial advisers and consultants did not have to inform their clients about any commissions they were receiving from the sale of investment packages.
The absence of regulation in this area resulted in numerous cases of abuse where ordinary people lost considerable amounts of money due to questionable advice driven by greed.
Sinodinos was one of the main proponents for this legislative change. It’s a sweet irony that his involvement with AWH has resulted in an undignified appearance before ICAC; an appearance, which will, more than likely, result in the end of any parliamentary ambitions Sinodinos may have had. It certainly raises the question as to just how professionally and financially astute he really is. His reputation for being one of the smartest men in the room is no longer viable as a Government commodity that can easily be sold to the electorate.
This issue will not disappear quickly as Mr Sinodinos’s role as AWH’s chairman and director must surely be further scrutinised by other appropriate authorities.
Attorney-General BRANDIS and the RIGHT TO BEING A BIGOT
The attorney general, George Brandis, introduced his amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act, in particular section 18, which are are now known as the Bolt amendments so named after that well-known shock jock, Andrew Bolt. Mr Bolt’s continual whinge has been against those aspects of the law which prevent him from pursuing what he perceives is his right to be a racist, bigot, misogynist and all round not very nice person.
In introducing the Bolt amendments to the act Brandis managed to shoot himself in the foot by stating, “It’s everyone’s right to be a bigot.” The fact is there are many bigots, racists, homophobes, misogynists etc, out there, but they don’t want to be reminded that they are bigoted, racist, misogynistic, homophobic et al. Brandis, in one little line, did just that, and a storm of outrage from a broad-based community was the result.
Any changes to this piece of legislation were always going to be fraught with danger. Brandis’s mismanagement of the introduction and promotion of the Bolt amendments is further indicative of a government that is increasingly being described as Australia’s most inept yet.
The changes to the Racial Discrimination Act are now being put on the backburner as the Government scuttles about looking for more acceptable amendments that they might be able to sell. The New South Wales Premier, Barry O’Farrell, sealed the Bolt amendments delayed fate by stating publicly that these amendments were unacceptable.
Bolt must be furious.
BACK TO TIMES OF YORE; WHERE TALES ABOUND of KNIGHTS ERRANT and DAMES APLENTY
The twitter reaction to Abbott’s resurrection of titular monikers was hilarious. Within minutes of his announcement twitter handles throughout Australia were being changed to reflect his anachronistic move back to the future.
It would have been far more appropriate to announce this on April 1st, but that would’ve prevented Abbott’s using Quentin Bryce as a political pawn in his idiosyncratic move. No discussion was had in Cabinet, much less the coalition party room. It was Abbott’s decision and his alone. It’s worth remembering that the choice of Governor-General is the Prime Minister’s sole preserve. Apparently the same must be for imperial titles, whatever we want to call them this week.
The overriding derision of a large percentage of the population pooping their pants laughing did not go down well with Abbott, but that was nothing to how he must have felt when his hero, John Howard, stated that it was now too anachronistic for titles to be reinstated.
The sound of laughter does not go down well with the Conservative side of the House of Representatives it seems. A sense of the ridiculous will soon be outlawed in this country, because it is now the cause for a MP to be thrown out of the House of Representatives for being unparliamentary, which brings me to Bronwyn Bishop.
BRONWYN BISHOP: AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SHE AINT HELPING YOU TONY.
From the moment she became Speaker of the House under Abbott’s Government, Bronwyn Bishop signaled her intent as to how she would manage the affairs of the HoR. It is, therefore, no surprise to anyone when confronted with her blatantly obvious bias to one side of the House.
Previous Speakers have had the good grace and intelligence to attempt to mask their bias when managing and dispensing penalties under Standing Orders. Not so Bronwyn. She is Brunhilde or Boadicea when occupying the Speaker’s chair.
Actually she reminds me of a very scary Scottish teacher of French I had at school. No one who attended her classes ever got constipation.
The thing is Bishop is giving every appearance of not knowing her Standing Orders stuff, which seems to explain her over-the-top treatment of those members who try to bring her to book, which of course in the current political climate is the Opposition.
Bishop carried around the Standing Orders tome for years. I’m now convinced it was as a prop. Whether she is now too old and is therefore losing it, or whether she never had it in the first place; after all she has never been really tested, but in either case I don’t care. It is not in the interest of the Government that she brings the House into serious disrepute through disdain and derision at the performance of her job.
By way of example yesterday’s parliamentary question time was a hoot. Tony Burke had a list of transgressions and inappropriate behavior on Bishop’s part as Speaker. It must have been very difficult for her to sit there and listen to it, especially when so much of it was met with loud guffaws.
The outcome of Burke’s motion of no confidence in her was always known. It was always going to be decided along party lines, and so it was.
Bishop’s lack of ability not to bully from the Chair was evident to all when she threw one member out for laughing and warned one and all that if they continued to laugh they would be thrown out as well. Dreyfus suffered a more serious fate. For his interjection of “Madam Speaker” he was named the penalty for which is a 24 hours suspension from the House.
It was also totally and utterly inappropriate that Bishop remained in the Chair as the debate in a no confidence motion in her occurred. However, my favourite Bishop faux pas was when she wouldn’t even hear a point of order from Burke because she knew what it was going to be about, so she said, and therefore denied it before he could even put it. Bishop really is a disgrace, and she’s giving those of us who hold Senior’s Cards a bad rap.
In the meantime the half-an-hour of hilarity was solace of sorts. As the Readers’ Digest once told me: ‘Laughter is the best medicine.’
Don’t even start me on George Pell. His apology to Ellis was embarrassing and rude. His behavior throughout has done nothing to dispel the appearance that the Roman Catholic hierarchy is nothing more than an old boys’ club.
And, as for Campbell Newman giving himself a sizeable increase to his salary all the while still in the midst of a slash and burn of the public service that has resulted in thousands now unemployed; nor forgetting the scrapping of essential health, transport, educational and medical services especially in the rural and regional areas – well it just beggars belief.
WTF just about covers it.
Although to be honest, anyone watching proceedings for the last 4 years would not be surprised.
Great post BOEUFBLOGGINON.
A nice follow up after the Slipper/Doane report.