Will Julia succeed?

Will Julia Gillard succeed as Prime Minister in dealing with the issues facing Australia?

Kevin Rudd lost the trust of the Australian people - and his Prime Ministership - because he failed to take action on the climate crisis. Julia Gillard faces the same test.

Many people in the Melbourne electorate have told me they want real and immediate action on climate change and carbon emissions.

Here's some things she could do:

• Pick up the phone and negotiate with the Greens for a proper solution to the climate crisis.

• Join with the Greens (and at least two Coalition Senators) to pass a carbon tax - this would apply across all industries, not just mining, with the funds directed towards transitioning to a low carbon economy.

• Remove perverse taxes that encourage fossil fuel use - such as car leases that require minimum kilometres to be driven, the diesel fuel rebate, and sundry others.

• Allow tax deductions and/or salary packaging for people who cycle to work.

• Ditch the $2 billion+ corporate welfare funding for "Clean Coal" geo-sequestration pipe dreams that defy the basic laws of physics, and direct this towards a 100% clean energy program based on concentrated solar with salt storage and wind power.

• Commence planning for a very fast train project to link Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane.

• Introduce national building standards for 6 Star Rated buildings and retrofit of existing building stock (remembering that proper management of these schemes is basic).

• Protect native forests from logging to keep their carbon where it is, (and to secure our water supplies and to provide habitat for endangered species).

• Outlaw the burning of native forest woodchips as a "renewable energy source" - it clearly is not renewable and our forests are worth much more than woodchips.

• Commence an initiative to transition Australia to net zero emissions by 2020 - as outlined, for example, in the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Stationary Energy Plan produced by Beyond Zero Emissions

Over to you, Julia. You can do it, and you will be praised by history - and our grandchildren - if you do.

Recollection of the election

At my tent on the Great Victorian Bike Ride

John Howard

Kevin Rudd

Throughout 2007 I negotiated preferences for the Greens in the run up to the November election.

It was a fascinating task, involving meetings with representatives of every other political party - many of them with very different philosophies - and in the end we had the preferences for Richard Di Natale, our senate candidate, flowing as well as we could. There would be no repeat of the Steven Fielding election debacle this time.

On 24 November, election day, I was away on the Great Victorian Bike Ride with my brother, and not able to attend in person my usual booth, or the party get togethers in the evening.

The ride that morning started at the Phillip Island Penguin Parade, and meandered along the coast to Wonthaggi. We passed a few polling booths on the way, decked out with bunting and green triangles. The Greens candidate here was Bob Brown - not the one you might think, but a singer songwriter well known for his song "Give me a home among the gum trees".

At Wonthaggi, we found a quiet spot at the edge of the vast sea of campers, set up our tents and relaxed for a while.

As evening drew on, I was looking for a screen where I could watch the election. This proved harder than I had imagined. Several pubs were showing the trots or the races, and it seemed I would just have to listen on my small radio.

But at last I found a pub which had a back room with a large TV screen tuned to the ABC election coverage. I bought a beer, settled down alone in front of the screen, and began to take in democracy at work.

As the evening wore on, the place began to fill up. Soon it was packed, with nearly everyone glued to the screen. Wonthaggi is an old coal mining town, and pretty strong Labor territory. The Great Vic Bike Ride has a good proportion of Green voters. If there were any coalition voters in that room (and I doubt it) they certainly kept very quiet.

Right next to the TV screen was a juke box.

One keen Labor supporter, a little unsteady on his feet, saw Peter Garrett celebrating his win, and put on a Midnight Oil song. Not only did this drown out the election coverage - causing several angry murmurs - but it got right up the noses of the Greens.

After we had endured the song, and had resumed watching the coverage - Liberals losing seats with some very big swings - he got up and put on the same song again.

This time people called out for him to stop. "We're watching the coverage!" "Don't play that crap!" "We can't hear the TV!"

"This is history!" he retorted. "This is a big win! We gotta celebrate!"

Once again the song ended and the throng resumed rapt attention on the election coverage.

Then another guy - beefier and tougher than the first music lover, and sporting a formidable beard - approached the juke box.

The gathering became passionate. "We are trying to listen to the coverage! It's really important! Don't put the juke box on!"

The bearded music lover was a bit worse for wear. With an angry sneer he put on the music and gave us a few gestures to go with it. Now the mood was getting ugly.

The song ended, and things settled down. A few more Liberal seats fell. We heard Kerry O'Brien saying that John Howard was on his way, and was expected to concede.

Then the bearded muso walked up to the juke box again.

The crowd wasn't having it, and he was howled down. "You can't put the juke box on!"

He fronted his tormentors angrily: "My mum owns this pub. I can do what I like!"

"Well, why don't you go and ask mummy!" came the chorus.

Defiant, he reached for the juke box, and several people stepped forward to physically stop him.

Then he lashed out in all directions and in an instant was dropped to the floor still kicking and punching.

I quietly got up and pushed my way past the spectators into the night air outside. Definitely time to leave.

I phoned the Greens' number crunchers to see how Richard was going: it was very close, and we would not know that night. It was the first Victorian senate count when we would not know on the night.

Then I turned on my small radio, put in the earpiece, and caught John Howard's concession speech. He attempted statesmanlike grace towards Kevin Rudd but the mere mention of that name roused partisan boos from the Liberal crowd, forcing the conceding Prime Minister to repeatedly gripe "Please! Please!"

Still listening, I strolled back to the campsite and could see others gathered in the darkness around radios taking in the change of government. We exchanged friendly looks and kept our ears glued to the sound waves.

Then it was Kevin Rudd's turn. This was his moment in history. What would he say? The cheers built and built to the accompaniment of upbeat music. The pride in the achievement of overturning the bitter Howard years, coming through my earpiece, was radiant, splendid.

The music stopped, but the ovation persisted - with exuberant supporters calling out their congratulations. At last the acclamation died away, and the new prime minister commenced his victory speech with a tetchy "Okay, guys."

I got into my tent as I listened. It didn't get much better:

I want to acknowledge now for the entire Australian nation and publicly recognise Mr Howard's extensive contribution to public service in Australia. There are big differences between us, but we share a common pride in this great nation Australia. And I want to wish Mr and Mrs Howard and their family all the very best for the future.

Today Australia has looked to the future. Today the Australian people has decided that we as a nation will move forward, to plan for the future, to prepare for the future, to embrace the future, and together, as Australians, to unite and write a new page in our nation's history to make this great country of ours, Australia, even greater.

And on it went. I knew I should try to listen right through, but I didn't hear the end of the speech.

I fell asleep.

Bob Brown

External links

• 2007 election
• Kevin Rudd's victory speech - YouTube
• Richard Di Natale
• Senator Bob Brown

Why are we fighting in Afghanistan?

Australian troops in Afghanistan

So Tony Abbott wants to send more Australian troops to Afghanistan. "Doing more would be a sign Australia was serious about its overseas responsibilities," he said today.

If we send more Australians to fight in Afghanistan, some of these young men will die. Others will be fearfully injured. We’d better be very sure it is worth putting our people in harm’s way.

Just what "overseas responsibilities" is Tony Abott referring to? He did not say, and this kind of vague jingoism will not do when lives are at stake.

It's just a year since Kevin Rudd announced he was sending another 450 troops to Afghanistan. He gave only two reasons: to prevent Australians dying from terrorism and to comply with our ANZUS treaty obligations.

Sending soldiers to occupy a foreign country far from our shores is no way to repress terrorism. If anything, the resentments created are apt to nourish terrorism and make us more of a target. The Taliban gain their traction from fighting foreign invaders and the al-Qaeda training camps are long gone anyway. The PM’s first reason makes no sense: getting Australians killed is no way to protect Australians.

As for Rudd's second reason, the ANZUS treaty imposes no obligation on Australia relevant to the Afghan conflict. The operative article provides:

The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific.

The requirement is for consultation, not the sending of troops, and relates to threats in the Pacific -- a theatre which on no view includes Afghanistan. Of course, the US no longer respects any obligation to our neighbour New Zealand under this treaty anyway.

Why are we in Afghanistan at all? What really are the aims of this war? How will we even know when we’ve won it? Unless there are clear answers to these questions, our involvement is immoral.

Nine days after the 9/11 attack, President George W Bush demanded that Afghanistan “deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al-Qaeda who hide in your land.” The demand was an ultimatum. President Bush said in his address to Congress “They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate.”

The Taliban rulers of Afghanistan asked for evidence to demonstrate Osama bin Laden’s involvement in the September 11 attacks. If such evidence warranted a trial, they offered to handle the trial in Afghanistan.

The US refused to offer any evidence. They made no request for extradition. There was no pretence of legal process. Like the leader of a Southern lynch mob, Dubya was sending in his boys to do rough justice on Osama bin Laden and wasn’t going to let legalities get in the way.

On 7 October 2001 the invasion began with a large-scale bombardment. The stated purpose was to capture Bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime for harbouring them. For thousands of years, conquering armies had come to Afghanistan because of its strategic position at the crossroads of empires. Now it was invaded because it was a dead end backwater where a fugitive was hiding.

The US and its allies missed Osama bin Laden, so the rhetoric for the war changed. It was really, we were told, all about restoring democracy (often coupled with restoring the rights of women).

If this is the reason Australia sent troops to Afghanistan, it hasn’t worked. Sure, there now is a vote in Afghanistan for those where Kabul’s writ runs and that is something. But without more it does not amount to democracy. It is the essence of democracy to respect the rule of law and to listen to different voices. To go to war rather than go to law, to use force rather than negotiation, is the antithesis of the democratic ideal. Far from spreading democracy, the invasion has undermined it. At the same time, the new regime in Afghanistan has proved almost as oppressive to women as the Taliban. More than eight years after the invasion, the Taliban remains a growing force precisely because of the western military presence. Tension with Pakistan and throughout the region has spread.

The grisly stories of US special forces killing civilians keep surfacing. There is no official record of civilian casualties, but the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan lists 2,118 Afghan civilians killed by armed conflict in 2008 alone. The civilians killed in Afghanistan now far outnumber those killed in the US on 9/11.

Afghanistan has been a sorry place for invaders. In 1839 the British amassed their huge Army of the Indus, which stretched for 30 miles when it marched. They invaded Afghanistan, engaged in regime change, but an insurgency slowly built up around them. When they finally retreated in 1842, only one man made it out to the British garrison at Jallalabad. More recently the Soviets, with far larger forces than those currently occupying the country, were eventually driven out.

"Remnants of an Army" by Lady Elizabeth Butler, depicting the last British survivor reaching Jallalabad in 1842

Sending more troops to Afghanistan only exacerbates the folly of our involvement in the first place. Far from sending more troops, it’s time to bring our young men and women home.

External Links

New York Times on US Special Forces cover up

Rethink Afghanistan