In honour of Prime Minister HoWARd’s secret little missive to his Iraqi counterpart Nouri al-Maliki, I am going to make the “R” in HoWARd, lower-case, for now.

This is because I believe it may be the first of many steps to get Australian troops out of the illegal war in Iraq.  I am too cynical, after all this time to believe that my PM has realised that he has sent the ADF into an illegal war, and therefore can only conclude that the polls are telling him that troops in Iraq is a liability for him and his chances for a fifth term.

On 30/03/04, HoWArd said this:

“If the world at the present time trembles and shows any kind of equivocation in the face of the threat posed by terrorism, I believe that the world—of which Australia is inextricably a part—will pay a very heavy price in the future. The decision we take on how we deport ourselves over the months ahead will go very much to the reputation and standing of this country in the councils of the world. If we choose to cut and run, if we choose to abandon our friends, if we choose to give the wrong signal to the terrorists, that will not only make the world a less safe place but also damage the reputation of this country around the world. It has always been the Australian way to stay there, to go the distance, to see it through and to do what is right in the long-term interests of this country and the interests of the people with whom we have aligned ourselves.”

Now Defence Minister Nelson has added this to HoWArd’s 2004 speech:

“The basic Australian approach is we believe in giving people a fair go, we believe in reaching out to people and giving them a hand. But we expect them to help themselves and at the moment we want to see a little bit more determination and political action from the Government of Iraq itself.”

I now know what the job was. That elusive job, as in ‘troops stay in Iraq until the job is done’.

The job was the passage of two critical pieces of legislation when the Iraqi Council of Representatives resumes its meetings next month. These are the hydrocarbon resources law and the new de-Baathification legislation.

Could this have been done without military action and in less than four years? I think so.

Guess it isn’t as easy as you would think to organise a secure diplomatic bag between Canberra and Baghdad.

Image from here

How can a country allow someone as incompetent as the Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to remain in charge of anything more than a mobile dog wash?

Recidivist dismisser Downer is at it again. His only response to dissent is dismissal. Following, please find evidence of his most recent dismissive-ness and add it to his litany of offending behaviour.

AID/WATCH is a not for profit activist organisation monitoring and campaigning on Australian overseas aid and trade policies and programs. They ensure aid-funding reaches the right people, communities and their environments.

AID/WATCH recently reported that more than $170 million of Australian aid money earmarked for humanitarian relief in Iraq was misused to promote Australian economic gain.

“Far from protecting Iraq’s own food security, which was the stated objective of Australia’s aid mission, Australian officials paid by AusAid focused on guaranteeing ongoing wheat contracts for Australian companies and removing subsidies and protections for Iraqi producers in ways that gave considerable advantages to Australian farmers.” – Flint Duxfield.

A spokesman from Mr Downer’s office dismisses the report and says:

“Aid Watch is an extremist organisation that has repeatedly misrepresented the nature of Australia’s aid program. Mr Downer does not take the report seriously.”

Back on 02/10/06 Downer dismissed the findings from the Lowy Institute that found that 84 per cent of respondents believed the US-led invasion into Iraq, had done nothing to lessen the threat of terrorism.

“The problem with the poll is that they’ve [the Lowy Institute] clearly decided there are certain answers they’re looking for instead of trying to look at the totality of the issue. The Lowy Institute chose not to ask the central question, and the central question is should we now and should the Americans now surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, or should we stay the course? And the answer to that, I think you’ll find, is that most Australians think that (Opposition Leader Kim) Beazley’s policy of surrender in Iraq is a policy of defeatism, and most Australians would reject that.”

Previously, on 12/04/06, Downer dismisses as insignificant three separate reports that Australian wheat company AWB Ltd paid more than $200 million in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein’s government; testimony comes as investigation, now in its fourth month, focuses on what government knew about the kickbacks.

“This is unassessed intelligence from foreign sources. This isn’t Australian intelligence.” – Source.

Prior to that, in a white paper on terrorism- ‘Transnational Terrorism: the threat to Australia’ launched publicly by him on 15/07/06 is quoted by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) on 04/08/06, as having said,

“Downer dismisses as illusory the notion of root causes of terrorism. Poverty, disadvantage or hopelessly entrenched political impasse have nothing to do with terrorism: they are all of them in any case long-running and endemic features of life throughout the Middle-East.”

Serial offender Downer, on 13/03/05, in response to the $1 billion Australia has pledged in Tsunami aid, amid warnings that the money could turn into boomerang aid– where the cash ends up in the pockets of wealthy Australian companies, said this:

“A spokesman for Downer dismissed the claims as a hoary old chestnut. We are making sure this money is spent in an effective and accountable way.”

Habitual dismisser Downer, on 23/08/04, Downer dismissed newspaper claims the Australian government was repeatedly warned its support for the Iraq war would impede the fight against terrorism.

“Nobody has any idea what these specific claims would be and what they relate to”

Dismissing Downer, yes please- vote this insufferable idiot out.

Image from here

If we re-elect HoWARd, the paternalism will be out-of-control.

In legislation proposed yesterday, from July 1, 2008, low-income Australian families whose children are neglected or have unexplained school absences, will have the right to freely spend their government welfare payments withdrawn and replaced with a Centrelink-controlled electronic spending card.

The government plans to ‘store’ welfare payments on a parent’s individual electronic spending card which could only be used at shops to buy food and clothing for children or to pay rent.

“Governments must never be neutral when it comes to the special responsibilities that families shoulder in our society and to the importance of parents providing basic essentials like food, clothing and shelter and ensuring children attend school.’’

Under this proposal, each family would lose the ability to spend their payments autonomously. They will need to gain the approval of a public service organisation (or perhaps a private tender company) to buy essentials.

I think this government is missing a perfect opportunity for some social engineering if it doesn’t also address Australia’s childhood obesity problem, its aging population and low birth rate and the need to reduce the effects of global warming. Whilst, within this policy, there already exists Centrelink control of the parent’s electronic spending card, why not go that step further?

Clearly the PM loves the number eleven (as in 11 years in power) so in honour of that achievement, policy will be aligned to the number eleven.

Parents and their children would be weighed and if any one person in the family is more than 11 kilos overweight, the card could ban the purchase of any processed, fatty and sugary foods.

Until you have 11 children, all forms of contraception would be replaced by one cheap book- “The Billings method.”

A family’s car, if they have one, would be checked for air pollution and greenhouse emissions. If it’s over 11 (three stars), your family gets a bus pass.

Our PM, John HoWARd ends his policy statement with this:

“No one has a right to have the Australian taxpayer fund their irresponsible behaviour.’’

So, given that $55 million was spent on advertising WorkChoices legislation, the word WorkChoices will be reintroduced into the political landscape, eleven times every day, up to and including election day, so as not to be responsible for irresponsible taxpayer funded behaviour.

Image from here

It seems like a lifetime ago, when I and 349,999 other anti war protesters filled the streets of Sydney to beg this government not to join the Coalition of the willing in Operation Iraqi Freedom, better known as the illegal war in Iraq.

Many reasons and many positions were displayed on placards and on t-shirts, with No Blood for Oil being the most popular. We knew then and we know now, that this government’s motivation for the freedom of the Iraqi people, was significantly less than the motivation for to secure, continuous, supply of our oil.

The difference now is that the Minister of Defence- Dr Brendan Nelson, recently made the same point, if from a somewhat different perspective. He attempted to use the security of access to oil to sell the illegal war in Iraq.

“Energy security is extremely important to all nations throughout the world, and of course, in protecting and securing Australia’s interests. The Middle East itself, not only Iraq, but the entire region is an important supplier of energy oil, in particular, to the rest of the world.”- Dr Brendan Nelson.

Our PM- John HoWARd, will be having none of that, instantly coming out defending the indefensible by saying:

“We are not there [in Iraq] because of oil and we didn’t go there because of oil. We don’t remain there because of oil. Oil is not the reason. Oil comes from the Middle East – we all know that – but the reason we remain there is we want to give the people of Iraq the possibility of embracing democracy.” – HoWARd.

So the question has to be, how’s this democracy embracing in Iraq going? Because the question cannot be how’s our oil?

Update: Nelson has been pulled into the official line, with the following being his position a mere 24 hours later.

“Iraq has never been about oil”

Image from here

Am I reading this and this right?

“Part of the Government’s approach is to reduce people’s discretionary income by quarantining half of all income support and family assistance payments for up to 12 months. The changes will apply to both indigenous and non-indigenous people living in as many as 60 remote communities. People living outside the communities will be assessed case by case. Further measures will see the payments linked to school attendance. Where children are identified as at risk, Centrelink could intervene to ensure essentials such as rent, food and medical expenses are paid before assistance payments are made.” – Source.

Is the government proposing that a person or a couple or someone in a kinship group, who is on a Centrelink payment and lives in one of 60 remote communities, where the payment is made for the care of children, possibly in the form of Family Tax Benefit A, will need to adhere to less than 3 unexplained school absences for one (or all) of their children, if they expect to keep that payment autonomous from some sort of financial case management regime?

How does the government plan to monitor this? If resources are available, why not utilise them to educate, rather than investigate? Is the message here that children need to have maximum time away from the adults in their communities (other than schoolteachers) to be safe? How is that then not a stolen generation by another name? What services will be put in place to act as a change agent, so that a caregiver can work towards self-determination and independence.

What will be the punitive measure if these parents are not on a Centrelink payments, or is that so unlikely, as to be ridiculous? If that is the case, what will be done to fight poverty and the lack of employment opportunities in remote communities?

I was moved by, and understood the urgency of, Noel Pearson’s speech given to Fran Kelly’s Breakfast, on 20/06/07, on ABC’s Radio National.

I was equally moved by, and understood the cynicism inherent in what Mick Dodson had to say in response to HoWARd’s National Emergency rhetoric. Mick spoke of the past two decades of this ‘urgency’ in Aboriginal societies. He calls for a National plan to tackle addiction, housing, education, employment, physical and mental health in Indigenous communities.

I’m uneasy about a PM who can’t say sorry, and horrified at what I read in the Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle
“Little Children are Sacred” report.

On balance, I have to come down on the side of safety. Having said that, this measure needs to be monitored for the safety outcomes it hopes to achieve. I want to see every non-indigenous person take on a mentoring role for an indigenous person, so that every one of them can work themselves out of a job in the 5 years allocated to this national emergency.