Recent academic polling suggests that voters would rather have increased services than tax cuts. Despite that both Liberal and Labor are offering tax cuts as well as increased services. What is happening? Are they catering for all opinions, or do they think that the polls are wrong? Our research throws light on that. The question, and its answers, is much more complicated than the straight quantitative polling suggests.
Yes, many Australians want money to be spent on services, but only on the services that they see as important. If higher spending led to a higher cost to them personally, they would change their mind. That means that if their after tax standard of living is not sustained, they will reject higher spending, just as they will reject it if they see it as insufficient to meet their objectives. As some tax cuts are necessary to stop bracket creep, and as government will never be able to spend enough to convince the public that services have improved, then tax cuts and promises of additional services will continue to be the order of the day.
When we asked our participants what they wanted there were four different responses. Some, invariably Coalition voters, preferred tax cuts to increased spending on services. Others, invariably not Coalition voters, preferred increased spending. Then there was a group that wanted both. Maryruth – “both are important. tax cuts are necessary. we’re not that competitive in the global economy with incentive killing rates of tax ,” and Rick “I think a higher priority for service improvements. Tax cuts have the indirect benefit of stimulating the economy which is collectively a good thing so there is a place for them as well.”
Finally there were the skeptics. Bob, a Greens voter said “Agree; but what hope is there that they will do it, the money still goes to the haves, and a token to the services, look at mental health, disability services when they closed all the institutions.” Lindsay, Liberal, was in the same camp “It depends where the services are gong to go….not much ever comes this way from our state gov.”
Those who were in favour of tax cuts put a stress on individual effort and responsibility. Warren thought that “Personal choice makes for the best economic outcome.” Those in favour of services frequently saw it as helping to bridge the alienation they have come to fear in the community – “…we have wised up to what many of the best societies in the world have known for ages, that a strong community is worth more than money in hand. That it creates a wonderful environment to live in that makes life worthwhile, ” – Fiona.
Some argue that Australians would accept higher taxes for higher services, so we tested that proposition on the group. In fact, there were a few who would enter into this bargain (despite Peter Costello’s assertion that he’s never met anyone who wanted to pay higher taxes). Pat, a self-confessed high salary earner, said she would pay an additional $50 per week. Others nominated $5 per week and one $10. Issues of control were more marked on this question. Judith – “Only if I had some say on where it went.” Holly – “Depends on whether the taxes were earmarked for something.”
If control and choice are such big concerns, where would participants spend more? The answer is health and education (no surprise there), infrastructure, the aged, women’s shelters, employment services, defence, work for the dole, roads, and communications. In fact, just about everything that the government spends money on now. We didn’t probe, but the diversity of demands indicates that it is unlikely there would ever be enough additional funding to satisfy all voters. For example, if the average increase was $5 per week, then it would pay for only about $1.5 billion in new spending. It might fix some health or education problems, but not the whole list. This means that voter support would be highly qualified, even if spending involved maintaining tax rates without adjusting for inflation.
Which means no party running for government anytime in the near future is going to promise increases in services and no tax cuts. It may also explain why countries that explicitly entered into the high tax/high services bargain, like Sweden, are winding back both expenditure and taxes.
To view the original material on which this article is based go to www.onlineopinion.com.au/onlinefocus/federal_budget_2004/default.htm

THE Honourable Peter Slipper holds the seat of Fisher by a margin of almost 12 per cent – if he continues to put out extravagant, self indulgent, taxpayer funded propaganda then he will need at least that margin to survive the wrath of his electors.
The Courier Mail’s “Confidential” column today reported that in a four page “Slipper Report” there are no less than 20 photographs of the Honourable Member for Fisher, including one of Mr Slipper and his children.
As “Confidential” said – “somebody, make it stop”.
That “somebody” might be the good people of Fisher.
There are a number of Federal MP’s, and even Senators, who issues glossy taxpayer funded reports full of their own photos. I have seen several people reading these newsletters counting the number of photos while still at the mail box!
The public standing of politicians has never been lower – and it has slipped even further in recent weeks thanks to the indulgences of Senators Brandis, Mason and Stott-Despoya, and the hapless Trish Draper, MP.
If some politicians have not got the message that the public reacts very strongly to glossy taxpayer funded propaganda full of their own photos then they will simply never learn.
The Sunshine Coast Daily – the major newspaper circulating in the Fisher Electorate – has robust views on Mr Slipper’s performance as Member. It will no doubt pick up on this latest indulgence by its MP.
Those MP’s with good political sense exercise great care in how they prepare taxpayer funded propaganda. They keep photos of themselves to a minimum.
They do not include family shots.
The media has been targeting the printing allowances of Federal MP’s and Senators. I think the criticism is generally unfair – but the likes of Mr Slipper do their case great harm.
An MP is entitled to communicate with his constituents on matters of electoral and national (or state) interest. Many do so in a way that is informative and educational.
The minority, such as the Member for Fisher, go completely over the top, and undermine even further public respect for elected representatives at a time when it needs to be restored.
To include 20 self- photos in a four page newsletter is indefensible.
Just as a few rugby league players have dragged down the name of the game, and the standing of all players, there are a few politicians dragging down even further the standing of elected representatives – and the whole democratic process.
The current Member for Fisher is one of them.
If he is not careful, Slipper may be on a slippery slide to political oblivion.

Today’s Sunday Mail carries a story , perhaps syndicated, perhaps from an overseas freelancer. It is called Code of Honour and it relates the story of Specialist Patrick Tilman who died on 22nd April, in Afghanistan.
The article is hagiographic, relating Tilman’s efforts to become a NFL footballer with the Arizona Cardinals, and then how he left a $5.2 million contract behind to fight as a US Army ranger for just $25,000 per year. He was undersized, and not naturally intellectually gifted, yet he excelled at both football and study. But he wanted to give something back to his country, so he joined the army.
Tilman’s death, according to the Sunday Mail, was caused by Taliban and Afghanistan treachery. He was ambushed in a hail of bullets in his truck and dies as a result of a landmine explosion, or maybe in a fierce fire-fight.
All of that is interesting, and no doubt the details of his footballing and academic career are correct, but the version of his death is flatly contradicted by this New York Times report.
No mention of Afghan complicity and treachery, but apparently he was killed by friendly fire while leading his troops to support other troops that were under fire. He wasn’t under fire at the time, and doesn’t appear to have been targetted in an ambush, although others may have been. This so undermines the Sunday Mail’s account that it can’t possibly be true.
Fox News, another part of the News Limited empire was easily the most supportive of the War in Iraq of all the news outlets. I can’t agree with author Bruce Paige’s assertion in his recent book, The Murdoch Archipelago, that Murdoch essentially offers an outsourced propaganda programme to governments, but when you see guff like the Sunday Mail article published in one of the least significant corners of the empire, you can see where Paige is coming from.

It was Wayne Goss who said before the 1996 election that Queenslanders were waiting on their front porches with baseball bats for an opportunity to bash the Keating government. In 2004 our qualitative research into how Australians feel about the latest federal budget suggest it is now John Howard’s turn to be bashed.
In 1996 the community was sharply divided. The larger part of it felt that they had been shut out of public debate through “political correctness”. They also felt that they had been tricked into voting for Keating by the LAW tax cuts. Labor had been in power for 13 years and had presided over record high interest rates and rapidly escalating debt. While the economy was recovering from the “recession we had to have” it didn’t feel like a recovery a mood which Howard captured by characterizing the recovery as “5 minutes of economic sunshine”.
Voters had had enough, and it didn’t matter what Paul Keating said, they were just waiting to ditch him. All John Howard had to do was to avoid any significant errors, and turn up on the day. Despite that, and an expectation that Howard would win, there was a very real concern that Keating might sneak back in, which made voters even more determined to vote him out.
In 2004 a large portion of voters feel that they have been shut out of public debate. They see Australia as “defensive, inward looking…”; that there is a “real sense of fear pervading Australian culture”; and “no vision, or hope that we can take control of our future”. Their evidence for this is a perception that inequality has increased and that the government bastardises minorities for political advantage.
They see the Tampa, the “children overboard” affair, and the reasons for going to war in Iraq, as being Howard’s equivalent of the LAW tax cuts. While there has not been a recession for over 10 years, they do not give Howard and Costello the credit. This belongs in their view either to Hawke and Keating, or to circumstances. Fears about interest rates and debt are still there, this time caught up in the housing boom. These voters are concerned about the housing boom because it decreases housing affordability, and because if it bursts it may hurt the economy. They see the boom as increasing household indebtedness, and likely to lead to higher interest rates.
At the same time as a large number of voters despises and distrusts Howard and gives him no credit for anything, there is a smaller group of voters which is passionately loyal to him and which sees Australia as being “…an incredibly fortunate nation. Not everything right, but not too much wrong.”
What does this mean for the budget?
It means that it really doesn’t matter what Howard, Costello, Latham or Crean say, voters have bought their tickets and nothing is going to dissuade them from embarking for their chosen destination at the election. Every promise in the budget is seen as a bribe. Take the baby bonus. This could be seen as a type of maternity leave. Most of our respondents are in favour of maternity leave, but they are not in favour of the baby bonus, including even a number of Coalition voters. This is because they believe it was given in a lump sum, rather than as a regular periodic payment over time, to make it more effective as a bribe. This is evidence to them of bad faith, which is then translated into concerns that the government won’t continue to support parents of new borns if they win the next election.
The tax cuts leave voters unmoved. Most don’t believe that they will get a benefit from them, while worrying about the people on low incomes. Some are aware of the problems marginal rates of tax create for the welfare to work transition; and a number believe that tax brackets ought to be indexed.
The only budget promise they did like was the decrease in taxes on super funds.
They didn’t like too many of Mark Latham’s promises either. The “learn or earn” policy was regarded with suspicion by some and “so what” by others, although on balance the reaction was positive. Labor voters generally didn’t think that Latham should be passing the Government’s budget as is and saw this as showing a lack of imagination in setting a new course for the country. Others were more pragmatic supporting the promise because he would be “wedged by the media and the government”, if he didn’t.
There was outright disbelief at Latham’s pledge to cut government spending by $8 B, but it didn’t really seem to matter to anyone – it was an acceptable untruth.
This marks a change in the approach of the left. In previous polling we have found them to have a very idealistic “all or nothing and winning government be damned” approach. Despite concerns that Latham may just be a working class Tory, they seem to have decided to conciliate now that government looks to be theirs’. It may also be that their hatred of Howard has got to the point where they will do anything to get rid of him, just like the country had with Paul Keating in 1996.
What does this mean for the election?
It means that Howard has lost the traction to change people’s votes. Whatever he says will be discounted because it will be seen to be politically motivated – in Howard’s interest, not the community’s. It is no longer Howard’s election to win, but Latham’s to lose. To win well Latham needs to keep doing what he is doing now – making modest promises; doing a lot of listening; and keeping on his social policy agenda. He will only get into trouble if he makes the mistake of trying to match Howard with policies.
Labor tends to think that it can educate its way into office and must have a full-blown revolutionary agenda on the table. This would be a disaster. Voters vote for emotional reasons and all of our research has been showing for some time that voters do not trust ambitious promises. To win politicians need to under-bid, not over-bid. Voters also see so little real difference between politicians that they are going for style rather than substance. All this was pretty much the case in 1996 too.
The biggest thing that Latham has going for him is that he is not John Howard, just as in 1996 the biggest thing that Howard had going for him was that he was not Paul Keating.
To view the research on which this article is based go to www.onlineopinion.com.au/onlinefocus/federal_budget_2004/default.htm

I’m told that our “cricket tragic” Prime Minister, undoubtedly with the Draper and Tollner incidents in mind, called tyro MHR Michael Johnson into his office to discuss the “Youth Leadership Forum” that Johnson recently held with special guest Ricky Ponting. It was a seminar with Ponting that students from local schools attended.
A recent report in The Australian suggested that this was actually a Liberal Party fundraiser. There have also been suggestions that the schools who sent students along paid toward the function and effectively made a donation to the Liberal Party.
Below, without comment, is a transcript of an interview by Steve Austin on 612 ABC in Brisbane just after 10:00 a.m. this morning.
Naturally the PM would be concerned about these allegations, not only to protect Ponting’s reputation, but the future of his government. I wonder if he got all of this information from Johnson though?
Austin: Michael Johnson, did any schools pay?
Johnson: No, not at all, not a single penny and I think that Barry (Talk-back caller needs to get his facts right and do a bit of homework and if he had the courtesy of actually calling my office and having a chat about his concerns he would have (inaudible) very different story.
Austin: I’m sorry, he’s a Talkback listener, I mean, give the guy a break. He was responding to media reports or news reports.
Johnson: I’m not sure about that, Steve. I think he was being very assertive and speaking with presumed authority.
Austin: What, you think he was a stooge, he was a set-up, do you?
Johnson: I’m not saying he was a stooge but I’m saying he certainly didn’t have the facts.
Austin: C’mon, the guy is a voter, a taxpayer. Perhaps you’d better clarify the facts for me – did any schools pay?
Johnson: As I said when I first came on, not a single penny was paid by a school.
Austin: What was the nature of the Youth Leadership Forum and then the cocktail party attached to it?
Johnson: Steve, I’m very happy to explain everything.
Austin: Just forgive me, Michael, are you on a speakerphone?
Johnson: Yes, I am, yes.
Austin: Would you mind taking it off speakerphone – it’s a very distracting echo when being broadcast across the S.E. corner of Qld, if you don’t mind.
Johnson: Sure, not a worry. Hello, is that better?
Austin: Much better, thank you.
Johnson: Makes it easier for me. I’m happy to explain it totally. In April I had the opportunity of hosting this Youth Leadership Forum and we had as a special guest the Australian cricket captain, Ricky Ponting and, of course, Gen. Peter Leahy, Chief of the Army, who very kindly opened the Forum for us, and it was an opportunity to bring about 150 kids from the Ryan Electorate to come along and, I guess, be encouraged and be inspired by some of the people that came along. It was entirely a community event, Steve. There was not a single penny asked from the schools or from the students and I think what Sen. Faulkner raised in Senate Estimates is quite deceptive and an act of fraud on his part, not my part.
Austin: so the Youth Leadership Forum wasn’t a fundraiser?
Johnson: Absolutely not.
Austin: What about the cocktail party? Was that a fundraiser?
Johnson: No, the cocktail party was held to assist with off-setting the costs of Ricky Ponting’s appearance fee.
Austin: So that was a fundraiser?
Johnson: It wasn’t a fundraiser – the implication is that it was a fundraiser for my campaign and that was not the case.
Austin: That wasn’t what I said. It was a fundraiser, you raised funds?
Johnson: Oh, I wouldn’t put it in those words at all, Steve.
Austin: You raised funds to pay for Ricky Ponting?
Johnson: There was a function held and this was made very clear to Ricky that because of his substantial appearance fee, we had to recover those costs and that came in a combination of sponsors helping out as well as the invited guests.
Austin: Did you make any profit on the function?
Johnson: No. In fact, we’re in deficit, so any allegations that the Ryan campaign or that the Liberal Party made a benefit out of it, is entirely inaccurate.
Austin: I haven’t said that at all.
Johnson: No, no, I’m saying any allegations made and that was, I think, the clear implication by your caller, Barry, and certainly by Sen. Faulkner, I think it’s a smear on some good working being done. People who, the companies that made a contribution and those who came along to meet Ricky, they, in fact, through their contribution subsidised the Forum. They gave the opportunity of Ryan kids to meet people like Ricky Ponting and to meet people like Steve Bradbury, the Olympic Gold Medallist, all those sort of people.
Austin: Who did people have to make their cheques payable to?
Johnson: Well, the cheques are made payable either to, directly to, catering companies, they were made payable directly to the schools. I mean, we were charged by Centenary State High School for use of the venue so we had to recover costs for that sort of thing.
Austin: That wasn’t what I asked. For the cocktail party, when people signed cheques, who did they make their cheques payable to?
Johnson: Cheques were made payable to me, to the Ryan Liberal campaign, and that’s because I had to pay Ricky Ponting.
Austin: To the Ryan Liberal campaign?
Johnson: Yes, that’s right.
Austin: But you’ve just told me that they weren’t for the Ryan campaign?
Johnson: Well, the funds – I mean, Steve, I think it’s quite simple to explain. Ricky Ponting asked for an appearance fee to appear. He was the only guest of those who very generously gave their time and to provide the opportunity for Ryan students to be inspired and to meet someone such as the Australian cricket captain –
Austin: You’ve told me that –
Johnson: – we had to pay for him and I decided that it was a good event to bring to the community. The first time that the Ryan electorate has had the opportunity of a Youth Forum and I think it was a great day. I think this [inaudible] just muckraking on the part of the Labor Party to try to smear the integrity of people like Gen. Leahy. Gen Leahy –
Austin; Hang on, Michael Johnson, I’m not a member of the Labor Party. I don’t think that that talkback caller is and if you can find out otherwise, please let me know and we’ll put you straight to air –
Johnson: I’ll be very happy for him to give me a call. I obviously don’t have his contact details but the clear imputation, Steve, is that came out of Sen. Faulkner’s comments in Senate Estimates and his questions, was that there was a profit made from having the Forum and there was no –
Austin: That might be what’s happening in Canberra but what’s happening up here, where your electorate is, is completely different. We haven’t spoken to Sen. Faulkner. His imputations, as you put it, hadn’t even been made on my program. What is the Ryan Liberal campaign fund for that you’ve just told that cheques were made payable to – what’s it for?
Johnson: The Ryan – I mean, all Members of Parliament raise funds for their re-election and that’s part of a re-election account that is endorsed by the Liberal Party to assist with providing opportunities for the electorate and I hope – what’s important here is the fact that I’ve provided the opportunity for young kids for the first time, as a local representative, to come to a special event to meet some pretty fascinating people.
Austin: Michael Johnson, you’ve told me that but I need to get some clarity here. Clearly, then, the cocktail party was a fundraiser, that those people who paid money did make cheques payable to Ryan Liberal campaign fund and it is clearly a Party-political campaign fund?
Johnson: That’s not the case, Steve.
Austin: If it’s for Ryan Liberal Campaign fund, the Seat of Ryan, you’re the Member for Ryan, you’re the Liberal Member for Ryan, it’s clearly a campaign fund, if they made it out to the Ryan Liberal Campaign fund.
Johnson: Well, unfortunately I don’t have an equivalent of a Centenary House account that the Labor Party has, that has $800 sq. metre, so I don’t have the funds to provide an opportunity – had Ricky Ponting been able to give his time for free, there wouldn’t have been any requirement to ask people to make a contribution [inaudible]. The important thing in all this is there were no funds raised for my re-election. The funds raised were to pay Ricky Ponting’s costs – simple as that.
Austin: At the head of this interview, you told me that cocktail party wasn’t a fundraiser?
Johnson: And I maintain that position.
Austin; But people are making their cheques out to the Ryan Liberal Campaign fund?
Johnson: I think the distinction is between fundraiser for my re-election account, for my re-election, for a political purpose as opposed for a specific reason. The specific reason was to pay Ricky Ponting’s appearance fee and I think those who actually attended the Forum will say that it was a fantastic event, it was worthwhile and I certainly look forward to having it again next year if I have the privilege of being re-elected by the Ryan constituency.
Austin: At any time, at any time, has the Ryan Liberal Campaign fund been used for Party-political purposes?
Johnson: They Ryan Liberal, the Ryan Campaign is an account endorsed by the Liberal Party for the re-election of the Member, and that is an entirely different thing. This money that was recovered by people very kindly making donations and companies sponsoring the event, it was to help assist the costs of Ricky Ponting and unfortunately we had to pay him but I thought it was an investment worthwhile providing a service to the local community and I think, as I said, everybody who turned up, I think, thoroughly enjoyed it and that’s what’s the important message to get out and I think Sen. Faulkner’s Estimates comment impugned my integrity and I think they’re entirely inaccurate and I reject them totally.
Austin: Michael Johnson, from memory you’ve held a number of fundraisers in the past, one with Alan Jones at the cost of $100 head; I think the Springboks Rugby Team, I think, at one point at about $100 head: I think a John Eales one as well, possibly for more money – were they fundraisers?
Johnson: No. The Springboks one was not a fundraiser. I was able to, I had the opportunity of hosting that as Chairman of the Australia-South Africa Parliamentary group and that was a great opportunity to bring Ryan residents who originally had a South African heritage to come and meet members of the South African team.
Austin: So when the ink went on the cheques it wasn’t made out to the Ryan Liberal Campaign fund?
Johnson: No, that was made out to the caterers that put it on. I mean, I don’t think that we’re going to put on McDonalds hamburgers & fries for people and unfortunately, as you know, Steve, nothing’s for free in this world. You’ve got to pay for things, to host the thing was a great opportunity. It brought out a whole range of Ryan residents and I don’t think you’ll get one comment from anybody who turned up that it wasn’t worthwhile, and there was a lot of complementary guests. I’m not going –
Austin: I guess I’m increasingly troubled about this, if nothing’s free in this world, you’ve got a Youth Leadership Forum where people came along, a cocktail party that wasn’t a fundraiser but people made their cheques payable to the Ryan Liberal Campaign fund to pay for the person that appeared at the Youth Leadership Forum – it sounds to me like you’re playing with words, Michael Johnson?
Johnson: No, no, Steve, Sen. Faulkner’s suggestion was that Ryan –
Austin; I’m not talking about Sen. Faulkner. I haven’t interviewed him, I haven’t spoken to him, I’m talking to you.
Johnson: Well, feel free to do so because that’s what’s at the heart of it. He’s made an allegation in Senate Estimates which I’m rejecting.
Austin: I’m not putting his allegation to you.
Johnson: Okay.
Austin: I’m asking you independently, I haven’t even spoken with the guy.
Johnson; Whether you’ve spoken or not is irrelevant. I’m clarifying his comments.
Austin: But I’m not asking you about his comments, Michael Johnson. I’m not asking you about his comments, I’m not asking you about his comments – I’m asking you to explain how you can say that it’s not a political fundraiser when what you describe as a Youth Leadership Forum was attached to a cocktail party where people, the ink actually went on cheques saying Ryan Liberal Campaign fund, and you’re saying that those cheques were used to pay back Ricky Ponting who spoke at the Youth Leadership Forum?
Johnson: That’s absolutely the case. I’ve explained my position whether you like what I say is an entirely different thing. I think you should give me the courtesy of accepting my comments. If you find to the contrary, then, or you believe to the contrary, that’s fine. My position is this, and I’ll say it again, Ricky Ponting was asked to be the keynote presenter, speaker, at the Ryan Youth Leadership Forum. We had to pay him, and so we are –
Austin: And the fundraiser paid him the money?
Johnson: There was an event held, there was a cocktail held, at the home of a Ryan resident who very kindly opened up his home to guests, and we asked those guests to come to help contribute to Ricky Ponting’s appearance at the Forum, but no one paid to go to the Forum. There was not one single dollar paid by any of the students that came along to the Forum and that’s what’s important.
Austin: No schools, no parents, no one associated with it?
Johnson: No, that’s right. Not one single person who attended the Forum was asked or expected to pay. It was a community event, put on by me, as the local Federal Member, for the young people of Ryan and it was a great success and I think that something like this shouldn’t be smeared or attempted to be smeared simply because we’re working hard to try to do something creative. I mean –
Austin: All the listener-caller, Barry, wanted was clarity. I have to go, Michael Johnson, but as I asked at the last time we interviewed, I do need some time to speak with you in some depth about the way you raise funds in your Seat. Do you think it’s proper to have people like Ricky Ponting, the Springboks, John Eales, as your guests as what are political fundraisers, were they all aware that they were being used to raise money, where the money on the cheques actually goes to the Ryan Liberal Campaign fund?
Johnson: Well, you know, all these people know who I am. They’re in the position where they can decline it. People like Ricky Ponting’s manager, it was made very, very plain to him that he was coming to a community forum and we had to recover the costs of that forum. We asked for it to be, for the appearance fee to be reduced, unfortunately they declined that, so we had to recover the funds and we were able to do that through companies very generously sponsoring it. Companies don’t make political donations or certain companies don’t feel comfortable making political donations and so certain companies made those directly to the schools, directly to the venue, directly to the caterers, and certain companies made it payable to me because I had to pay Ricky Ponting.
Austin: Michael Johnson, I think we do very clearly need to speak with you again about this and particularly [inaudible] give the opportunity for members of your electorate to talk to you about it – will you do that for us on air.
Johnson: Happy to do that.
Austin: We’ll call you when we finish on air and arrange a time. Thank you very much this morning.
Johnson: Pleasure. ENDS

Forget about Willie Mason’s ADHD (Absolute Dick Head Disorder), Australia faces a more serious disease that all sides of politics would do well to quarantine with some urgency.
We run the real risk of the “handout disease” dominating our political process, and undermining good public policy. We need to quarantine it because it is endemic in our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea.
Having worked for political leaders in PNG for more than a quarter of a century, I am in a better position than most to “identify” this dreaded scourge even before it takes hold.
The uninformed media here generally suggests that PNG’s greatest problems are crime and corruption. Without devaluing the magnitude of either, the handout mentality not only breeds corruption, it makes it very difficult for any government to implement good public policy in the national interest.
I am now sure one of the reasons why the recent Federal Budget has not lifted the standing of the Howard Government is that the handout mentality has taken hold in the Australian community.
In Papua New Guinea, the more politicians hand out, the more their electors demand. And it does not necessarily translate into votes either.
Before the 2002 National Elections, the Morauta Government indulged in a record spending spree – through its ministers and backbenchers. Notwithstanding the handouts, just about all its Ministers and Members lost their seats!
The voters took their goodies, and then voted against them.
Now there were several reasons for this. Firstly, it simply wasn’t possible to give a handout to every village/community or voter. Those that missed out were very unhappy. Secondly, because handouts have been the “order of the day” for so long in PNG, people have come to expect them as a right, and give no credit to governments or politicians for their “generosity”. And, thirdly, a significant number of voters believe that if they elect a new Member he will give them more in the next term to try and hold on to his seat.
The “handouts” in PNG come in many forms – grants for small business projects, funding for local roads or schools, and, in too many cases, cold hard cash dressed up as something respectable.
The “handouts” in Australia may be different – tax cuts, baby bonuses, family benefits – but I think they are beginning to have the same impact.
Listening to the “Open Line” callers since the Budget, I have been amazed at the number of people who have rung to complain there was “nothing” in the budget for them or who have said “they’re only giving us back what is ours anyway”.
There is, of course, a third reason – a healthy scepticism in the electorate that “those who giveth also taketh away”.
We have now got a healthy dose of the handout disease – the symptoms of which are a community expectation that every federal budget will contain tax cuts, or higher family payments, or some other sweetener.
The disease has taken hold at the state level as well, with South Australia yesterday joining the list of states giving stamp duty and similar concessions for first home buyers.
I can recall the era when a “good pre-election” budget was one that did not increase the excise duty on beer, smokes and petrol. With the exception of the latter, these are now indexed automatically and don’t even rate a mention in the budget.
If my diagnosis is right, then the handout disease won’t just hit the Howard Government, it is a danger for Mark Latham as well.
If he tries to match the government’s largesse he might end up actually losing votes from an electorate that is either sceptical of pre-election spending splurges, or, one that has caught the handout disease and believes it is only getting what it is entitled to and deserves even more – or a combination of both.
Is it too much to expect that, between now and the election, either side of politics might actually say something about the need for a stronger sense of “community” in Australia…………..and offer funding for genuine community-building, and not just politically-driven handouts?
Even leaders in Papua New Guinea with the noblest of intentions struggle to overcome this dreadful disease. We need to quarantine it, and develop a vaccination, before we go the same way.

Ok Graham, let’s have a dialogue. Let us try and reach across the gulf between a radical and a liberal.
Point One – the “ War is brutal” argument
You said:
Where I am coming from is this. War is a brutal business, and things like this happen. That isn’t to justify them, just to accept that when you start a war they will happen. In fact, when you imprison people, they will happen. Having accepted that, the issue is how you deal with them when the do happen.
This is so wrong Graham. Let me reiterate my point. What happened in Abu Grhaib was functional. It was an integral part of a low intensity operation. The Americans weren’t simply sticking thinks up Arab ass holes to teach them the joys of democracy, though no doubt the sicko who did that might have got off on it. Nor did they allow trailer park trash like Lynndie England to laugh at Arabs jerking off because they knew she would like that. They were after information about the insurgency and they needed to “soften up” the prisoners.
I have cited General Massud who defended his use of torture in Algeria on the grounds of its necessity. I could also have referred to ‘Colonel Roger Trinquier, a French paratrooper, [who] argued that torture is to “modern war” what the machinegun was to World War I.’ (William R. Polk, May 6, 2004, (www.juancole.com), retrieved 26.5.04.
Of course what Massud and Trinquier were arguing was for the necessity of war crimes. War is horrible, yes, but certain forms of war are outlawed. Ask Mr Milosevic, if you do not believe me Graham. We should be very clear here. The argument ‘war is horrible’, should not be allowed to weaken the case against torturers. We should not be fooled into agreeing with the likes of Massud and Trinquier, nor the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, who almost certainly approved the use of torture first in Afghanistan, then Guantanoam Bay and out of desperation in Iraq.
I score that Gary 1, Graham 0. Let’s proceed to the second point.
Point two The clock metaphor
You wrote:
I did not support the US moving troops to Iraq in the first place, but they did, and I do not live in a world where you can just turn the clock back.
This could serve as a neat illustration of the traps inherent in thinking in metaphors. Is calling for the USA to stop the butchery, like trying to wind back the clock? Of course not. Let me prove my point here.
Let us change to another metaphor. Let me say ‘The USA is digging itself into a deep hole in Iraq’. If one accepts the digging a hole metaphor, then it is perfectly reasonable to say ‘The USA should stop digging’.
Ok let us move beyond metaphors and try some simple English and say ‘The USA should stop slaughtering Iraqis.’ Is not that a demand one can make in this world?
The score is now Gary 2 Graham 0
Point Three The mysterious but apparently arguable case
You wrote:
I do accept that they had an arguable case for doing what they did.
My reply to that is what is the case you are referring to? Was it the WMD case? Was it the links with Al Qaida case? Was it to get rid of the dictator case? Was it to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq case?
None of these cases are even remotely defensible then or now. But maybe you have another ‘case’ in mind.
I doubt it so I score it now Gary 3 Graham 0
Point Four: You know what academics are like
You wrote
I do not accept Professor Cole’s assertion that “America will never recover in Iraq”. I am used to academics in Australia, particularly in the social sciences, having a distorted understanding of the areas in which they are supposed to be expert, why should it be any different in Iraq?
Non sequitur, Graham. Just because the set of academics you know distort understanding does not mean Juan Cole r all academics do. One has to judge the pudding by how it tastes here. Cole is an Arabist with a very distinguished publishing record. Moreover his views would certainly qualify for liberal or moderate. The point however is that he works in the USA so unlike an Australian liberal he is not doomed to the circle of sycophancy. He can actually criticise his government.
The score is mounting. It is now Gary 4 Graham 0.
Point Five Why are they over there?
You wrote
I find it hard to find empirical support for your charge that we are there for the oil.
Why am I not surprised?
Gary 5 Graham 0.
Point 6. Bush versus Pol Pot
You wrote
…in my universe there is no way that George Bush can be compared to Pol Pot, one of the worst genocidal mass murderers in recent history.
Of course I do not defend Pol Pot. But Bush is chalking up quite a few deaths too. And if we take the line of American presidents, and say think of LBJ in Vietnam, then we do have a mass murderer who is worthy of comapriosn with Pol Pot.
In any case I did not say Bush = Pol Pot. What I did say was that he is slaughtering Iraqis and dare I say it the news from the empiriacl world confirms this.
Gary 6 Graham 0.
Point 7 – Neo-liberal plans for Iraq.
You wrote
What neo-Liberal imperatives are we supposed to be reconstructing the Middle East for? Surely Democracy hasn’t become a bad, or respect for human rights?
Ambassador Bremer has already outlined his plans for the advanced privatisation of the Iraqi economy.
What democracy, Graham? What respect for human rights can you detect in Iraq?
Gary 7 Graham 0.
Point 8 when is conquest not conquest?
You wrote:
How can you talk conquest? What has been stolen?
I admit this had me stumped Graham, until I remembered the war and the bombing and the killing of 10, 000 citizens and the speech on the aircraft carrier saying “Mission accomplished.’
You want to know what has been stolen? Try thinking ‘a whole bloody country” or go to the Al Jazeera web site and read about the gold and the jewellery and money ripped off by the USA army in their raid on Iraqi homes. These thefts were not denied by the US btw.
We are ahead by Gary 8 Graham 0.
Point 9. Gary Supports Saddam if he critics the USA.
You wrote
I’ll balance my support for the US invasion against your presumed support for the Hussein status quo.
I have never supported Saddam. He butchered the Iraqi Left. Of course Donald Rumsfeld supported him and helped armed him.
Final score
Gary 9 Graham 0.

Graham, What can I say. We seem to be inhabiting different universes. Your piece on the Abu Ghraib tortures was crazy really. I simply don’t understand where you are coming from.
Firstly you absolutely refuse to take on board the functionality of torture in a low-intensity operations. In such cases torture is not a pornographic luxury, rather it is a military. necessity. General Massud knew that he could not defeat the Algerian national liberation struggle without torture and he said so openly. Why? Because intelligence is the key to defeating guerrilla warfare. That’s like Military 101 (first Semester!).
Of course every army general knows that what Massud said was true. But most like Abizaid and Sanchez deny it. Yet the evidence suggests that Sanchez himself ordered the interrogation to begin, because the Americans were faced with an insurgency in Iraq. Their information levels were woeful and in desperation they decided to seek intelligence through torture.
What effect will all this have on the Arab world? Professor Juan Cole, who is the kind of moderate I will listen to, suggests that America will never recover in Iraq. He is probability right. In any case let us make the assumption that Arabs are intelligent. Will they think that Lynndie England lay down prison policy in Iraq? (Not to mention Guantanomo Bay and Afghanistan)? Of course not, Lynndie though will go to jail. By your logic that should tip the scales and get the Arabs to be grateful that we went over there to demonstrate democracy in action. But the Arabs will not be impressed because Sanchez and Abizaid and Rumsfeld will get off Scot free, not to mention the Great Idiot in the white House.
I admit though that the continued slaughter may tip the scales here. BTW Graham could you kindly explain to me the justification for the killing fields around Karbala and Najaf and Kufa? I thought in my own naïve way that one of the charges we had against Saddam was that he was killing the Shiites.
Nothing that happened in Abu Ghraib and the rest of Iraq makes sense, Graham, if you assume that we are there for the good of the Iraqis. However if you assume that we are there for the oil and to reconstruct the middle East to suit certain neo-liberal imperatives, then it makes perfect sense. We are talking invasion and conquest here.
Nothing very remarkable about that, but it comes with a truly post modern twist. You bomb a country into the stone age and then you rebuild it and present the bill for your efforts to that country. On the way you pick up some nice controlling interests in previously nationalised companies. Graham that is Imperalism 101, but unfortunately no university teaches it!
What should you do Graham? Well you should read some intelligent right wingers. Start with General Zinni. Go to www.juancole.com and you will find a summary of a recent speech of his. It is an intelligent right wing critique of the Iraq disaster. Sadly there appear to be no courageous conservatives in this benighted country. I suppose that is the iron logic of sycophancy. We dare not think independently.
There is also I suppose the pigs might fly option. You and your fellow conservatives could become revolted at the suffering and slaughter that we have visited on the Iraqi people and you could seek in your conscience for forgiveness. I am not holding my breath.

In response to my recent blog entry about abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, Graham Young said he’s “sick and tired of people telling (him) that if women ruled the world things would be much more peaceful…”
Now, in my more radical, or heartbroken, moments, I’ve been known to claim, “all blokes are not very nice”, before opining that if gals ran the show it’d be “sunshine, lollipops” and other lovely stuff I’d tell you about if I could remember the rest of the song.
Mind you, if some of the collective meetings I’ve attended over the years are representative of what a girly globe would be like, have a cup of tea, a good book and a thick skin ready because endless tirades by ill-mannered Trotskyists wait (handy hint: keep your ALP membership card out of sight when going to such gatherings).
Graham makes a good point when he suggests that generalisations about gender may emanate more from a particular age cohort of feminists, which since I think he’s referring to those around his vintage I won’t delve into further at risk of revealing I was born at around the same time as him.
During my travels along the purple and green road to the feminist Oz, I have found some activists do still fit textbook descriptions of the major feminisms of the 20th century, including those who place patriarchy at the centre of women’s plight.
However, these days feminists are just as likely to take elements from all types and/or live out rarely acknowledged or defined Third Wave Feminism.
For theorist Ednie Kaeh Garrison, an important aspect of identifying what is Third Wave is to consider when it came into existence.
“As something other than Second Wave, the “Third Wave”, she argues, “can be defined by a different set of historical events and ideological movements, especially the (fundamentalist, Moral Majority, neoconservative, Focus on the Family, antifeminist) backlash that emerged in response to the women’s movement in the 1970s and so-called postfeminism feminism”.
This fairly recent manifestation of the fight for women’s rights has sometimes, and at times pejoratively, been dubbed DIY (Do it Yourself) Feminism, with the “Yourself” being particularly problematic for some.
The emphasis on individualism is not often representative of the ways Third Wavers work together, such as when constructing websites and zines and in their involvement in various groups, with one being the Radical Cheerleaders, who have taken the creaky concept of cheer squads and politicised it.
One of my favourite examples of the new feminism is the American magazine Bust, which believes women have intelligence, a sense of humour, a sex-drive and many interests. The name of another US publication, Bitch, reveals that the reclamation of language is an important way today’s feminists label themselves, rather than having others do it for them.
Unfortunately, Australia doesn’t have a Bust and to my knowledge doesn’t have a Bitch, so women in this country will remain experts on celebrities, royals, cooking and cross-stitching for some time to come.
The “tools” of the Third Wave might be different from the methods used by the Second, but they’re no less valid or valuable.
While it has been criticised by some, a stamp of approval did come early in its existence by “feminist mother” Betty Friedan when she said, “if they keep doing what they’re doing, thirty years from today we may not need a feminist movement. We may have achieved real equality”.
Visit Darlene’s website.

When you have worked for and with politicians for as long as I have, it is hard to feel embarrassed for them.
Yesterday I actually felt embarrassed for the Federal Minister for Community and Youth Affairs, Larry Anthony. Anyone else who watched or heard question time in the House of Representatives could be excused for feeling the same way.
The Opposition asked Mr Anthony a question on family payments – in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Family Services, Senator Kay Patterson. The Treasurer jumped to his feet and answered the question.
Then the Opposition asked Mr Anthony a more direct question – about comments he made in an interview with Laurie Oakes on the “Sunday” program, and the impact of over payments in his own Richmond electorate.
As Mr Anthony gingerly got to his feet, the Treasurer jumped to the despatch box and answered the second question as well.
Mr Anthony looked embarrassed, and was probably thanking his lucky stars that just about no one in Richmond watches, or listens to, the broadcast of Question Time!
I am old enough to be able to remember listening to question time on radio when Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister. If a Minister, no matter how junior, was asked a tough question, he answered it!!
More than one Minister in the Menzies’ years was either consigned to the backbench, or given a comfortable overseas posting at the first opportunity!
The idea that somehow Ministers should be protected from parliamentary scrutiny in question time would seem to be relatively new – and the sooner it is jettisoned the better!
Larry Anthony has now been a Minister for six years. If he cannot be trusted to answer a question in his own portfolio area, or that of the Minister he represents, then he should not be there.
Laurie Oakes now knows that the Treasurer watches the Sunday program, because Larry Anthony’s performance on Sunday was dreadful. That is clearly why it was decided he would have to be “protected” yesterday.
I can recall Ministers in the Keating Government being similarly protected, but it is happening with increasing, and embarrassing, frequency.
It was wrong then, it is wrong now.
I occasionally watch question time in the House of Commons on Sky News…….especially the weekly Prime Minister’s question time.
Fortunately, it remains the real thing – robust and unscripted. There are times when the toughest questions Tony Blair is asked come from the Labour backbench, and his exchanges with the new Opposition Leader, Michael Howard, are real, no holds barred stuff.
Question time in Canberra suffers because the Speaker constantly intervenes (he does not even allow humorous interjections), and because every second question is a “Dorothy Dix” without any pretence of being otherwise.
Now it is possible that Larry Anthony would have given competent or passable answers……but we will never know!