Ban Lawless, Anti-Australia “Left Renewal” Greens From Parliament

HOW A COMMUNIST with links to the USSR could be eligible to sit in Australian Parliaments despite the national security risk defies belief; news NSW Senator Lee Rhiannon — with fellow traveller NSW MP David Shoebridge — anchors a hard Left Greens faction that recognises neither the rule of law nor the Australian state is a worry. This insidious subversive filth, and anyone else who signs on with it, must be barred from public office.

Those readers — especially those who come here intermittently just to be contrary — who profess disapproval of my wholesale characterisation of the Greens as Communists should perhaps take a little more notice today, as a Christmas present from Australia’s far Left that nobody in their right mind would want lobs onto the national political landscape.

(That’s right, a Christmas present — unwanted as it is — not some monument to “happy holidays” or similar bullshit).

Lee Rhiannon may very well have told the Fairfax press that she is not involved with Left Renewal — and we will get to that outfit shortly — and that none of her “current” staff are, but people will form their own conclusions and Rhiannon, as nobody has attempted to ever deny, is an active, ardent communist who once worked as a USSR propagandist: even if she has no formal, verifiable involvement with Left Renewal, her entire history suggests she would at the very minimum be amenable to its objectives.

Speaking of the press, readers can make their usual choice between Fairfax and Murdoch accounts of this issue.

For once, there isn’t a great deal to say.

The emergence of an ultra-left faction within the Communist Party Greens — claiming it does not acknowledge the rule of law, the Australian state, the authority of the Police, and seeks to “bring about the end of capitalism” — is hardly a surprise; after all, the party’s platform (which most voters are ignorant of) advocates pretty much the same thing.

But Left Renewal, this hardcore new Greens faction that explicitly aims to realise it, is a new development and a turning point in the long march of the Greens from their masquerade as a harmless place to park protest votes to an unveiling of their true form — an insidious, obsequious bastion of the most brutal aspects of socialism — that ought to be met with proportionate repercussions by the very state it claims to disregard the legitimacy of.

The reports available in the media all use the formulation that Left Renewal has “formed around” Rhiannon and her apparent fellow traveller — NSW upper house MP David Shoebridge — and on the presumption that this is how the reporting journalists have been briefed, Rhiannon and Shoebridge can hardly be surprised that some will draw the conclusion their fingerprints are all over it even if the paper trail doesn’t directly implicate them.

It does not recognise the rule of law.

It does not recognise the legitimacy of the Australian state.

It portrays Police as a “violent apparatus” of that state: needless to say, it doesn’t recognise their authority either.

And it is pledged to “bring about the end of capitalism” — something leader Richard Di Natale has tried to dismiss as a “ridiculous notion,” but if the shoe fits, the Greens must wear it: after all, it is an old story indeed that the Greens are “anti” just about everything that constitutes a modern, advanced, liberal democratic society: and that, by definition, includes free markets and financial systems within a capitalist economy.

But to really appreciate the truly repulsive — and subversive — nature of Left Renewal, it is necessary to republish a contemporaneous quote from The Age, from which the Left Renewal manifesto states that

“Capitalism depends upon violent and authoritarian divisions within the working class, such as elitism, sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, religious sectarianism, and ableism (among others). It is only with the abolition of these authoritarian relations that we will be able to create a thriving movement capable of transforming society and so must challenge these wherever we encounter it (sic).”

Australia itself, Left Renewal claims, is “based upon an act of genocide which exists within a broader framework of global imperialism.”

What a pile of horse shit.

Still, Left Renewal makes its objectives very clear: to systematically overthrow and dismantle Australian society, with a flagrant disregard — defiance even — of any officially sanctioned authority that might stop it.

It makes a rather ironic start in this sense, given it establishes a faction within a party in which factionalism is supposedly verboten: and to continue the theme, any Left Renewal member will be bound to support and pursue decisions resolved by the faction’s members by majority ballot.

And in a vivid illustration of just how dangerous this ultra-left wing contingent at the Greens really is — both to its own party, and to Australian society more broadly — the fact calls by party elder Bob Brown for Rhiannon to get out of Parliament in the interests of “renewal,” and attempts by Di Natale to head the emergence of the faction off altogether, merely show the complete impotence of any proper leadership at the Greens, and the malignancy with which the parasitic hard socialist Left now seeks to advance its truck.

Margaret Thatcher used to say, of liberty and democracy, that you cannot have freedom unless you have order — and that you cannot have order unless you obey the law.”

It is clear that Left Renewal has little interest in obeying the law at all — let alone even acknowledging its fundamental role underpinning Australian society — and in that sense, it is debatable whether it has any interest in preserving order either.

I think a determination needs to be made on national security grounds that subversive elements like this should be barred from holding office: there is, after all, no point rattling on about democracy when it comes to those pledged to destroy the liberal democratic system in its entirety.

And whether she “is a member” of Left Renewal or not, that applies to the Communist Lee Rhiannon irrespective of this insidious new bloc inside the Greens: as an operative for a foreign (and hostile) power in the form of the USSR she should never have been allowed to stand for Parliament in the first place, let alone serve in the upper houses of both NSW and the Commonwealth.

She, and anyone else who throws in their lot with Left Renewal, should be summarily disqualified from standing for elective office. Their agenda may yield little electoral support, but — just like the Greens proper — precedent has already shown it takes relatively few people to be brainwashed through disinformation and propaganda to inflict disproportionate consequent damage on Australia’s instruments of governance.

With an agenda such as that now offered by Left Renewal, that damage — if milked for enough votes — could be cataclysmic.

 

Taking The Piss: Greens’ “Reshuffle” Defies Sanity

IMMUNE TO REALITY, the Greens’ belated post-election reshuffle would be risible were it not monument to the obsequious agenda of the far Left; the ongoing presence of Sarah Hanson-Young — at all — is indecent, and any party according “healthy oceans” ministerial status is perverse. But by making Lee Rhiannon responsible for “democracy,” it is clear that when it comes to the intelligence of the electorate, the Greens are taking the piss.

With the exception of actual video media directly relevant to our discussions in this column, it has been a long time indeed since I last gave readers something to listen to as an accompaniment to an article; today I renew that occasional practice, with a brilliant Australian song from the 1980s (and its official music video, replete with a distinct and appropriately keystone flavour) the perfect choice to go with what I want to cover this morning.

Enjoy this as you read…

…for by now, I think most people will be aware of the reshuffle the Communist Party Greens deigned to execute late last week, ostensibly on the peculiar pretext of “aligning MPs’ responsibilities with their particular states,” and whatever fatuous spin might be offered by leader Richard Di Natale to justify it, the Greens have become even more dangerous to the national interest as a result.

If, of course, such a consequence is even possible.

At first blush, the removal of the contemptible Sarah Hanson-Young from the Immigration portfolio is a triumph for anyone who values the sanctity of human life; her “accidents happen” dismissal of the deaths of 1,300 asylum seekers at sea as the direct result of a policy the Greens championed and which was initiated during her tenure in that post is a cause for great shame, and should have led to Hanson-Young’s defeat at the 2013 election.

The fact it did not underwrites a very big clue as to why the Greens are so trenchantly supportive of proportional representation in Parliaments across the land; even with that easy ticket to undeserved parliamentary leather in hand, Hanson only just squeaked home on that occasion, and this year — with the quotas almost halved — only just managed to survive that too.

Clearly her papers are marked; but before her career can finally be terminated, this reshuffle has only widened her scope to wreak havoc.

The failed bank teller will now be the Greens’ official spokesperson on Finance and Trade matters; this quisling, whose life experience of the commercial world barely registers above zero, is now the voice of the key crossbench bloc deciding pivotal matters affecting Australia’s $1.5tn economy, the half-trillion dollar debt Labor and the Greens saddled it with when they last held office, and the $450bn in annual government spending which — contrary to the Greens’ world view — must be drastically slashed (especially where lefty-trendy social programs are concerned) if Australia is ever to pay its way again among the nations of the developed world.

It gets worse, however, when the Senator is also now to be the spokesperson on “Lifelong Learning” — every aspect of the educative process from day care to universities — and Youth, and the idea of this scion of the hard socialist Left, utterly divorced from common sense and sanity in the orthodox sense, being even remotely able to influence the development of young Australians is enough to send a shudder down the spine of any fair-minded individual. “Education” and “brainwashing” are not the same thing, although with Hanson-Young’s propensity to refuse to interact in any way with those who dare to question her position on things, that distinction is likely to become impossible to spot when the Greens’ policy prescriptions in these fields are revealed.

Senator Hanson-Young is also the Greens’ shadow minister for the Arts, and it is to be hoped the Arts community — usually a friend to the Left — recognises the imbecilic new ally it has been shackled to, and takes aim accordingly.

What any of these things uniquely shares with South Australia is difficult to ascertain.

Queenslander Larissa Waters has been given responsibility for Women, Gambling and Tourism (and of course, we don’t have any of those things south of the Tweed), as well as Mining and Resources — an industry her utterances over the years suggest she would be happy to shut down altogether.

In keeping with the Greens’ tradition of putting parliamentary neophytes in charge of Immigration, new Tasmanian Senator Nick McKim takes over this role from Hanson-Young; it’s an interesting choice, based on Di Natale’s criteria, for Tasmania typically receives the fewest migrants (both in raw terms and per head of capita) of any Australian state.

McKim will prove no match for Attorney-General George Brandis — and his claim to shadow the country’s First Law Officer is as opaque as the rest of the Greens’ claims to adequacy — and it remains to be seen what input he might have in Small Business other than collaborating on taxation and workplace relations laws with the ALP that might help drive enterprises in the sector to the wall once and for all.

It’s a similar story with McKim’s fellow Tasmanian, Peter Whish-Wilson, who apparently seeks to emulate titans of Australian politics such as Paul Keating and Peter Costello as treasury spokesman; the likelier event is that he makes Wayne Swan on a terrible day look comparatively brilliant, for the one thing nobody is ever going to accuse the Greens of is economic competence.

Putting him in charge of Consumer Affairs, or “Waste and Recycling,” seems standard enough fare for the Greens, even if some of his party’s members need a dictionary to spell the terms correctly.

Making him shadow minister for “Healthy Oceans” is patently ridiculous, and betrays the rank amateurism and puerile, university-style politics that still underpin the Greens’ efforts despite its solemn declaration a few years ago that it was finally a mature political party. It wasn’t, and it isn’t, and it shows.

And aren’t there oceans around the rest of Australia too?

To kill two birds with one stone — promoting wimmin into key posts and prosecuting the Greens’ own peculiar brand of social misadventurism — Rachel Siewert and Janet Rice cover “portfolios” ranging from “LGBTIQ” to Ageing, and from “Forests” to Disability Services: the latter, of course, so dear to the hard Left as a means by which to simultaneously entrench welfare dependency whilst locking in votes from the underprivileged. At $24bn per annum once the NDIS is fully operational, expect the Greens to nevertheless advocate loudly for increases in expenditure in this area, and steep tax rises on the rest of us to pay for them.

Scott Ludlam takes responsibility for just about everything no thinking Australian would ever want a Greens politician to have any influence over: Foreign Affairs, Defence, Veterans’ Affairs, International Aid, Communications, Sustainable Cities, and “Nuclear.” The scope for permanently ruptured international relationships, combined with a “reach out” to despotic regimes in third-world countries is obvious, as is the abandonment of the defence community altogether and a move to compost-powered houses. I am not directing these remarks at Ludlam personally, but the idea that any Greens’ edict on any of these matters would be anything other than stone-aged is preposterous.

It’s clear where the Greens think their “brains” trust lies: Adam Bandt is assigned Climate Change, Energy, Industrial Relations, and Science. On one level, Bandt (a Melburnian) is clever enough to handle such a workload; on another, he is just as affected and addled with the disease of hard socialism that nobody ought to take much notice of what he has to say about any of it. Climate Change and the Greens? If you want impartiality on such a hotly contested issue, the last person who should be consulted is the most partisan combatant in the group.

And again, how is any of this particularly aligned to Bandt being domiciled in Victoria? It just shows what a nincompoop Di Natale is if this is representative of his idea of leadership.

And this brings us to the pièce de résistance of the entire reshuffle: actual Communist Lee Rhiannon, who as a former fellow traveller with the USSR and propagandist for Moscow during the Cold War shouldn’t be entitled to sit in an Australian Parliament at all.

Rhiannon is charged with “Industry:” something the Greens desperately want to shut down.

Rhiannon is simultaneously charged with responsibility for “Animal Welfare” and “Gun Control:” draw your own conclusions there.

Rhiannon is to be responsible for “Housing,” which we take to mean the compost-powered variety containing bare-footed residents who munch broccoli and lentils by candlelight and ride bicycles all over the place.

But most obscenely, Rhiannon is to be the Greens’ spearhead on “democracy,” and the idea this antediluvian, vituperative battleaxe, with her roots deep in hard Communism and her well-known hatred for anything even marginally to the Right of Marx, will in any way constitute a champion for anything remotely democratic is as fanciful as money growing on trees.

Then again, with the Greens’ notorious ignorance of economic reality and their insistence that “government money” is a bottomless pit from which to fund endless adventures in social engineering and statist interference, who would know?

The bottom line (excuse the pun) is that whichever way you cut it, the output from the Greens is unlikely to change; this isn’t a party of consultation, much less one of accountability, whatever its MPs claim to the contrary. They might or might not be answerable to their rank-and-file, as they regularly protest whenever their “credentials” as democrats are questioned, but none of them are accountable to the Australian public.

To the extent they are, anyone can replace a beaten Greens MP: all they need is the wherewithal and the commitment to “the cause.” The storyline stays the same even if the storytellers change once in a while.

One constant that remains unaffected by this reshuffle is the propensity for the Greens to regard the intelligence of the average voter with utter scorn; safe in the knowledge too many unthinking voters still believe their party is a benign assortment of tree-hugging, fairy-loving hippies with whom it is safe to park a protest vote, the Greens simply get on with spreading the insidious cancers of socialism and social subjugation that are beginning to tear at the social fabric.

It’s why those in the mainstream need to find effective voices to slap down the leftist PC rubbish — and the sinister, deeply destructive agenda it cloaks — before the damage it does to this country becomes irreversible.

But in announcing such a defective line-up — one so apparently well thought through, and carefully contrived — it is clear the Greens are taking the piss, not posturing as a serious force to be entrusted with the duties of high office.

Sarah Hanson-Young on Finance and Education. Lee Rhiannon on “Democracy.” And a slew of spear-throwers all allocated parts of the overall Greens project to destroy Western values and to change Australia into something it isn’t, and which most people (rightly) don’t want.

It’s a mistake, all right. The Greens have had an easy time in Parliament ever since they took the balance of power in the Senate in 2008. For the present Parliament to be viewed favourably by history, it’s about time something was done to change that.

 

Wrong Way: World Of Labor, Greens No Vision To Aspire To

EARLY IN their time in opposition — and early, too, in their “rebuilding” phase, in theory — the emerging “narrative” of Labor and the Communist Party Greens is vapid in its capacity to inspire, and frightening in its dislocation from reality. To oppose is one thing. To advocate a parallel universe, free of the constraints of reality or ethics, is another. To be sure, the world of the Australian Left is one nobody ought aspire to.

I half expected to see a Newspoll last night; given it looks like being another week before Newspoll recommences for 2014, I thought we’d talk about the past few months in review, and not least on account of the rich seam of…fertile material…our friends on the Left have provided in that time.

At the outset (and to avoid any charge of hypocrisy) I should like to spell out, unambiguously, that there is nothing wrong with an opposition actively opposing a government. After all, it’s what Tony Abbott did, relentlessly, for four years — destroying two Prime Ministers (three if you count Rudd twice) and obliterating an otherwise ascendant Labor government in the process.

The difference, of course, is that the Abbott onslaught was aimed squarely at defective policies and legislation, and their (often destructive) consequences; from what we’ve heard and seen from the ALP and the Greens to date, the approach they seem determined to take relies on selective dishonesty, hypocrisy, the inconsistent application of principles — if they could even be called that — and the apparent pursuit of a world in which friends are feted, and enemies plundered, but which could and would only ever end in tears.

There is a single, basic falsehood that lies beneath almost every policy, every prescription, and every forked-tongue utterance that derives from the modern Australian Left: the assumption, so obvious that millions of otherwise rational people refuse to acknowledge or concede its existence, that the pot of money to be doled out — to reward cronies, and buy allegiances and votes — is endless.

And yet at first glance, some of what I seek to take aim at appears not to concern money at all, or to do so only as an afterthought: it must be remembered that when it comes to the Left, many parts make up the whole, and its handiwork should be viewed accordingly.

In fact, many readers will have heard me point out that whilst we on the conservative side of politics tend to be “a party” — with loosely affiliated, often passive friends among families, the middle class, business and the elderly — the ALP, by contrast, presents as “a movement.”

So it is: the constituent parts of that movement — the Left — include the ALP, the Greens, the harder-core political Left who hate liberals and conservatives, and hate even liberty and tradition themselves; the ABC, the Fairfax press, and other sympathetic voices in the media; the civil service, the unions, the universities, the school system, the welfare lobbies and a hefty slice of the churches. And that’s just for starters.

It’s important to be clear about just what makes that “movement” up in order to fully understand its aspirations. The Left in Australia has, since the days of Whitlam, steadily and stealthily infected an expanding range of this country’s institutions to perpetuate itself, with the attendant danger that the line between its preferred narrative of society and reality becomes so blurred that most of the people who live here fail to be able to make the distinction.

It’s the reason why (to use a quick example) kids in schools are compelled to learn about and embrace diversity and tolerance and the value of welfare, whilst basic economics or capitalism is an elective unit at best, and institutions such as the monarchy and a literal interpretation of Australian history are “educated” out of existence.

The problem with socialism — in all its incarnations, be they moderate or extreme, virulent or seemingly harmless — is that a theoretical case can be made for them. In practice, none of it works. And in the end, as Margaret Thatcher summed up succinctly, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later it runs out of other people’s money to spend.

Amen to that.

Let’s have a look at what has been going on of late.

We know, of course, that in the wake of the so-called Indonesian spying row, the Left  — with the bucket emptied all over the conduct of Labor in office — left Abbott and his colleagues to carry the can. Never mind that the Liberal Party declined to bandy around insults over the issue, or sheet home the blame to the ALP, which it was entitled to do. The real enemy in the equation was US traitor Edward Snowden, who (along with that other treacherous dog, Julian Assange) has shot to notoriety by releasing state secrets and other classified material with the primary objective of embarrassing Right-leaning governments in Western democratic countries.

Labor, and its sycophantic cousins over at the Greens, could scarcely believe their luck; never mind the fact the Liberal Party had nothing to do with the alleged misdeeds made public for the explicit purpose of creating an international incident. Such incidents tend to develop a nasty tendency to backfire on an apolitical basis: that is, it really doesn’t matter who did what — if the explosion is strong enough, it blasts everything in its path.

Even so, to listen to the carry-on from Labor and the Greens in particular, anyone would think the revelations were lucky not to have started a war: their own hands, of course, are spotless.

It’s much the same with the continuing “stop the boats” rage that has the Left in paroxysms of rage; the revelations that Australian vessels had inadvertently encroached on Indonesian waters several times has only been reported as diplomatically dangerous by the Fairfax press. Elsewhere — in more reputable organs of the Australian media, and from international sources — the key story has been that Australian forces have secured an agreement to co-operate in the implementation of the Abbott government’s border control measures with respect to the unauthorised arrival of asylum seekers by boat, with the maritime transgressions a factor to be worked through and eliminated in the continuing course of a policy that has otherwise proven extremely successful thus far.

(Again, however, you’d think this issue too was about to start a war with Indonesia as well, to listen to the ALP and the Greens).

Tim Blair, writing in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, published an excellent piece yesterday that went into a great depth of analysis of everything wrong with the approach of the Left on this issue.

The villain in his article was the regrettable Greens’ Senator, Sarah Hanson-Young, although he could just as easily have been discussing one of dozens of figures from the Greens, or the ALP, or from their more vocal mouthpieces in the press.

I’ll leave readers to peruse his article (and you can do so here), but the opening paragraph — that “leftists are actually more upset that lives are being saved by Tony Abbott’s government than they ever were by the deaths of asylum seekers under the previous Labor government” — sums it up perfectly. Alas, it’s all downhill from there, although there is nothing in his analysis that it factually incorrect, and that’s a scary thing.

For those still conflicted by the merits or otherwise of the issue, just remember Australia already spends close to $15 billion per annum on asylum seekers, by virtue of policies pursued and implemented by Hanson-Young and her colleagues in concert with the Labor Party, and that those policies were an abysmal failure. Yet the best the Senator can do on the issue of hundreds of people dying as a direct result of those policies was the cavalier observation that “tragedies happen, accidents happen.”

Charming stuff.

And in a passing mention of China’s increasing militarism and threatening behaviour aimed at several of its regional neighbours (to say nothing of the thinly veiled threats levelled at pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong), one would have thought it made sense to give some kind of contingency consideration to where Australia would stand if any of China’s military adventures came to blows; one would have thought Labor and Shorten (and even the lunatics at the Greens) would welcome the opportunity to engage in such a discussion, even if for no better reason than to parade a little nous on international matters before the voting public. But no, by initiating such a discussion at all, Abbott and Co are inviting — you guessed it — more international conflict.

Labor and the Greens have tried to reap huge dividends from the decision by General Motors to shut down its Holden manufacturing operations in Australia, despite overwhelming evidence (not least from GM’s own public relations releases) suggesting the decision was taken behind closed doors in Detroit months ago, irrespective of what was subsequently served up for public consumption by way of an “official” process to determine Holden’s fate, or the timing of the “official” announcement.

In other words, the deal had been done when Labor was still in office. Significantly, no Labor figure has ever publicly denied or sought to rebut this point.

And this makes the hypocrisy of its so-called “leader,” Bill Shorten, absolutely galling: as much as he throws around the insults that the Abbott government “did nothing” to stop the Holden closure, and that it “sat on its hands,” and that Holden is a mere taste of the “war on jobs” that Labor apparently believes Abbott is determined to wage, Shorten knows too well that the blame lies with his cronies in the union movement — by virtue of the extortionate enterprise bargaining agreements it struck with Holden, the other car manufacturers, and a raft of other companies like Qantas that are now sitting on wage-related nuclear bombs that are ready to explode — and with the Gillard and Rudd governments, to the extent they may have done anything to change the outcome.

We’ll come back to Shorten a bit later. I’m not done with him just yet.

But talking about Qantas, I wanted to draw attention today to the dubious efforts of another odious specimen from the Greens, former (actual) Communist and USSR propagandist Lee Rhiannon, whose position on the well documented issues facing the national airline would be ridiculous were it not such a brutal illustration of the silliness of doctrinaire socialism.

The contemptible Rhiannon was favoured last week with an article in The Australian, in which she simply dismissed the very real and existential problems as Qantas as nothing more than a stunt.

(In the interests of balance on this point — and looking to another section of The Australian from last week — readers might like to check this article out too, by Grace Collier, who leaves little doubt about the true nature of at least one of the massive handicaps Qantas faces and, more importantly, why).

I have been a vocal and ardent supporter and defender of Qantas for many years, and will continue to be so; I have also conceded that some of its problems stem from poor decisions that have come home to roost: the purchase more than a decade ago of the wrong aircraft types for its fleet renewal program, ordering A380s instead of B777-200LRs and -300ERs to replace its ancient fleet of B747-400s, is a prime example.

But the key to Qantas problems, first and foremost, is its cost base: and for “cost base,” largely, substitute “labour costs.” Thanks to Collier, some perspective on the scope of those costs can finally be shared, and indeed ought to be rammed down the throat of Shorten or any union leader claiming their members are inadequately or uncompetitively remunerated. But I digress.

The upshot of Rhiannon’s grotesquely crass remarks is that Qantas must be Australian owned — no more, no less — whether by Australian shareholders or by Australian institutional investors, or a combination. Failing that, the government should re-nationalise it.

This formulation denies reality; Qantas’ problems do not derive from who might own it were the Qantas Sale Act to be repealed; they derive — union-crafted wage structures notwithstanding — from the fact competitor Virgin Australia has access to a virtually bottomless bucket of cash through its foreign owners with which to seek to erase Qantas from the skies.

Rhiannon can’t even get the details of that correct, suggesting Singapore Airlines would be a potential buyer for Qantas were restrictions on ownership relaxed; the Singaporean carrier already owns a hefty slice of Virgin, and even if it were inclined to play both sides of the competitive fence, it would likely be blocked by the ACCC from doing so on anti-competition grounds.

Even so, Rhiannon’s stand isn’t too hard to identify; an extinct Qantas is better than one substantially owned by offshore interests. How that helps the travelling public or the national interest is impossible to ascertain.

But socialists like to nationalise things, and so it comes as little surprise that this is one potential “solution” to Qantas’ woes Rhiannon seems receptive to. Then again, of course, she probably wouldn’t object to Aeroflot taking Qantas’ place in Australian skies; it certainly wouldn’t be inconsistent with any of the other nutty ideas this one-time agent of Moscow has the nerve to flaunt.

A complementary theme was taken up in The Age — that supposedly “impartial” left-wing trash rag that constituted the total of Labor’s endorsements from major newspapers at least year’s election — on Saturday, in a opinion piece penned by ACTU president Ged Kearney.

Clearly mindful of the cosy influence and sinecures enjoyed by union cronies who have had it too good for too long, Kearney makes the unbelievable overreach that “big business,” rather than the government, is about to take control of Australia: and not to put too fine a point on it, this is apparently about the biggest scary thing to have ever confronted the country since…well, since the previous biggest scary thing — WorkChoices — that ten years down the track Labor and the unions are still trying to fight election campaigns on.

Never mind the fact the ALP (with all the help from the likes of the ACTU as it could summon) made a spectacular botch of its last period in government; the notion anyone else could govern Australia more effectively must be kyboshed at all costs. But this was, after all, the same Ged Kearney so willing to judge an Abbott government on its merits that she told a gathering of teachers last April that the ACTU would launch a “pre-emptive strike” on Tony Abbott ahead of last year’s election: not the words of someone seeking to work productively with the government of the day in the interests of her members.

The main objective of Kearney’s article, as I read it, seems to be to attempt to destroy the credibility of any external entities providing expertise and counsel to the new government as it commences its root and branch review of governance: the Business Council of Australia and the Productivity Commission are the key targets, of course; heaven forbid they or their members should have a clue about how Australia operates, or indeed how it should.

Her attack on mining leader Andrew Forrest, however, defies belief.

Forrest — a sometime Labor-friendly character with a proven willingness to engage all sides — has a long history of philanthropic work involving remote Aboriginal communities, with a program dedicated to combating aboriginal disadvantage that runs alongside another providing academic and vocational scholarships for Aboriginal communities. His work (and expertise) in this area is admirable, and formidable.

According to Kearney, however, as “one of the richest men in Australia,” Forrest’s appointment by the Abbott government to lead a review of indigenous training and employment “should raise eyebrows.” It seems that where Australia’s Left is concerned, if you want to have any influence in this country — or be recognised as having any expertise or even detailed knowledge at all, about anything — the last thing you should do is to actually make some money and succeed.

They simply won’t stand for it. Or to the extent they will do so, they will seek to tax that money out of existence.

To tie it all together, this brings us neatly to the subject of Labor “leader” Bill Shorten, himself a former union chief now masquerading as a contender for the Prime Ministership.

In the interests of even-handedness, I’m sharing links to two profiles on Shorten today: one from Fairfax and one from Murdoch, both of which appeared in newspapers across the country yesterday to commemorate Shorten’s first 100 days as Labor’s “leader.”

Shorten hasn’t earned the nickname “Bull Shittin'” for no reason, and even the Fairfax profile one would expect to be friendly makes no attempt to hide the contradictions in his story; his laughable claim to be developing a plan to tackle alcohol-related street violence ignores the fact this is purely a state government issue, yet he offers Abbott “bipartisanship” in tackling it. Presumably when Abbott refuses (because the Commonwealth doesn’t actually police licensed establishments), he’ll be dismissed as a drunkard and a misogynist!

Last week’s heatwave in southern Australia is offered as proof that Julia Gillard’s carbon tax should be retained, despite the fact the tax was still in force when the heatwave struck.

Shorten belts the same dishonest can as the rest of his morally bankrupt MPs have done about the Holden closure, signalling the Abbott government will be at fault if EBAs run SPC, Qantas and Electrolux out of business too: unions can’t be blamed for anything of course.

Rather pompously, Shorten told Fairfax that ”this is the year where we talk to people, hold the government to account,” which sounds, rather unkindly, like a plan for Labor to continue to tell everyone what to think, and to seek to crucify anyone who doesn’t — a straight copy from the Rudd/Gillard playbook.

And the kindest thing anyone could say about “Bull’s” interview with the Murdoch press is that it is…well, that it’s bullshit.

There is a systemic and total denial that the ALP is in any way responsible or culpable for its failings in office in anything Shorten has to say.

There is a blind, or blithe, denial of the fact the nation’s budget has been run so far into the red as to be structurally unsustainable over anything beyond the short term, haemorrhaging red ink and sucking in foreign capital as it is simply to continue to run.

But this clearly doesn’t bother or trouble Shorten, who says that “we want to make sure we’re a conscientious opposition, not negative for negative’s sake but we ensure the Abbott government doesn’t break promises,” which is presumably the rationale behind the fact that any bill presented to the Senate since the election containing reductions in expenditure has been rejected or obstructed, whilst any measure increasing spending has been passed.

Abbott went to last year’s election foreshadowing a need to do “some things that wouldn’t be popular” — a clear allusion to the need to cut spending, vary policy pledges, and even make modest imposts on people, such as the mooted $6 co-contribution for some patients on GP consultations. The early indications from the government’s budget audit is that the damage enacted by the ALP is far worse than the Liberals feared, and Shorten presumably, as an ex-Cabinet minister, knows exactly what that particular picture actually looks like.

Even so, it’s an attack on Medicare, it’s an outrageous broken promise, and a quick jump from a $6 co-payment to the full-blown failings of the US healthcare system for Abbott to take that action as part of the wider program of budget repair. There are plenty of other issues attracting the same treatment from the ALP.

Naturally, Shorten has no policies of his own to offer, and admitted as much. Far simpler just to throw shit, and stand back and watch it dribble from its targets’ faces upon impact.

He is, however, quite expansive about his belief he can lead the ALP back to power after a single term, and that’s the rub.

In short, Shorten — and Labor — stand for nothing except obstructionism, and they will say, quite literally, anything in this nihilistic pursuit of power.

Quite aside from anything else we’ve covered here, it should be remembered that a trickle of prominent Labor identities are finding their way through the Courts in various jurisdictions around the country in what is becoming a stream, if not a torrent: fraud, misappropriation of monies, corruption, the whole box and dice; it speaks to an entrenched culture of criminal misconduct and contempt for standards of decency and transparency in ALP circles, and ordinary folk are entitled to wonder who else among those ranks may be prosecuted, or indeed how many more of Labor’s number will find their pictures in the paper for the wrong reasons — or, equally, what they may have done.

This is a very long post, and I ask readers’ indulgence; having not posted for several days — but wanting to look at the Left from an overall perspective, rather than picking at separate issues — it seemed a perfect opportunity to do so. I have been extremely busy in my “real world” activities of late, and I apologise for the consequent sparse offerings in terms of fresh comment.

And what does all of this add up to?

With one eye on the six years that have recently concluded, and the other on the four months that have elapsed since, the signs of any quality in new offerings from the Left are not encouraging.

That whole movement — even the constituent parts of it — are so consumed with their lust for power and driven by revenge for its loss that no price is too high for them to pay to regain it, but of course saner heads beg to differ.

It isn’t the Australian way to incite wars when you can’t get your own way; no more than it’s the Australian way to virtually bankrupt the country when you do.

The cultures of abuse, hatred, victimisation and old-fashioned lies the Left deploy against anyone who disagrees with them doesn’t make them right any more than it makes the rest of us wrong.

The ALP, the Greens, the union movement and all of their associated, snivelling, get-in-the-gravy hangers-on have served Australia extremely poorly; rather than fixing up their act in the wake of a hefty election loss in September, that event seems to have spurred them on to more of the same jaundiced prescriptions for the country — and the world — we must all share.

Theirs is a world of entitlement without enterprise, rights without responsibilities, and noblesse oblige with neither the requisite nobility nor a sense of obligation based on anything other than the ability to shove their snouts, and those of their fellow travellers, into an endlessly taxpayer-funded trough.

The Abbott government is not perfect. Like any organisation of human beings, it will get things right and it will make mistakes. It has an enormous task ahead of it to correct the mismanagement that preceded it, and it is in the interests of all Australians that it get that job right.

Perfect or not, Australia under the Liberals is a far more attractive proposition than the alternative. The picture the Left seeks to paint is one of conflict, of hardship, and of a hierarchical order based on those “in the circle” and those who are not — an irony I suspect totally lost on a movement so obsessed with its own crusades to tear down what it perceives as “class barriers” in Australia.

The Australia, and the world, that the Left seek to create in its image should be a frightening prospect for anyone interested in a fair, decent, or tolerant society that is competently run by intelligent people.

And for the party that invented the concept of “the light on the hill”, Labor has no vision to speak of; to the extent it does, that vision is nothing worth aspiring to, let alone allowing to spawn into reality.

 

Deal On Boats With Sri Lanka: Greens Should Be Ashamed

TONY ABBOTT stands on the cusp of doing what Labor and the Greens couldn’t — or wouldn’t — do: stopping the boats by dealing with the problem at its source. Sri Lanka has agreed in principle to work with Australia to end this scourge once and for all. The Greens, especially, ought to be ashamed.

Who would have thought it? Talking, to the right people in the right way, actually works.

Working on the sidelines of the CHOGM conference in Colombo, Tony Abbott appears to have all but sealed a deal with the Sri Lankan government to crack down once and for all on people smugglers; given the perilous journeys of so many asylum seekers begin in Sri Lanka, the agreement represents the first real breakthrough on boat arrivals since the Howard government instituted its Pacific Solution in 2001.

The deal apparently exists at present as a memorandum of understanding, the details of which are to be finalised in meetings over the weekend between Abbott and his Sri Lankan counterpart, with a final agreement due to signed within days.

Importantly, it is understood that both Foreign minister Julie Bishop and immigration minister Scott Morrison have had contributed to the groundwork that have enabled an agreement to be possible.

And I think that last point is especially noteworthy given Bishop and Morrison are not just hate figures to the Left, but have been mindlessly pilloried in recent weeks for no better reason than they are new to their current ministerial roles.

Readers will remember that earlier in the week, this column slammed Communist Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon for the pious lecture tour she took it upon herself to undertake in Sri Lanka, holding court and lecturing government officials about alleged human rights abuses in their country as “the voice the Australian government has refused to be.”

Until somebody took umbrage, that is, and — in her words — “deprived her of her liberty.”

Today’s development in the fight against people smuggling, with its implicit potential to drastically reduce the flow of unauthorised boat arrivals in Australia, should give the likes of Rhiannon something to think about.

While she was in Sri Lanka, unsolicited (and likely less than genuinely welcome), indulging her deluded and pretentious fantasies about national leadership, this country’s actual leaders were working behind the scenes to negotiate a bilateral framework by which to tackle a problem that is increasingly expensive for Australia to deal with, and increasingly hazardous to those who would risk their lives to perpetuate it.

As I said in my article on Rhiannon’s little field trip, I’m not going to get into a debate on the rights, wrongs or otherwise of what she saw fit to talk at Sri Lankan figures about.

But I will make the point that here in Australia, we have a government that acts to resolve issues of concerns to Australia, and the same principle applies in the case of Sri Lanka; the Sri Lankans don’t come here and tell us how to run our country, and I would wager the prospect of acting similarly in Sri Lanka would be viewed rather dimly.

Again, it shows how far out of line Rhiannon and her sidekick were.

But the issue of people smuggling is one the Greens are passionate about, at least in the sense they are adamant they have the only correct solution: throw the borders open, and let whoever the hell wants to come here do so, unfettered, and give them the world when they arrive.

Nobody could accuse the hard Left of being anything other than driven by “ideals.”

The problem is that nobody outside their jaundiced and malignant movement agrees with them; the deal on the table which Abbott will shortly finalise certainly lends no weight to Greens’ policies from the so-called “push” side of the ledger.

Perhaps the Greens, Rhiannon and others like them should reflect that while they are trying to conceive a world that basks in socialist utopia, others are getting on with the real business of international affairs: in this case, the real business between Australia and a friendly country with which we share different aspects of a common problem.

And far from the stated intentions of do-gooder chardonnay drunks achieving anything of worth, perhaps Rhiannon might reflect that letting rip with her socialist pap might, in other circumstances, have derailed a meaningful achievement in governance — the issue of the Greens’ unreasoning hatred of conservative government and its actions notwithstanding.

 

 

Sanctimonious Rhiannon Lucky Not To Be Killed In Sri Lanka

CALL ME HORRIBLE if you have to, but I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for Communist Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon; filled with self-important righteousness, her expedition to lecture Sri Lanka on “alleged” human rights abuses could well have got her killed. This woman is an idiot.

“I went to Sri Lanka to be the voice the Australian government has refused to be,” begins the noble account Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon gives of herself in The Guardian today.

Really? Since when did a former Communist, in Parliament only by virtue of proportional representation and on the ticket of a lunatic fringe party scoring 8% of the vote at an election, have any right to arrogate to herself a duty to speak on behalf of this country?

On foreign soil and to another country’s government, no less?

By now I think most people know about the incident I’m talking about: Sri Lanka is shortly to hold the latest Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) — to be chaired by Prince Charles — and there are elements across the Commonwealth who urge leaders to boycott the forum in protest over alleged excesses perpetrated by Sri Lankan forces upon Tamil insurgents during the now-ended civil war in that country.

Rhiannon (along with another Greens fruit cake from New Zealand, Jan Logie) had travelled to Sri Lanka on the pretext of doing something about “human rights abuses,” but — predictably — succeeded in making Australia an international embarrassment instead.

Indeed, they are lucky they weren’t killed.

First things first: for a bit of balance, here is the article from The Guardian, and coverage from the News Limited press here and here. I’d include something from Fairfax, but there doesn’t seem to be a report on their sites (readers may post one, however, in comments).

I’m not going to get into a discussion of the rights, wrongs or otherwise of the atrocities Rhiannon claims to be fighting against; “human rights abuses that the Sri Lankan government is allegedly involved in” (my italics) is the way she puts it in her own words.

People who want to know about that can simply read her justifications and excuses from The Guardian, which is why I have put a link to it in this article.

But I would make the observation that Sri Lanka, until relatively recently, was engaged in a brutal and bloody civil war: what did the Senator think would occur in such a conflict? A game of chess over a cup of tea?

Never mind though: whatever it is, loopy Lee Rhiannon from Australia and her kooky counterpart from Kiwiland will sort them all out.

Spare us!

Wars, by their very nature, involve violence and bloodshed and what Rhiannon would deem “atrocities,” and it seems no accident that her stunt just happens to coincide with Remembrance Day — the commemoration of the end of the first World War on 11 November 1918, and of the fallen from that and all subsequent wars.

This crusade by two politicians who should know better — even from the Greens — demeans the honour of Australians who fought gallantly in those conflicts and, frankly, is an insult to their memory.

Who the hell does Rhiannon think she is?

“I was very concerned that my liberty was denied to me for more than three hours,” Rhiannon said on her return to Australia yesterday, in a statement certain to fill her Sri Lankan captors with guilt and remorse.

People (and especially those supposedly imbued with the responsibility of elected office, like Rhiannon) must understand that when they travel to another country, Australian laws, customs and practices do not apply.

Rhiannon is lucky in the sense that here in Australia she’s free to say — and largely do — whatever she likes; as an adherent of the hard Left, a swag of United Nations treaties and the clauses of legislation around anti-discrimination also allow her to peddle material that is, to many, simply offensive and noxious.

But to go to a country like Sri Lanka and start lecturing the local government about this and that…if the worst they did to her was to lock her up and basically deport her, she should be counting her blessings.

There are some countries in which the activities Senator Rhiannon engaged in whilst in Sri Lanka would have got her shot. It’s no laughing matter.

Yet in the meantime, she’s safely back in Australia. Isn’t that lovely? I’m sorry if I am meant to feel any profound sense of relief, because I don’t.

And as ever with the Left, she still can’t get the story straight as she continues to peddle her odious agenda.

CHOGM is an important international forum; the 53 nations of the Commonwealth cover about a third of the world’s population, and CHOGM meetings represent opportunities for those countries to discuss and advance initiatives in trade, in tourism, and  in investment.

Rhiannon doesn’t think Australia should attend, as a show of defiance against the “alleged” human rights abuses she writes about, and points to boycotts of the forum by the leaders of India and Canada as showing the way forward.

Yet whilst Canadian PM Stephen Harper might well be boycotting CHOGM, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been at pains to point out in recent days that despite appearances to the contrary, his non-attendance at CHOGM is due to purely domestic political factors within India only.

So much for that.

The Greens are not harmless; behind the carefully confected shroud of giving a stuff about the environment and encouraging “harmless” protest votes lies a (global) movement that really does aspire to engineer societies that are truly socialist — or even Communist — in nature, which is why I keep banging on with the suggestion that readers who don’t believe it should get hold of the Greens’ platform and read it.

At the very minimum, it’s highly undemocratic: and “anti” most of the things reasonable people accept are fundamental and critical tenets of ordered, decent society in a civilised western democratic country such as ours.

It is offensive to the point of outrageous that Rhiannon and her ilk traipse around the world on their crusades, daring to suggest they speak for the Australian government when they do not, and having the temerity to point the finger at others when their own stupidity reaps its own consequences.

In this case it could have been far worse, and Rhiannon should be thankful she is alive.

Mercifully, the Greens neither constitute nor represent the Australian government, and — with the benefit of hindsight available to future Parliaments — the folly of the Gillard government in according this dangerous outfit such status must never be repeated.

Yet even if it was, Rhiannon speaks for nobody: a former Communist and Soviet sympathiser now sitting on the ultra-hard left flank of the Greens she may be, but in world terms (to say nothing of right here in Australia) she is an insignificance — and rightly so.

Lunatics On The Loose: Greens Scupper Pact With Labor

In a typically histrionic act for which it refuses to even take responsibility, the Communist Party Greens today ended its alliance with the ALP in name, but not in practice; these fruitcakes may well be free to “advance” their causes, but the charade will change little for Labor and Julia Gillard.

Even so — early in week three of a month in which Gillard and Labor seem hellbent on self-destruction — the announcement by Greens leader Christine Milne that her party was calling time on its alliance with the ALP is probably something Labor could do without.

Yet Milne — a figure utterly devoid of charisma and electoral appeal, and a pious and sanctimonious specimen to boot — characteristically blamed the ALP for the actions of her own party, saying that Labor had “walked away” from the deal.

Painting a bizarre picture in which she was simply announcing the end of the ALP-Greens coalition on behalf of the ALP, Milne claimed Labor had ended its alliance with her party.

“Labor has effectively ended its agreement with the Greens,” she told the National Press Club. “Well, so be it.”

“I thought it was time we just cleared the air, said they’ve walked away and frankly the response from some of them shows they have walked away.”

The Greens would still support supply bills and oppose no-confidence motions, Milne added.

And there’s the devil in the detail: the pompous and portentous announcement made by Milne, in the wider scheme of things, amounts to nothing.

It’s well-known that sections of the ALP have long been unhappy with what they perceived to be a destructive and largely unnecessary formal agreement with the Greens, given lower house MP Adam Bandt had pledged never to support the Liberals, and in light of the fact the Greens’ senators are largely disinclined to vote with the Coalition either.

Today’s announcement shows that, to some extent, similar sentiments have been brewing over at the Greens for a while, too.

I think the Greens saw their agreement with Gillard and Labor — call it a coalition, accord, pact or what you will — as carte blanche to inflict some of the more extreme and less reasonable elements of their agenda on the wider populace.

To some extent, of course, they have succeeded, with sometimes disastrous consequences; the hundreds of drowned asylum seekers are a direct consequence of a soft policy on illegal immigrants that was insisted upon by the Greens as the price for Senate support in abolishing the Howard government’s so-called Pacific Solution.

The fact a carbon price even exists — let alone the fact it is legislated at nearly six times the internationally accepted price — is another case in point; a stoush between the Greens and Labor erupted last year when the Greens wanted the price increased at the very time some ALP MPs were contemplating the prospect of lowering it to bring it more in line with international parameters.

And whinny she may about the mining tax being evidence of Labor’s “support for the mining industry,” but I am certain that had the tax been on track to generate the $4 billion in revenue it was intended to, rather than prove the unprofitable and abject joke it has, Milne would be lining up for her share of the “credit.”

“Credit” for a tax that — whilst raising next to nothing — has nonetheless managed to kill investment and confidence in the minerals and resources sector, destroy profits and jobs, and still hobble the one branch of the economy holding the rest out of recession.

Then again, if you’re Christine Milne and her mad band of dangerous adherents, anything short of a total shutdown of the mining sector is a sellout, a failure, and a national tragedy.

In political terms, today’s development will change nothing; certainly, in the eyes of the voting public the damage has already been done: the Labor Party has been widely and correctly perceived to have yielded to the Greens and their agenda, and any formal separation between the two probably comes too late in the political cycle to remedy that.

And the Greens, whilst rattling on with their usual moral indignation, will always attract the same rump following in the future that they have done at elections past.

Milne has said that her party’s main priorities, moving forward, were a transition to renewable energy, reforming the mining tax, raising the dole, boosting public school funding and implementing the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Those priorities could as easily be represented as driving energy prices higher, inflicting further damage on the country’s main export industry, rewarding indolence, throwing money at an inefficient but critical sector with no emphasis on value for money, and legislating a worthy but unfunded and totally unaffordable initiative.

The list of the Greens’ gripes goes on.

Yet irrespective of the legitimacy or otherwise of those gripes — and frankly, not much of what the Greens obsess over is rooted in any real-world considerations of common sense — today’s announcement will have the psychological effect of letting some of the more extreme elements within Milne’s party off the leash.

Luminaries such as NSW senator Lee Rhiannon — a one-time propaganda writer for the USSR, now a mainstay of the Greens’ extreme Left — have effectively been given the green light to advocate whatever they like.

Truly nasty individuals, such as SA senator Sarah Hanson-Young, will now be free to say whatever they see fit about anyone who disagrees with them, not that they hold back anyway; free to back Palestine and its militants, for example, over Israel, with what I would wager to be no first-hand experience whatsoever of either the issues involved or of the relative contributions made by the Jewish community in Australian society.

And the truly well-meaning (I’m not being sarcastic) but naive members of the Greens’ ranks, such as lovely Larissa Waters from Queensland, can promise endless buckets of money in the name of “social justice” with nary a care about the fact that to pay for their largesse, it’ll be “someone else” — the taxpayer — who foots the bill.

There isn’t a lot of emphasis on responsibility over at the Greens.

But on one level, why would there be? The party scored just 11% of the vote at the 2010 election, and have spent the better part of three years since then seeing to it that the other 89% of the electorate have had large doses inflicted upon them of policies they never voted for, and in all likelihood never would.

So much for the lamentable Christine Milne and her “principled” show of outrage.

Yet the Greens still have the temerity to complain about this, or to take a pot shot at the Labor Party for allowing it to occur?

Far from being let down, the Greens have secured far more from the present government than 11% of the vote could or should have ever entitled them to expect or imagine.

And the rest of us are paying for it — literally.

Still, in an ideal world, the Greens would have us live in a country (and a world) with open borders; no effective military; no cars; higher taxation; limitless public services, especially in healthcare; boycotts on Israel (concurrent with a pandering to Muslim extremists and terrorists, coupled with support for fundamentalist regimes abroad); an end to mining and most agriculture; and a spiral into the ominous, terrifying world of communist Nirvana.

If anyone can spot a word of concern for the environment in that list — or any of the other lunar policies the Greens’ platform advocates — they’re doing better than I can.

The Communist Party Greens is a frightening organisation; the most frightening thing about them, frankly, is that so many of their supporters think they’re parking a harmless protest vote with a group of concerned environmentalists in voting for them, when the Greens are nothing of the sort.

And self-indulgent victim statements, like the one delivered by Christine Milne today, do nothing at all to change that.

Ultimately and regrettably, however, the only winner from today’s proceedings is the Greens; the ALP will wear the opprobrium and political consequences of allowing itself to accede to so many of the Greens’ demands whilst the Greens themselves, quietly, skip off in search of new ways to further their insidious agenda.