A Gay Motion

Symbols are funny things.

Sometimes they have enormous impact because, despite being small acts, their ramifications are enormous. Think Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat, or Officer Sanguinetti, the genius that imspired SlutWalk.

Rosa Parks. Picture from Wikipedia

Symbols are powerful because, as humans, we are emotional people. That is why just about every news story has a "human angle". A cut in funding for some community service may not seem like a big deal to most people - that is until the story is put next to a photo of some family who will be hurt by the changes.

In the same way, many people will often find their opinion on a topic about changing once they know someone who has first hand experience. Nothing will enliven an interest in the state of our public hospital system more than having a loved one spend the best part of a week in one, as I experienced not long ago.

In politics, however, symbols are a whole different thing.  A strong symbol at the right time can shift an entire debate in the blink of an eye. Symbols often change people's opinions or even the conversation entirely.

The rolling drama over Craig Thomson is a good example. The Coalition has been trying to use the Thomson drama to force him out of Parliament, or at the very least to tar Gillard and the Labor party as a whole as being connected to thieving, rotten, and above all dishonest unions. The electorate has already formed an opinion about Gillard's honesty that is, most likely, terminal to her prospects of leading Labor to victory in November 2013.

If the populace can be convinced to see the whole of the Labor party in that night, then no matter who is the leader next year the perception will endure.

Thomson is, in the Coalition's mind, a symbol of what Labor are really like.

One thing drastically and almost inexplicably changed the story earlier this week.  I don't know whether it was Thomson's tears during his address to the Parliament, or whether it was his courtyard interview, but the conversation shifted to his mental state. Suddenly we were talking about his mental health and looking back at a Labor MP Greg Wilton who committed suicide in 2000.

Photo from everywhere on the Internet

The damage is a long way from undone, but journos are doing less writing and talking about Craig Thomson and turning their attention to Abbott's behaviour - is he recklessly driving someone towards to severe mental harm, or even worse?

There are two enduring symbols - the idea of Thomson being a liar (best encapsulated by the Herald Sun's tacky front page) and Thomson tearing up during his speech.  Sadly for him and Labor, the former is probably the stronger symbol, which is why the Thomson issue is going to remain a millstone around Labor's neck.

Awful photoshop from the Hun

Another extremely powerful symbol that we saw come from the United States was this pronouncement from Barack Obama on gay marriage:

In the United States, unlike in Australia, the Federal government has no power whatsoever over marriage. It is entirely a matter for the States - and Obama cannot make any law on this issue.

But his words were a symbol - along with his abolition of "Don't Ask Don't Tell", it sends a signal of acceptance to the homosexual community.

Directly speaking, it won't change a thing. but a president willing to go on the record as being in favour of gay marriage is something that can fundamentally shift the debate.

This is all a very long way round to the Green's motion in the NSW Upper House on marriage equality.

Now, I'm thoroughly in favour of marriage equality. To me, if gay people want to marry... well, I like the thus picture:

I'm a Christian, and my views on gay marriage put me at odds with some people who share my religious beliefs - but that's really a discussion for a different blog.

What Cate Faehrmann (NSW Upper House member) has done is bring a motion in the Upper House on the issue.  The motion reads as follows

It is important to note at this point that NSW has no jurisdiction over this issue. None whatsoever. The Federal Constitution vests exclusive power in the Federal government to make laws with regard to marriage.  Any law that NSW passed in relation to marriage would have no validity.

This is why Feahrmann has decided to move a motion that simply "supports" marriage equality, rather than any law actually taking action - NSW has no power to do anything more than that.

Feahrmann. Image from Wikipedia

What she no doubt hopes is that this motion will spur the Federal government to take action on marriage equality.

The problem is that at the Labor National conference earlier this year the Labor party decided that their Federal policy would be that individual MP's would be able to vote "with their conscience". Whilst there is no doubt that a number of Labor members will vote in favour of marriage equality, the fact that the Coalition has not allowed a conscience vote and has dictated that all members must vote against any such bill means that it is doomed to failure.

In the event, Faehrmann's motion was passed, 22 votes to 16.  The consequence?  Nothing.

The Upper House has spent the best part of 2 days debating the issue. Both major parties allowed their members a conscience vote on the issue. The Hansard has not been published yet, so I can't share with you the breakdown as to who voted which way.

My gripe with the motion is this, however: it is a symbol. Nothing more, nothing less. No law has been changed. and no action has been taken. The NSW Upper House house simply passed a motion.

Even if the Lower House passes the bill (and the lower house members may or may not be allowed a conscience vote) all that will be accomplished is a few fairly minor articles in the media.

Nothing will have changed - but the Upper House will have spent 2 days on the issue.

Moreover, whilst being a symbol, it is not even a powerful symbol.  Do you think Tony Abbott (the man who, realistically, holds the future of the marriage equality debate in his hands as long as the present parliament persists) could care less what the NSW Upper House thinks? Of course he doesn't.

Upper House members are allowed to propose any motion that they like, and I would not be in favour of limiting motions to things that will actually have a material effect. 

But I am uneasy about the Upper House's time being wasted on a motion that is at best a symbol - and nothing more.

If Cate Faermann wants to change the law on gay marriage, then she has done the right thing by seeking pre-selection on the Green's Federal ticket.

These motions, whilst they may be a powerful symbol, accomplish precisely nothing. It is not quite, but close to the same category as the Marrickville Council's BDS campaign - also, not coincidentally, initiated by a Greens member.

Hopefully the Upper House will resume debating motions that actually matter in the near future.

Phelpsing around

Since yesterday I've been going back and forth on whether to blog about the latest Twitter adventures of @PeterPhelpsMLC.

There are a few reasons.  Firstly, I've done it before. Twice, actually.

Secondly. @stilgherrian did it this morning:

His response?

Aw, shucks.

Mostly, however, what I've realised is that most people don't really care what people they have never heard of say on twitter.

Unless you're employed in politics or, like me, you have what probably amounts to an unhealthy interest in it, you probably couldn't name five members of the upper house. Heck, I'd have to think about it.

O'Farrell knows this.  Either he doesn't care what Phelps does on twitter, or he knows it doesn't matter. I suppose whilst the second is true, the first probably is as well.

The interesting thing is that, as I understand it, Phelps may actually be the most genuine NSW politician on twitter - this is apparently exactly what he is like in real life. If you want, you can go read what he had to say yesterday at about 4pm and why he said it.

He saw an (admittedly pretty stupid) comment from a leftie, and decided to get stuck in.

Phelps likes running about on twitter, making trouble, and brawling with people who annoy him. He even took the chance yesterday to mock someone for being unemployed, although in fairness that someone did bring it on by calling him a "knob end".

Quite the place, twitter.

In any event, this, apparently, is the NSW upper house.  Given that the voters don't seem to care either way, and O'Farrell certainly doesn't, I suppose we're stuck with it.

A Minor Influence?

As many of you will be aware, the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party hold the balance of power in the NSW Upper House.


The Upper house has 42 seats.  At present (assuming that Pauline Hanson's challenge does eventually fail) the make-up of the Upper House will be as follows:


Coalition: 19
Labor: 14
Greens: 5
CDP: 2
S&F: 2


Put simply, the Coalition needs the support of either Labor, the left minority (the Greens) or the right minority (CDP and S&F) to pass legislation through.


It doesn't take a Masters in Politics to foresee the Coalition getting support mostly from the right minority.  This was reflected in the Coalition getting their IR reforms through the Upper house thanks to support from the CDP and S&F (once a few cosmetic changes were sought and granted).


In those circumstances, I thought it a good idea to have a look at the websites of these two parties. Not only is it instructive in considering where the Coalition is likely to find support from those parties, but is also interesting to consider what promises may being made in return for the support.


Christian Democrats

Fred Nile. Photo from SMH.

The CDP's policies can be seen on their website here.


Family Issues: No surprises here.  No gay marriage, no adoptions for gay couples.  


Health: Decentralised control and more funding for nurses to reduce the ratios.  The first is no surprise (being from the right, practically compulsory) but the second is a little out of the blue (and, given the broad motherhood statements contained in most of their policies, perhaps a little more detail focussed than you might have expected).


Education: This section is pretty straightforward.  School vouchers (right wing gospel, especially in the US), a limit on teaching about other cultures (protect "Australian values") and retain religious education (they are a Christian party, after all).


As well as that, they appeal to the voters harking for a "simpler time" - they call for a focus on the 3 "R's" and Australian history, perhaps sensing that people are looking for a party who will bring back the "good ol' days" and who think that this is the way to do it.


Law and Order: Textbook conservative stuff: closing hotels earlier, close the injecting room, and increase police presence whilst facing out "enforcement cameras" - it is not clear whether they mean speed cameras, CCTV cameras, or both.


Pro-life: No euthanasia, no abortions.


Social Justice, Economy and Environment: I won't try and paraphrase this section:

The 2010-2011 budget projected revenue of $57.7 billion.  Of that revenue, payroll tax was $6.2 billion and land tax was $2.4 billion.  I don't know what percent of the $5.5 billion stamp duty total the policy would knock out, but it must be a significant proportion.  That's more or less 20% of the NSW government income the CDP want to knock out.


When taken in conjunction with an increase in social services and an improvement in public transport - well, it's difficult to see how they propose to balance the books.


Islamisation of Australia:

It is interesting to motorcycle helmets lumped in this section.  Either there are a disproportionate number of Muslims riding motor cycles, or otherwise the complaint about face coverings has nothing to with law and order (where any such policy, if genuine, belongs) but is actually all about burqas, with the motor cycle helmets thrown in to try and not look racist.


So, what is there to say about the CDP? Certainly there is little there that we would not expect to see from a right-wing Christian conservative party.


I will be very interested to see what, if any, moves are made in relation to the taxation issues.  I mentioned earlier that the CDP supported the Coalitions IR changes, which should help restrain the workforce spending $24.7 billion (42% of total spending for 2010-2011) but there would need to be devastating cutbacks to fund their taxation cuts.


Shooters and Fishers

Leader of the S&F, Robert Brown.  Photo from here.

Despite coming from the same side of politics, the S&F policies have a markedly different focus, perhaps reflecting the entirely different market that the party is catering towards.


It is worth recognising that the S&F policies go into a great deal of detail - to their credit they have clearly not only put a great of careful and considered thought into their policies, but also have very detailed policy documents on their website that bear further reading.


Natural Resources: The S&F want to "expand the agriculture, mining and forestry industries" but do so in a "sustainable way".


Included is a call for a "state wide water security plan", a focus on rural and regional development and support for recreational fishing.


Essentially, their position is that "natural resource utilisation and biodiversity conservation are not incompatible." Of course, these matters are all a matter of degree - one man's "natural resource utilisation" is another man's "vicious destruction of the environment".


Safeguarding the Environment: This policy includes seeking "Volunteer Conservation Hunting", a moratorium on further marine parks and greater access to national parks.


The policies seem to be focussed on protecting the environment, but not at the expense of access to the said environment for recreational purposes.


It is also interesting to see little mention whatsoever of "pollution".  Under the Natural Resources policy, they support cheap power and suggest that renewable power will not replace coal and gas in the "near term".


Society and Service Delivery: This is a complex policy.  It includes the following:

• Provision of "cheap power"
• Supporting the "cultural beliefs" of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians
• A Bob Katter-style breakdown of the market-power in the fuel and grocery industry
• "truth in sentencing and mandatory minimum sentencing subject to adequate parole rules and policing."

Further, they suggest that government is "overly-centralised" and that rural communities suffer as a result.

Fair Recreation Access: More fishing, more hunting, more four-wheel driving. Boating, bushwalking and swimming is good too.

The S&F are difficult to pigeonhole.  On one level, they appear to be a single issue party, but anyone elected of course has to vote on every issue that arises.

Their core policies appear to centre on support of rural areas, disparaging the Sydney-centric politicking, and making sure the government don't interfere with their "right" to use the land.

Having said all that, their voting on most issues will be with the Coalition.  Despite their focus on particular issues, it is clear that they are a right wing party. Individual liberty and minimising government interference run deep. The slogan on their website sums it up neatly:

So, where does that leave the Upper House?

The Coalition shouldn't have a great deal of trouble getting support for their policies.  Whilst the CDP and the S&F have their own policies and agendas, their DNA is not that different to the Coalition.

It would be surprising, though, if we did not see CDP and S&F policies creeping into the Coalition agenda.  The most obvious example has been the decision to scrap marine safety zones.

It may end up being a difficult relationship for both parties.  The Coalition need their support, but favouring the minor parties will damage their brand with all the voters who changed their vote to the Coalition at the last election.

At the same time, the minor parties need to maintain their independence if they are keep their base, but it goes without saying that without backing from the Coalition they really can't get much of any value.

The Coalition's ability to manage the relationship to their advantage will be essential if they are to hold onto all the first time Coalition voters.

A Labor Tantrum

We always knew that Hanson being involved in the NSW election would produce some drama - it just wasn't in the way we expected.

In the event, her "campaign" was barely a blip on the radar.  Whether the media deliberately ignored her or not is difficult to say, but after her position on the ballot was determined she was fairly anonymous.  

In the wash, it looks like she will miss out on the last remaining upper house seat (see Anthony Green's blog for updates).  That seat looks likely to go to the Greens.

The interesting part has been to see the Labor reaction to the possibility of Hanson's election.

The reaction has no doubt been coloured by the fact that, despite the Coalition not getting an absolute majority in the upper house, (the Coalition look set to hold 19 of the 42 seats), along with the Shooters (2 seats) and the Christian Democrats (2 seats) the conservative side of politics will have a majority.

To say Labor and the Greens have been vexed by this result would appear to be an understatement.

The worst thing for Labor is that whilst next time round they will no doubt win more than the 5 they won this time round, they will be defending the 9 they won in 2007, so will be unlikely to gain much, if any, ground.

Anthony Albanese, Federal member for Grayndler, was quoted on SMH Online today. Exactly why Federal members are making comments on the NSW election is unclear, but we'll put that aside.

Albanese appears to blame the Greens for Labor losing half a dozen seats in the lower house.  This may be true - of course, the Greens I'm sure had their own very good reasons for doing what they did.  Perhaps if they preferenced Labor in the seats they had no chance of winning, they would have, by association, damaged their chances in the two seats they actually had a chance of winning (Balmain and Marrickville).

That said, the "estimate" of 6 seats would seem to be stretching the truth just a little.

Albanese was then quoted as saying "It is possible this week Pauline Hanson could be elected to the NSW upper house because of the failure of the Greens party to do a preference swapping deal with NSW Labor in the upper house."

Now this is a little ridiculous.  For a start, it seems inconceivable that many Greens voters would preference Hanson above Labor, preference deal or not.  Anthony Green says (speaking of the 2003 results, when Hanson last ran for the Upper House) that Hanson "did much worse than Labor and the Greens on the distribution of preferences from just about every other party on the ballot paper."

It appears that Green voters did not need to be told to preference against Hanson in 2003, and there is no reason we should expect any different tin 2011.  

Even if the chips had not fallen the way they have, it shows breathtaking arrogance from Labor to tell the Greens off in relation to this.

Even if the Labor pundits (Luke Foley has gotten involved as well) were right (they're not), who are they to lay into the Greens for not preferencing the way Labor told them to?

The Greens are their own party.  They are entitled to preference exactly who they want.  They are not a subset of the Labor party, and the disgruntled Labor pundits would do well to be reminded of that. No deal was broken, no lie was told - the Greens simply formed the view that it was not in their interests to preference Labor.

Just because Labor and the Greens have a convenient ability to work together and have policies that are at least partially in sync does not mean that the Greens need to preference as if the parties are in a formal coalition.

That is especially so when the Labor government have, over the last 4 years, delivered a master-class in how to infuriate an electorate.

More likely, if Labor had not so thoroughly balls-up the last 4 years then the election would have been a real competition between 2 viable alternatives, and the voters would have been less likely to vote for a Queenslander whose candidacy could at best be described as "opportunistic".

In any event, it's doubtful that anyone is particularly interested in Labor's attempts to write the history of the NSW election long these lines.  The election will be remembered for a great big thumping given by the Coalition, and given that Hanson will now most likely not win a seat, Labor won't have the chance to trot out an utterly implausible "I told you so" any time Hanson stymied one of their plans.

Keeping Fears in Cheque

The Labor line that has been getting the most running of late is "Don't give Barry a blank cheque".


It's a multi-faceted slogan, and I think it is a very effective one. Like all the best slogans, it seems like it will be effective with every category of voters who Labor are still courting.


Best of all, it hits those voters right where they need to be hit.


I'm not going to try and predict the effect on dead-certain Labor or Liberal voters, because they are not going to change their vote at this stage.


First of all, disaffected Labor voters - people who have always voted Labor but now think "It's Time". To these voters, the slogan says "The Coalition are going to win - if they win both houses, they will destroy the state." For someone who is perhaps not comfortable with voting Coalition in the first place, this is a powerful fear, and one likely to bring some people back across.


The true swinging voter, who has no affiliations? Judging by the polls, just about every single one of these voters is already in the Coalition column. This slogan suddenly gives them something tangible to fear from the Coalition. When combined with the "What isn't he telling us?" line, it is capable of provoking some significant fear for these voters.


It's almost a devil you know argument - "We don't really know what this guy stands for, and you want to give him BOTH houses?"


The swinging voter probably isn't voting Coalition because he/she doesn't like Labor policies. Just because the swinging voter is sick of Labor being in power doesn't mean that it wouldn't be nice to have them providing some balance to the Coalition.


How about people who usually vote Liberal? There is nothing positive that Labor can say to these people that will have any effect as they hate Labor already. This slogan, however, might give this group of voters a moment's pause about their vote.


On one hand, it may give the voter a chance to think about voting for a different party. Not the Greens, presumably, but maybe a minor party - given that this slogan is all about the Upper house, it may push the Liberals a little further down the preference list, at least among those voters who actually take the option to preference their Upper House Ballot.


I haven't seen anyone mention Howard's time in control of both houses, but I would have that many people would go straight to that. And, before you know it, we're finessing some WorkChoices memories.


Even more so though, the slogan is saying to those Coalition voters "The Coalition has this one wrapped up. Why not just stay home and tidy up the garage rather than go out and stand in that queue. A $55 fine? Money well spent."


For me, the above paragraph is the real genius of the slogan. Everyone wants to back a winner, so for Labor to explicitly concede defeat would seriously damage their vote.


This slogan will bolster and encourage Labor voters ("Even though we're going to get creamed, your vote could not be more important"), quietly encourage apathy in Coalition voters ("We're going to lose, so why should you bother with voting?") and gives swinging voters a very tangible fear from the Coalition ("Just imagine what they'll do!").


Of course, the real question is whether it's going to make any difference. You can have the best slogan in the world, but if no one is listening anyway then it's not going to make a bit of difference.


PS This will be my last post pre-election. Get out there, exercise your democratic right, then tune into Anthony Green on the ABC and watch the carnage. Hopefully there'll be enough time for dinner and some red with friends before they resume normal programming.

Please Explain

Last blogpost (http://bit.ly/eG0MCV) I bemoaned the general lack of interest in this election, and conceded that it was a bit of an election for the "purists" - those of us who enjoy the process with or without drama.


Two stories arose in the last 48 hours to inject some excitement into proceeds, and perhaps a little interest from the viewers.


The first was the unexpected appearance of Pauline Hanson, who announced she would be seeking an upper-house seat.  Apparently she is running on "cost of living issues".


There is no doubt she will get her fair share of attention (as she always done).  She got a dud draw in the ballot (getting towards but not quite at the right edge - on such minutia careers are made and lost) and she announced she'd be heading to regional areas to drum up support.

The difficulty for her is working out whose voters she is going to nick.  Labor's voters are, as I have discussed (http://bit.ly/fsBk0Q) just the rusted on voters.  They won't move.


The people planning on voting for smaller parties usually have a very good reason for doing so, so won't be going anywhere.


The Liberal voters fall in multiple categories: rusted on Liberal voters, disaffected Labor voters wanting to "give the other lot a chance", and traditional swinging voters who, overwhelmingly it seems, are backing the Coalition.


It is difficult to see who of these Hanson could grab.  Perhaps a few of the disaffected Labor voters, but it is hard to see someone traditionally voting for Labor casting a ballot, in any circumstances, for Hanson.


The only real source of voters I can see is those people who feel no affiliation for either party - of those, some people will be sympathetic to her "agenda" (meaning her previously stated views) and will move across. But, to my mind, that's about it.


I personally doubt she will get much cut-through on her "cost of living issues" - when people see her name on the ballot paper all they will think is "We are being overrun by Asians" - at least, except for those of us who think of Pauline PantsDown (http://bit.ly/ibxQ5O).


Hanson's detractors are out of luck too - there is no opportunity for her to make money from the election, because the funding available if one gets sufficient votes can only cover costs - so hopefully we'll be spared allegations that she's only in the election to try and "steal" money from the public purse.


It promises to be an amusing sideshow, and will give many people a chance to fill in 311 first.  Yes, that's right, 311 candidates.  I'll be bringing my own pen.  Or maybe a sharpener.


The most amazing about that number is the word "only" appears in front of it in many reports.  


The other incident was at the drawing of the ballot for the Upper House.  


Apparently a man attended in a bathrobe and a bowtie.  After the drawing, he "revealed" that the only other thing he was wearing was a g-string.


Apparently he is from the nudist party, and with a bit of luck will be mentioned in numerous "novelty" stories over the next 24 hours.


Such is life as a minor party - attention is votes.  Well, attention, or a funny name.