Category: Australia

How Coal Runs Australian Politics

The latest news in Australian politics is that ex-PM Malcolm Turnbull will resign his seat sooner than expected triggering a by election. I suspect this won’t bring down the government but it’s a more assertive act by Turnbull than I expected.

The Guardian has a report here:

Further down in that article is a comment from Turnbull’s son Alex, that confirms an observation I’ve made about this chaos:

“After Turnbull’s leadership loss last week, his son Alex Turnbull has started speaking publicly about his frustrations with the federal Coalition.
On Monday, Alex said he suspected a powerful group of coal mining companies on Australia’s east coast was having an “undue level of influence” on federal Liberal party policy.
He said the Coalition’s “singular fixation” on the Galilee Basin – a gigantic coal deposit in central Queensland – and on keeping ageing coal-fired power stations alive, had led him to believe “there are other forces at work” to explain the Coalition’s unproductive policymaking.”

“That there is an undue level of influence on Liberal Party policy by a very small group of miners who have some assets they probably now regret having purchased which did not make a lot of sense anymore and are trying to engineer an outcome which makes those projects economic,” he told the ABC on Monday.
When asked who the miners were, he laughed. Then he said: “People who own a lot of coal in the Galilee Basin.”

The observation certainly fits known facts. And here is a weird twist or perhaps an example of saying the quiet part loud: Denialist website Wattsupwiththat has an article loudly complaining that the press aren’t giving ENOUGH coverage to the fact that Turnbull was ousted because of climate policy:


What’s going down in Canberra Town?

Australian politics time!

What the heck is going on?

The current (I haven’t checked the headlines so I’m assuming he’s still current) Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has had his leadership challenged by his party’s MPs. There is a good chance that he won’t be PM much longer.

But they can’t just depose your nation’s leader just like that?

Well yes, they can. That’s how the Westminster system works. For example, Margaret Thatcher stopped being PM in the UK because her own MPs ousted her. It’s meant to be a feature not a bug.

A rare occurrence only used in extremis then?

Um…well…it’s happened to the past four PMs. Malcolm Turnbull ousted Tony Abbot by this method.

So who is the challenger?

Initially a guy called Peter Dutton. He’s an ex-police officer with very right of centre politics.

But presumably he’s a great public speaker?

He sort of drones in a way that’s frankly unsettling and makes kittens cry.

But his supporters must think he has some electoral appeal. Is he dashingly handsome?

Come now, I’m not going to start judging people by their appearance. It is unseemly and irrelevant. The key thing is his right wing politics which will alienate many voters.

Did you just say underneath your breath that he looks like a gormless potato?

I would never…ok, yes I did.

But a man of steadfast integrity though?

He might be referred to the high court because of conflicts of financial interest that would make it illegal for him to sit in parliament.

Well it could be worse…

…and he may have used his position to reverse deportation for two foreign au-pairs for reasons he can’t explain…

He doesn’t sound like an ideal candidate?

Well the Australian Labor Party must be delighted but in reality Dutton will never be PM. He’s mainly just a weapon of the right of the Liberal Party to punish Malcolm Turnbull for not doing what they say.

You’ve explained this ‘Liberal’ party before. They’re actually conservatives?

Yes, its because of the Coriolis effect.

And Australia just likes to dump its Prime Ministers?

That’s a more recent phenomenon. John Howard was PM for several terms. This current habit started with Labor PM Kevin Rudd. His ousting was partly due to poor polling but also he was apparently a very poor manager who alienated colleagues.

So it’s a malaise that spread from Labor to Liberal?

Not quite…there are some common factors.

Could you list them as bullet points?

  1. Tony Abbot – aggressive right wing politician who relentlessly attacked Rudd when Abbot was leader of the opposition and then Gillard. As PM Abbot proved less than competent and was ousted by Turnbull but Abbot stayed in parliament to undermine Turnbull for revenge and ideological reasons.
  2. Energy policy. Politically (and electorally) Australia supports energy policies to minimise climate change and move from fossil fuels. Turnbull believe climate change is real and supports action to limit emissions. However, the right of the Liberal Party is vehemently in the climate denial camp and spends every effort to sabotage climate policy and scare monger about energy prices (which have risen in Australia for reasons OTHER than climate change measures).
  3. Immigration. While Australia leans progressively on climate, the same isn’t true on immigration and both Labor and the more centrist elements of the Liberal have adopted frankly appalling policies on asylum seekers to appease the Liberal right and fringe parties like One Nation. Scares about immigration or new immigrant communities are used as wedge issues by the right to destabilise centrist governments. (Oh, you’ve heard this song before…)
  4. Right wing media, in particular ‘Sky News’ owned by…Rupert Murdoch. (Oh, you’ve heard that song before also…)

What’s the good news?

Turnbull is a canny operator with little to lose and a house that has a Scrooge McDuck style vault of money in it [citation needed]. He doing his best to ruin any chance of Dutton becoming PM. In particular he’s made it clear that if he is ousted then he’ll reign from parliament. The government have a razor thin majority of 1 MP, so if Turnbull goes, the government won’t have a majority.

What’s the bad news?

Turnbull’s delaying tactics will help a more moderate replacement get enough support to stand, replacing Turnbull with somebody who would be more electorally palatable. The political paradox that helps fuels this kind of chaos is that the electorate HATE this kind of instability but often reward a new party leader with a boost in the polls. That might be enough for the Liberals to win a general election which will mean another three years of this kind of divisive nonsense from the Liberal’s right.

What’s the other good news?

You get great sausage sandwiches at polling booths on Election Day.

International Holocaust Remembrance Day January 27

There are many Holocaust remembrance days. Poland, for example, commemorates the anniversary of the   Warsaw Ghetto Uprising on April 19. Jewish communities and Isreal mark Yom HaShoah on the 27th of Nisan (which falls in April or May) as a day to remember both those who were murdered by the Nazis but also the Jewish resistance to the Nazis.

Many nations (and since 2006, the UN) remember the Holocaust on January 27 – the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army in 1945. The Auschwitz, Birkenau, Monowitz was the largest complex of its kind, combining labour camps (e.g. for IG Farben) and death camps in which people were slaughtered en-masse. One in six of the Jewish people killed in Nazi camps died in the Auschwitz camps.

An estimated 1.3 million people were sent to the camp, of whom at least 1.1 million died. Around 90 percent of those killed were Jewish; approximately 1 in 6 Jews killed in the Holocaust died at the camp.[1][2] Others deported to Auschwitz included 150,000 Poles, 23,000 Romani and Sinti, 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war, 400 Jehovah’s Witnesses, and tens of thousands of others of diverse nationalities, including an unknown number of homosexuals.[3] Many of those not killed in the gas chambers died of starvation, forced labor, infectious diseases, individual executions, and medical experiments.

The great Italian writer (and occasional science fiction writer) Primo Levi was one of those who was liberated on that day. In If This Is a Man, (also titled “Survival at Auschwitz”) Levi tells of his arrest in Italy as a member of the anti-fascist resistance and his imprisonment in Auschwitz. In it he says:

A country is considered the more civilised the more the wisdom and efficiency of its laws hinder a weak man from becoming too weak and a powerful one too powerful.

In The Periodic Table, Levi managed to combine his literary powers with his fascination in chemistry (his other profession) and to find poetry and meaning in humble states of matter:

[Nitrogen:] The trade of chemist (fortified, in my case, by the experience of Auschwitz), teaches you to overcome, indeed to ignore, certain revulsions that are neither necessary or congenital: matter is matter, neither noble nor vile, infinitely transformable, and its proximate origin is of no importance whatsoever. Nitrogen is nitrogen, it passes miraculously from the air into plants, from these into animals, and from animals into us; when its function in our body is exhausted, we eliminate it, but it still remains nitrogen, aseptic, innocent.

This contrast between the extraordinary capacity for fascism to both degrade people and find disgust in humanity, versus his own need to see things as they are runs through his work. Periodic Table again:

[Zinc:] In order for the wheel to turn, for life to be lived, impurities are needed, and the impurities of impurities in the soil, too, as is known, if it is to be fertile. Dissension, diversity, the grain of salt and mustard are needed: Fascism does not want them, forbids them, and that’s why you’re not a Fascist; it wants everybody to be the same, and you are not. But immaculate virtue does not exist either, or if it exists it is detestable.

I’ll finish with Levi’s poem from the start of If This Is a Man which is a demand to remember, to meditate that this came about, and finishes with a curse on those who forget.

You who live safe
In your warm houses
You who fin returning in the evening
Hot food and friendly faces
Consider if this is a man
Who works in the mud
Who does not know peace
Who fights for a scrap of bread
Who dies because of a yes or a no
Consider if this is a woman
Without hair and without name
With no more strength to remember
Her eyes empty and her womb cold
Like a frog in winter
Meditate that this came about:
I commend these words to you
Carve them in your hearts
At home, in the street
Going to bed, rising
Repeat them to your children
Or may your house fall apart
May illness impede you
May your children turn their faces from you


Australian Gun Laws – Did they Work? (spolier: yes they did)

University of Sydney academic Professor Simon Chapman is the lead author of a study that has examined the impact of the late 1990’s tightening of Australian gun laws. The Liberal government of the time (for ‘liberal’ read ‘conservative’) enacted tougher gun laws in response to the Port Arthur mass shooting in Tasmania. Australia’s gun laws did not become as strict as the UK’s and the emphasis was on  guns that could be used in mass shootings and a general reduction in gun availability.

So what happened? The study is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association here: [abstract is directly avaialble but I think it is possible to get the full article by a free sign-up]

There is also an editorial in the same edition of the journal here:

What is most clear from the current study is that Australia’s NFA coincided with an elimination of mass killings with firearms. It is difficult to pinpoint precisely which aspect of the policy contributed to this success, but the substantial reduction in the population’s exposure to semiautomatic long guns capable of accepting large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for ammunition is likely to have been key. Examinations of fatal mass shootings in the United States have found that when assault weapons or pistols with LCMs are used in these shootings, the number of victims shot is about 2.5 times higher than in mass shootings with other firearms.7,8

The study is particularly interesting because it aims to disentangle the effect of the gun law changes from other brother shifts – for example  the trend in many developing nations of declines in homicide that occurred anyway. It also shows that the laws had an impact on suicide and importantly, shows that banning some kinds of weapons does not just lead to shift to still-legal weapons with no resulting decline in mass-killings or suicides. Instead a selective ban and gun buy-back schemes does seem to have resulted in a net reduction in deaths.

From a Guardian news article on the study:

The lead author of the study, Professor Simon Chapman, said a similar study had been conducted 10 years ago, and that the researchers had repeated it to see if gun-related deaths were continuing to decline, finding that they had.

“I’ve calculated that for every person in Australia shot in a massacre, 139 [people] are shot through firearm-related suicide or homicides, so they are much more common,” Chapman said.

“We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”

He said the researchers had chosen to publish the results in an American medical journal not just because the title was a prestigious one, but also because the findings would have a greater impact.

However, he does not believe the findings will have an impact on gun ownership laws in the US.

“The US is a good example of where evidence is going to take longer to prevail over fear and ideology,” he said.

“When people like [Republican candidate] Donald Trump talk about gun violence, he’s essentially not talking about the facts or the evidence, he’s talking about ideology and saying people want the right to protect themselves and their homes.

“The irony is the person you have to protect yourself most from in a home is the person who owns the gun.”

Chapman said more than half of those who had conducted mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand had been licensed gun holders.

More antipodean chocolate

New Zealanders may have been less than impressed  with the wall of tim-tams. I have sourced this delight  to placate them.


I have tried L&P as a fizzy drink. I’m not sure what effect it has on chocolate.

I’m also informed of this chimeric fantasy  monster that is apparently endemic to Australia.


Hugo Best Related work 2016? Clearly a work of speculative fiction.