Racism in Australian Politics...

This is a lesson on how to get yourself disendorsed in a heartbeat as a candidate in a federal election.

David Barker was the Liberal Party's candidate for the seat of Chifley. Chifley is a safe Labor seat at the moment. As a matter of fact, it is so safe that it has not been held by anyone but Labor since it was created in 1969. It has been held by the current member, Roger Price, since 1984. So, it was unlikely to change hands at this election anyways.

Nevertheless, this was no deterrent to Barker who considered himself a pretty good shot at winning the seat. After all, his opposition from the Labor Party in this election is a Muslim, Ed Husic (as an aside I heard on the Channel 7 or 9 news this evening in relation to this story that Husic was a non-practising Muslim, whatever that means), and Barker firmly believed that Australians and especially those in the electorate of Chifley would not vote in a Muslim.

Barker, like any other Australian, is entitled to his opinion. He is entitled to this opinion even if it is wrong, misguided, and perhaps even offensive to some. However, in the context of the election, these are extreme views and posting them publicly in Facebook backed the Liberal Party, who had endorsed him as their man in Chifley, into a corner. The Liberal Party could not, and cannot. afford to be directly associated with such extreme views. Yet, it might be argued that the Liberal Party's hard line approach on policy on asylum seekers and migrants might suggest that they trying to capitalise on the idea that there are elements within the Australian community that feel threatened by migrants and outsiders.

I read during the week that Pauline Hanson might be interested in rejoining the Liberal Party if Tony Abbott, the current Liberal Leader, was to extend her an invitation. My guess is that she should not hold her breath waiting for that invitation. Yet, it is worth remembering that Pauline Hanson was elected to Federal Parliament after tapping into community fears about multiculturalism and migration.

Barker was not satisfied with just going after his Muslim opposition, he saw the need to go after the current Prime Minister for being an atheist. According to Barker, Australians are not ready for Muslims in parliament and Australians have a real problem with their government being led by an atheist. Barker is clearly on a mission from God. It would seem that his God wants him to be the saviour of Australia and reset this fine nation back on the path to Christian righteousness.

For Barker, this is not a question of faith. See, Barker believes that every Australian is entitled to a faith of their choosing but if you choose to be Muslim then you should not be in parliament. Furthermore, if you do not believe in God then you should not be in parliament at all either, and definitely not leading the government.

My personal opinion, and it is anecdotal at best (I have not done the research, even if it is out there), is that Australia is not an inherently racist country. I believe that Barker's views are a minority in the community. I am not naive enough to argue that they do not exist. I would argue, and argue passionately, that Barker's views are minority views. The majority of Australians have embraced multiculturalism and the benefits that this has brought us as a nation. That same majority would also understand that multiculturalism has not always been smooth sailing and that as a nation there are still problems we face.

However, Australia in that regard is no different from any other nation on earth that has a rich history of accepting migrants. Let's face it, the vast majority of Australian citizens can trace their family history to an original migrant if they look hard enough.

The Leaders' Debate -- Gillard Just...

The "Great Debate", or the not so great debate depending on your interest in Australian politics, was won just by Julia Gillard. Tony Abbott put up a much better showing than many thought possible. Nevertheless, the most illuminating moments associated with this debate was that there were no illuminating moments. The reality is that neither Gillard or Abbott offered up anything substantial from what we already know about them.

The debate was the same, but the worms were different. Channel 9 was running a worm that suggests Gillard comprehensively trounced Abbott by some 63% to 37%. The Channel 7 worm had it much closer at 53% to 47%. Personally, I think the Channel 7 worm had it pretty much right. Interestingly, both worms were true to expected form and fell along gender lines. Most women going for the female Prime Minister and most men going for the male leader of the Opposition.

Neither leader was able to deliver a significant blow. In fact, both came across as overly cautious and unwilling to make any big statements about themselves, their beliefs, or what real changes the Australian people will enjoy under either a Labor or Liberal (Coalition) government. Maybe the lack of a third party option in the debate, like the Greens, might inspire people to seek out that option prior to the election. The Greens under Bob Brown have seemingly become an increasingly attractive option for those disillusioned with the main parties.

Yet, one of the most significant things for Labor to consider is the response to Gillard's failure to be specific on the ouster of the former PM, Kevin Rudd. The worms tracked instantaneously lower suggesting that people have an issue with the way that the leadership was spilled. Maybe the pencil pushers over at Labor Headquarters will need to put some spin on this and get it out into the electorate. The leadership spill might be better confronted head on and called as it was. Sometimes the truth will set you free.

The thing that stuck me about the debate, and to which I alluded earlier, is that there is not a whole lot of difference in the policies of either party or leader. This is probably more of a problem for the Liberal Coalition than it is for the incumbent Labor Government. The reason is a simple one, why change governments if there is not going to be any real change in either policy or direction? If it is going to be the same old, same old then perhaps it is better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

It is too bad that this seems to have been a one-off debate. Another debate or two might have been worth a look-see.

Child Brides -- Indonesia

There are plenty of ways to get media attention in Indonesia. One of the best is to publicly announce you have married a 12-year-old and intend to take a 9-year-old and a 7-year-old in the near future as wives.

In most places this would be serial pedophilia and the perpetrator would be investigated and prosecuted and hopefully jailed.

It should be noted that this is not an attack on Indonesia alone. I have written about the child bride practice in Yemen here. You can find other commentary here.

There are many urging the police to take immediate action in terms of investigating the cleric, Pujiono Cahyo Widianto (AKA Syekh Puji), for breaches of the Child Protection Law, the Marriage Law, the Labor Law, and most obviously the Criminal Code.

The Child Protection Law states that the parents of a child cannot marry them off until the child has reached at least 18 years of age. The Marriage Law sets an age of 16 with the parents consent. The breach of the Labor law relates to the allegation that Puji has made his new bride, Lutfiana Ulfa, a Managing Director (or something similar) in one of his companies. The Criminal Code prohibits sexual contact with minors.

There would seem to be some inconsistency between the Child Protection Law and the Marriage Law in terms of age. This is potentially a Constitutional Court issue in terms of determining which age is the appropriate age.

In terms of the Marriage Law individually. The Marriage Law recognizes marriages know as kawin siri. This type of marriage is one that is valid under one's religion. If this particular marriage is a kawin siri one then this raises a whole range of issues that warrant a much longer debate and post than I intend to make here.

However, suffice to say, if the parents provide their permission for the marriage to take place, the parents are of sound mind and body, then should the state be in a position to take their parenting rights away?

It would seem that there is much more to this story than a simple run of the mill kawin siri. I am sure that the Indonesian Child Protection Commission (Komisi Perlindungan Anak Indonesia / KPAI), who have sent a team to investigate, will produce a report that will enlighten us a little further as to what transpired in this case.

Claims of child exploitation are interesting as the parents seemed to have agreed. If there was a transaction involved, a dowry for instance, would this be consistent with child trafficking? Just throwing that out there.

It seems the Syekh's reasons for marrying are varied but primary among these is his self-proclaimed penchant for liking little girls. The reason is that he can "educate" them to become great people. Maybe this is true.

However, he does not need to marry them to educate them and make them great people. He could just as easily facilitate their education through university, ensure that their parents have sufficient resources to provide a good home and good nutrition. The Syekh obviously has the resources to do this as he recently disbursed some IDR 1.2 billion as alms this past Eid.

Nah, I think it has more to do with that he enjoys having sex with children. He has chosen to dress this up as something that is permissible under his religion and it is so because the prophet did it. It is amusing in a really sad way that the Syekh equates himself to the prophet and that he thinks that the times have not changed.

This is not a justification for the prophet's actions rather a statement as to what may or may not have been acceptable then is not acceptable now. However, "acceptable" is relative and there are some who do not have a problem with what the Syekh has done or is planning to do. One of these people who does not have a problem with it is a member of parliament and a representative of the Prosperous Justice Party or PKS.

The Chair of the Indonesia Ulemas Council (MUI), Umar Shihab, has come out and said he is troubled by the marriage. His troubles are not an outright condemnation of the marriage. His statements go along the lines of he cannot see why the Syekh needs to marry a 12-year-old when there are so many older women available for marriage. Shihab then goes on to suggest that it is important that the reasons for the marriage be made clear and that it is OK to marry in order to protect yourself from sin.

This is most certainly not the required condemnation for the sexual exploitation of children that the MUI needs to be putting out there into the public sphere. It seems that the biggest hurdle is that some just cannot reconcile that the actions of the prophet some 1400 years ago no longer the way of the 21st Century.

Those that support this will never get past. "well the prophet married Aisha when she was just a child", which is simply an argument, "if it was good enough for the prophet then it must be good enough for us". A silly argument that seems more like a call to rationalize and justify modern day pedophilia than it is to protect some kind of sacred institution or practice.

In a cynical and sarcastic way it is too bad for followers of other religions that their prophets or founders chose not to take child brides. Then we could simply run away from the fact that we have men sexually exploiting children and hide behind some religious excuse that it is OK. It is not OK and it is time the practice was explicitly forbidden.

It is time for Muslim scholars to state unequivocally that the actions of Muhammad had their time and place back then but there is no justification for actions such as the practice of taking child brides in the 21st Century. The MUI could lead the charge on this in Indonesia.

For me there are lots of issues.

Simply, girls are not ready to become wives and are not prepared mentally, emotionally, or physically for being married. According to most reports, Ulfa has already menstruated and if the Syekh is as good as his religious word then this means that he has already slept with her. I just cannot bring my mind to the idea that a 12-year-old is in any way ready to become a parent herself. I know some 30-year-olds that are not ready for the challenge.

The second issue runs on from the first in a sense that being married at 12 rips away any normalcy of childhood. If you take a step back and think for a minute of two about your childhood, good or bad, this is the time that you develop, you grow, and you have fun with your peers, it is where you start to gain your life experiences that make you what you are as an adult. For Ulfa it would seem that her childhood or teenage years are destined to be a revolving door of pregnancies and isolation from her peers.

Let's face it, you do not usually see married and pregnant girls in year 7 or 8 of high school.

When push comes to shove, if this marriage has in fact taken place, then this marriage should be rejected and rejected with prejudice. The man should be investigated, prosecuted, and jailed for the sexual abuse of a minor. This can happen even without the MUI and others having the testicular fortitude to come out and openly say this is wrong no matter the circumstances proclaimed as being justification are.

Whether law enforcement is endowed with the courage to make a statement on the application of the rule of law in Indonesia by seeing this individual is punished for all breaches of the prevailing laws and regulations remains to be seen.

Being the eternal optimist then I will always remain hopeful that this person will be punished for his crimes.

Religious Holiday Allowances (THR)

The Circular states that all employees who have worked continuously in the same company for a period of 3 months are entitled to the Religious Holiday Allowance (Tunjangan Hari Raya Agama / THR). For employees with less than 3 months continuous service there is no THR payable. Where an employee has been employed for a period in excess of 3 months but not yet 12 months, then the THR payable is pro rata based on their actual term of service. All employees engaged in continuous employment with the same employer for a period in excess of 12 months is entitled to an allowance of 1 month’s salary.

The THR must be paid no later than 7 days prior to the date of the religious holiday being celebrated. The need for this to be paid sooner rather than later is to ensure that workers have sufficient funds to satisfy their extra needs during the period. It is expected that employers will pay the THR on time.

Nevertheless, the Minister fully expects that some employers will not pay on time and the Circular instructs the various Governors, Regents, and Mayors to remind employers of the provisions and the requirements to pay on time. The Circular also allows for the establishment of special teams that are tasked with assisting those workers with complaints regarding the payment of their THR.

The Circular is current as of 3 September 2008.

Shifting the Electricity Burden from Weekdays to Weekends

Something to ponder if your working conditions are changing as a result of the following.

The Minister of Labor and Transmigration has issued Circular No. SE.304/MEN/PHI-KPHI/VII/2008 which follows on from the recent Joint Ministerial Regulation issued on the same subject. The Circular is addressed to all Governors, Regents, Mayors, and Provincial / District / City officers from the various agencies that have responsibility for labor issues.

The basic premise of the Circular is to ensure that the provisions of the Joint Regulation are implemented. All industries and companies, except those specifically noted in the Joint Regulation, who work a 5-day week from Monday to Friday are required to allocate at least two work days per month to either a Saturday or Sunday. It is expected that this will ease the burden on the electricity network during the peak periods from Monday to Friday.

For industries and companies that are already working a 6-day week, then these industries and companies are deemed to have already satisfied the provisions of the Joint Regulation and the Circular.

The Circular also stipulates that the provisions of Article 77 of the Labor Law (Law No. 13 of 2003) still apply and that the days off do not have to be construed as being either a Saturday or Sunday. Furthermore, if any company regulations or other agreements between employers and employees mandate that the days off are to be Saturday or Sunday, then these agreements are to be read as meaning that any day from Monday to Sunday may be an agreed day off.

In light of the above, Saturdays and Sundays are now deemed to be regular working days that do not attract any special allowances. However, where an employee is required to work on a day that has been deemed as a day off then that employee is entitled to overtime for any hours worked.

The relevant officers of the agencies responsible for labor issues are to facilitate the implementation of the Joint Regulation and the Circular.

The Circular is current as of 25 July 2008.

Alexander Downer Quits

I guess it is no fun being in opposition after a reign as Australia's longest serving Foreign Minister. Alexander Downer has pulled the plug on a rather long and somewhat distinguished political career.

There are, as in any long career, a couple of moments that could have run better that might have seen him as Prime Minister rather than Foreign Minister. Unfortunately, the comment that undid him and saw him dumped as Liberal Leader was a stupid attempt at humour through a play on words.

The former Foreign Minister is moving into a part-time United Nations role as Special Envoy for Cyprus. The major role here is thought to be an effort to revive the peace process between the Greeks and the Turks over Cyprus.

This means that there will be a need for a by-election in his seat of Mayo in the Adelaide Hills. This has always been a pretty safe Liberal seat and it is currently held by 7.1%. This is after a swing of 6.5% against Downer at the last election. However, with the recent results in the Gippsland by-election showing a swing away from Labor, it is expected that this will become a much safer Liberal seat at the by-election.

Labor is even considering the option of not running a candidate which suggests that they are a little bit concerned about being humiliated as the electorate has had a little time to re-evaluate their decision to elect a Labor government.

Anyway, good luck to the fella!

The Australian Election

The wash-up is likely to see plenty of buck passing on the Liberal / National coalition side of the fence as well as myriad recriminations, but the Libs and Nats are not the only party to be decimated in the 2007 Election. The Democrats, the party that is supposed to be keeping the 'bastards honest' lost the two senators that were on the ballot. And now they have none!

This leaves the Bob Brown Greens as the balance of power in the Senate, at least after July 2008. However, there is still a family first senator who would appear to be more ideologically aligned with the Libs/Nats. There is also Nick Xenophon, no political novice who got himself elected to the South Australian Parliament on a 'No Pokies' ticket. Yet, this is a step up in the political spectrum and he is likely to be able to wield some swing if he holds a swinging vote.



It is with interest that I read the recriminations have already started, and this is to be expected, but I was equally surprised that John Howard in his concession speech acknowledged and accepted responsibility for the Libs failure. It was very manly of him but when you lose more than 20 seats including your own there are not a whole lot of options on the plate! Even more interesting was the anointing of Peter Costello as the obvious future of the Liberal Party. Considering, the former PM's reluctance to hand over the reins of power this could be construed as recognizing the inevitable.

Yet, by holding onto power John Howard may have in fact done Costello a favor in the sense that the Libs/Nats after 11+ years in government were destined for a fall and as this election showed, spectacularly so. This has saved Costello from being viewed as damaged goods. There has really only been one true Lazarus of Australian politics and he is now readying his departure from political life.

But equally spectacularly as the crushing loss the anointed opposition leader has announced that he is going to quit the parliament for a life in business sometime during the next term. In a very LBJ way he has stated unequivocally that he will not seek nor will he accept the nomination of his party for the leadership of the Coalition. This serves to open-up the leadership race and at the same time it highlights the disarray that the Coalition is in as it prepares to enter opposition. The prospect of a bruising Liberal leadership battle undoubtedly has the newly elected Labor government salivating at the opportunity to inflict further pain on the severely wounded Coalition ranks.

Well, the Labor party made many a promise to the electorate about how it was going to conduct the business of government going forward and for the last 24 hours there has been nothing much said except for 'we are ready to hit the ground running'.

So, as Big John McCarthy of UFC fame was renowned for saying, "let's get it on!"