JOE THE PLUMBER: Hello, fellow small-business owner. I’m Joe the Plumber, and I’ve successfully plumbed your bathroom. I’m relevant to national politics for some reason.
SMALL-BUSINESS OWNER: What do I owe you?
JOE THE PLUMBER: More than $250,000 a year. Despite my name and salary, I’m neither a Mafia boss nor a porn star.
buggery.org
Better than a poke in the eye with a wet fish
Filed under politix …
I Love the Gays
Hot damn…
Les Mizbarack
November 3, 2008: Obama National Headquarters
Via Joe.My.God
Chris Evans is Australia’s best immigration minister in a dozen years
Today’s announcement that the Rudd government will end mandatory detention for asylum-seekers who are not deemed a threat to the community is a tremendous step forward and a symbolic end to a policy that was a defining point of the Howard government.
And it’s just the latest in a series of quietly made, decent and laudable actions by our immigration minister, Chris Evans.
This is the immigration minister who promised last year to “urgently deal with almost 250 cases of people wrongly detained” by the immigration department.
This is the immigration minister who said “he has too much power and feels uncomfortable about “playing God” on individual migration cases.”
This is the immigration minister who argued for changes to the Howard-era citizenship test because it required too high a level of English comprehension and focused too much on recalling dates and sporting trivia that most Australian-born citizens didn’t know.
This is the immigration minister who returned the power to decide immigration cases to the Immigration Review and Refugee Review Tribunals, declaring in the process his support for “independent, transparent and appealable decision making in the resolution of immigration matters.”
This is the immigration minister who put an end to the long-running sagas of Cornelia Rau, Robert Jovicic and Mohammed Haneef. Who put an end to the Howard government’s shameful ‘Pacific Solution’ which had cost $2500 a week per person, or $300 million a year. Who put an end to the utterly shameful imprisonment of 75 Sri Lankan asylum seekers in Nauru. Who rejected caps on specific immigrant groups despite a concerted campaign to stigmatise African refugees as criminals.
This is the first, and probably the last, time I’ve written a glowing reference for an Australian government minister. But in this case I think it’s deserved. Chris Evans is not perfect (of course) but so far he has not put a foot wrong.
The immigration portfolio is probably unique in the degree to which the minister hold in his or her hands the lives and aspirations of individuals – real people. With a stroke of the ministerial pen, the immigration minister has the power to break the spirits and crust the souls of ordinary human beings whose only hope is the chance of a life in a new country where opportunity, not oppression, is the norm. That’s what Evans was referring to when he spoke of “playing God”.
Maybe my judgement is clouded by the fact that my husband and I went though a lengthy and stressful legal case to have his right to stay in this country confirmed (he’s a citizen now, so unlike Robert Jovicic he can never be deported, nya nya nya). Maybe it’s just because the previous three ministers for immigration, Kevin Andrews, Amanda Vanstone and Phillip Ruddock will go down in history as a trio of soulless dolts who were responsible for the worst chapter in Australian immigration policy since White Australia. Maybe it’s because I think we need a reason to continue to believe that last years change of government represented a real change and not just a change of faces, but I think Minister Evans deserves our applause.
There is a real difference between the Rudd government and the Howard government. It is not absolute – this is politics, not the garden of good an evil – but it is real. Amanda Vanstone is in Rome, forced to invite Tim Fischer to every cocktail party she hosts.Phillip Ruddock is in the deepest circle of Hell, gnawing on the skulls of his enemies (Hi Brian). Kevin Andrews is whiling away his time on the backbench, praying to Jesus the they don’t make him ambassador to Sudan.
And, after twelve long years, we finally have a living, breathing, decent human being in the immigration portfolio.
Let’s just hope he doesn’t fuck it up.
Fuel excise: how low can you go?
A Liberal backbencher has called for Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson to double his promise to cut fuel excise from five cents a litre to 10 cents, reports ABC News.
Backbencher Christopher Pearce has suggested the federal opposition should promise to cut fuel excise in a desperate bid to capitalise on public concern about petrol prices and so lift the party’s stocks.
I say that neither Nelson nor Pearce have the answer: neither of them go far enough. I am calling for a cut in the fuel excise of 171.9 cents per litre, which would make petrol free. Free, as in beer. FREE PETROL FOR ALL!
Here’s how it’s done.
First, we end all imports of foreign oil. I for one am sick to death of Australian motorists’ dollars being sent to wealthy Saudi sheiks and Venezuelan socialist crackpots. MY PLAN will keep your petrol money in Australia.
Next, we nationalise the petroleum industry. Australia’s dwindling oil reserves rightly belong to Australian working families who are doing it tough, not to multinational oil drilling companies. MY PLAN will return all remaining oil to the people of Australia to use as they see fit. It will also create lots of jobs in the newly nationalised petroleum drilling and refining agency, the Federal Reserve Energy Exploitation (FREE) Authority. That’s FREE as in PETROL.
FREE PETROL.
Now, according to the most recently published figures from APPEA (the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association), in 2007 Australia produced 119.9 million barrels of crude oil. Professor Dick Plano of Rutgers University says that each barrel of crude produces 19.5 US gallons (73.8 litres) of petrol, plus other distillates. So that would give us 8.8 billion litres of unleaded to play with per year (this amount will obviously decline as our oil reserves are exhausted, but that won’t be before the next election so let’s not worry too much about that). Selling those other distillates will pay the operational costs of the exercise, giving us FREE PETROL AT NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER.
Those 8.8 billion litres will be allocated equally to all Australian citizens – that’s roughly 440 litres of petrol for every man, woman and child, enough to fill an average family car five times. MY PLAN will provide 440 litres of clean, high octane, Australian-made unleaded for every Australian TO DO WITH AS THEY WISH.
Obviously some people will need more than that, so I will also establish a simple online market where you can sell your petrol ration to the highest bidder if you wish. That’s right, if you’re prepared to take public transport, MY PLAN provides FREE PETROL you can SELL TO RICH PEOPLE FOR WHATEVER THEY WILL PAY.
MY PLAN is a tax cut, an industry policy, an employment initiative all in one. Plus, it will improve our balance of trade and stick it up the oil barons once and for all.
VOTE FOR ME. FREE PETROL FOR EVERYONE.
Federal Govt to remove 100 discriminatory laws this year
Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland has confirmed that the federal government will go ahead with a raft of legal reforms for same-sex relationships. One hundred laws have been identified for change, including social security, taxation, health, superannuation and aged care.
The A-G has stressed that the law reforms will not change access to IVF or adoption and will not (surprise!) change the Marriage Act to enable same-sex marriage, and it’s unclear so far whether same-sex couples will gain access to the Family Court for custody and property disputes.
Nonetheless, these are exciting, sweeping and long-awaited reforms which should make gay and lesbian Australians very happy.
There had been some concern that the reforms, which had been promised by the ALP, would be shelved due to budgetary constraints, however the A-G has today confirmed that the needed funding (apparently something like $400 million) will be made available.
The first tranche of legislation is expected to be introduced in June, opening the question of whether the opposition parties will support the reforms. Brendan Nelson seems to be on board, although as usual there’s the ‘we’ll have to see the detail’ qualification. This is an important opportunity for the Liberal Party to show that it has moved on from the narrow-minded focus of the Howard years and step up to support important reforms which will remove wide-ranging discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians.
Mr McClelland will move swiftly to push through the changes, which could cost up to $400 million over four years and are expected to be written into the federal budget on May 13.
The changes will include around 100 laws identified by an audit commissioned after the Government came to power last November.
It built on a 2007 report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which identified 58 financial and work-related laws where gay couples faced discrimination.
“The changes will provide for equality of treatment under a wide range of Commonwealth laws between same-sex and opposite-sex de facto couples,” Mr McClelland will say today.
“They will make a practical difference to the everyday lives of a group of our fellow Australians who have suffered discrimination under Commonwealth laws for far too long.”
The changes will apply in tax, superannuation, social security, health, aged care, veterans’ payments, workers’ compensation and employment entitlements. (The Age)
Really, this is what passes for political discourse in this country
With so many issues to focus on (climate change, Iraq, Tibet, Brendan Nelson’s hair, etc.) it’s great to see the conservatives are giving thought to the really big issues:
Queensland Liberal Senator George Brandis has accused Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of not showing enough respect to Queen Elizabeth II.
Senator Brandis has criticised Mr Rudd for not bowing his head when he met the Queen at Windsor Castle earlier this week. (ABC)
Off with his head!
Nelson on gay rights
Brendan Nelson, to the National Press Club on 18 March:
“We believe … in relation to people, that families are the foundation of Australian society,†Nelson said. “I make no apology for saying that a man and a woman is a marriage and that forms a family.
“I don’t support gay marriage, I don’t support gay adoption and I don’t support gay IVF.
“But I sure as hell believe very strongly that no Australian should pay a dollar more in tax or receive a dollar less in social security by virtue of his or her sexuality and I will do everything I possibly can from opposition to see that those and other things are delivered.â€
Nothing new here, I know, but a couple of observations are in order:
First, Nelson’s position is that there are two kinds of discrimination — economic discrimination, which he’s against, and civil and reproductive discrimination, which he’s for. It’s a nonsense position, Brendan: either it’s OK to discriminate against queer people or it’s not. Building a house of cards of exceptions to the rule just creates more problems. Politicians should stop equivocating, stop pandering to extremists and acknowledge that human rights are an all-or-nothing proposition.
Second, “a man and a woman is a marriage”? WTF?
Victoria’s same-sex relationships register
The bill to implement a statewide relationships register passed the lower house of state parliament last night.
This is good news for GLBT people in Victoria, as it will enhance the rights of people in same-sex relationships. It’s far from perfect, however – the implementation of a separate, less-than-equal status for people same-sex relationships creates a legal and social anomaly that will have to be corrected in the future (presumably, in the distant future, by amendment of the federal Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples full access to marriage or civil unions with equal status to marriage). The bill doesn’t add any new rights to same-sex couples, and the rights of same-sex couples are much the same whether they choose to register their relationship or not.
Importantly, the bill doesn’t add any particular rights for GLBT people in relationship to parenting, custodianship, or adoption. Victoria does not allow same-sex couples to adopt children, except in the case of stepchild adoption. It won’t improve access to IVF, either. But it’s a step in the right direction.
Interestingly, the definition of ‘registrable relationship’ in the bill (i.e. the definition of who is allowed to apply for their relationship to be added to their register) specifically excludes people who are married. I wonder whether this applies to Brent and I (we were married in Canada in 2004, but of course that marriage is not legally recognised here. But we are married.)
Unsurprisingly, the debate in the state parliament last night was peppered with the usual nonsense about erosion of the institution of marriage.
“What this Bill does is to establish a structure which is a step toward equalising the notion of a same-sex relationship, in particular, with that of marriage,” he [National Party leader Peter Ryan] said. “I must say I think that anybody who does not see this legislation in that context is being naive and is kidding themselves.” (Herald Sun)
Honestly I don’t get (a) the logic of that; or (b) what difference it makes. The argument goes that marriage is somehow cheapened by allowing gay men and lesbians access to it – in other words, the strength or value of marriage is contingent on its capacity to exclude some people. This seems absurd to me. And in practical terms, I guess it has to be pointed out that in countries where same-sex couples can marry (Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain) the sky has not fallen. Different-sex couples in those countries don’t seem to have fallen into disarray (any more than is normal) since their laws were changed.
As a way forward, let me suggest this as a compromise which would make everybody (the churches, teh gays, et al) happy. Let’s redefine ‘marriage’ as something that ONLY the churches can confer, and change the existing marriage laws to refer instead to ‘civil unions’ (or ‘domestic partnerships’ or whatever). A small change in the law would say that couples can enter a civil union either by being married (in the church of their choice) or via a non-religious civil ceremony. The rights and privileges we currently ascribe to married couples would be given to anyone in a civil union, however they chose to formalise their relationship.
This arrangement would allow the religious to continue to profess that ‘marriage’ is a religious institution. Undoubtedly some enlightened churches would allow same-sex couples to marry, and good for them if they do – less progressive churches would simply refuse to recognise the religious validity of such unions (the Roman Catholic church already does this). The churches could also decide whether or not they would allow couples to divorce and in what circumstances they would do so (a plus for some conservative churches!) but of course this would not prevent the dissolution of the civil union.
It astounds me that this modest, workable proposal has not been canvassed more widely. The existence of a religious institution (marriage) as a key part of our civil law is a historical anomaly and needs correction. My plan does that. It respects the right of all religions (from the completely sex-obsessed loony right to the merely deluded left) to define for themselves what ‘marriage’ and ‘divorce’ mean. And it puts all relationships – straight, gay and miscellaneous – on an equal footing.
Doesn’t it?
CC-licensed image above: Izzy’s dream, by Liz Henry.
Technorati Tags: 2008, Australia, gay, law reform, legal rights, lesbian, marriage, politics, religion, relationships, same-sex, Victoria