the Why, the Wherefore and the Where-to

I started my political activism and interest as a Member of the Australian Democrats, then became an independent.Then I ignored politics for a long time.

I've now realised us ordinary Aussies have been asleep at the wheel, and need to examine what has been, and is, going on.
Being a centre moderate, and trying to see the merits of both sides, REALLY DOES make you the ham in the middle. Unfortunately, it doubles your enemies.


Here's an interesting article from former Democrat Leader.
We weren't "friends" but I respect her ability and views.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Julia-Gillard-politics-mining-tax-RSPT-MRRT-pd20100705-72S87?OpenDocument&src=pmm
Gillard's Senate stockade
Natasha Stott Despoja
Published 6:54 AM, 5 Jul 2010 Last update 10:11 AM, 5 Jul 2010

Quickly moving on from the resource super profits tax, Prime Minister Gillard has flagged her next agenda item – promising action on the issue of asylum seekers.
The government has to decide on the moratorium on asylum seekers from Sri Lanka and, no doubt, Gillard will take the opportunity to announce broader, presumably tougher, immigration policy.
Crafting a suitable policy stance on the seemingly intractable issues of asylum seekers and climate change – the latter being the other outstanding issue Gillard has pledged to tackle – will be a greater test of Prime Minister Gillard’s effectiveness than resolving the RSPT, now the minerals resource rent tax (MRRT).
Voters won’t be easily appeased with compromises or backdowns in these key policy areas. On immigration policy, a lurch to the right, or greater toughness, risks alienating left-leaning Labor voters and gives the Greens fodder. Any move to the left, or a seemingly ‘softer policy’, will give the opposition plenty of dog-whistling room.
No one really expects a relaxing of treatment of asylum seekers. The Prime Minister has been down this road before (as Shadow Minister for Immigration in the wake of Tampa) and is already invoking debates about “political correctness” and “censorship” in an attempt to excuse a tougher stance in the eyes of her more progressive constituents. Her disdain for third-party views will probably be the same as when Tampa was on the agenda.
Third parties won’t prevent legislative or policy change on this issue given the almost bipartisan nature of immigration policy, but when it comes to the PM’s deal on the MRRT, they just might.
There was never any doubt that the Prime Minister’s first task – if not the only one before the election – was to resolve the RSPT dispute. The acrimony between mining chiefs and the government had already claimed a Prime Ministerial scalp, was costing money and bleeding poll points to the opposition.
The apparent alacrity with which the issue was resolved shouldn’t surprise us. Whether Andrew Forrest was right in claiming that he was on the verge of a deal with Kevin Rudd, it was clear that if the issue went on much longer it would start to weaken Gillard’s premiership as well.
Speculation now surrounds the likelihood of legislation being passed. In some ways, it’s a moot point given we will probably head to the polls before Parliament returns and the government is promising a long consultation period.
But a critical issue will be the timing of legislation. Under the RSPT proposal, the government committed to a staggered approach with consultation over the next 12 months before the release of an Issues Paper and a Final Design Paper with draft legislation prior to the commencement date on 1 July 2012.
Given the Senate doesn’t change until July 1, 2011, even if the ALP wins the election, Gillard faces a Senate in which the ALP holds only 32 seats.
An ALP government might even choose to introduce the MRRT legislation earlier given potential problems with a post 2011 Greens’ controlled Senate.
Furthermore, a post-election opposition licking its wounds after a Gillard victory may well reconsider its opposition to the MRRT if the mining companies want certainty as soon as possible.
Either way, if the balance of power comes into play, cross-bench views on the tax are fluid.
For the first half of next year, Family First’s Senator Stephen Fielding will be exercising his last hold on power, given he is likely to lose the seat and his stance on the tax has been hostile.
South Australian 'No Pokies' Senator Nick Xenophon , who will be half way through his term in July 2011, has shown his willingness to negotiate constructively on most legislation (drawing a line at the government’s ETS and the private health rebate changes). His concerns revolved around smaller mines.
The Greens – with five senators and set to increase – claimed ownership of the RSPT from the get go. They have denounced the Gillard deal and will seek to hit the mining industry harder through amendments but no one expects them to vote against the tax if their amendments fail. It is little wonder Prime Minister Gillard contacted Greens’ Leader Bob Brown the weekend she became leader. If she’s a more canny and inclusive negotiator than her predecessor she will realise that the Senate is crucial in achieving her agenda.
Those Prime Ministers who have succeeded in Senate negotiations have either had astute Ministers representing them such as Gareth Evans (Native Title) and Peter Reith (Workplace Relations 1996) or have recognised that they can catch more flies with the proverbial honey than “unrepresentative swill’ taunts.
So the mining industry may have won the battle, but the Senate is used to longer wars.
When the government of the day doesn’t control both Houses negotiation and compromise are inevitable. What’s unusual about the RSPT is that it galvanised the mining sector and resulted in change before legislation was even drafted.
Nonetheless, Gillard’s so-called consensus politics bodes well for future policy outcomes as to what that means for asylum seeker and climate change policy we will soon see