ONE GREEN NATION

or

A Lunar-Fringe Howl by the Bonfire of the Main$tream $elf-Delu$ion$

or

The 'Australian Alliance for an Honest Fair Go in Politics' Public Trust Slush Fund

Preamble

Sorry about the length and lunacy of this Webdiary-outpost political cyber-novella-play-manifesto-rant, but this - throwing money at the dopy bastards - is about all that I've got left in my civic gas tank. Since Mark Davis laid down the gauntlet in challenge to the Australian public 'undergrowth' on Late Night Live the other night, call it my attempt at an 'alternative economic model' to the crappy curate's egg of a bastard one we're stuck with now, in this cake-and-eat-it moment in mercantile history. A new Australian narrative. Or a civic 'reality' cyberplay for the Third Millennium. Or just a stream of incomprehensible, self-indulgent, Lunar Fringe bile.

Whatever you want to call it, I hope at least some can wade through to the end; maybe cut my rampant ego a little slack; maybe take my personal financial challenge to Howard and Beazley/Crean as the deadly serious one it still is; maybe consider, if not the likelihood of real democratic leadership by personal example again (of the Chifley or Gorton stamp, say), then at least the puce expressions on their faces, if it ever manages to get through the underling firewalls to their main party leadership desks; and maybe try, perhaps, to make sense of what I was trying to say with it, however clumsily and ineptly and self-indulgently. I think there's a lot of voters like me out here, of whatever political stripe, who want to be good Australian Citizens, but just aren't being allowed to be so, by bad or self-interested Australian governments at all levels.

In the end, getting involved and using personal experiences to flesh out my version of the Oz story - and what I think is going wrong with Australian democracy - was the only way I could properly describe how I feel about the Pauline Hanson era; about those who loved her and those who hated her and everyone in between, which of course means all Australians; and most of all, about what has happened to this country over the course of my voting life.

Jack Robertson - Private Consumer of the common wealth of Australia
Steve Robertson - Public Citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia

* * * * * * *

Australian Alliance for an Honest Fair Go in Politics Public Trust Slush Fund - Informal Terms and Conditions

1. The Fund terms and conditions, and the core challenge to which they pertain, are to be taken in SPIRIT as well as strict letter.

2. The founding Trustee is Stephen John 'Jack' Robertson.

3. The Trustee is entitled, upon reaching the age of 62 in 2027, to a lump-sum Military Superannuation payment of approximately $110, 000, fully-indexed.

4. The Trustee will pledge this entire lump sum to either the Australian Labor Party, or the Liberal Party of Australia, or both, in the following circumstances, as relevant: if either current ALP leader Simon Crean, or current Liberal Party leader John Howard, or both, voluntarily opt themselves out of their current Parliamentary Superannuation Scheme (as entitled under 2001 legislation), and into a Representative/Citizen- equitable, commercially-available private scheme.

5. This challenge will continue to apply to any future main party leader who is currently entitled to inequitable 'old public scheme' Parliamentary Superannuation who similarly volunteers themselves into a commercial scheme.

6. This challenge is only regarded as being met if it is accepted by either or both main party leaders publicly, and announced in Parliament, via press release, and appropriate Australian Broadcasting Corporation and commercial media print and broadcast outlets.

7. Any Australian Citizen may become a self-appointed AAHFGP Fellow Trustee, simply by pledging a donation, big or small, to their nearest local main party elected representative, advising that the donation will be paid only if the core Trust challenge laid down here-in is met. (The Founding Trustee has obtained legal advice from the ordinary Australian down the road that the AEC will not require Trustees to publicly identify themselves.) Main party elected representatives can be contacted via the 'email' link in the blog-heading above.

8. No smart-arsed fine-printery. You get the drift. It's about a manifest 'fair go' for all. Being Australians, we'll all know it when we see it from a leader.

Australian Alliance for an Honest Fair Go in Politics Public Trust Slush Fund - History, Guiding Principles and Philosophies.

* * * * * * *

From: 'Danger when journalists assume they represent the high moral ground', by Jack Robertson, Webdiary, June 9, 2000:

"So, this is my cheeky little attempt to stir the possum a bit. I wonder if any of you have the guts to answer these on this site? 1. Please place on the public record the salaries and conditions for the following high profile journalists: Laurie Oakes, Michelle Grattan, Christine Wallace, Alan Ramsay, Kerry O'Brien, Margo Kingston. If you decline - and I could understand that - then please don't bother to mention Reith's phone card (or any other political rort) ever again...

Margo K: I don't know what the journos mentioned, apart from myself, get paid. I don't think you have the "right" to know what I am paid because you don't pay my salary, whereas we, as taxpayers, pay the salaries of MPs. By the way, we are often more accountable than politicians - through defamation laws (unlike pollies with their parliamentary privilege), and through our reliance on the reputation of our only asset, our bylines. Pollies of mediocre and even seedy quality can hide behind their brand name - Labor or Liberal Party - to get elected.

Let's disclose anyway: my net pay for this month is...'

* * * * * * *

From 'Public v Private: the Journos Delusion', by Jack Robertson, Webdiary, June 11, 2000:

"However, the major point you implicitly raise concerns the delineation between the public and the non-public sphere. You have illuminated a fundamental self-delusion lingering among modern journalists, a professional blind-spot which is mostly responsible for the public's growing disillusionment with your profession. And it is growing. The latest poll I saw placed journalists beneath even politicians on the credibility scale. If alarm bells aren't going off, then they should be. [Margo: My self-delusion must be chronic - my memory of that poll was that even we rated above pollies!]

Any delineation between the nominally public and non-public spheres is now a hair-splitting irrelevancy. Perhaps in strictly philosophical terms, you may have a point. Perhaps in a society in which the Public Polity still dominated most people's lives, it would be valid to cite Laurie Oakes's obligation to balance his commitment to the public with his duty to his commercial proprietor. (Incidentally, I was having a cheap crack at neither Mr Oakes nor Mr Packer. Mr Oakes's professionalism speaks for itself, and Mr Packer is a tough businessman who has at least never pretended to be anything else.)

But herein lies the very real problem that journalists cannot ignore any longer. If, as you claim, you are there on behalf of The People, then your major target for scrutiny MUST now be the private (read commercial) sphere, rather than the public one, because it is the former which affects the lives of The People far more than the latter. Sorry, but this is the natural consequence of the relentless surrender of control over our lives to the Private Sector.(Margo: Spot on. I sometimes feel I'm reporting the second rate in Canberra these days - that the talent and the ideas have moved on.) For all the noise over Reith's phone card, his stupidity/dishonesty only really matters indirectly to the average person. To give you an example: My part-time job got rationalised two weeks ago; I can assure you all that neither Mr Howard nor Mr Beasley had much to do with it happening, nor could they have stopped it (even if they'd wanted to).

Whether you like it or not, it is now the Free (sic) Market which most requires scrutiny by the Free Press, not politicians, public servants or Pauline Hansons. Yet while you all zone in on relatively trivial matters like Presidential penises and Fool's phone cards, McNikeSoft is cantering all the way to a New Improved World Order. Private issues? Public issues? Is Bill Gates a good bloke? Is Rupert a bastard? Who the hell cares? What matters is that large Corporations are increasingly powerful, increasingly unaccountable, and - most scary - increasingly uncontrollable (because they are hostage only to Market Forces ie nobody really runs them at all.). They are becoming all-consuming, and their activities need to be scrutinised relentlessly by the Press most of all. To date, you're not doing it."

* * * * * *

A. DONATING TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY 101-1: The Mainstreamist Mode.

1. "Abbott donor: I gave gladly." From The Age, 30 August 2003.

One of the donors to Tony Abbott's $100,000 fund to destroy Pauline Hanson's One Nation yesterday defended the move as "a completely legitimate and very useful exercise". Prominent business figure and former publisher Trevor Kennedy said he had no hesitation in donating $10,000 to try to stop Hanson, who was "not only a great menace to the country but a crook as well." "It took me about three seconds to make up my mind that I would support it," Mr Kennedy said. "The Hanson juggernaut was really rolling at the time and it does mystify me a little bit that many of those people who were so alarmed by her at the time now seem to want to beat up on what was a completely legitimate and very useful exercise in exposing her for what she was." While Perth businessman Harold Clough, another donor to Mr Abbott's fund, Australians For Honest Politics, has expressed concern about the three-year jail term, Mr Kennedy has no such misgivings. "She was judged and found guilty of threatening really sacred democratic principles and institutions."

Mr Abbott described the donors to the fund as an "eclectic group" who "all in their own way were outstanding Australians who were prepared to lend a hand".

2. "Cahill defends Fair Go Alliance." From ABC radio's AM, 2 September 2003.

LINDA MOTTRAM: One of the figures behind the Fair Go Alliance is John Cahill, the Acting Secretary of the New South Wales Union the Public Service Association. He says that the Fair Go Alliance is made up of unions from his state including the Teachers' Federation and health sector unions. They meet before each Federal and State election, pool funds and spend them on promoting issues to do with the public service. Mr Cahill says that there was a failure to disclose, that it was an oversight, and that it will be corrected within days. Our Chief Political Correspondent, Catherine McGrath, spoke to Mr Cahill.

JOHN CAHILL: The first thing, it's never been secret. In fact, one of...or two of the things we've done over the years are radio advertisements and leafleting, all with the name of the Fair Go Alliance on them. So how that's a secret I don't know.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: What donations? You gave some donations in some seats to particular candidates?

JOHN CAHILL: Oh, yes. That's one of the things we do as well.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: But you didn't declare it?

JOHN CAHILL: As I understand it, the Labor Council of New South Wales is the organisation who puts the return in. I've been told that a standard reminder came in just last week from the election funding authority to say that the return hadn't been received. That letter was given prompt attention, and that return I'm told will be going in the next few days.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: So Eric Abetz is right when he says that there was no return filed with the Australian Electoral Commission?

JOHN CAHILL: Well, he's right. But it's just an oversight. And see, what he's trying to do, he's trying to use this as a ruse to deflect attention from Tony Abbott's current problems. In many ways, it's a shame it didn't go in beforehand because once people have a look at this they'll realise this is just a complete beat up by Senator Abetz and the Liberals to try and deflect attention from Tony Abbott and the Liberals.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: However, you would agree that this is a requirement, it should have been done. Why wasn't it done?

JOHN CAHILL: Well, as I say, it was just an oversight.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: Now, Eric Abetz also says that Simon Crean, the Opposition Leader, and Jenny George, the Labor backbencher, should come clean about their involvement in the Fair Go Alliance. Do they have any involvement?

JOHN CAHILL: Well, no, they have none. I doubt if they've ever even heard of it. It's a New South Wales thing, it's a thing that New South Wales unions have put together.

CATHERINE MCGRATH: But you agree that this does leave yourself open to the same sort of criticism that Tony Abbott has received in the last week or two because the same sort of issues apply?

JOHN CAHILL: Well, I'd invite everyone to have a look at the return when it goes in, when the see how the money's been spent and where it's been spent, I think people will then understand that this has nothing to do with what Mr Abetz's saying, it has nothing to do with running court cases against political parties or anything of that nature that Tony Abbott's been involved in, and he's only put this press release out and raised this issue to try and deflect attention from the Liberals...the Liberal Party's problems with Pauline Hanson.

LINDA MOTTRAM: John Cahill is the Acting Secretary of the Public Service Association in New South Wales. He was speaking to Catherine McGrath.

3. "No deals in donations, leaders say." From The Age, 18 August 2003.

Corporate donors who gave to the Liberal and Labor parties were wasting their money if they thought it would buy them special privileges, Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Simon Crean each said yesterday. Last year, the parties shared more than $100 million in donations and public funding. But Mr Crean said companies donated money to Labor to keep democracy alive. "Many of them do it because they believe that there should be strong oppositions in a vibrant democracy," he said on the ABC's Insiders. Mr Howard yesterday denied again that ethanol magnate Dick Honan had received special treatment.

B. DONATING TO DEFEND DEMOCRACY 101-2: The Fringe-Dweller Mode.

From: A Citizen
To: All Australian Senators and MPs, Parliamentary Press Gallery
Date: 24 July 2001
Subject: A Challenge to our Political Leaders

Dear Elected Representatives,

Attached please find a challenge to Mr Howard and Mr Beazley. With thanks for your time.

A CHALLENGE TO OUR POLITICAL LEADERS

Dear Mr Howard and Mr Beazley,

Like many Australians, I regard the current state of politics with considerable frustration and despair. With both your political groups apparently intent on tackling the upcoming election campaign with the usual mix of muck-slinging and dissembling, I am finding it increasingly difficult to justify a personal Civic Investment in the future of Australia. I understand the conflicting pressures you are under, and the compromises politicians must make, yet I believe that ultimately, the vibrancy of democracy depends mostly on personal leadership by example. This is especially so right now, in a political climate in which all party groups seem captive to the same dreary, economics-driven agenda. I, for one, don't want any part in creating a future for our kids in which the Almighty Dollar is the only surviving 'god'.

To that end, I issue the following challenge. I understand that Peter Andren, MP, has been developing a member's bill that would radically reform your Superannuation arrangements, in particular offering politicians the choice of voluntarily 'opting out' of the more generous (and inequitable) entitlements. As an ex-military officer, I am also entitled to a (largely tax-payer-funded) Super sum, worth about $110,000 - fully-indexed, but locked up until I'm 62.

In the interests of demonstrating by example that none of us are automatically beholden to the so-called 'forces' of economic self-interest, I challenge either of you to throw your personal weight very publicly behind Mr Andren's proposal (and not any 'watered-down' version, either). I promise to donate my lump sum to the party of whichever of you does. It won't be until 2027 - unless you change the rules so I can get at it earlier (like you guys) - but if there is still at least one real democratic party in existence then to accept it, it will be well worth it.

We've got to give our kids something more than easy words to believe in. And the only way to do that is for all us grown-ups to start putting our bloody money where our loud mouths are, in my opinion. Come on, you guys - knock some bloody Oz perspective back into us all.

For your consideration, anyway.

A Citizen

From: Senator Mainstream One
To: A Citizen
Date: 24 July 2001
Subject: A Challenge to our Political Leaders

Dear Sir/Madam,

Regardless of the merit of your cause, I regret that I am unable to assist in any anonymous proposal. Thank you for your interest in my opinion.

Senator Mainstream One

From: Jack Robertson
To: Senator Mainstream One
Date: 24 July 2001
Subject: A Challenge to our Political Leaders

Dear Senator,

Yes, I acknowledge your point about anonymity, Senator. Please excuse my poor manners in the initial approach. My name is Stephen John 'Jack' Robertson. My address is KK Basket-Weaver Street, Balmain, 2041. My phone/fax number is KKKKK and my email address is KKKKK. My military superannuation reference number is (COMSUPER) KKKKKKK. I would naturally be grateful if you were to treat this information with discretion.

Senator, thank you so much for doing me the courtesy of at least replying to my no doubt slightly odd email! I wish you all success in your future public career. And my challenge stands, Senator. I would be most grateful if you would urge any of our publicly-elected mainstream leaders to take it up! My very warmest regards,

Jack Robertson

From: Senator Mainstream Two
To: A Citizen
Date: 24 July 2001
Subject: A Challenge to our Political Leaders

Dear Citizen,

Thanks for your letter - Senator Mainstream Two is currently away on the business of the Senate Public Works Committee in Qld, but when he returns, I'll bring this to his attention.

An interesting offer! Regards,

Senator Mainstream Two

From: Jack Robertson
To: Senator Mainstream Two
Date: 24 July 2001
Subject: A Challenge to our Political Leaders

Dear Senator,

Thanks for the reply, mate. Much appreciated if you could pass my thing on to your boss. Keep fighting the good 'public polity rules' fight, mate!

Jack Robertson

From: Senator Fringe One
To: A Citizen
Date: 24 July 2001
Subject: A Challenge to our Political Leaders

Dear Citizen,

Thank you for your email. The Fringes have long-advocated the reform of politicians superannuation, and its bringing into line with community standards. We have faced consistent opposition from the old parties, despite rhetoric about their commitment to this issue. Senator Fringe Three, the Fringe Spokesperson on this matter, will be able to provide you with more information about our position. Yours sincerely,

Senator Fringe One

From: Jack Robertson
To: Senator Fringe One
Date: 25 July 2001
Subject: A Challenge to our Political Leaders

Dear Senator,

Thanks heaps for replying. I know that you are flat-out just now, and it's terrific that you'd take the time to do so, especially since my email was 'anonymous'. (Senator Mainstream One twigged me to the essential wussiness of this, yesterday.) Haven't heard anything from the Beazer or Howard yet, although those guys are busy, too, no doubt. My challenge to them may seem a bit odd, but I'm deadly serious about it. I urge you to urge them to the max to respond positively to it. (Not just keep the bastards honest - INSPIRE them to better things!)

Senator, thanks again for your reply. I love the way you and Senator Fringe Two are trying to kick some life back into politics. Keep it up! Best regards,

Jack Robertson

From: Senator Fringe Four
To: A Citizen
Date: 25 July 2001
Subject: A Challenge to our Political Leaders

Dear Citizen,

Thank you for your e-mail. Senator Fringe Four is out of the office for a few days but upon her return I shall bring your challenge to her notice. Yours sincerely,

Senator Fringe Four

From: Jack Robertson
To: Senator Fringe Four
Date: 25 July 2001
Subject: A Challenge to our Political Leaders

Dear Senator,

Thanks for the reply. I'm most grateful. I apologise for the 'anonymous' nature of my initial email - it was a bit rude to do it that way, I see in retrospect. I can assure you my challenge is genuine! My best regards. (And keep keeping the buggers honest!)

Jack Robertson

* * * * * * *

Reprised History as Illuminating Hysterical Farce. Part I: The bitter, failed artist tinkers with a catchy Big Idea.

It's been a long time coming, but the self-serving mainstream self-delusions about the Howard-Hanson era are finally going up in smoke. Since 'The Third Way' is taken, let's call the as-usual-fatal ideological affliction 'Mainstreamism'. 'Howardism' won't quite do, since the ALP has been such a carbon-copy of JWH's Libs over the last seven years that both main parties are deeply implicated in where our democracy now teeters. Perhaps 'mirror image' is the better phrase; right down to the sickly-ironic 'Arbeit Macht Frei' style of self-deluding linguistic smugness. 'Australians For Honest Politics' and the 'Fair Go Alliance' are perfectly-matching twins; a supremely-apt symbiotic metaphor for what the Liberal and ALP democratic duopoly has now become: a self-mocking double-act, bad ironic jokes on themselves, and each other, and on us.

And so now it is all falling apart. With the gentlest last-laugh nudge from One Nation, the polite fiction that is Mainstreamism, that bipartisan revolving door which we voters have suffered at both state and federal levels for nearly two decades, in place of genuine democratic representation and choice, is starting to tear itself to bits. As 'relaxed and comfortable' delusion after 'relaxed and comfortable' delusion falls away, we're beginning to see what Mainstreamism as a political strategy - to call it a 'movement' or a 'philosophy' would be to dignify it with a wholly unearned coherence and consistency - really is: a haphazard, radical-populist-by-default, and quite literally reactionary approach to the Democratic Franchise. A lazy abnegation of civic engagement by the political 'professionals', one which, over the course of its post-Keating manifestations, has markedly intensified until now, post-Tampa/9-11, we all blink, and find that it has wrenched the entire Australian political centre alarmingly to an unsustainable fringe. A fringe which is, however, not of either 'left' or of 'right' but, like all populist reactionary movements, situated on the movable 'fringe' of the personality cult. Australia is not governed by the Liberal Party, but by 'John Howard'. NSW is not governed by the ALP, but by 'Bob Carr'. Victoria is run by 'Bracksy', Queensland by 'Pete', and even the NT has its Mainstreamist cult now; theirs is known as 'Claire Martin the Decent and Sensible'.

Locating Mainstreamism's proper place within the traditional Australian political spectrum is thus meaningless, for all Mainstreamist governments are nothing more than strategically-rudderless, constantly-moving exercises in political reaction and re-reaction, stewarded by whoever happens to be the most capable political cult-survivalist of the moment. Howard and Carr are inherently interchangeable; their governing realms both defined by and self-contained within their own Mainstreamist personas, thus rendering their (wholly redundant) respective main parties temporarily 'universal', superficially almost 'all-', yet increasingly almost 'none-', -encompassing. It doesn't really matter what their brand name parties actually do now in a policy sense, for beyond the quaintly-nostalgic trimmings, both parties are ideologically Mainstreamist, and as such carry the politely-fictional Mainstreamist 'voting mainstream' wherever they go. Providing, that is, they can keep the real voting mainstream adequately, apathetically disengaged from what is really going on, with opinion poll and spin and marketing deceits, and with the evermore haphazard political breads and circuses of 'economic growth figures' and diverting 'scandals'. Which as the recent surge in generalised sympathy for Hanson - even (or perhaps especially) among those who disagreed fervently with her policies - demonstrates quite clearly, they are finding it increasingly hard to do.

Here lies the fatal danger for the Mainstreamist: sooner or later, the REAL mainstream public begins to see through the Mainstreamism ideological Big Lies, and break away in disgust towards the nearest palatable 'fringe'. One Nation, Greens, Independents; or even NGOs, community groups, international democratising movements. Anything but the business-as-usual Mainstreamist ideologues, disgusted and permanent rejection of whom subsumes more and more hitherto Mainstreamist-voting Citizens, with each passing Mainstreamist behavioural scandal, big and small. Not even the safety nets of compulsory voting, of main party preference catchment, the 'centrist momentum' of Australian political history or the soothing balm of Mainstreamism's media opinion-setters, can prevent the accelerating seeping away of Mainstreamism's core vote. Not even the Mainstreamist press indeed; no matter how they go on feverishly championing Mainstreamism's 'fundamental respectability', as they are once again over Hanson: witness most commentators' exasperated attempts to dismiss the Abbott affair as just another hysterical beat-up. Beat-up or not, this received wisdom of Mainstreamist respectability will not stick for much longer, because increasingly, the wider public is recognising that the maintenance of the little Big Lie of Mainstreamism, as a pseudo-political ideology, requires not just evermore obfuscating dexterity from politicians, but from its media and corporate 'accidental champions' as well. And so now we are refusing to listen to them, too, as we realise - or think we do - that they are becoming enemies of decent civic life as damaging and demoralising as the basest of formally-elected Mainstreamists.

Mainstreamism? What fresh Green Pen hell is this? Am I being typically fringe-ish and conspiratorial? Well, let's focus on John Howard's version of Mainstreamist Ideology to amplify what I mean by it (although pro-Howard Webdiarists can substitute Carr, and you'll see that the analysis of this latest dangerous Ideology runs very much the same. The same as that of all other Ideologies, in fact, when closely and honestly dissected. Mainstreamism, like Communism and Fascism, is a Theoretical Ideology which, once Applied, retains no theoretical ideological coherence at all. It is, like all the others, nothing but an excuse for political power-retention, if one with (thus far) rather more benign social ramifications.

So to Howardism's sub-species of Applied Mainstreamism: now embracing waterfront microeconomic reform (to enable some Theoretical Mainstreamist union-busting); now embracing ethanol import protection (to rake in some necessary Applied Mainstreamist funding). Now crying crocodile tears for Saddam's oppressed (Theory); now setting the SAS onto Saddam's boat-borne oppressed (Applied). Now sneering at the UN as an unrepresentative internationalist-elitist club of lazy cowards, braying 'leave it to us willing Aussies to save Iraq' (Mainstreamism as the grandiloquent Big Idea); now demanding greater UN involvement, and whining 'don't ask for more unwilling Aussies to save Iraq' (Mainstreamism as the awkward Pragmatic Reality). Now sneering at the 'University elites' for their disconnection with the battlers; now applauding the 'University elites' for their brilliant new economic theories. Mainstreamism is perfect for an instinctive political survivalist like John Howard, because Mainstreamism can stand for anything John Howard needs to politically survive. Anything and everything. Alice-In-Mainstreamland. L'Etat, c'est moi. Or Carr. Or Bracks. Or Tony Blair. Or even George W. Bush, in compassionate conservative mode.

Anyone media-presentable, with a nice line in relaxed and comfortable, numbing rhetoric.

Mainstreamism's primary tactical weapon, as with all populist-reactionary ideological arsenals, is the perpetual political chip perched large and weighty, yet securely, on the ever-sharpened, battle-ready, permanently-dropped shoulder. The Art of Mainstreamism is the art of 'strawman origami'; of the delicately wielded off-set electoral wedge; of pre-emptively universalising its own opportunistically-embraced and temporary imperatives, thus automatically consigning any would-be political opponents to a convenient, albeit wholly-contrived, 'fringe'. If Mainstreamist power-retention temporarily requires a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, then anyone who opposes it becomes a Chamberlainesque Saddam-appeaser who clearly supports the torture-by-shredder of innocent Iraqis. If Mainstreamist power-retention temporarily requires Iraqi refugees be vilified and brutalised, on the other hand, then that very same opponent becomes, in an instantaneous, Mainstreamist inversion of the little Big Lie of the last moment, a Western self-blamer and appeaser who would have these Iraqi boat-terrorists breach our borders willy-nilly, the better to rape our women at their queue-jumping leisure. Applying Mainstreamism, a handful of awful pack rapes can become an ethnically-illuminating crime wave; a gentle save-the-local-park protest group can become the ratbag professional fringe; a bushfire can become the 'fault' of the Lunatic Green Fascists, with their lunatic 'fringe' agendas and self-hatreds. Mainstreamism isn't content to say: 'I disagree with your analysis of Tasmanian history, Henry Reynolds...', and then engage in fruitful debate to arrive at the true middle ground. Rather, Mainstreamism must end all real debate even as it pretends to start each 'new' one, by aggressively adding to its opening remarks: '...because all you do-gooder University elitist bleeding-hearts are bitter, politically-biased pack reputation-shredders who've always hated me and (other) decent ordinary Australians, and what's more, you're poisoning our childrens' minds, and thus must be destroyed to save our very way of life!'

Applied Mainstreamism can allow no compromise middle ground in the useful sense, because Applied Mainstreamism is itself 'pre-emptively consensual'; must itself occupy a faked 'all-inclusive middle ground' (read: one painless for Mainstreamists); the 'Third Way', the 'yin-and-yang-in-one' with all the 'non-fringe' (the reasonable, the unconspiratorial, the commonsensical, the 'ordinary Australian') answers at its fingertips alone. Mainstreamism: a single, triumphant, (viciously-stubborn, chip-on-the-shoulder), post-historical, 'non-ideological' ideology, necessarily incapable of genuine debate and self-reflection, much less profound self-doubt, for to reflect or admit doubt might be to explicitly concede that the Mainstreamist power-wielder of the moment is still just one component of the democratically self-balancing whole, which in turn explicitly presupposes an eventual loss of power, and since retaining power is Mainstreamism's sole defining raison d'etre, this simply will not do.

Understand this: Applied Mainstreamism can never be plain wrong, but only in slight and thus easily self-correctable 'misjudgement'. Mainstreamism can never be caught telling a 'rank lie', merely a 'possibly misleading statement'. Mainstreamism cannot be guilty of 'grotesque corporate selfishness and greed', but only of 'perhaps excessive Board generosity', or 'Market share-price bonus serendipity'. And Mainstreamism can NEVER do anything seriously dishonest, or immoral, or thuggish, or criminal, or democratically beyond the pale, for Mainstreamism's first and most magnificent ideological hat trick of self-protection and self-perpetuation is this: to convince you and I and the ordinary Australian down the street that Mainstreamism is both all OUR doing, and exactly what WE asked for.

Tony Abbott caught red-handed telling a gross lie? Au contraire! It's just 'economy with the truth', or 'misleading', or 'spin', simply what 'we' expect and accept and thus tacitly 'approve' when it comes to the politics of Applied Mainstreamism. Isn't it? John Howard caught red-handed doing political favours for rich ethanol protectionists, and then lying about it in Parliament? Well, don't blame John or Dick Honen - it's the way 'we' like, or at least tolerate, our Mainstreamist Democracy. Laurie Oakes grubbily publishes Cheryl Kernot's private emails? Paul Kelly sneers (with sophisticated glibness masquerading as analytical depth and weight) at the Abbott hubbub as a 'beat-up', soothingly explaining away his ABC lies as a justified part of Tony's 'Flawed Crusade for Good'? Blame the Australian public if you think Oakes and Kelly are in fact being every bit as grubby and dishonest with us as those upon whom they report, for their brand of Mainstreamist journalism is simply part of the Mainstreamist 'value system' WE tolerate and thus must desire, after all. Isn't it?

And so Mainstreamist politicians, journalists and money-backers are sitting pretty: no matter how base, gross, immoral, incompetent, dishonest, disingenuous or self-serving their Mainstreamist Party personal behaviour becomes, it's always, always, always what the Mainstreamist Voter deserves. Mandated. Accepted. Democratically bullet-proofed, main party ballot and opinion-poll ratified every single time (whichever partisan Mainstreamist is on top, in any given moment or electoral sphere). For Mainstreamism ever to be truly exposed as the deeply self-serving and dishonest anti-democratic street hustle that it is would require you and me and that ordinary Australian down the street to grow angry and disgusted enough to put a hot, ruthless torch explicitly to our own Mainstreamist self-delusions first. And right in their collective Mainstreamist faces, so that even the most self-deluding, self-absolving, wryly-ironic and cynical among them simply couldn't pretend any more that we like and accept what it is that they are doing to our national civic life.

This is important for us all to recognise, for the most critical element underpinning Applied Mainstreamism's tenacious ideological durability is this: whether politician, jobbing journalist, lofty pundit, financial backer, envelope-stuffer, backroom hack, front podium spinner, politicised public servant, elder statesman, think tank policy producer, lapel fluff-plucker or late night driver: they are all in it together. No matter what the partisan divisions, the petty personal feuds and hatreds, the point-scoring and game-playing and knifing, the last thing any Mainstreamist wants to remotely contemplate is that perhaps - just perhaps - it is THEY, and not those they deride as 'loony conspiracists', who live and work within an irrational Mainstreamist Inner Party bubble of self-delusion and self-absolution, way in there on some disconnected, undemocratic Lunar-Mainstream fringe.

Call it 'Canberra'. Call it 'Spring and Sussex Street'. Call it Spinland, or Polly-and-Pundit Paradise, or the Melbourne Club saloon bar, or whatever. It's a place where it's 'mainstream' to lie and cheat and backstab and nest-feather. Where you get to choose whether the simple truth is 'Public Truth', or just 'truth', or 'on' or 'off' the record, or 'misleading', or 'arguable', or 'spinnable', or 'debatable', or useful, or utterly, laughably irrelevant. And yet, when a Tony Abbott can re-affirm his ancient blatant lies publicly - 'absolutely not, absolutely not, absolutely not; and no, I wasn't telling a lie then, Father...' - and be re-sanctified by his fellow Mainstreamist politicians and pundits almost immediately, then who, really - in this epistemologically-anarchic post-modern paradigm of ours - is living on the Human fringe, and who, really, remains part of Humanity's mainstream?

But thus does Applied Mainstreamism march on backwards into the future, keeping to the Opinion Poll cadence, democratic head down, civic eyes blinkered to its own exposed absurdities, often changing direction but never pausing to look around before doing so, much less backtracking to concede already-passed territory to anyone who might want to go in an even slightly different direction. Mainstreamism; the paradoxical democratic art of leading backwards from the rear, even while never once looking ahead to see where you've taken everyone yesterday, nor behind to see where you're taking them tomorrow.

Applied Mainstreamism: now urging Australia to draw credit and inspiration from our national past (to allow Mainstreamism to dress itself in khaki); now urging Australians not to closely examine that same past (such that Mainstreamism may shed the pesky black armband). Now embracing ANZUS with an unprecedented, UN-busting gusto (to allow Mainstreamism to stand before the cheering Yankee Stadium crowd in its suit of steel); now abandoning ANZUS by refusing to send more peace-keepers to Iraq when America truly needs us (for Mainstreamism as a leadership philosophy has neither the strength nor the depth to ward off the electoral pain of mounting casualties in a faraway war).

Mainstreamism has no place for a Curtin or a Menzies, much less a Churchill or a Rooseveldt.

Now? Applied Mainstreamism would have us believe that it respects Westminster debate like no other political movement before it. Now? Applied Mainstreamism will shut down Question Time, sneer at the Senate, lie onto-the-Hansard-Record without blushing, and swivel its back on an Opposition Leader attempting to debate an invasion, in rankest contempt. Now? Mainstreamism claims to represent 'the forgotten Battler out in the suburbs'. Now? Mainstreamism, unlike every sorely-tempted national leader since Canberra was built, decides to live fulltime in the big flash 'battler' house on faraway Sydney Harbour's edge rather than in the drab national capital (where a 'wartime' PM and his wife surely belong?), and furnish it with empty 'battler' Grange bottles and free 'battler' plasma TVs, what's more. Now, Mainstreamism 'profoundly believes with utmost conviction' in the separation of religious faith and secular politics (for we must not have pesky Micks like His Holiness The Pope criticising us over invasions and refugees); now, Mainstreamism 'profoundly believes with utmost conviction' in conscience debates on medical legislation, in faith-shaped policy on gay marriage and adoption and in-vitro procedures, in Governors-General who are clerics or whose first public speech is to urge 'traditional religious values' back into our secular schools. Applied Mainstreamism wears its AI badge proudly on its lapel even as it throws tax money at the IPA as a proxy-AI nobbler, and goes to court to ensure that innocent children remain behind razor-wire, simply to defend an 'intellectual principle'.

And on Pauline Hanson?

Now! Applied Mainstreamism believes that it is good that Pauline Hanson feels she has 'permission' to air her socially-divisive views widely in public, and that it is not helpful to take on those views unambiguously in public. And now! Applied Mainstreamism believes that it is good that Tony Abbott worked to prevent her from receiving public funding to help her air her socially-divisive views widely; and now! Mainstreamism applauds itself for in fact taking on those views unambiguously all along; and now! Mainstreamism points out that Pauline was breaking the laws of our electoral system and had to be stopped, although now! Mainstreamism itself doesn't necessarily believe those laws are right (although then again now! Mainstreamism is not suggesting they be changed, either); and now! Mainstreamism implies that Pauline has copped an unfair sentence for an 'alleged' crime (although then again now! Mainstreamism is not questioning either the conviction or the sentence, since Mainstreamism didn't sit through the trial itself, but then again, now! Mainstreamism sympathises with others who didn't sit through the trial either but who might question the law, the verdict and the sentence, although then again, now! Mainstreamism is not suggesting any impropriety on the part of the Queensland legal system, although then again, now! Mainstreamism does sympathise with those who argue that Peter Beattie has conducted a witch-hunt and that Pauline is a political prisoner, although then again, now! Mainstreamism, in the end, doesn't have a f**king clue what it wants us to think it really means when it comes to One Nation, except to think this: trust in Mainstreamism. Believe with all your relaxed and comfortable conviction that whatever Mainstreamism says, at any given time on any given issue, big or small, via any public medium, to any specific audience or laser-targeted electoral constituency...

...Mainstreamism really, really, really, truly means it. And what is 'it'? Well, no more and no less than whatever Mainstreamism says 'it' is. Now. And now. And now.

Applied Mainstreamism is Free Market Theory for you and me, but dinosaur protection for Mainstreamism's rich friends, dinosaur bail-outs for Mainstreamism's clottish and Free Market-inept brothers, and dinosaur public taxes to pay out unemployed Ansett workers who might otherwise angrily vote against Mainstreamism one day, in their unrelaxed and uncomfortable bewilderment than a mainstream national icon could just disappear, even in the midst of an alleged Mainstreamist boom time. Applied Mainstreamism is a bushwalking Premier who relentlessly sells off harbourside parks to powerful Mainstreamist developers. It's issuing a pain-free, grandiloquent press release on saving the Murray while tearing up the Kyoto protocol. It's 'whatever it takes' (except silly 'fringe' honesty and integrity and true democratic responsiveness). Applied Mainstreamism is a self-proclaimed Gough-worshipper who simultaneously supports mandatory detention of asylum-applicants; a self-proclaimed intellectual Premier who cracks the Laura Norder whip better than Joh. A self-proclaimed 'lefty' millionaire advertising executive who only now, snug in his lush dotage, describes advertising as corporate pedophilia. A self-proclaimed 'progressive' multinational-bashing author who publishes with HarperCollins. A self-proclaimed Battlers' Broadcaster who lives in a million-dollar wharf condo, an elitist-despising People's Columnist who lives in Paddington and drives a BMW. Applied Mainstreamism is whatever the hell you yourself happen to be, so long as you're rich, powerful and persuasive enough to weave a plausible, polite public fiction on your own behalf. Or have Mainstreamist friends to do it for you.

Applied Mainstreamism is a single trumpeted visit to Cape York while castrating Wik and undermining ATSIC by leaking stories to the Murdoch press. It's supporting a Westminster Parliamentary Monarchy while governing as a Republican Caesar-President. It's taxpayer subsidy of 'private' school parents while 'public' school parents are asked by their kids' principal to fork out an extra 'private' $1000, just so their kids can work on up-to-date 'public' computers like the 'private' kids, too. It's taxpayer subsidy for 'private' health service users to enable their fast-track 'private' use of 'public' health service assets, while 'public' health service users surrender their 'public' bulk-billing GP to help pay for the 'public' privilege of joining that now-longer 'public' queue. It's taxpayer subsidy of 'private' golf course rents while 'public' golf course leases get sold off for next to nothing to 'private' developer-speculators, who then make outrageous 'private' profits while paying half as much 'public' tax on their capital gains as they once did. Mainstreamism is a grassy-green University quadrangle for 'foreign, aspiring, economic-opportunist queue jumpers' who can afford to fly in on QANTAS, and a desert square surrounded by razor-wire for 'foreign, aspiring, economic-opportunist queue-jumpers' who have to catch a leaky boat to get here.

Applied Mainstreamism is not 'racist', or 'sexist', or 'age-ist', or 'sectarian'. It's simply 'economics-ist'. Applied Mainstreamism is in fact completely - bawdily, shamelessly, lasciviously, lustily - bereft of any bigotry except the most excluding and insurmountable bigotry of them all, the bigotry of the bank balance. Applied Mainstreamism is there for absolutely anyone, but only anyone, who can afford to pay. Applied Mainstreamism: a democratic prostitute par excellence, an Australian Civic slut of sluts, a rampant representative rent boy happy to party on with any old chancer who happens to have 'enough' cash, which always simply means 'much more than the vast majority of Citizens possess', no matter how collectively-prosperous the nation may become.

Applied Mainstreamism is 'a level playing field' for your kids and mine, but a 'quiet leg-up' for young Michael Tuckey, for Peter Reith's chatty son, for Frank Crean's politically-talentless sprog, for Richo's thick mate Leo and Johnny's smug mate Malcolm, for the otherwise-unemployable friend of a friend of a Mainstreamist bloke who used to work for another Mainstreamist bloke. It's hard yards in the Open Market for your son, and a dream run for Mainstreamism's daughter, whenever she just happens to be looking for a nice cheap place in the city to park or live or get engaged, in this dog-eat-dog Open Market world. Applied Mainstreamism is an equal opportunity for every lucky shooter, but an extra-extra-equal shot for Mainstreamism's chosen ones. It's 'Honest Politics', except when honesty hurts a Mainstreamist, and a 'Fair Go' for all unless that sort of 'fair go' makes a Mainstreamist's share of the 'fair go' not quite fair enough for his own unfair taste. It's playing strictly by the black law rules and embracing truth and integrity in public life, except when it's a Mainstreamist who turns out to be a crook, like Colston, or a Mainstreamist who turns out to be a grub, like Tuckey.

Applied Mainstreamism is reconciliation (without meeting any non-Mainstreamist half-way), national unity (so long as we're unified tightly around Mainstreamism), Advance Australia Fair (so long as we rigidly follow the Mainstreamist lead). It's relaxed, and it's comfortable, and it's oh-so-nicely ordinary, but only for as long as we can all keep our eyes tightly shut to the unedifying realities that await us all, once the last of Mainstreamism's Glorious Leaders of the Epoch - Hawkey, Keats, Honest John, Bob the Intellectual, Bracksy the Good Bloke, Beattie the Larrikan - have departed the field of Mainstreamism's society-changing triumph.

About which time we will see (as we are starting to see now) that the superficial clothing of Mainstreamism - the lying 'Third Way' - is finally falling to pieces. It's all going up in smoke. Like all grandiloquent Ideological Big Lies, it was just peachy in Theory, but when it was actually Applied, individual human greed and self-interest and weakness and self-delusion kicked right on in, and so it has turned out to be just another rotten economic fraud on our decent, civic, and once more-or-less egalitarian society.

* * * * * * *

A. THE LAST TABOO: QUESTIONS FROM THE FRINGE.

From: Jack Robertson, KK Basket-Weaver Street, BALMAIN, 2041
To: See Distribution List (all hard copy only)
Date: 23 February 2001
Subject: Request for Information

Dear Senior Corporate Executives,

In these uncertain political and economic times, I write to you respectfully seeking reassurance that the pure 'Free' Market principles by which your professional and personal lives have been enriched so handsomely over the last two decades are principles underwritten by intellectual integrity and honesty. Having recently seen my job 'rationalised' as a result of 'Free Market Forces', I am particularly keen to confirm that these mysterious 'beasts' apply themselves consistently, right down and up the employment spectrum.

To that end, please provide me with details of the current remuneration packages you each enjoy, including salaries, bonus schemes, share options and - most importantly - all the ruthless penalty clauses that are invoked in the event of your company performing poorly in the 'Free' Market. As an example, QANTAS half-year profits recently dipped by 22 percent; I can only presume that Mr Mainstreamist's salary has dropped by a commensurate margin. (My salary 'package' would plummet if my output 'performance parameter' fell by that much! In fact, my job would probably get rationalised right away by 'Market Forces'!)

I look forward to learning that when it comes to the 'Free' Market, we are 'all in this together'. I would certainly be devastated to discover that your passionate advocacy of pure Market mechanisms over all these years applied only to my job, and not to yours, too! (A bloke might start to think that it was all just a one-way, self-serving Big Lie!)

Jack Robertson

Distribution List: Advocates of a 'Free' Market (Please provide, via fax or email, the information requested)

Mr Mainstreamist: 'Free' Market advocate and Chief Executive Officer, National Australia Bank. Annual package: $ , , , .00 Market-based penalty clause:

[And etcetera, for] Managing Director, Rio Tinto Limited; Managing Director, QANTAS Airways Limited; Chairman and Chief Executive, News Limited; Managing Director and CEO, Commonwealth Bank of Australia; Managing Director, Westpac Banking Corporation; Group Chief Executive, Cadbury Schweppes Australia Limited; Managing Director, Carlton and United Breweries Limited; Executive Director, Access Economics; President, Alcoa World Alumina Australia; Chairman and Managing Director, Esso Australia Limited; Chief Executive Officer, AAMI Limited; Managing Director and CEO, ANZ Banking Group Australia; Executive Chairman, ANSETT Australia Holdings Limited; Chairman, AMP Limited; Executive GM and CEO, BHP Petroleum Australia; Investment Banker; Joint CEO, Consolidated Press Holdings Limited; Investment Consultant.

[Courtesy copy only recipients]The Honourable John Howard, MP; Mr Kim Beazley, MP;The Honourable John Anderson, MP; Senator Meg Lees; The Honourable Peter Costello, MP; Ms Cheryl Kernot, MP; The Honourable Bob Carr, MLA (NSW Premier and Minister for Citizenship); [plus a nutty Green Pen selection of editors, journalists, commentators, academics, talkback hosts and sundry Oz opinion leaders]

B. PRIVACY-IN-CONFIDENCE: ANSWERS FROM THE MAINSTREAM.

From: Mr Mainstream One
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 5 March 2001
Subject: Your letter

Dear Mr Robertson,

I reply to your letter of 23 February in which you requested information regarding Mr Mainstream One. I advise that Mr Mainstream One no longer works for Mainstreamism Australia Limited, and therefore cannot provide the information you requested. Yours faithfully,

Mr Mainstream One
Human Resources Director

From: Jack Robertson
To: Mr Mainstream One
Date: 6 March 2001
Subject: Your advice

Dear Mr Mainstream One,

My apologies for getting my facts wrong. Thanks for the advice. Incidentally, I note that you are the Mainstreamism Australia Limited 'Human Resources Manager'. What exactly is a 'Human Resource'? Yours sincerely,

Jack Robertson

From: Ms Mainstream Two
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 2 March 2001
Subject: Executive Remuneration

Dear Mr Robertson,

Request for information per your letter received 27 February 2001. We publish information on Mainstreamism Group's remuneration in our Annual Report. This can be accessed via our website or if you would like me to send you an Annual Report please let me know your address. I tried sending you a fax but perhaps you have omitted the STD code as here in Melbourne the number is not a fax machine. Regards.

Ms Mainstream Two
Mainstreamism Group

From: Jack Robertson
To: Ms Mainstream Two
Date: 2 March 2001
Subject: My thanks

Dear Ms Mainstream Two,

My thanks for responding to my request, and for attempting to fax me the relevant information. I will go to the website you recommend. I hope that you made some sense of the intellectual point that lay behind my request, which no doubt seemed presumptuous on the surface. Thanks again.

Yours sincerely,

Jack Robertson

From: Ms Mainstreamist Journalist
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 28 February 2001
Subject: None

Dear Jack,

Sorry, though I appreciate your motives are pure and passionate I don't see that the terms and conditions of my (part-time) employment can in any way relate to or throw light on the Forces of the Free Market. Equity is important in our society; so, too, is the right to privacy.

But for what it's worth, I don't have 'performance parameters' in my employment contract -- plus or minus! Cheers,

Ms Mainstreamist Journalist

From: Jack Robertson
To: Ms Mainstreamist Journalist
Date: 28 February 2001
Subject: I am somewhat embarrassed

Dear Ms Mainstreamist Journalist,

My apologies. I thought I had made it clear that, by sending you a 'courtesy copy only', I was not actually asking about your own financial affairs, which are, as you rightly note, none of my damned business. I was instead - perhaps a bit clumsily - trying to encourage public debate about the ideological integrity of 'Free' Market principles.

What IS my business is the link between the 'Free' Market 'performance' of those highly-paid Executives who have been consistent, influential champions of 'Market' mechanisms, and their own personal financial earnings. For over two decades I have been lectured by such people as those to whom I primarily addressed my letter that my earnings must be underwritten by my 'Free' Market performance. Fair enough, I'm more than happy to have a crack at this 'competition' thing.

However, what is good for the goose must be good for the gander. Thus, I was merely enquiring whether or not those senior Executives ultimately responsible for the overall 'Market' performance of their company had their own earnings 'linked' to it in the same way that I do. Recently QANTAS sacked a couple of thousand of people - at all except very senior Executive levels - because their profits dropped. A sparky or a mid-level Exec who loses his job solely because of fluctuations in 'Market' performance at least has a right to know whether or not the bloke who is ultimately responsible for that 'Market' performance has also suffered commensurately in his/her earnings. It seems to me, however, that whether a company performs well or badly on the 'Free' Market, the very senior Executives invariably come off very nicely indeed. Perhaps there might be certain parallels to be found in the recent flurry of Executive appointments at your Mainstreamism Media Inc. even while many mid and junior level employees are being laid off and/or relegated to piecework/contract status on the grounds that the company must be more competitive?

Ms Mainstreamist Journalist, my intention was not to be a smart-arse viz-a-viz your private affairs. I apologise for giving you the wrong impression, and would also like to thank you very much for taking the time to drop me a line.

Jack Robertson

* * * * * * *

A. FREE MARKET ECONOMICS 101-1: The Mainstreamist Model.

Three key strategies of Free Market Self-Delusion and Self-Absolution, from 'The buck's parked here: the discourse of corporate irresponsibility', by TIM MOORE, Language and Learning Unit, Monash University. (JR's capitals):

1. Deny your own agency; refer to the agency of others.

Kerry O'Brien: Did YOU think about perhaps making the [disclosure of the Chris Cuffe Executive payout] more transparent as YOU were writing a cheque for $30 million?

David Murray (Commonwealth Bank CEO): Well, the BOARD OF THE BANK did examine this question at the appropriate time...

2. Evoke abstract forces over which one has no control.

O'Brien: The Union says [you sacked 17, 000 workers in your own ten years at the top of the Commonwealth Bank]. Would that be about right?

Murray: Well it may be right but everybody knows the sort of CHANGES WE'VE GONE THROUGH that have made the bank more COMPETITIVE...

3. Confine your own agency to acts of reflection only.

Thus, in the [Murray] sentence 'I authorised the payment of $30 million', the word 'authorised' is an action verb. And in the sentence 'I can understand why this sum of money is incomprehensible to a lot of people', the word 'understand' is a verb of reflection. It's not too difficult to work out with which type of verb Murray would want to associate himself. Interestingly, almost every 'I' reference used by him in the interview, in response to O'Brien's 'you', comes with one of these verbs of reflection. ('I THINK there is scope to make the [disclosure of these payouts] more transparent; I completely UNDERSTAND that people would find this unable to be comprehended in terms of the payment'.)

In using such a strategy, Murray is able to cut himself into the action - as indeed he must - at strategic moments in the interview. But significantly, these are all actions for which HE DOES NOT HAVE TO ACCOUNT - having reasonable opinions about transparency provisions, or expressing sympathy about the public's lack of comprehension. On the latter point, at interview's end, Murray makes one final effort to make the $30 million comprehensible to an uncomprehending public: 'As I indicated, [the payment] rolled up in terms of the calculations over a number of years.'

This strangely convoluted construction sees a marrying of Strategy 3 and the previous Strategy 2. Murray is there helping people to understand things; and the thing itself - the payment - is presented as an entity over which NO-ONE HAS ANY REAL CONTROL. The payment was so large, because ON ITS OWN it simply managed to somehow 'roll ITSELF up'.

MOORE writing-and-citing in Dissent Magazine, number 12, Spring 2003. (David Murray/Kerry O'Brien interview quotes from 7.30 Report interview of 13 February 2003.)

B. FREE MARKET ECONOMICS 101-2: The Fringe-Dweller Model.

From: 'Warren Buffett: Value Man Through And Through' by Dan Ackman, Forbes online, 26 April 2001.

NEW YORK: Everyone knows Warren Buffett's legend as a value investor. But investors in Berkshire Hathaway are getting perhaps the best value of all: Buffett himself. By paying himself just $100,000 per year in salary - and no stock options or bonuses - Buffett is the best value among chief executives by a wide margin. Despite an awful 1999, Berkshire had a total five-year growth rate of 26.1%, compared to an average of 17.8% for companies on the Forbes.com's First Annual CEO Survey.

* * * * * * *

A. PUBLIC POLITY ECONOMICS 101-1: The Mainstreamist Model.

From: Jack Robertson, KK Basket-Weaver Street, BALMAIN, 2041
To: The Honourable Peter Costello, MP, Federal Treasurer (and see Distribution List)
Date: 28 February 2001

Dear Mr Costello,

I refer you to the recent series of articles in this week's Sydney Morning Herald detailing the cynical use of bankruptcy laws to, by a number of well-paid barristers, to avoid paying income tax. The practise has evidently been continuing, in some cases, for close to two decades.

I am concerned that such behaviour from senior members of the legal profession will encourage other Australians, such as the businessman Mr Kerry Packer, to believe that in a largely-privatised 'Free' Market economy (where the Public Polity has already been dangerously deracinated), they no longer have any obligations at all beyond that to the commercial Bottom Line. I am particularly worried that this will lead to a failure on their parts to shoulder a share of the Public Tax Burden that is both legally and civically fair.

I am, however, aware that the onward march of the 'Free' Market as the sole defining force in my life is 'inevitable'. To that end - and taking my cues from those who have been most successful in coping with this new 'paradigm' - I would be grateful if you were to advise the Tax Commissioner that I no longer intend paying any income tax. Yours bleakly,

Jack Robertson
Consumer

Distribution List: Information copies to: [the usual MP suspects; various legal eagles such as the six relevant, grubbish barristers, the Full Bench of the High Court, Attorneys-General, NSW Bar Association; Big Kezza P; and a clutch of editors, journos, talkback squawkers and academics].

From: Office of Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party
To: Jack Robertson
Date: undated

Dear Mr Robertson,

Thank you for a copy of your letter of 28 February 2001 to the Federal Treasurer, the Hon Peter Costello, to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon John Anderson, MP, referring to a series of articles in the Sydney Morning Herald. You may be assured that your correspondence will be drawn to the Minister's attention. Yours sincerely,

Mr Mainstreamist
Senior Advisor

From: The NSW Cabinet Office
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 15 March 2001

Dear Mr Robertson,

The Premier has received a copy of your recent letter concerning use of bankruptcy laws. As the matter you have raised primarily concerns the administration of the Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Minister for Emergency Services, and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Arts, the Hon RJ Debus, MP, the Premier has arranged to bring your approach to the Minister's attention.

You make be sure that your comments will receive close attention. Yours sincerely,

Mr Mainstreamist
Director-General

From: NSW Attorney-General's Department
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 12 April 2001

Dear Mr Robertson,

The Attorney-General, the Honourable Bob Debus has requested I respond to your letter referred to him by the Honourable RJ Carr MP, Premier, Minister for the Arts and Minister for Citizenship in which you expressed concern as to allegations that a number of barristers have significant debts to the Australian Taxation Office, and that some barristers may be using bankruptcy as a device to escape responsibility for their debts.

I am pleased to advise you that the Attorney-General has moved quickly to ensure that the regulatory authorities are fully aware of the bankruptcy of a legal practitioner, and to require a blah blah blah blah blah...

Mr Mainstreamist
Executive Director

From: The Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 29 March 2001

Dear Mr Robertson,

I refer you to your letter dated 28 February 2001 addressed to The Honourable Peter Costello, the Federal Treasurer. As your letter concerns, in part, the recent publicity concerning the non-payment of taxation debts by barristers who have become bankrupt I have been requested to respond to your letter. I have noted the concerns that you have raised in your letter.

There is no doubt that the majority of people who become bankrupt do so for legitimate reasons. This applies to barristers as well as to other professions. This is because the effects of going bankrupt can be severe...blah blah blah...

...I trust that these measures address the concerns that you have raised and will restore your confidence in the taxation and bankruptcy systems. Yours sincerely,

Mr Mainstreamist
Executive Director

From: Office of the Assistant Treasurer
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 4 September 2001

Dear Mr Robertson,

Thank you for your letter to the Treasurer concerning lawyers using bankruptcy to avoid paying tax. The Assistant Treasurer has asked me to respond to your letter and to apologise for the delay in replying.

As the matter raised by you is related to the administration of the income tax laws, I asked the Commissioner of Taxation for his comments. The Government and the ATO takes seriously any attempt by any taxpayer to avoid their taxation obligations...blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Yours sincerely,

Ms Mainstreamist
Departmental Liason Officer

"Liberal Party Treasurer calls for Income Tax Reduction." From Tax-news.com, 24 August 2002.

Speaking to the Australian Industry Group forum in Canberra this week, Federal Treasurer for the Liberal Party, Malcolm Turnbull urged the Howard government to reduce personal income taxes, arguing that the current rate puts Australia at a competitive disadvantage. "The $60,000 threshold at which the top personal income rate [48.5%] is applied is far too low and that's a major competitive disadvantage. It's very hard to gainsay that," the Australian Financial Review quoted Mr Turnbull as stating on Tuesday.

Pointing out that Australia's income taxes are higher, and kick in at lower levels than those in 'high tax' countries such as the United States and the UK, he added: "There is a very real issue here for Australia, and the Howard government's previous attempts to lift that threshold from $60,000 to just $70,000 were frustrated by the Senate, despite a clear mandate to do so. How can we compete internationally when we have such high rates of personal income tax?"

"Business tax reform is Costello's con trick." By Ross Gittins, from SMH, September 2 2002.

Peter Costello seems to be stringing it out in the hope we won't catch on but it's now clear that his much-vaunted business tax reform is the longest three-card trick in history. Last week he accepted the Board of Taxation's recommendation to drop the proposed move to the "tax value method" of calculating business income. And he did nothing to gainsay a report that the board will now recommend giving up on the intention to tax trusts properly.

This whole scam began as long as four years ago with the release of the GST tax reform blueprint just before the 1998 election. Since then, the voters have been misled, the Democrats taken for a ride, Simon Crean and Labor dudded and ordinary taxpayers ripped off. We're ending up with surprisingly little in the way of genuine reform, but the Government has avoided a stoush with its business constituency and a lot of tax-dodging businesspeople are laughing.

Back when the Government was desperate to get re-elected despite its plan to introduce a GST, an important part of its sales pitch was that the regressive nature of the GST would be offset by a crackdown on income-tax avoidance. In particularly, family trusts would be taxed as though they were companies, yielding savings of up to $900 million a year.

The pre-election tax reform document did raise the possibility of other business tax reform, but promised that any changes would be revenue neutral. That is, business would be taxed in a way that was less distorting of decisions about resource allocation, but it wouldn't just be given a tax cut at other taxpayers' expense. After the election, business tax reform suddenly became a much bigger deal. The Ralph Committee was appointed and business groups began lobbying in earnest. In September 1999, Mr Costello released the Government's response to the committee's recommendations.

It purported to be, as promised, a self-funding package of nice bits and nasties - all built around the key tax reform principle: broaden the base to cut the rate. The rate of company tax would be cut from 36 to 30 per cent (at a cost to revenue of about $3.5 billion a year), matched by the abolition of accelerated depreciation allowances for big but not small businesses (at a saving to revenue of about $2 billion a year). The balance was made up by savings from various "integrity measures" (in particular, a crackdown on the abuse of incorporation by personal-service contractors) and various "deferred measures" (in particular, the tax value method and taxing family trusts as companies). The sexiest part of the package was the effective halving of capital gains tax for individuals (but on nominal gains; the former regime of taxing only real gains was abandoned). But this concession, we were asked to believe, would actually produce a small net gain to revenue. Why? Because the lower rate would induce investors to realise their gains more often. This fiscal magic was just as well because another juicy little plum in the package was to make dividend imputation credits fully refundable (at a cost of about $500 million a year). The Ralph Committee had proposed that the formula for calculating the fringe-benefits tax on company cars be made less indefensibly concessional but Mr Costello strangled this one at birth.

When Meg Lees and the Democrats negotiated their compromise on the GST, an important part of the deal was that the forthcoming business tax package would be revenue neutral and contain the two key equity measures cracking down on the abuse of personal-service companies and family trusts. But the Dems let the GST legislation through long before the business-tax legislation materialised. Big mistake. And then Labor fell for the same trick. The Dems wouldn't cop the capital-gains tax concessions, but Simon Crean was happy to - strictly in return for those measures cracking down on avoidance, naturally. Guess what? Mr Costello banged the gains-tax cut through the Parliament with Labor support but dragged his feet on the nasties. Thank you, Simon.

You can guess where this is leading. In the run up to last year's election, when John Howard was staring at defeat and therefore embarked on his own version of GST Rollback, the Government began jettisoning the parts of the business tax package that its supporters most vigorously objected to.

The measures to limit contractors' abuse of incorporation were greatly watered down and the legislation to tax family trusts as companies was withdrawn and sent back for recasting. This followed a campaign by National Party backbenchers using such brilliant non-sequiturs as: farmers use trusts for succession purposes not tax avoidance, therefore it would be monstrous to rob them of the benefits of that tax avoidance. Now we discover we're just one small step away from the total abandonment of any attempt to tax families trusts in a way that's fair to all those who can't (or choose not to) exploit them. Apparently, the Board of Taxation's deliberations revealed that tax abuse through trusts was "difficult to find".


Oh really? Compare that with what Mr Costello was saying when he was still trying to sell the GST to voters before the 1998 election: "Wealthier individuals with access to legal and accounting advice can target particular investments and structures to take advantage of differences in tax treatment. The rest of the community subsidises the wealthy taxpayer." And the Board of Taxation says the abuse of family trusts is "difficult to find"? Who are these guys, the three wise monkeys? No, Mr Costello stacked the board with businessmen and tax lawyers and accountants. And, surprise, surprise, this posse of poachers has scoured the woods but just can't find any signs of poaching. You'll have to find a less laughable cover than that, Peter.

So much for genuine business tax reform. The package has been gradually dismantled, retaining all the bits business liked and dispensing with all the bits it didn't. The notion of revenue neutrality has been thrown to the wind - not that it's possible to measure the net cost from Honest Pete's Budget papers. (And, naturally, it's impossible to check that claim about how the cut in capital-gain tax was going to pay for itself.)

Next up is "international tax reform" - which, going by his form, will add up to a new range of handouts to placate the Government's big business sponsors.

Good luck with your trusting friends in the Senate, Peter.

B. PUBLIC POLITY ECONOMICS 101-2. The Fringe-dweller Model.

From: Mr Hugh Mackay
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 13 March, 2001.

Dear Mr Robertson,

Thank you for sending me a copy of your plaintive letter to the Treasurer.

Unhappily, there is no easy avenue for 'ordinary Australians' (a term I detest) to significantly reduce their tax burden. 'Grin and bear it' is my advice, and if you can't grin, then perhaps you had better just bear it.

The consolation, of course, is that you know you are making a fair and reasonable contribution to the welfare of this community - especially on behalf of those who are genuinely disadvantaged and in need of our support.

I think there are better examples to copy than those you have identified.With best wishes. Your sincerely,

Hugh Mackay

* * * * * * *

TWO SIDES OF THE HANSON STORY:

"I call her the redhead match, you know, and I voted for her to set the country on fire."
Anton Myck, cabinetmaker (quoted in 'Off the Rails', by Margo Kingston)

"If I'd known she was in there, I'd have blown the place up; she's got a head like a broken arsehole."
Customer leaving shop Hanson enters (quoted in 'Off the Rails')

A. FREE PRESS THEORY 101-1: The Mainstreamist Mode.

"As for much of the media, its recent performance recalls its ignominious efforts over 1996-1998 that gave Hanson such a boost, here and abroad."
Paul Kelly, doyen of the pro-Howard Mainstreamist press, The Australian 'Enquirer', August 30-31, 2003.

"But that was all [Emerson] had: a reheated story Labor was trying to sell to the hysterics, the nutters and the conspiracy theorists who fantasise that Hanson is a political prisoner when all she is is a convicted fraudster who tried to exploit Queensland's state electoral public funding to collect $500,000 of voters' money she and her grubby colleagues weren't entitled to."
Alan Ramsey, doyen of the anti-Howard Mainstreamist press, The SMH, September 3, 2003.

B. FREE PRESS THEORY 101-2: The Fringe-Dweller Mode.

Jack:Pretty cheap shot to dismiss Margo's Web Diary as a 'PR campaign for Hanson', mate.

Tim: I didn't. I noted that the diary includes a PR-ish Hanson element, among other things.

Jack: You and I both know that she has done more than any journalist in this country to investigate, attempt to understand, and thus expose the emptiness at the heart of One Nation.

Tim: Hang on, Jack. I'm not sure Margo would agree about the "emptiness" part. She's written many times about the issues which drove One Nation's rise - globalisation, economic rationalism, and so on. She has not dismissed these as empty concerns, and does not dismiss One Nation as empty.

Jack: Where were you when she was getting spat at by right-wing maniacs, physically assaulted by ON mobs, defamed across the country, and even abused by fellow journos for getting - of all things! - too 'close' to her subject?

Tim: I was copping much of the same, although sometimes from different foes. See, I happen to agree with economic rationalism and globalisation, so I've been attacked by anti-globalists from both the left and right. My car's been trashed, I've been the target of email hate campaigns, and I've been abused by fellow journalists for not siding with the anti-free traders.

Jack: Just where was Tim Blair when Margo was one of the few journalists who bothered to investigate One Nation where it really matters - on the ground in the rural and outer suburban electorates?

Tim: I was interviewing people in rural and outer-suburban electorates from Victoria to WA, for articles and columns on One Nation which appeared in Time, the Oz, the Daily Telegraph, and various online publications.

Jack: Can't quite figure out why you would want to slag her off in such a self-evidently stupid way, mate.

Tim: Nobody, least of all journalists, should be immune from criticism or mockery. They deserve much more of it, the thin-skinned whiners.

Jack: She's actually, er...one of the more serious, independent and committed journos in this country. Don't you think so?

Tim: Serious? Yes, grimly so. Independent? Well, so am I - I'm a freelancer. Committed? Whatever.

Jack: Yes, I am one of her contributors. No, I'm not obsessed with dairy deregulation. And no, we don't get paid for our Webdiary contributions. Instead, we get to contribute to public debate without having to toe any editorial or proprietorial line.

Tim: Or having to develop anything like a sense of humour, apparently.

Jack: That's what we get. Sound good to you, Tim?

Tim: Sounds dandy!

Tim Blair DEBATING Jack Robertson; 'Copping it sweet', Webdiary, 25 May 2001

* * * * * * *

Reprised History as Illuminating Hysterical Farce. Part II: The bitter, sacked worker blames a Global Financial Conspiracy.

John Howard the Mainstreamist has bent over backwards - or 'fringewards' - since he came into office to appease the Hansonite vote. He's done practically everything they ever supposedly 'wanted' - turned back the reffos with brute force; told the Abos to shove their land rights and apologies and treaties and go get an honest Whitey job; tut-tutted at the fags and the arty-farties and the dreaded single mums; ignored the elitist wankers; cheered the brave diggers, the flannelled heroes, the green-and-gold, gold, gold champions; put the dole bludgers to work and had a beer with the battlers. And for all this, what does he get in gratitude, now that it turns out he was nutting their 'battler girl' all along? A five-point rating hit and a seventy percent surge in Hansonian sympathy. Looks like JWH was right all along: that all those 'Rednecked Hansonites' really weren't bigots, to be easily 'pacified' with bigoted policy-crumbs. So...what, then?

Money, perhaps? Cash, filthies, readies, loot, moolah, dough, wampum, the Big Nasty, That Which Shall Remain Relentlessly Unmentioned, in this relaxed and comfortable 'post-historical' Mainstreamist Free Market democracy of ours? My! You un-jolly old 'class envy' swagman! Who'll come a-waltzing Matilda with you? Not the Meanstreamists, that's for sure: not if they should peer a little deeper into that massed rugby crowd, from the self-deluding snugness of their stadium-fringe corporate boxes, and recognise what those most Australian of all song lyrics are TRULY all about, eh?

And so, at last, maybe the Big Lie of Applied Mainstreamism is finally going up in a Bonfire of the Main$tream $elf-delu$ion$, then, and just maybe governments of both mainstream stripes would do very well to pay very close heed to exactly why. Every day, now, we open the newspaper to see another f**king 'incomprehensible' Rich Man's Rip-off, of one kind or another, yet all for which 'no-one', apparently, is to blame. And none of which, apparently, 'anyone' can do anything much about. Rich 'bankrupt' barristers not paying tax? Oh well. Billionaires paying peppercorn rents for their public polo fields? Oh well. Convicted HIH fraudsters still living in their waterfront mansions? Oh well. What can 'The Public Polity' do now, in this crazy old 'Private Polity, Commercial-in-Confidence' world? Yet if you or I or the ordinary Australian down the street happens to get overpaid a few bucks on the pension, or miss our Centrelink time-slot by half an hour, you can bet your f**king life the 'Public Polity' will still nail US in a flash, alright.

Yep, the Mainstreamist Economic Big Lie is going up in smoke, and in the Australian national case - even post-Howard - it will still likely be the Liberal Party which will end up holding Thatcher and Friedman's dirty, naked, stinking, screaming, economic bastard-brat. For once Howard himself is gone, I suspect that soothing old Federal Mainstreamism will no longer be sustainable, and every 'respectable conservative' in Australia - especially the Phillip Ruddocks and Peter Costellos and Christopher Pynes and George Brandises - will blink once, twice, thrice, and then start groping around in vain to reclaim the true Australian political mainstream for the broad political church bequeathed to them by Deakin, Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon and Fraser; a saner mainstream which has room for something more democratically substantial than populist crumb-throwing and a self-destructing, radical-economic delusion. And those groping, instinctive small-l Liberal centrists will discover, to their horror, that the political 'main party' they have inherited, from John 'mainstream' Howard, now alas looks something like this:

The first Australian political party in our history to have used the ADF to repel desperate boat-borne refugees by military force. The first Australian political party in our history to have led our country - as one of only three in the whole world - in pre-emptively launching an invasion of another sovereign nation, wholly-unprovoked. The first Australian political party since the United Nations was founded to openly undermine and discredit and publicly sneer at that crucial, fragile world body of nations. The first mainstream Australian political party since Ronald Ryan was hanged to openly canvas the return of the death penalty. The first mainstream Australian political party since the ALP abolished White Australia to use race/immigration explicitly as an election tool. The first mainstream Australian political party to launch an attack on ATSIC since it was founded. The first mainstream Australian political party to allow publicly-funded universities to openly offer paying 'customers' a superior access to tertiary courses via the grossly 'anti-excellence' mechanism of lower academic standards for those who can simply pay for the pleasure. (Menzies would cry, and cry, and cry at that abject surrender to mediocrity alone.)

And Bob Carr's Mainstreamist version of the 'ALP', and its NSW Right-driven national spawn, will, of course, make similar unpleasant discoveries when his generation of 'whatever-it-takers' goes - on law and order populism, and race and crime and immigration, and development, and housing, and health, and education, and grass-roots party organisational issues. They, too, will discover that their 'mainstream' party has strayed somewhat to the fringe.

Because, of course, then there will be the economics to be going on with. Above all else, the post-Mainstreamist 'main parties' of Australia will inherit the ugly fruits of a blinkered, two-decade long, economic-ideological bipartisanship that has rammed home regressive tax after rich-favouring invisible-subsidy after society-cleaving 'liberal' reform after short-sighted, destructive, unsustainable privatisation. They will inherit a stalling, post-Thatcherite global economy now rendered near-paralysed strategically by the crippling straight-jacket of random terrorism - actual or anticipated - and which is simultaneously registering that the twenty year Stock Market 'Rip and Strip, Ramp then Decamp' party was coming to a bitter end, anyway. There's no more juice for Mainstreamism's Marketeers to squeeze and suck out of the world's public purses on the sly. All the big share floats have been creamed. All the whopping fire-sale commissions have been spivved. The last bubbles have burst; the last economies-of-scale transitions milked; the last meaningless and unmeasurable share-price tweakers - 'efficiencies', 'productivities', 'structural reforms', 'competitiveness' - have been mendaciously exploited to the point of stock market dead-horse exhaustion. What price the next Telstra float, eh? The Commonwealth of Australia is hardly likely to get burned by the Market spivs - a la their mighty Combank rip-off - these days.

Real estate. Buy bricks and dirt, baby. And those Market spivs certainly are now, aren't they. You don't seriously believe that the truly smart money bought all that 'Shareholder Society' bullshit for a second, do you??? When Market times turn tricky, as they are now and always will, from boom to bust to boom to bust, they know damned well that the TAXPAYER will ALWAYS be there, to help steady Mainstreamism's ugly little economic wobbles and arse-scrapes.

And so what about that Public Polity over the next few years? Well, we voting mugs and the post-Mainstreamist 'main party' leaders will inherit record Australian credit debt; a speculation-fuelled, skyrocketing house market; a looming superannuation-actuarial crisis; a gobsmacking Baby Boomer retirement bill as yet uncontemplated let alone honestly number-crunched; a thinning relative taxpayer base; a chronically-undercapitalised, profit-localised and thus alarmingly-skewing 'private' utility infrastructure; and especially a self-deluding, hideously overstretched and fancifully over-rated American 'global economic powerhouse', one which will very shortly be battening down the economic hatches and throwing up the neo-protectionist walls (by any other name), all over again. And only then - as the FTA goes up in flames, too, in a bonfire of US beef and sugar and steel market access delusions and 'Free Market' Textbooks and Iraq wheat trade deal fairness and ANZUS IOUs - will the professional 'mainstream' parties of Australia finally grasp what Hansonism was, and remains, truly about. Only then will the Liberal Party and the ALP realise that it was THEY, and not the Hansonites or the Greens or the Democrats or the more-instinctively no-nonsense Nationals (or the grass-roots ALP and the small-l Libs, for that matter), who were occupying a kooky and unsustainable 'fringe' position all along. Pauline Hanson's angry voters are all still out there, and the Australia political 'mainstream' has now run out of superficial anti-policies of hers to adopt, in damage-controlling and point-missing electoral 'amelioration'.

Sooner or later, Mainstreamists are going to have to grasp the truth: it's the ECONOMICS, stupids - YOUR economics.

Hawkeism, Keatingism, Kennettism, Carrism, Howardism, Creanism, Lathamism, Costelloism - well, it's all the same, isn't it. And that is now the Australian political mainstream's gravest problem. It's irrelevant whether or not they take tactical care to censor their own education reports and blur their own health numbers, or toss stop-gap mini-taxes and subsidies and bail-outs about on the lam, or fuss endlessly with interest rates and home-buyer schemes, or hope to Christ we keep spending dough we don't have and building city condos we don't need, if they go ignoring the growing strategic economic unease. Every day these Mainstreamists go on doing that, go on believing in the pixie-magic of their own Mainstreamist Economic Revolution, is another day that they fail to grasp that fewer mainstream Australians are sticking with them on that score. We may not be economically literate, but we're not stupid, and we do know that 'wealth' doesn't just materialise magically out of thin hot air, which is essentially what we've been asked to believe for twenty vaudevillian years. We don't believe for a second that our house is really worth twice what it was three years ago, or that even if it is, it's going to do us any sustainable good. Post-Ansett, HIH, AMP and WorldCom, we don't trust ANY squiggly numbers on ANY bastard's squiggly-number screen. And as the true numbers start coming in and hitting us where it hurts - in our privatised pension funds, in our piecemeal jobs, our less secure employment with no benefits and no guarantees, our disappointing portfolio performance, our missed-yet-again auction bid, our accumulating public health care gap-bills, our growing 'public' education 'private' hidden costs - more and more of us are realising just how, one day - maybe not right now, but sooner or later, inevitably - we are going to get left behind by Mainstreamist Economics. And the miserable rotten bastards who introduced them into our civic world will be long retired and gone, living it up in flash digs somewhere, and doubtless on a full PUBLIC pension as well as all their many quietly-private means.

As a result, the professional Canberra 'mainstream' is becoming lonelier every day, and the amateur Oz 'fringes' are getting mighty, mighty crowded.

Hanson was barely the beginning. You political-economic so-called Mainstreamers ain't seen nothing yet. Start listening, before it's too late. It's your bullshit MARKET ECONOMICS, stupids. Maybe you're alright, Jack. Maybe I'm alright for now, too. Just. But tear the scales off your own stupid eyes, and take a look around. More and more people AREN'T alright, no matter how much your Mainstreamist Experts twist and tweak and fudge and now censor their own numbers. The rich are getting richer and richer and fewer in relative terms; the poor are getting poorer and poorer and more in relative terms. And those of us still somewhere in the middle know, no matter what you all say, that as time passes and if nothing changes, the vast majority of us are - simply by definition - going to end up on the wrong side of that equation. No economic theory ever invented can make EVERBODY in the world rich. Economic wealth is nothing if not a RELATIVE term. Morons.

And then there is terrorism. Which is, of course, just the globalised equivalent of Hansonism, writ very large and ugly, with an unhealthy thick strand of sacreligious nihilism chucked into the mix. (Those screams you can hear, by the way, are the Mainstreamist self-deluders again: listen closely, and you will hear: 'SELF-BLAMER!!' Ignore them. They're only stupidly, recklessly, short-sightedly endangering their own kids' futures. Yours and mine, too.)

We were never asked if we wanted this cold, heartless, dog-eat-dog-and-f**k-the-next-bloke Market Theory revolution to upend our entire civic lives and the whole damned planet. No-one ever honestly explained what it would truly mean. We certainly never said: 'Why, yes, go right ahead and sell off, for bugger-all, our painstakingly, multi-generationally-nurtured banks, our airlines, our water and electricity and transport and communications and public service assets'. Delude yourselves that we did, if you want - sort of, kind of, bit-by-bit, in a TINA manner of speaking - but we did not. We never gave you Mainstreamist Bean Monkey obsessives our collective civic permission to rip off Australia's fair go. And now that we're finally clocking onto what a monumental hustle it's all been, someone is going to have to foot the democratic bill. Sooner or later, when the private bucks stop, and we all discover that there's not enough public ones coming in to help those who need it either, someone in political power will have an awful lot to answer for. The Mainstreamists of the ALP and the Liberal Party had better have a profound rethink about what kind of country we 'ordinary Australians' really want to make for our kids, if they wish to remain part of the genuine democratic mainstream, then. What we're looking for to start with is simple: cut the self-deluding, self-absolving, self-serving bullshit, and start giving us some old-fashioned LEADERSHIP BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE.

It's crucial, unless you want to see another, a far nastier' Pauline Hanson rise and rise and rise one day. And it IS still possible to lead by personal example, Mainstream Party Economic Policy 'discipline' or not. You Representatives each have Free Human Will as individuals, and what personal economic example you choose to set is entirely up to YOU personally. Others working in your precious Mainstreamist system have already tried it; tried and are trying to do the personal economic righty, as far the traditional Australian fair go is concerned.

Even if they may also have some kooky 'impotent Independent', 'lunar Green' and 'redneck Right' fringe ideas about party politics, global warming and Port Arthur. Real, or just hysterically beaten-up, by the blinkered, ignorant and self-deluding Mainstreamist pollies, journos and bean monkies who just won't listen closely.

* * * * * *

LEADING BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE 101. The bolds are mine.

1. 'Fringe' Democratic Leadership by personal hip pocket example one:

"If there is one thing that best symbolises the gap between politicians and their electorate it is the parliamentary superannuation scheme.

Members of Parliament, both federal and state, have a superannuation arrangement based on an act of the Commonwealth that was introduced by former Labor prime minister Ben Chifley in 1948. In introducing his Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act, Chifley said that the 'loss and insecurity' associated with parliamentary service was deterring potential candidates from standing for parliament. In an era of post-war employment, where jobs for life were the norm, Chifley's argument was sound. What's more, he wanted to attract candidates from as wide a field as possible, having risen himself to the highest office in the land after starting his working life as a Bathurst railway-engine driver.

However, to use that argument today, when jobs are so insecure for so many, is an insult to the electorate. Almost 15 percent of the workforce is seriously underemployed, and for many others employment is a combination of occasional, casual or part-time work. Others have no prospect of ever working again. If a deregulated labour market is the supposed boon to the economy that the politicians like us to believe, politicians must abide by the same rules."

From: 'The Andren Report: an independent way in Australian politics', by Peter Andren, MP.

'Peter Andren the Independent member for Calare increased his vote by 15 per cent in this election. The Australian Electoral Commission hasn't done a two-party preferred distribution yet, but it looks to me that on this basis his vote would be around 70 per cent. He achieved this result while opposing the Government's asylum seeker policy. Andren supports a lot of policies that the ALP doesn't, so causation is difficult to isolate but it certainly proves that it was possible to oppose the policy and prosper.'

Graham Young on the 2001 'Tampa' election, Online Opinion, 15 November 2001.

* * * * * * *

2. 'Fringe' Democratic Leadership by personal hip pocket example two:

Mr ORGAN (Cunningham) (12.47 p.m.) - The Abolition of the Gold Travel Pass for Former Politicians (Reflecting Community Standards) Bill 2003 will provide for the comprehensive reduction of travel entitlements to former members of parliament. It has four policy objectives: first and foremost, to abolish the life travel gold pass; secondly, to ensure that all frequent flyer points that a politician or their spouse earns in the performance of parliamentary duty automatically become the property of the taxpayer upon the politician's retirement; thirdly, to replace the present regime with a fairer, more realistic system by providing retired politicians with a single return journey to clear out their parliamentary offices when they retire; and, finally, because retired prime ministers hold an appropriate place in Australia's civic affairs, the bill grants a $2,000 per annum allowance to be spent on travel for a non-commercial purpose.

Abolishing the life travel gold pass is long overdue. There has been talk of this in the past. However, pollies' privileges are something of a sacred cow which the government is loathe to touch. As it stands, there are 133 former federal MPs and senators with life gold passes. These retired politicians and their spouses are currently helping themselves to over $1 million a year of business and first-class travel and limousine services - this is in addition to their more than generous superannuation payments. The gold pass can be seen as a backdoor salary supplement, received when the individual has ceased to be a politician - when they have retired or been kicked out of office. This is something which the community at large objects to. For example, James Anderson of Giralang in the ACT, writing in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph concerning politicians so-called lurks and perks and the recent attacks on the social welfare system and carers allowance by the government and the Minister for Community Services in particular, stated:

If Senator Vanstone is so sincere about saving tax funded revenue, she should take stock of some of her own comments, such as: 'There is no such thing as a free lunch.' When she finishes hounding the sick, the handicapped and the unemployed, maybe she could take a long look at the political perks and privileges she and her colleagues enjoy. She could ask why, when politicians are voted out of office, they retain the perks and privileges of serving members. Even if they have been found guilty of abusing these privileges, they still retain their tax funded pensions and entitlements. Perceptions are everything. Reputation is everything. The standing of politicians in this country is not as it should be. The print and electronic media constantly feature stories of politicians rorting the system. As such, politicians are viewed alongside car dealers and lawyers as the least trustworthy and most self-interested of professions. The gold pass does not help this perception. Whilst the majority of Australian parliamentarians are honest and hardworking, abuses by the few, and inappropriate perks such as the gold pass, lead to the current dim view of politicians and the political process in general held by many in the community. The gold pass must be abolished.

Mr Michael Organ, MP, private Member's bill first reading, from House Hansard of 18 August, 2003.

* * * * * * *

3. 'Fringe' Democratic Leadership by personal hip pocket example three:

From: Jack Robertson
To: Senator Bob Brown
Date: 2 December 2001
Subject: Congratulations and support for Kate (sic) Nettle

Dear Senator Brown,

Thanks for replying to my email congratulating Bob on his election performance.

Also, I read today in the paper that your newest Senator-elect, Kate (sic) Nettle, is considering allocating part of her Parliamentary salary to causes aligned with the Greens platform. I was wondering if, since she has yet to knock up her own website, it might be possible for you to pass on my profound thanks and support for this? Actually, I personally happen to think that we probably don't pay our pollies enough (given the time and commitment, etc), but even a small gesture on her part would be of fantastic importance in demonstrating, by actions and not merely words, that true political representation is a matter of integrity and personal sacrifice. Bob's success during the last election was due entirely to his refusal to compromise his ideals in the face of all sorts of 'pragmatic' pressures, and the key to future democracy will lie, I think, in such unambiguous ACTIONS as that which Kate [sic] proposes, rather than in smooth spin and image.

The future is looking great for the Greens. I'm certainly interested in getting involved. My email is KKKKKKK, if there are any mailing lists you can stick me on.

Keep fighting the idealistic fight, dudes! Greens rock!

Jack Robertson

From: Senator Bob Brown
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 4 December 2001
Subject: Congratulations and support for Kate Nettle

Dear Jack,

Thanks!

Senator Bob Brown

* * * * * * *

4. 'Fringe' Democratic leadership by personal hip pocket example four.

"Next G-G to give away military pension", from ABC online, 23 June.

Australia's next governor-general intends to donate his military pension to charity after he takes up the vice-regal position. Major-General Michael Jeffery will take up the role in August. Gen. Jeffery has decided to forego his military pension, which he has contributed to from his own pay for 40 years. "I think it's only fair that while I am in that office that I should receive the one salary and donate my pension to non-profit organisations," he said.

* * * * * * *

5. And my favourite. 'Fringe' Democratic Leadership by personal hip pocket example five:

From: A Citizen
To: ALL AUSTRALIAN SENATORS AND MPS, PRESS GALLERY
Date: 8 August 2001
Subject: A Challenge to our Elected Representatives - Part II

Dear Elected Representative,

Attached please find my repeated challenge to Mr Howard and Mr Beazley. With thanks for your time.

A CHALLENGE TO OUR POLITICAL LEADERS - PART II

Dear Mr Howard and Mr Beazley,

I note your recent, shared public enthusiasm for the lowering of the tax burden in this country, tactics likely to dominate the upcoming election. I can only assume that you and your advisers share fairly bleak assumptions about the role of voter economic self-interest in winning elections. You guys have smarter pollsters than me, I guess. Don't you?

However, if your opinion-crunchers have convinced you that our hip pocket nerves do hold the key to the campaign - and given the dismissive snickering now inspired by any politician's promise on tax - surely a far more successful way to exploit the Australian Public's grasping base instincts would be for a potential Prime Minister to embrace the challenge on MP Superannuation outlined in my last appeal?

I repeat that challenge - I'll donate my military superannuation to the party of whichever of you wholeheartedly throws his full support very publicly behind Peter Andren's bill. All this bill proposes is that current MPs get[ting] the OPTION of opting into a fairer set-up, so I'm not even asking anyone else to put their own financial future where their gobs are. It's about defending the long-term credibility of our Parliament. (Frankly, it's cretinous to pay yourselves peanut base salaries, attracting far too many monkeys, then compensate with gobsmacking Super so that we all think you're greedy monkeys, anyway. Do yourselves a few favours, you dills!)

My thanks to those elected Reps who bothered to reply to my last email. Senator Mainstream One fairly pointed out that an 'anonymous' challenge is a bit wussy (although you went a bit quiet when I gave you all my details, Senator!). Senator Mainstream Two, I haven't heard from you yet, mate, and Senator Fringe Four, likewise re: you. Senator Fringe One, Senator Fringe Three hasn't advised of the Fringe 'position' on this issue as yet, so I hope you'll understand when I place all those nice things I said about how you and Senator Fringe Two are trying to inject some meaning back into politics 'on reserve' for now, OK?

This is a genuine challenge. I know it sounds like high moral ground grandstanding, but consider the powerful 'trickle down' effect of leadership by example, in this babble-drenched and economically-cleaving age. One mainstream pollie - one - could spark a profound social shift (and, what's more, win the election with a single soundbite.)

At least think about it, you guys?

A Citizen

From: Senator Len Harris
To: Stephen John 'Jack' Robertson
Date: 8 August 2001
Subject: A Challenge to our Political Leaders - Part II

Hi Steve,

I am sorry if I missed your first e-mail (pays to be persistent in sending them). Last sitting week - at app' 02.30 am - the Senate debated Parliamentary Super. In that, changes were implemented for new Senators; the existing system stands for present Senators and Members. An amendment to allow PRESENT AND and future Senators to opt-out of the present system and join a commercial scheme:

The Gov. and the Opp. voted the amendment down.

Even though the bill does recognise some of the present anomalies, and correct them, I was the only Senator [see note below*] who voted against the legislation, as it is not in the best interests of the Australian people. I will have my staff e-mail the Hansard of the bill.

Len Harris,
Pauline Hanson's One Nation

Attached: PHON ideas on the future of Australian Democracy [excerpts]:

Thanks for taking the time to e-mail me on this issue, I do appreciate input from all Australians, as it is only with the input of individuals who work, or operate, in the area that Legislation is to cover that I can respond in the Senate in a meaningful way. I have adopted a process (due to the lack of staff and the sheer volume of legislation, 16 bills today, with 4 of them being major bills): if I have not been able to research a bill then I do not vote on it, rather than voting for/against an issue in such a way that is against the wishes of the Queensland voters. I also take into account the responsibility of representing the 700 000 voters outside Qld who supported PHON in the last election. When considering how you will vote in the coming election please consider the following:

Can Australia Afford to keep Partying? Well, as usual the tax-payers footed the $4 million bill for the politicians' party for the Centenary of Federation Celebrations in Melbourne. However, isn't all the partying costing the average Aussie a whole lot more than that?What of the political parties and their strangle-hold on our Democracy? Where the people only get heard every election year is not representative government, it's minority rule - courtesy of Party Politics! Look at the figures. Our Federal House of Representatives (Lower House) has 147 sitting members -elected to RE-present what their electorates want in that House. A Bill can be carried in the House with a majority of one -hence a party controlling 74 seats has no opposition and no need for open debate or input from the other 73 "outsider" Members who represent their electorates.

It goes further, control of that 74 seat majority is decided secretly, away from public scrutiny, in the party room. In that party room, a majority is 38 people, 38 people controlling our Lower House even if the other 109 members of the House stand against the Bill -and possibly truly representing their electorates. 38 people who may be persuaded by secret forces and monies never revealed to the average Aussie voter. 38 people removing open, honest and frank debate from the floor of our Parliament, leaving us with grown men acting like spoilt brats, putting on shameful displays and point scoring in our Parliament.

No, Australia can't afford the parties! We need open and honest Government where ALL elected representatives REPRESENT their electorates instead of being neutered by the ruling...

[* Peter Andren MP's long and on-going private bill struggle for fairer Super obviously drove the whole matter in the first place; Senator Bob Brown moved the unsuccessful Senate amendments, and voted against, too. Also, Democrat Senator Brian Greig later advised me that he also voted against the Super bill on his own principled grounds that it discriminated against same-sex couples. JR.]

From: Steve Robertson
To: Senator Len Harris, CC: All Senators and MPs
Date: 10 August 2001
Subject: Reply to Senator Len Harris on MP's Superannuation

Dear Senator Harris,

I write to thank you very much for extending me the courtesy of replying, with a refreshing sense of genuine engagement, to my second open email to Members and Senators, in which I challenged Mr Howard and Mr Beazley to support Peter Andren's Superannuation bill in the interests of defending the long-term credibility of our Parliament. Although I did receive four replies to my first email, they were generally vague, patronising attempts to 'fob me off'. You are the only politician so far who has both stated his personal position [to me] on this issue unambiguously, and proved it with your voting record on it. Thanks for treating my email seriously, Senator. I am very grateful, and wish more of our elected Representatives were similarly responsive to the citizens who elect them. Perhaps we should greatly increase the level of Parliamentary Allowances, to enable more staff to be employed.

You also forwarded various thoughts on the future of political representation in Australia, and I thank you for the opportunity to consider them. I hope you will in turn indulge me in hearing out my response.

Senator, I would be an intellectual coward and a hypocrite if I did not say that I strongly disagree with every aspect - either real or perceived - of the Pauline Hanson One Nation approach to politics in this country. While I understand and often share your frustrations with the party system, I firmly believe that the interests of social stability, political coherence and strategic management are best served by a Parliamentary system which offers a broad philosophical choice between a mildly conservative group and a mildly progressive group. The non-extreme but well-defined political choice provided by the ALP/Coalition polarity has served us very well in the past, in my view. Both sides must be inclusive and flexible enough to accommodate the inevitable varying electoral pressures individual party members will face, but both must ultimately be guided by a combination of strategic consistency and tactical discipline, which alone can produce meaningful democratic rule. As Churchill said - it's the worst system of governance there is, except for all the other systems!

My fear, if the PHON philosophy of a more direct 'bill by bill' consultation with the electorate gained traction, is that governance would fragment and become excessively populist, even haphazardly so. In some ways, we are already seeing this develop, with the major parties' growing reliance on focus groups and opinion polls to shape decisions. In the UK, the political boffins have dignified this 'leadership from the rear' approach with an ideological label (always a bad sign). Yet 'The Third Way' is really just a sexier way of saying 'government via path of least short-term resistance', and I believe the PHON approach you outline risks exposing our community even more to this ultimately destructive tendency.

Senator, I hope you won't regard this email as presumptuous. It's a genuine and honest response to your genuine and honest response to me, for which I remain most grateful. I'm very aware that a senator's schedule is hectic and that time is scarce, so once again I thank you for treating me as a thinking Citizen, and not merely a potential tick on a ballot card. I also thank you for your strong personal stance on the a-political matter of MP Superannuation.

You will note that I have circulated this response to all Members and other Senators. I find it personally offensive and civically demoralising that every politician (bar one) refuses to even properly address the issue of economic self-interest in their own lives, while simultaneously dismissing everyone else in the country as money-driven morons via their leaders' manifest public presumptions that the only thing we greedy voters will vote for is some form of tax cut.

I assure you, Senator, that this mean and nasty assumption - from both sides - does not apply to me, and I would be delighted if you were to find some way of placing my objection to being treated with such hypocritical, dismissive contempt by my Parliament firmly on the public record.

Senator, thank you again for responding, and may I wish you personally a happy - albeit unsuccessful - election campaign. Yours sincerely,

Steve Robertson

From: Len Harris
To: Steve Robertson
Date: 10 August 2001
Subject: Reply to Senator Len Harris on MP Superannuation

Hi Steve,

It helps to be on top of the list, what I mean is that I am still trying to catch up with the 5000 odd e-mails that I am behind!

I hear what you are saying re: the "is that governance would fragment and become excessively populist, even haphazardly so. In some ways, we are already seeing this develop"; the reverse of this is when the political parties are compromised by accepting large donations from institutions to gain power, and then subservient to them in relation to the legislation they produce (wrong legislation = no donations). I still believe that even in some small way, if Australians can in a meaningful way have an input into the legislation that is produced, this will over a period of time result in people having a greater ownership and respect for their society in which they live! That would only lead to a better society.

One suggestion: don't put all the Members and Senators names in the TO box, hide them in the BCC (blind carbon copy). Listening to one Senator who said that their party policy is if an e-mail is copied to all members and senators they dump it without reading it.

I welcome your criticism. It's only through them that we become aware of our faults.

Regards Len.

* * * * * *

Leaving the 20th Century Isms Behind At Last: Only Human LEADERSHIP BY EXAMPLE can unite us as One Green Nation.

It's the ECONOMICS, Australia. For nearly two decade we, as a nation, have had bewildering and radical economic changes thrust upon us by a tiny number of powerful, well-connected and mostly-wealthy 'mainstream' elites. A lot of us have done OK in the process, but - if we were to one day allow nasty class envy bitterness to take hold of us - we would note, on closer inspection, that ALL those who stewarded in those changes curiously seem to have done exceptionally OK. I suggest to the mainstream political leaders who have brought us these changes that if we don't want to see Australia fragment viciously again in the very near future - perhaps along Hansonian or anti-WTO fringe lines - then it MUST be up to YOU PERSONALLY to start leading the civic way back to a reasonable Australian-egalitarian social cohesion, and by YOUR 'hip-pocket nerve' PERSONAL EXAMPLE alone.

Up to YOU PERSONALLY, John Howard and/or Simon Crean, to demonstrate YOUR PERSONAL leadership commitment to Free Market Theory, to 'Honest Politics' and the 'Fair Go' in this dusty joint, by using your Free Democratic Will now to voluntarily opt yourself out of the public pig-trough and into a commercially-competitive superannuation fund, of the kind that the rest of us now find ourselves at the Free Market mercy of. If you need to up your basic pay to make it workable, then that's just fine, but if our personal long-term retirement security is going to depend entirely on the 'performance' of a row of squiggly numbers on some Private Polity computer screen - thanks to your bipartisan policies of the last two decades - then yours bloody well should, too.

THIS - not something as 'irrelevant' and unachievable and undesirable and uncreative and retrograde and downwardly-driving and historically-disastrous as trying to make us all equally wealthy/poor - is what is called the Australian FAIR GO. Simply: that we all manifestly play by the SAME rules. It's critical, surely?

So my public superannuation challenge to our two still publicly-superannuated Mainstreamist leaders, self-important and contrived and futile and self-delusional as it may well be, bloody well stands. If I have to - and I hope to god that I do - I'll split the bastard right down the mainstream Australian middle, and give each of your dull and moribund 'brand name' main parties half. (Going by Dick Honan standards, $55, 000 should buy me at least an hour to ear-bash each of you about global warming, too.)

Because even though Peter Andren, Bob Brown, Mike Organ, Len Harris and I may enjoy whizzing about on our 'precious' and 'idealistic' lunatic political fringes, we'd probably all happily concede, after our useful internet exchanges of views on New Millennium democracy, that the genuine middle ground is where the future of stable Executive governance in this country must remain. But it's only going to stay there if the rest of us are inspired, by either or both of you, to keep our votes there, too.

Get your wallets out, fellahs. John Howard? Simon Crean? The Lunar Fringe awaits your personal Mainstream democratic lead with interest.

Yours sincerely,

S.J. Robertson
Citizen-Consumer of Oz

PS: Stop laughing, y'fringe-dwelling bastards. This is SERIOUS!

* * * * * * *

A HOPEFUL MAINSTREAM DEMOCRATIC CODA 101.

Ancient emails between the lunatic Mainstream and the relaxed and comfortable Fringe. Because even your average Mainstreamist polly would much rather be an idealistic fringe-dweller, any old day. Let's face it - only a lunatic would go into politics in the first place, right?

From: Jack Robertson
To: All Australian Senators and MPs, The Parliamentary Press Gallery
Date: 19 March 2001
Subject: An Appeal for a more relevant Oz Parliament

Dear Elected Representative,

Attached is my appeal for a more relevant Australian Parliament. With thanks for your time.

Jack Robertson
Citizen of Australia

An Appeal for a More Relevant Oz Parliament

Apparently the contemporary political landscape has gone a bit utsy on us. Certainly the 'Free' Market has, anyway (surprise, surprise).

The mild collapse of the economy, and the subsequent uneasy silence of the 'Free' Market Triumphalists, might be an opportunity for political Representatives of all stripes to re-set the Public Gyros and re-assert coherent Parliamentary Democracy as the defining expression of the aspirations of Australian men and women. (Give the 'Free Market' Theory of Life a bit of a kick in the nuts while it's down, so to speak). I put it to you all that the alternatives are that Australians will a) either increasingly withdraw from political participation altogether, or b) increasingly choose to vote for superficial populists possessing little political strategy beyond a reactionary desire to act as 'spoilers'.

So for what it's worth, for your consideration is an appeal to our elected leaders to reassert Democratic Representation as a more relevant mechanism for Public Debate, in an era in which the Bean Monkies seem intent on rendering it redundant, and 'Information Fatigue' threatens to turn us all into zombies, cynics or nihilists. If these ideas are ill-mannered, embarrassingly gauche or even downright stupid, then at least they can't be any less constructive than what's been going on recently in Public Life. The big fuss over Ryan was all very well, but really just 'more of the same'. I propose that now is an appropriate time for a strategic shift in the way we 'do' politics in this country.

Ta for your time.

Jack Robertson

Section One - Eat Less Shit

1. Politicians consume more Public Excrement than anyone else in Australia. For some odd reason, you've allowed yourselves to be turned into objects of ridicule. (Granted, it's apt in some cases, but we can't take your Democratic Leadership seriously if you don't.)

2. To that end, three fairly straightforward observations (I'm not trying to be socially divisive either, I'm simply pointing out a few facts):

a. You work longer hours and see less of your family than anyone else in this country.

b. You earn far less than most corporate executives, all newspaper proprietors, many high-profile journalists and the most famous of our beloved radio broadcasters.

c. You are the only employees who are subject to an optional, society-wide vote. (It is optional - we can just as easily vote informal as vote for you. We didn't, did we?)

3. We also didn't vote for your speechwriters, your pollsters (tits on a bull, that lot), your spin doctors, your Party National President, your Branch Secretary, your backroom headkicker, your policy boffins, your celebrity supporters or your shoulder pad fluff-plucker. We voted for YOU. None of these other political wannabes have put their cods on the Ballot Box Chopping Block like you. Why let the many tails wag the solitary dog?

4. Sex yourselves up a bit - and I don't mean Creany should go out and get his nipples pierced (even if the notion is thoroughly enchanting). But why not allow your Humanity to show a tad more - maybe let the odd 'f**k' slip out in public, perhaps try laughing? Usually when we do get to see you, you're so bloody grim and stodgy and earnest (except for the nutters among you, and that ain't good.) Loosen up! It's supposed to be a bit FUN, too.

5. And these days you have to compete for our attention with Andy Denton, Tatiana, Nicole, Russell and Co, Daniel Johns, those nob-heads on Survivor, the Talk-back Corporate Rent Boys, the Press Gallery, Shane Warne, minor-league f**kwits like Eminem and the wittily debonair Mr Edward McGuire. And as much as I love the Rich Tapestry of Public Life, I can't remember voting for any of them - so why should they get all the snappy lines?

6. Besides, no-one out here actually wants to be publicly represented by dorks, Party Robots, scowlers and plodders. It reflects somewhat poorly on us all, so to speak.

7. OK, I'm prepared to take the punt - pay yourselves a decent bloody salary. The glorified Bean Monkey who runs Maccas pulls in eight figures, and what does he do for it? He makes bloody hamburgers, that's what. What an inspiring figure! What a glorious manifestation of the Sublime Possibilities of Human Endeavour!

8. However (and this is quite possibly the biggest 'however' in the history of the English language), if you DO pay yourselves decent dosh - I dunno, let's say at least 250 grand for backbenchers sliding up to half a mill or so for the PM - you would also have to pass legislation prohibiting Reps from using their public profiles and experience for cynical financial gain, both in and out of office. This is especially so for those ex-Reps who are on hefty Parliamentary pensions. It cheapens the notion of Public Office when former pollies exploit their (still red-hot) contacts in this way immediately after losing/leaving office. Thus, you'd have to construct a watertight means of banning lucrative Directorships, Consultancies, lobby slots, media gigs and pasta sauce ads for a very long period of time. You might argue against this on grounds of legal enforceability. I simply remind you that you MAKE the bloody laws. Why not put your heads together and start making a few that protect your own long-term collective credibility? Surely it's in everyone's interest?

9. Two of the most popular things on the box at the mo' are 'Reality' shows and West Wing. People obviously have an interest in both faked real life and faked political process. It hardly takes a Jonas Salk to deduce the blindingly obvious. But you have to sell it. (See 17.)

10. So get serious in substance, and spruce up a bit in reach. And for Christ's sake, how about you piss out your - no, make that OUR - turf with a bit more stylistic swagger, OK? In this 'me, me, me' world of ours - no matter what any dickhead says - you are actually one of the few groups of people who are still trying to contribute to the 'Public Polity'. So why allow so many self-serving arseholes to sneer from the safety of the Private Sector? F**k, every time some moronic millionaire shock-jock or columnist takes an opportunistic swipe at YOU, they're also taking a swipe at the people who voted you in - and that's US.

Kick some arse! If you are a pack of bastards, then at least you're OUR pack of bastards. No-one ever said that Democratically-Elected Representatives had to be simpering chickenshits. If you're worried about turning into a zealot, then relax - we'll vote you out if you get too far up yourself. The point is, we CAN'T DO THAT to anyone else who has a public platform, and just now the unaccountable gob-merchants and their creepy private agendas threaten to overwhelm Public Debate, with their (superficially-attractive) 'straight-talkin' People's Voice' horseshit.

If there's anyone in our society who can even half-claim to speak on the People's behalf, then it's YOU. Kindly do so with a bit of bloody intellectual argy-bargy.

Section Two - Communicate WITH us

11. In this spanking new 'Information Age', there is no absolutely no excuse for not getting your message across clearly, intelligently and Humanly. Think laterally about how to communicate it to us. Ditch the sound-bites, the doorstop grabs, the Party Line rhetoric and - most of all - the obfuscating waffle. It shows you in about the worst possible light. ('These are complex and difficult issues which will have to be addressed...' Sorry, but what is that utter rubbish? Martian? Dickhead-speak? NO-ONE talks like this except you. Ech!)

12. Besides, the worst thing that can happen if you unambiguously state your position on an issue is that we won't vote for you - which we might increasingly tend to do anyway.

13. And why are you all so scared of public emotional honesty? Ron Boswell recently let a bit slip vis-a-vis One Nation, and my first impulse was to sit down and have a quiet coldy with the guy. TRUST US to empathise with the difficult compromises you often face. We can only do this if you articulate them honestly to us. The first pollie who admits in public that a tricky issue has got 'em frankly bum-f**ked for ideas might just be surprised by our sympathetic response. We don't actually expect you to make the world perfect, y'know. Just talk WITH us frankly. You might even enjoy it.

14. You have a Public Broadcaster. USE IT. Pass multi-partisan legislation requiring ABC TV to broadcast all of Question Time every day that Parliament sits. If we don't like it, and/or we don't watch it, stiff shit for us. THRUST coherent participatory Democracy (not the we-whinge-via-Talkback-you-respond-via-Doorstop version) down our bloody throats. Give us a decko at you in your proper place of work, and we might start to re-appreciate the link between OUR vote and the direction in which OUR society evolves.

15. And if we could actually regularly see you in your proper place of work (ie that's the two debating chambers, for all the media wannabes among you), you might have to start behaving yourselves there. Not to mention being clever, witty, concise, relevant, captivating and intelligently passionate You might enjoy that, too.

16. 'Public Opinion' is manufactured bullshit. There, I said it. What's YOUR opinion? Opinion polls are exercises in superficial box-ticking, about as representative and reliable as TV ratings. Jesus, how many times do these clipboard-wielding dipshits have to get it dead-buggered wrong before the penny drops? Don't try to cram us into 'convenient' pigeon-holes, because we simply won't go. Polls are less than useless. The only option is to lead debate.

17. Pick five pollies - Lib, Lab, Nat, Dem, and an Ind - and get an ABC crew in to follow 'em around for a month in order to whack together a 'reality' series that shows how Parliament actually works. ('The People's Joint'? I'd like to try that!) Heavy on the daily routine, the admin, the running of both Parliamentary and Electoral offices, the impact on personal lives, etc - the mechanics of it all. Also, get the crew to track the progress of a specific piece of legislation, covering Party and Electorate positions (picking a 'conscience' issue would be sexy), the role of the whips/Party discipline/Parliamentary amendment tactics. Follow it through to the division, with equal opps for each of the five to explain how they will vote and why. Get some heavyweight journos to chuck in their two bob's worth, and include clips from 'real time' national TV news, so we can get an understanding of how the tiny public tip we usually get to see relates to the 'iceberg' of hard yakka underneath.

In other words, show us your sweaty knickers a bit. Talk TO us, talk FOR us, bloody well talk WITH us. We won't bite you.

18. Parliament Must Rock... Invite more high-profile Citizens to make speeches in the Reps' Chamber, and televise them when they do. Invite the Players - Lachie Murdoch and James Packer to outline their personal business visions for the next thirty years, Steve Waugh to present the tribute next time a Test Great carks it, some top acco to make a pitch on behalf of Public Universities, a famous luvvie to eloquently argue the case for Public Arts funding. (Hell, now that the 'Market' has gone tits-up on us, why not haul in one of those Yappy Suits from the Big End of Town to explain it? Funny how, when the economy is booming, it's all thanks to the 'genius' of our bonus-drenched Captains of Industry, yet when it falls through its own freckle, this 'Market' thing suddenly becomes strictly our politicians' responsibility.)

19. ...because Parliament is fast becoming unique. Now that we are choking to death out here on untempered political 'Information' - opinion, comment, advice, analysis, gossip, PR, assertion, hearsay, self-advertisement, spin, internet 'journalism', blah blah blah - boring old Parliament itself offers some unique characteristics:

a. It is entirely, clearly, exhaustively on-the-record;

b. There is an unambiguous and visible HUMAN connection between the opinion and the opiner. ('Here I Stand', and all that);

c. Debate is open, healthy, and moderated - openly moderated by a Speaker/President, rather than by (unseen) editorial, proprietorial or other commercial forces;

d. Unlike other forums, Parliament is not fragmented, or compartmentalised, or niche-directed. It's a piece of common public ground. (Or it had bloody better be - the only alternative 'Big Brothers' shaping up out here are not exactly pretty, or accountable);

e. Parliament remains - however imperfectly - a Public forum at which all Citizens have a more or less equal crack.

Paradoxically - in a saturated 'Information' environment - Parliament might prove to be the one forum where genuine Public Debate can be sustained. So, let's not meekly shift our political intercourse wholly onto the home turf of alternative forums - like commercial TV and radio - which are, after all, ultimately driven by agendas that may not necessarily be democratic. Rather, let's bring to OUR forum - Parliament - elements of style and technical reach that have proved so successful in capturing popular attention in those other forums.

I don't mean dumb Parliament down. I mean funk it UP. I mean modernise it. Make it accessible. After a few thousand years of fine-tuning, the Brilliant Human Play that is Democratic Representation is in pretty good shape (in terms of constitutional soundness, procedural rule, legal accountability, conventional nicety, and so on). The one thing likely to threaten it is a lack of 'bums on seats'.

Why not drag Parliament kicking and screaming into the Third Millennium? Bung it properly on Aunty. Bung it on the Net. Most of all, do whatever it takes to make it watchable - irresistibly so. If most of us are going to become 'spectators' of Great Human Drama, let's at least try to make it 'spectators' of the real one. You never know - it might even keep us involved.

20. Conduct daily webcam 'Press Conferences' on your own website, during which you spend ten minutes simply outlining what you've been up to that day. It you haven't got time, MAKE time. Fine, it's no substitute for mixing it with the Mainstream Press, but - especially for BBs - it would keep you 'out there'. (And if you haven't got an all-singing, all-dancing, high-speed website yet, then...you're kidding, right?)

21. Stop playing 'games' with the Press. You're absolutely bonkers if you think you can 'out-spin' them in these journalistically self-conscious, post-Clintonian times. Could it possibly be that dumb-arsed honesty is the 'New Spin'? (And let's be brutally frank here, all you smug, sniggering Spin Doctors - any half-competent Media Studies graduate would be holding down a gig in the working media, wouldn't they?)

22. Overall, simply stop patronising us. By treating Public Debate as a political 'Game', this is what you are really saying to us all:

You, the Great Unwashed, are all too stupid, and too ignorant, and too lacking in political sophistication, and too rigidly locked into your various petty, sad, one-dimensional little World Views to handle the complexities and contradictions and compromises behind the issues - the pragmatic business of getting stuff done, from which we, Superior Beings, must protect you at all costs, such that you may watch Popstars IV in peace.

Frankly, if that's what you, as an Elected Rep, really think - and I prefer to seriously doubt it, myself (idealistic hillbilly that I am) - then, basically...f**k you.

Section Three - A few random thoughts

23. Pass legislation banning anyone who has no work history outside politics from becoming a Rep. (Make thirty the minimum age for candidacy?) With so many 'professional politicians' now, no wonder political process is overwhelming genuine political substance.

24. Pass legislation requiring an MP to have lived in an electorate for ten years prior to being elected as that electorate's MP. Carpet-bagging is one massive sneer in our grass-roots electoral faces, yet you lot don't even blush about it, anymore.

25. The growing predominance of law graduates among our Reps is worth at least reflecting upon. I've got nothing particularly against lawyers, but on the other hand, it does threaten to nudge Parliamentary debate entirely into the realm of the purely 'legalistic'. It tends to self-limit us, nobbling Parliament as a platform for the strategic, even visionary, ideas that certain contemporary issues will surely soon demand (environment, medical technology issues, the economic divide). Lawyers generally think in terms of 'legal precedent' or, at best, incremental re-interpretation of existing laws. This is all very well, but some of the issues looming are going to need some really wazzo, 'out there' responses.

Remember - you're Democratic Representatives first, lawyers second.

26. More Human working hours in Parliament. All that 'macho, rolled-up shirtsleeves, sparrow's fart and we're all still up arguing' business is fine when there's a war on, but it's just plain dumb as a matter of routine. (If you can't organise yourselves to be in bed by midnight, then you're definitely too thick to even be there in the first place.) Could it possibly be that you simply need to talk less, and say more?

Section Four - Public Polity and 'Market' Forces

27. Every man and his dog is having a fat old time slagging off the 'Free' Market these days, which certainly won't do the Bean Monkies any harm. (Kind of nice to see the shit being flung in their direction for a change.) Look, these 'Market Forces' are just great for generating, focusing and applying creativity and endeavour in the commercial world. Without the 'Market' we wouldn't have a whole lot of shithot stuff, from penicillin to Bart Simpson to six-speed vibrators. Economic competition, the instinct for commerce, even rank material ambition...are all healthy, fertile elements of the Human experience.

But there's a massive difference between conceding this, and deciding that they are the only elements. When we start applying 'Market' principles to other parts of the broad spectrum of Human expression - to art, to sport, to spirituality, and especially to the Public Polity - then we effectively destroy their very raison d'etre. And it's getting so that nothing is safe from the dreary dictates of 'Market' theory. Except - potentially - Parliament.

So what is critical for Elected Reps to recognise is the subtle difference between the impulses manifest in 'Market Forces', and those underpinning mere individual material aspiration. Loaded buggers have always existed, and always will. Fair enough, too - bloody good luck to anyone who is talented, lucky, hard-working or ruthless enough to hoik in the filthies. Life doesn't have to be a stoush between rich and poor (and if dosh is someone's happenin' thang, I can only feel sorry for 'em.) The truly damaging economic change that has occurred over the last two decades has been the erosion of everyone's sense of individual responsibility for the financial decisions we make. If we continue to transform ourselves from a nation of Public 'voters' into a nation of Private 'shareholders', we ultimately risk 'quarantining' ourselves completely from the consequences of our personal economic choices. Fifteen hundred people get the axe at QANTAS because profit dips by 20-odd percent, yet it is 'nothing' to do with us (as QANTAS shareholders), because we can simply blame this 'Market' beast for the 'inevitable' commercial decision.

Yet I can't think of any individual - rich or poor - who would personally choose to sack fifteen hundred fellow Humans solely to earn two bob a share more per year. (Well, maybe that nobhead Al Dunlap, but then he's a Seppo, anyway.) Voluntarily relinquishing total control over what happens in our egalitarian Oz society to something as soulless as the 'Market' is the bleakest Human act I can imagine. Kerry Packer the rich bloke is still capable of extraordinary Human generosity. Kerry Packer the kick-arse businessman runs a hands-on Empire that we can all benefit from (and I bet the old prick doesn't do it for the money, either). But Kerry Packer as mere 'number-crunching Market manager' - ANY mere number-crunching 'Market manager' or 'shareholder' - has no Human attributes whatsoever. F**k-a-duck, you might as well make an electronic calculator CEO of ACP. Ultimately, what this 'Market' bollocks will do - left solely to its druthers - is dehumanise us all.

So for the record:

It is a Lie to equate that collective social influence which is underwritten by Democratic Franchise with that collective social 'influence' which is underwritten only by Economic Franchise (Consumer Buying and Shareholding 'Power' in the 'Marketplace'). Wholly substituting the latter for the former presumes that the only Life matters on which individual Human Beings wish to have a say are those matters which can be measured solely in dollar terms. Pretty bleak vision of Humanity, I'd say. The Bean Monkies have their uses, but we - or rather, you - have to keep their grubby paws off non-commercial areas.

Because you don't have to PAY us to work at the Olympics, right? You don't have to PAY us to fight our neighbour's bushfire. You don't have to PAY us to home-visit AIDS sufferers. Christ-on-a-bloody-bike, you don't even have to PAY us to stuff your electoral office envelopes. These are things that defy 'economic rationalism'. These are things that all occur firmly within the 'Public Polity', the bloody 'Market' be f**ked.

The brilliant truth is, Maggie got it totally arse-about. It's the 'Market', NOT Society, that does not exist. This 'Market' thing is a headless, heartless, soulless non-entity. There is no such thing as a Market 'Force'. There are just lots and lots of individuals with the power to make individual choices. And to provide the focus for this shithot Human autonomy, we have Democratic Representatives, not 'Market' portfolio managers.

So it's up to Parliament to provide coherent, alternative vision(s) of the world to the one spat up by the 'Free' Market alone (or spat up by any other 'Big Ideology', for that matter). You're a Public means to express our unquantifiable, our messier, our Human, our BETTER aspirations. Jesus, the 'Market' doesn't need you of all people to spruik for it. It's big enough and ugly enough to look after itself. Any Elected Rep who ever describes anything which is merely 'Market' driven as 'inevitable' doesn't deserve to be in Parliament.

Because if solely 'Market-driven' changes are 'inevitable' anyway, what the bejesus are we paying you lot to do, exactly? Count out our few remaining Public Beans?

The cruellest aspect of this pissant surrender of Human autonomy to 'Market Forces' is this: if our Elected Reps (of all people) betray - by personal example, by choice of political tactic, by public stance - a private cynical belief that our hip pocket nerve is the only one to which we really respond, then sooner or later, we will start to believe that it is so, and begin to behave accordingly. I simply refuse to accept that any of us - rich or poor or in-between - really want this to happen. Bill Gates - having raked in the GDP of Brazil four hundred times over - doesn't sit around admiring NASDAQ fluctuations on his PC for personal kicks. He collects paintings. He runs charities. He LIVES. The way we seem intent on organising our society, 'living' might become a luxury that fewer and fewer people can afford.

None of us want to become fiscal zombies. Surely it's up to YOU to challenge us as Human Beings? To PUSH US outside the ledger columns so beloved of the Bean Monkeys? To INSPIRE US to transcend these bloody 'Market Forces'? Loudly, rudely and as OFTEN as you can manage it. Thus far, the 'Market' has taken us down the supply-and-demand path-of-least-resistance into territory that is still relatively benign (internet adoption, Nike sweatshops and Temptation Island all have their dubious charms, I s'pose). But we are quickly running out of philosophical elbow room. There are some MONSTER INTELLECTUAL SHITFIGHTS looming - genetic technology, the future of the Third World, and the Global Environment being just three.

These are issues that simply must transcend 'Market' forces. And, for that matter, the out-dated imperatives of Party politics. In fact, it's pretty clear that the old political divides are now redundant, having long been superceded by a far more daunting social dichotomy - that between the Public Polity in its entirety, and the Private Sector. The two don't necessarily have to be at odds, but there is a not-so-subtle philosophical battle for primacy underway, and all Elected Reps share the same vested interest in not losing it. The one sure way of ending up in a place where we as Human Beings don't want to be, is for we as Human Beings to leave it to the 'Market' alone - or any social mechanism that doesn't incorporate the full breadth of our Humanity - to get us there.

Summary - We're all on a bit of a bloody ride

28. The aim of this spiel has not been to mindlessly bad-mouth anyone (not even the Bean Monkeys from the Big End of Town, bless their hairy little graspers). It is an appeal to our Democratically-Elected Representatives to re-embrace, for better or worse and on our collective behalves, control over and responsibility for the direction in which our community evolves. As things stand, I'd say we're all being taken for a free-wheeling and largely undirected ride. The engine room propelling us is a combination of many things - the aforementioned Market, the eye-popping advances in modern science and technology, the 'Information' revolution, the break-down of all the old social and institutional certainties, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. We've all read the books.

None of these things are inherently 'good' or 'bad'. They are just 'things'. Collectively, they can represent either a series of opportunities for the brilliant re-invention of Humanity, or the nasty harbingers of some sort of grotty Dystopian nightmare. What is needed right now - while things are still more or less under control - is for us to rediscover both a sense of self-confidence in our ability to determine and direct the changes, and a belief that to do so is worthwhile. At the moment we seem to be faffing about in a post-Totalitarian Funk, at the mercy of, rather than proactively harnessing, all these 'things'. Little wonder, I s'pose - last century was an absolute Barry Crocker in the old 'Twisted Visions of Utopia' stakes. What with all those 'isms' turning out to be such disasters, we're now wary of thinking too much about any 'Big Picture'. So perhaps an overlooked additional crime of the twentieth century's Ideological Nutters was the way they've intellectually castrated the leaders of future generations. Yet if contemporary Public leaders are now unwilling to even try the 'vision thing' for fear of turning into the next Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot, then I'm sorry, but we've just handed those same sad f**kers yet another posthumous victory they don't deserve. It's one thing to argue that governments should butt out of people's lives, but 'No Government At All' will be a damned sight more Totalitarian than 'Big Government' ever was.

Look, being a tad gun-shy of anyone who starts spruiking on about 'changing the world' is not a bad thing. To date in this country, we've been generally well-served by our air of laid-back scepticism viz-a-viz 'political vision'. On the other hand, there's a very fine line between 'laid-back scepticism' and 'apathetic vulnerability'. The rude fact is, whether we like it or not, the times they are a-changin' anyway. And just because all the 'reasonable' and 'rational' Human Beings have decided that 'history is over' doesn't mean that the self-serving, the fruitcakes and the thugs have, too. We delude ourselves spectacularly if we fail to recognise that the advances civilisation has made over the last few thousand years are just as easily - and far more quickly - unmade. And if there's anything at all that recent history should show us it is that, sooner or later, any Theoretically Watertight 'ism' has the potential to become no longer compatible with genuine Human freedom.

I'm not necessarily claiming we've already reached that point of incompatibility when it comes to 'Free Market Rationalism' (the cheery 'ism' of the day [this, of course, written before Nihilist Terrorism raised its ugly head in murderous counter-reaction, as befits the historical rhythms of nihilist ideology: benign-then-malignant, passive-then-active. Oops, pardon my 'self-blaming' again. JR]). But where-ever we go in the next few decades, the key thing is that it must be individual Human Beings - preferrably democratically-accountable ones - who drive the Public Debate that takes us there. Certainly not the abstract dictates of any Ideology or Theory or Economic Principle, anyway. We don't elect you as Academic Theorists, or Intellectual Purists, or Expert Economists. We elect you as Human Beings, because it is ultimately as Human Beings that we all live, in a messy, warm and fuzzy, distinctly untheoretical world.

So my appeal to our Reps is simple: whatever the 'experts' and 'leaders' and 'theorists' of the economic, scientific, business or any other 'sectors' claim, ultimately what is 'good' for our Democracy is no more and no less than what you personally think is good for our Democracy. Right now, you personally are the manifestation of Universal Franchise. For all its faults, there's no better option than Democratic Representation.

That makes you the Big Cheeses. You are the Top Bananas. YOU are the King and Queen Shits in this Democratic community of ours, and you're a Great Big Wuss if you let anyone or anything tell you otherwise. If you can't hack it, or you won't hack it (or, for that matter, if you haven't got a bloody clue what you personally think about anything), then f**k off and give someone else a crack at doing the job. The job of articulating who you personally think we as a society are, and what you personally think we as a society could and should become.

The great thing about Democracy is that if we happen to disagree with you personally, then we can simply vote you personally out of Public Office.

Right?

An angry, hopeful Citizen

And verily did the unrepresentative swill in the Executive 'other place' finally find their ears and tongues. Just.

From: Mainstream MP One
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 19 March 2001
Subject: An appeal for a more relevant Oz Parliament

Dear Jack,

Amazing! A must read for all of us - and the Gallery. I hope you can get a wider audience - these things need to be shouted from the rooftops. You may find that there are more allies amongst your elected representatives than you think. What we lack is the necessary courage and the chutzpah to carry off a full frontal attack. I did have a go at raising some of these issues in a speech to the Sydney Institute last year . The response I got showed that there are a lot of people with a real appetite for punching through the posturing and "spin" of daily politics to a more messy and engaged debate about where the hell we're going.

I've attached the paper and my web address. Please keep it up. Regards,

Mainstream MP One

From: Jack Robertson
To: Mainstream MP One
Date: 19 March 2001
Subject: An Appeal for a more relevant Oz Parliament

Dear Mainstream MP One,

Thanks heaps for replying. All I ask is that - whatever your beliefs - you bloody well HOOK IN on our collective behalf. We voted for YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU.

Good luck.

Jack Robertson

From: Mainstream MP Two
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 19 March 2001
Subject: An appeal for a more relevant Oz Parliament

Dear Jack,

Enjoyed the rave. For your info have a look at my new book KKKKKKK, about building democracy in a globalised world, which picks up some of the same themes you are drawing on.

Mainstream MP Two

From: Jack Robertson
To: Mainstream MP Two
Date: 19 March 2001
Subject: An appeal for a more relevant Oz Parliament

Dear Mainstream MP Two,

Thanks heaps for replying. As it happens, I have read your book, and - for what my opinion is worth - I think it's as funky as all get out. But mate - it's only as good as YOU PERSONALLY are prepared to make it, duderama. So kick arse, mate! Argue it, fight it, get in there and whack your elbows up! Kick some butt! Piss out our Democratic Turf, mate! NEVER GIVE UP!

Because you are a Democratic GOD! Ozzie, ozzie, ozzie, (etc),

Jack Robertson

(PS: OK, maybe I got a bit carried away with the 'Democracy' thing, but still: YOU are our main man, mate. YOU are the representative thang.)

* * * * * * *

Howling from the fringes for Democratic Representation

Right. So perhaps there are three civic lessons to be learned, here, I feel: firstly, never, never, never communicate via email with your Honourable Representatives when you're whacked as a skunk. Secondly, even some of those line-toeing, Executive-governing, House of Representative Mainstreamists are secret fringe-dwellers at heart. And as they said: we Lunar Fringies may well have more allies amongst them than we think.

Thirdly - and then again - in a post-modern, post-historical, post-9/11, Mainstreamist, Third Way, Third Millennium, Free Market Wonderland where there is no such thing as truth and the lying-est, waffling-est, smoothest, smarmiest spin-doctor can very, very easily turn out to be a thoroughly false 'democratic god':

Bullshit walks, House of Reps. Money talks. My public challenge to Howard and Crean stands, Mainstream MPs.

If fellow Fringe-Dwellers are as fed up and bored and civically-disgruntled with Mainstreamist Politics as I am, please feel free to cut and paste the relevant bits, and send it to your nearest Mainstreamist MP. Just so that neither of the two Mainstreamist Leaders we're currently lumped with can throw up their civic firewalls in hip pocket defence, and claim - later on when the globally-unique Civic Ideal we call the Australian Fair Go is no more - that their Citizens didn't try to do their little bits to save it.

Thanks for reading all the way through. I hope at least some fellow Webdiarists can sympathise with my various points and my strategy. Me, I howl an awful lot, as befits us Fringe-loonies, but I don't howl to rage against the machine, I howl for the machine. I don't want to tear down 'The System' in a mighty revolution. Usually I quite like The Mainstreamist System, give or take a few nastily-opportunist and hypocritical PMs and Premiers, the odd flip-flopping wuss of an Opposition Leader or three. And so if I'm howling particularly loudly just now, then it's simply because I want the bloody thing to work well, and feel that right it just ain't. That right now, The System is running ratshit, quite frankly. There's nothing much wrong with The System in general terms - not as such - it's just that it can only ever work as well as our Political Systems Operators at any given epoch in history will allow.

Above all, what a well-working System requires is that there be at least a few genuine DEMOCRATIC LEADERS, too, among the Human plodders, decent hacks and worthily-earnest Political Operators who keep the daily-grinding legislative engine room ticking over on our behalf. Leaders who will lead by PERSONAL EXAMPLE. Leaders who can and will INSPIRE us to better ourselves, occasionally. Leaders who will put their own jobs and careers on the line over bedrock matters of philosophical Human principle, if and whenever required. And leaders who will SEARCH OUT, LISTEN TO, and then TAKE SERIOUSLY their Citizens' howls of anger and dismay - even, and especially, those howls like this one that are coming from the wackier Lunar Fringes. Personally bedazzling, courageous, star-reaching leaders.

Leaders like - in this Citizen's personal civic experience, at least - this one. (I'm breaking confidences here, but if the Mainstreamist press reckons it's 'ethical to publish Private emails, if it's in the Public interest', who am I to argue? Anyway, what the hell does 'Private' and 'Public' actually MEAN, these days?!?)

* * * * * * *

From: Margo Kingston
To: Jack Robertson
Date: 7 November 2000
Subject: re: ta

Hi. Cheryl Kernot has asked if I could give her your email address. OK or not?

Margo

From: Jack Robertson
To: Margo Kingston
Date: 7 November 2000
Subject: Ms Kernot/my email

Dear Ms Kingston,

Yes, that's fine. (Thanks for your trouble.)

Jack Robertson

From: Jack Robertson
To: Ms Cheryl Kernot, MP
Date: 12 November 2000
Subject: A challenge to an Elected Representative (note - the language is tad frank)

Dear Ms Kernot,

Thanks for giving a shit.

I could understand if you didn't contact me via email, after all - Ms Kingston does tend to go over-the-top occasionally vis-a-vis 'disclosure' (she knocked my nuts off, quite frankly, with the salary thing!)

Then again, Martin Gruber went over-the-top on occasion, too. Any Reporter worth honouring with the job description 'Reporter' does.

I have sent you a copy of a few musings - '52 Ideas for a Healthier Australian News Meeja.' (Snail mail - sorry, but I like hard copy, myself.) Actually, I have sent it to you and quite a few other people. (I go over-the-top occasionally, too!)

Ms Kingston has suggested that there needs to be a 'paradigm shift' in the Media. It can only work if the pollies - whatever side they're from - take a great big 'strategic' Leap of Faith, too.

We are crying out for leaders who are:

- passionate but not fanatical;
- intelligent but not wankers;
- aspiring but not elitist;
- committed but not unable to take the piss out of themselves;
- pragmatic but not cynical;
- above all else, not embarrassed, ashamed, reticent or 'ironic' in being LEADERS!!!!!!!

Personally, I will consider it a National Dishonour if the Seppos elect a female President before we elect a female Prime Minister. Bad enough that those Pommy fuckers beat us to it.

That gives you a shade over four years, I'd reckon.

So:

Are you up for it, or what?

Yours sincerely,

Jack Robertson

PS: I'd be super-grateful if you didn't let ANY BASTARD turn my ideas about the media into an 'anti-Liberal, anti-John Howard' thing. I have no political opinions and no political affiliations. Shit, maybe you should start a new party?

(PPS: No need to reply, Ms Kernot. I've got plays and stuff to write, and you're as busy as all get-out.)

From: Ms Cheryl Kernot, MP
To: Steve Robertson
Date: 13 November 2000
Subject: A challenge to an Elected Representative

Dear Steve,

I haven't replied yet because I want to write a long one and just now I'm up to my eyeballs in a speech to the Sydney Institute for this Wednesday night.

I found so much in what you said, but you need a wider campaign!!!

Saw Margo at the P House cafe last week and challenged her to put your discussions in the real SMH!

I was going to ask if you were a pseudonym for anyone and what you would do with my comments. It's very hard to express an opinion that's not dominated by caution and fear of misrepresentation these days. I know a great deal about that.

Cheryl K

From: Steve Robertson
To: Cheryl K
Date: 14 November 2000
Subject: We VOTED FOR YOU Ms Kernot

Dear Ms Kernot,

No, Stephen John ('Jack') Robertson is me, and only me. I will, of course, treat any comments you make here as private comments.

I am grateful and rather flattered that you would want to write me a long and considered reply. But let's take it as read, shall we? You are no doubt flat-out, and I've got a play to finish.

You write: 'It's very hard to express an opinion that's not dominated by caution and fear of misrepresentation, these days.'

Bullshit, Ms Kernot. I've just expressed 52. You might 'agree, disagree, be totally bemused, or think I'm a complete tosser', but my opinions are now there for all to see. ('Sort of' on the public record. As best I could manage it, anyway.)

If words are presented frankly, compellingly (and, if I may say so, occasionally amusingly), they cannot be misrepresented. Not even by David Yelland.

You've got Free Will too, you know. Obviously more than most MPs, by the looks of it.

So: rather than have these time-consuming, hand-wringing chats about 'how hard' everything is these days, allow me to re-issue my challenge:

Change the world, Cheryl. Go on, I dare you.

Yours with deepest sincerity and gratitude for your time,

Steve Robertson

PS: I mean this in the nicest possible way, Ms Kernot, but I've got a play to finish, and you're no doubt very busy, too.

PPS: Here's an idea - at the Sydney Institute on Wed, why not read my piece from cover to cover? (Bit presumptuous, I know. Still, you can if you want - but only on condition that you say only that it is by 'A Citizen' who believes in free, open, healthy Public Debate. The Internet is good for subverting the dominant paradigm, but it is not free, it is not open, it is not healthy and it is not Public Debate.)

Good Luck.

* * * * * * *

Like all of us here on the Oz political fringes, I'm not rich, I'm not powerful, I'm not clever, I'm not cunning, I'm not handsome, I'm not well-connected and I'm not ruthlessly strong. I have no aptitude for violence and a prissy, middle-class distaste for anarchy.

That's why I like the way we've developed our Human Democratic Franchise over the centuries; it's our best-yet tribal means to our timeless tribal end of ensuring Human order and decency and fairness and safety for all. It's why The System is not just there for the rich and the powerful and the tribal elites who've figured out how to work it better than most of us. It's there to sustain me and everyone like me - us, the weakest of our tribe - too. So when those elites, the strong of our tribe, start to mess with The System itself, they are messing with me, and all the other weak, nobody Citizens out here. And we may well be weak, and we may well be nobodies, but we're still voting Citizens, and there's a f**k of a lot more of us, the weak, than of them, the strong. Which is why those System elites would do well to start making The System work for us again, too.

The System is good. The System is mine. It's yours. It's ours. And it's high time the self-deluding, self-serving bastards who've long hijacked it for their own grubby ends got The System back into proper civic gear on our behalf.





posted by J at 2:15 AM