Issue 87.4

On Dit

ISSUE 87.4 MAY 2019

WHAT’S ON

MAY15th

16th

17th

Native Food Market Where: Union House When: May 15th

Arts@Adelaide Where: Hub Central When: 16th May

AHMSA: (Adelaide Health and Medical Sciences Association) PubCrawl Where: Various locations, find more information on Facebook When: May 17th

17th

21st

24th

AMSS (Adelaide Medical Students Society) PubCrawl: Who’s Your Type?

Where: Various locations, find more information on Facebook When: May 17th

AULSS (Adelaide University Law School Society) Walk for Justice Where: Ligertwood When: May 21st

Fri-Yay Union Member Lunches Where: Union House When: May 24st

31st

1st

7th

AUMA (Adelaide University Media Association) Pub Crawl Where: Various locations, find more information on Facebook When: May 31st

AULSS (Adelaide University Law School Society) Law Ball Where: Adelaide Oval When: June 1st

-JUNE

Fri-Yay Union Member Lunches Where: Union House When: June 7th

-

EDITORIAL 你好! Ni hao!

Australia is often touted as a bastion of democracy and equality of opportunity, something which lead the ancestors of many of us to traverse the seas and settle here. Seeking a better life for themselves in the post-war era, optimistic about freedom and social mobility. Australia was one of the first countries in the world grant suffrage to all (white) men regardless of class. Second to New Zealand, South Australia was one of the first territories in the world to allow (white) women to vote, instating the capacity for political participation and candidacy in 1894.

Australian Democracy has been a longstanding exercise that (now) all people, young and old, have the chance to partake in to affect policy change and prevent or at the very least slow down growing income inequality, environmental degradation, gentrification, social disenfranchisement and technological disruption of our economy.

With the growth in popularity of nationalist parties that promote violence and hatred, the power of democracy is more important than ever. We’ve seen political violence stemming from racist and hateful rhetoric in New Zealand, and we’ve seen the rise of right-wing populism and individualistic parties grow. The power of the vote in removing these fascist voices from our democratic system is in our hands – one which promotes progressive policy, and which actively welcomes all Australians despite the growth of this anti-white rhetoric.

Of course, this election season’s millennial pandering has amounted to poorly photoshopped memes, with a slight glimmer of promised revisions to Newstart and addressing our justified pessimism about the future. But politics isn’t just a contest between two major parties trying to win a popularity contest by kissing babies, necking a beer, or misinterpreting ethnicities and greeting people in the wrong language - it is a struggle between those who want to maintain power to protect the special (mostly class) interests they represent, and those who aim to topple them.

This not just about voting either; petitions, protests, boycotts, student activism, online shitposting, toppling prime ministers, and hell - even egging are all equally important ways that Australians can impact the political process that are just as, if not more important than writing down some numbers on a piece of paper every few years.

In The Republic, Plato warned that or those who refuse to participate in politics, “the chief penalty is to be governed by someone worse if a man will not himself hold office and rule,” as the great tragedy of democracy is that the ignorant and ill-equipped masses inevitably govern.

It is easy to let impending climate catastrophe and contending parties’ attempts to win over bloated boomers by boasting about creating a budget surplus, at the expense of every government expense towards infrastructure, education, the NDIS, and public housing disillusion you from politics.

But instead of scribbling something on your ballot that probably could have belonged in our last edition, SexualiDit - become informed, organise, and make your vote count.

From, the On Dit team

4

State of the Union SRC President Left, Right, and Centre Vox Pop EconDit Watermelons, Tree Tories and Greens Party Politicide The Liberal Party: A Hard Right Turn How To Vote: A Rundown of the Three Major Parties’ Policy for Students Quadratic Voting: Radical Democracy?

The Other Elections Spineless Pollies, from Turnbull to Shorten Vote [1] Climate Policy NDIS Cuts: What It Means To Me NDIS CUTS: The Expense of the Budget Surplus Film Review: The Island of the Hungry Ghosts Massacres vs. Mass Democracy A Guide to Australia’s Minor Parties My Surplus Is Bigger Than Yours They Speak (playlist) Horoscopes Gig Guide To the boy who can't tell me he doesn't love me Grey Eyes

6 7 8 10 12 1614 16 20 22 19 22 24 27 28 30

Editors Imogen Hindson Sam Bedford Emily Savage Subeditors Maxim Buckley Clare Dekuyer Felix Eldridge Ella Michele Stasi Kapetanos

31

Design

32 33 34 36

Emily Savage

38 40 41 42 44

We would like to Acknowledge that the land of The University of Adelaide is the traditional lands for the Kaurna people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their Country. We also acknowledge the Kaurna people as the traditional custodians of the Adelaide region and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still as important to the living Kaurna people today.

5

STATE OF THE UNION Words by AUU Board President Oscar Ong

To all graduates who are graduating in 2019, congratulations on your well-deserved success! As you cherish the fruits of your hard work, on behalf of the Adelaide University Union, we wish that success keeps following you in everything that you do. We wish you all the best with your new opportunities and the career path you’ve unlocked for your future in Australia or around the world.

However, I have continuously heard lecturers and employers complain about the lack of skills from graduates.

The increasing disconnection between University qualifications and employment is very concerning, and it affects students in every field. The graduate entry level job which requires 4 years work experience dilemma is real! Employers are asking for more and more experience from employees due to the competitive job market. But for nearly everything in your student life - the AUU is here to help you!

The AUU offers information and support, short courses, jobs and volunteering opportunities for you all the way through your degree. To start, find jobs and volunteering opportunities that are updated regularly in the AUU website. Our Employment and Volunteering Service team is located in the Lady Symon Building, just beside the new UniBar. You can find out more about training opportunities, advice on volunteering and international NGO’s there!

You can always book in a session with our staff for free resume and cover letter proof reading, with interview hacks available as well. Short courses like the ambulance and first aid training and the Responsible Service of Alcohol (RSA) are available at a discounted price (further discount for AUU members). You can also come volunteer with us for events held throughout the year, which is a a great wat to build your network and experiences.

to vote to go out on May 18th to cast your ballot. Don’t believe your vote make a difference? I ran in 2017 Students Elections for a position in the SRC and have lost by two votes, it happened to me and it could happen to anyone, so, no matter where you stand, it is very important that you exercise your power to vote on May 18th.

When we talk about elections, the word POLITICS will be the first thing come up in our mind! Same goes to the Union, a concern I heard from people over and over again. However, the AUU is an apolitical organisation, we aim to make student life fun and accessible and to give students a voice at the University by running a wide range of services including: academic advocacy, welfare and grants, events on campus, Student Radio, On Dit, Clubs and Employment and Volunteering Service. Whereas the SRC exists to represent the students in a political manner to represent your interest to University and external parties, including the state and federal government.

In an effort to depoliticise the Student Media, we will be postponing the Student Media Directors elections four weeks after the Annual AUU elections, a change that students have been asking for. Previously, Student Media Directors were elected at the same time as the Board and SRC which has the potential to create politicised student media - a threat to independence. Politicisation of student media must be avoided, and the value of a student media able to hold elected representatives to account should be recognised by the AUU. Watch this space as more changes will come!

Oscar Zi Shao Ong President, Adelaide University Union auupresident@auu.org.au

Back to the main theme of this edition, FEDERAL ELECTIONS! One of our main values here in the AUU is democracy. This is an opportunity to make your voice heard and I will encourage you all that have enrolled

6

SRC PRESIDENT Words by SRC President Ali Amin

One of the most cherished ideas of economic policymakers in Australia, and a Federal election issue, is the idea that more higher education is the key to economic success, yet does education really matter?

For an individual, education has a range of benefits. For example, it builds helpful credentials for one’s own career and stabilises the income of families across generations.

Let us consider an investment banker. He makes money, his children go to university, say the University of Adelaide, they become doctors and lawyers, and thus the family retains their wealth. University degrees allow members to remain in the upper class long after their ancestral wealth is depleted. According to British economist Alison Wolf, so far as individuals are concerned, education — “having the right qualifications, in the right subjects, from the right institutions” — matters. Indeed, it matters more than ever before. Those who leave school early or without qualifications are tagged, as it were, for low incomes, with a probability that is high and rising. Increasingly, those who fail to get a degree, or in some cases a degree from a good university, are sorted in a similarly brutal way. In other words, the private returns to education are high. But another question also needs to be answered, especially in countries with university education systems that are financed by the state: namely, what are the returns for society as a whole?

Serious empirical investigation largely carried out by American development economist Lant Pritchet shows no evidence that raising the general level of education raises income at the level of a country. Although the opposite could be true, that wealth leads to the rise of education.

The evidence can be obtained by looking at countries that are both wealthy and have some level of education and then considering which condition preceded the other.

In 1960, Taiwan had a much lower literacy rate than the Philippines and half the income per person; today Taiwan has ten times the income. At the same time, Korea had a much lower literacy rate than Argentina (which had one of the highest in the world) and about one-fifth the income per person; today it has three times as much. Furthermore, over the same period, sub-Saharan Africa saw markedly

increasing literacy rates, accompanied with a decrease in their standard of living. There are myriad examples which we could cite over and over. This can be explained by what risk analyst and top-selling author Nassim Taleb has termed “the fooled by randomness effect” — mistaking the merely associative for the causal. That is, since rich countries are educated, immediately inferring that education makes a country rich, without really checking.

British economist Alison Wolf argues “the simple oneway relationship which so entrances our politicians and commentators — education spending in, economic growth out — simply doesn’t exist. Moreover, the larger and more complex the education sector, the less obvious links to productivity become.”

It should be noted that the higher education sector is not insignificant or of little interest. The provision of further and adult education was once a great industry that provided training courses with rigorously certified private qualifications. This system has been bureaucratised and destroyed. Non-university education beyond the age of eighteen should have great value and, if suitably reformed, could do so again.

The Labor party has announced their plans to establishing a National Commission of Review which will examine all aspects of Australia’s post-secondary education system.

It will examine and make recommendations about how our vocational and higher education systems address the country’s economic and societal needs. This is an essential step in decommodifying and transforming the higher education sector in Australia. This is also an important step in return Universities to institutions of higher learning and ensuring a strong technical and vocational system that genuinely upskills and builds human capital where everyone benefits!

Ali Amin President, Adelaide University SRC Email me at: srcpresident@auu.org.au Tweet me @le_hashimi

7

LEFT RIGHT & CENTRE Left

Edgar Daniel-Richards Socialist Alternative 1. Any decent human being would be happy to see the Liberals booted out of office. Unfortunately, the alternatives on offer inspire little hope for radical change. Labor pitches itself 1 degree to the left of Morrison, promising little in the way of any concrete and substantive changes. For example, refusing to promise a raise in Newstart and being as vague as possible about exactly which draconian labour legislation that they will change once in office. You would think this would create an opening for the Greens to appear as a left alternative and on some issues, such as refugees, they are. However, their party’s trajectory and current strategy for this election seem to be trying to win blue-ribbon Liberal seats in the wealthiest areas of Sydney and Melbourne. Given this, and the fact there is no genuine left running in South Australia, I would hold my nose and vote Greens or Labor, making sure to put the farright last. But no matter who gets into government after May 18, we will need to get ready to organise and mobilise if we want to see any substantive changes.

8

2. The Labor Bureaucracy would probably be able to find a more charismatic figure in their stationary supply’s closet than they have found in the former AWU secretary.

The dearth of any galvanizing or exhilarating figure coming out of the Labor Party reflects the decline of radical politics within the labour movement more broadly. These right-wing hacks have no genuine progressives and radicals to need to contest, so have no real need to be exhilarating, it is all machine politics to get to the top job.

3. Percy Brookfield, a working class militant of Broken Hill

Centre

encourages an increase of supply of housing rather than the hoarding of loss-making assets that does nothing for the economy except lock young people out of the market.

A party committed to proper funding of healthcare and the NDIS; higher, secondary, primary and preschool education; real climate action, not denialism. A party that stands for struggling low income earners wages and penalty rates and lowering your income taxes. A party with a real economic plan outside of flattening the income tax system in 5 years-time.

Whatever party you chose first that has values and policy that benefits students and young people, you must preference a party that can form government. Preferences count, and that party is Labor.

1. A party with your best interests at heart. A party that refuses to give out welfare to self-funded retirees who pay no tax. Welfare payments that increase with the value of their share portfolio, a policy that means that some owners of the largest companies in Australia pay 0% company tax.

2.There’s something about his mannerisms that make him seem robotic and ingenuine. The way he operates in front of a camera sometimes seems stilted and painful, which has made it easy to run scare campaigns about his supposedly weak character. However, these personality quirks do not outweigh the fact that he has been the most open and honest opposition leader in living memory.

A party that commits to making negative gearing fair and

Bill Shorten has put forward a bold policy agenda of closing subsidies

Sam Chapman Labor Right

1. Who should students vote for?

2. A recent Guardian poll found that Labor is the preferred governing party with 51% support, however, Scott Morrison was the favoured contender for PM. Why do you think Bill Shorten is so unpopular?

3. Which politician, dead or alive, would you bring back for another term and why?

and loopholes largely used by wealthy investors to fund the services Australia desperately needs, but is also projected to achieve a larger surplus (shout out to all of you out there who think that a surplus equals good economic management).

This far reaching agenda which increases revenue has been easy to dishonestly attack as retiree and housing taxes, further cementing the idea that Bill Shorten is trying to get one over one the people of Australia.

He’s not. This is the most honest, wide reaching campaign I have seen, and I encourage you to support clear, honest and excellent policy over lies and smear campaigns.

3. Paul Keating. He comes across as someone who believes everything he says and presents it with enough flourish for the broader public to listen.

This gets him in trouble, as it did the other day with his categorization of our security agencies, but it seems real and honest.

More importantly however, he also set up Australia’s modern financial system that has aided our continual economic growth for 28 years, taking the mantle as a great economic manager. This is a title no leader has been able to legitimately claim since. He is also younger than the two leading Democratic presidential candidates despite retiring from politics over 20 years ago. Sub him in.

Right Hugh Sutton Adelaide University Liberal Club 1. The Liberal Party of course!

Something I’m incredibly passionate about is youth mental health, and I’m proud to support a Party that not only established Headspace, a wonderful tool for young people battling mental health issues, but is also investing $503.1 million into suicide prevention strategies. However, this can only be implemented when there is a successful economy to underpin this record investment. The Coalition are getting the economy back on track after the disastrous economic management of the Rudd-GillardRudd Government, and after 6 years of Coalition Government we are on track to achieve a budget surplus – in contrast the last time a Federal Labor Government delivered a budget surplus was 1989.

2. Union membership in Australia has declined from a peak of 65% of the workforce more than fifty years ago to 14.55% of today’s workers.

Less than one in ten private sector workers are now union members, and as a result ordinary Australians

are sick and tired of yet another union sycophant as Labor leader.

It’s clear that Bill is just another chip off the old block of Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd - union bred, union fed, and union led. Alternatively, ScoMo is an ordinary bloke that Australians can relate to; he has a mortgage, he understands cost of living pressures, he follows sport, he has a family to look after, he’s sort of a daggy dad – he’s not the archetype of a politician. At the crux of it is that voters feel they can trust ScoMo more than they can Bill.

3. For me, it would have to be Edmund Burke. An MP in the UK House of Commons, Burke is credited as the ‘founder of modern Conservatism’. I feel that Conservatism is unfairly maligned in modern society, simply due to a misrepresentation of what it actually is. A Conservative should believe in social welfare to look after those in need, conserving the environment, promoting the dignity of work, strengthening communities, preservation of traditional social institutions, and much more. A Conservative has the community at the heart of any decision they make.

9

VOX PO P

Michael

Law/International Relations 1. I’m not on youth allowance, but earning $600 a week casually allowed me to earn $100/fortnight given my family’s income.

Considering I don’t have many expenses this is okay, but maybe not so much for others who are living independently or have more expenses.

2. I don’t know much about it, but I think it’s ironic that he is all about Australia first, yet all of his merchandise for his campaign was produced in China which put quite a dent in his argument..

3. The only party I know of publicly using climate change as a political mandate is the Greens. The other major parties have not released too much publically accessible information about climate policy, at least that I know of. Most people have to research it to find out what’s happening with out climate policy. I believe the younger generation would find it more appealing if Labor/Libs had emphasised their climate policy in their campaigns as it is something that more younger people are active about, which can be seen through school rallies about climate change and a broader understanding of its impacts.

4. Clive Palmer because there’s ample surface area as a result of his hairline, plus it’d be hell funny

10

Felix

Law/International Relations 1. Youth Allowance, like Newstart, needs to be raised. Government payments to students have fallen well behind acceptable levels. Whichever party forms government should immediately establish an independent panel to assess the size of the raise.

2. Clive Palmer is a man of deficit. He has a deficit in ideas, unless you count anti-China scare campaigns; a deficit in competence, unless you count bankrupting multiple businesses and a deficit in trust, unless you count trust funds. It boggles the mind that he has managed to gain traction and could win a Senate spot.

3. I think that the Labor Party is taking an active stance as demonstrated by their pledges to: provide 50% renewable energy sources, establish a target of 50% electric vehicles and cut pollution by 45%, all by 2030, amongst other policies. In comparison, the Liberal Party is very far behind.

They are still not on track to reach their targets of 0% climate change deniers in the party room by 2019.

4. I do not condone the egging of politicians. We live in a democracy and should express political differences peacefully. If you disagree with an elected representative you have the freedom to challenge their views, dispute their claims, check their facts and vote against them. Egging is unAustralian.

1. Do you think youth allowance is sufficient in financially supporting students while they study, or does it need to be raised?

2. What do you think of Clive's "Make Australia Great" campaign?

3. Do you think the major parties are taking an active stance on climate change?

4.

If you could egg any politician, who would it be?

Michael

Law/International Relations

Sophie

Law/International Relations 1. It definitely needs to be raised, especially as renting and utility prices have gone up. Students also need to be able to spend more time on study as the employment industry is becoming more and more competitive.

2. I refuse to even acknowledge Clive as a politician until he compensates his former workers for their unpaid work (sorry). But if I were to, I would call his campaign a farce that is only still alie due to the success of Donald trump.

Anton

Politics/Art History 1. Absolutely not! It needs to be pegged at a rate relative to the minimum wage.

2. One of the few people I’d encourage to jump out a window.

3. Generally speaking, no 4. B. A. Santamaria. 100%, even though strictly speaking he was never technically a politician.

3. I believe that the Labor party is taking an active stance, yet the must make slow steps to avoid past issues, like the emissions trading scheme’s failure due to its portrayal in the media.

4. I would say Frasier Anning, but I feel as though that’s a cop out response considering he’s already been egged. So I’ll pick Pauline Hanson, not only because she deserves it, but also the look on her face would be priceless.

11

Words by Samuel Burt and Jaedon Bem

EconDit

And we’re off to the races. This year’s federal election promises to be a turning point in the outlook of the next Australian decade. After 12 years of Canberra spinning its wheels and 7 PM’s in 11 years, this election has the potential to plot the course on taxes, climate, energy, housing, and hopefully install our first full term prime minister since Howard. Whilst each of us may have our own favourites, in this time of division and factionalism, let us step back to examine the conundrums and consequences of each party’s platform (taking a cold-hearted economists’ approach, of course).

One major difference from the elections of the past is Labor’s decision to run a policy agenda as wide ranging and radical since Gough Whitlam’s 1972 campaign, with a number of major policies constituting what many might view as a high tax and spending proposal. This is in great contrast to the Liberal offering, with a promise of immediate tax relief in July (matching a standing Labor policy from the last election) and much more significant cuts down the track.

This election the Liberals are promising to match Labor’s tax cuts for low and middle income earners from July this year, which will result in most workers earning between $40,000 and

12

$90,000 receiving a tax cut of up to $1080 for single workers, and $2160 for couples. Labor has promised to go further for taxpayers earning below $40,000, although this only amounts to an extra $1.83 a week for the lowest paid workers.

The real point of difference, however, is much further in the future. The Liberals (backed by a recent Treasury report) are claiming Labor’s tax burden will be almost $380 billion higher over the next decade. The majority of the differences are the liberal’s own massive tax cuts in 2024 that flow mostly to higher income earners (earning over $90,000 a year). Whether this is sound policy or upper-class welfare really depends on whether you believe in trickle-down economics, but let’s save that debate for another time.

Meanwhile, to hear it from the coalition, Labor is busy increasing or introducing taxes on everything they can lay their hands on, Housing, Retirees, Cars. This isn’t strictly true; however, Labor is promising to end a number of tax concessions that they say are exploited by the mega wealthy (negative gearing, capital gains, franking credits, etc). It is true that the bulk of these concessions are claimed by Australia’s wealthiest, however, it is likely there will be normal

-

middle-class households who are also worse off. In short, Labor is promising to make tax fairer, whilst the Coalition is promising to reduce tax.

The dream of home ownership may yet be out of reach for many of us, however, market falls around the country are beginning to improve affordability. Labor are still keen to introduce their housing policies, namely the grandfathering of negative gearing to new housing only and a halving of the capital gains tax discount, which could exacerbate these falls. Great news for everyone who wants to buy a house, bad news for those who bought at the peak of the boom.

Labour has a strong lead in energy policy since under the Liberals policy, as was put

by MP Adam Bandt in 2020, “there’s more new money for the Cairns Ring Road than for Climate Action”. The two parties are taking vastly different approaches, with the Coalition promising action on energy prices and reliability first, and emissions reduction second - which arguably means as little as they can get away with politically. Meanwhile, Labor has adopted Malcolm Turnbull’s signature policy, the National Energy Guarantee, albeit with larger targets at 45% reductions versus 26%, effectively turning it into an emissions trading scheme.

Interestingly, the Liberals have abandoned their free-market roots in dramatic flair, promising to legislate ‘big stick’ powers to break up the energy generation oligopoly and force the divestment of power assets. It’s likely this will have a downward effect on prices, however, it may also freeze investment, which will only prolong higher energy prices in the long term. Labor’s policy will have a cost to it, and so far, that’s a cost they have been unwilling to share with the electorate. However, independent analysis suggests the lost economic growth will number in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Of course, this may very well be a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of failing to act on climate change, and policy certainty will provide a stable environment for investment, bringing prices down.

One of the more subtle issues of this campaign has been migration, with both parties still in favour of higher immigration caps than in the Howard era, (although somewhat lower than the peak under Rudd). Why? Because higher immigration masks the decline in our national productivity and keeps the GDP numbers growing in the right direction. In reality, the figures are not so rosy with Australia falling into a per capita recession at the end last year. In other words, GDP growth is less than population growth, so living standards have actually been falling on average for most people.

And so, in this unusual cycle where the government is pretending to be the opposition and the opposition is trying its hardest to act like a government, I’m sure you want a recommendation.

Labor is offering a major reform of the tax system, clear climate and energy policy, and prioritising health and education spending. The Coalition, whilst giving bold plans for the future, seems to be mainly aligning themselves with the more popular Labor policy without completely abandoning their conservative core. In this election, Labor is our tip for their clearer vision for Australia’s economic realities – whether this aligns with your preferences, or whether you understood any of this at all, we hope that the sausage sizzle at your polling station is free.

13

WATERMELONS, TREE TORIES AND GREENS PARTY POLITICIDE WORDS BY FELIX ELDRIDGE

14

The Australian Greens, one of Australia’s most successful minor parties has plateaued electorally. They face a plethora of problems, both internal and external such as the reduction in parliamentary representation, divisive cultural issues and disadvantageous electoral changes.

Unless they resolve these issues, the Greens may face an extinction almost as devastating politically as the extinction of our native wildlife.

Since 2018, the Greens’ parliamentary representation has either gone backwards or remained stagnant in most states. In Tasmania, typically a Greens stronghold, the party lost one seat. In SA, the Greens’ vote share was reduced. The Greens also fumbled the Batman byelection. However, the most shocking was the Greens’ loss in the 2018 Victorian state election. The Greens lost four upper house members, and only won a singular lower house seat at the expense of another. For an election held in the wake of the Liberal leadership spill, with climate change and immigration as topical core issues, the result was shocking for the party.

The most concerning issues facing the Greens run very deep. The Greens currently face two deepseeded cultural issues: a crisis of ideology, and a toxic internal culture.

disputes. While this is not foolproof and contains its own problems, this has worked to settle many internal issues within the Labor and Liberal parties. The neglect of these issues in the long run has destabilised the party, lead to toxic internal cultural issues and will likely prevent the party from further growing their parliamentary representation. A strong administrative wing would allow the Greens to arbitrate preselection disputes, focus on winning strategic seats, fundraise more effectively and enforce cooperation between members.

The Greens have also developed a toxic internal culture. A former candidate stated: “The party has such a gross problem with governance and process.” This toxic internal culture is a main factor in the resignations of hundreds of party members. In New South Wales, 485 members left in 2018, almost 13 percent of its membership. In Victoria, between March 2017 and December 2018 the party lost 1212 members, almost 30 percent of its total membership. The party lost Two former MPs, a MLC and a six time candidate due to these cultural issues. In an election year with federal government chaos, environmental neglect and disillusionment in the major parties at the forefront of public discussion, a party that failed to capitalise on this is clearly having issues. In a harsh internal report,

"THE GREENS CURRENTLY FACE TWO DEEPSEEDED CULTURAL ISSUES: A CRISIS OF IDEOLOGY, AND A TOXIC INTERNAL CULTURE." The identity crisis issue stems from the sheer size of the Greens. The real difference between new minor parties and well-established minor parties is the administrative machine behind them. The Greens are a force to be reckoned with in Australian politics. They regularly obtain parliamentary representation, sometimes win or share the balance of power in upper house, and their preferences can determine elections. However, the Greens have become so large and established that core ideological differences, which are often suppressed in smaller parties, have now come to light. In short, the party has become too big to run the same electoral strategies that they have in the past.

Despite the party’s denial of it, the Greens have ‘factions’. These groups are distinguishable by their different ideological focuses. The so-called ‘Left’ focuses mainly on ‘social’ and ‘economic’ policies while the so-called ‘Right’ is centred on environmental issues. These factions are sometimes referred to as the ‘Watermelons’ and the ‘Tree Tories’.

The obvious solution to managing these ideological differences is to establish a strong organisational wing, administered by a powerful state executive to resolve

the party noted that the Greens had lost votes across the state and in every upper house seat. In addition, the party had failed to meet fundraising targets and had lost volunteers.

Another concerning long-term issue for the Greens is the new federal electoral system in the Senate. Initiated in 2016, these changes removed group preferencing. This tactic, also known as ‘preference harvesting’ allowed various micro parties to transfer preferences easily between them, thus increasing their chances at elections.

These new changes have hurt the Greens in the Senate, as the party often benefited from these deals. This wasn’t necessarily reflected in the 2016 election, as it was a double dissolution election and thus Senators were elected on half quotas. Now, full quotas must be achieved, and the Greens will likely struggle in several states to achieve them.

It could be said that the Greens are going the way of the Australian Democrats. The Democrats, once a strong minor party, held the balance of power in the Senate and had a strong environmental focus.The minor party fell apart after a series of internal cultural divisions, disconnect between members and MPs, defections and administrative issues. Will the Greens follow in their footsteps? Only an election will tell.

15

16

THE LIBERAL PARTY: A HARD RIGHT TURN WORDS BY FELIX ELDRIDGE

The Liberal Party, once a broad church of ‘moderates’ and ‘conservatives’ has become increasingly more conservative in policy, membership and ideology. This shift to the right can be seen through a multitude of changes. These include, but are not limited to: the switch to a conservative Prime Minister, an increased number of conservatives being pre-selected in winnable seats, significant ‘moderate’ policies being reversed, the attempt to draw closer to fringe parties electorally, branch stacking and the mass resignations of senior moderates in the lead up to the federal election.

Not only did the Liberal Party remove its ‘moderate’ leader Malcolm Turnbull, the majority of moderates also backed the conservative candidate Scott Morrison, despite moderate candidate Julie Bishop running. If the only two viable candidates in a leadership ballot are from the conservative faction, it is a fair assumption that this wing is the dominant one.

The second indicator of the broad shift to conservatism in the Liberal party is the pre-selection of conservative members to winnable seats in Parliament, and the lack of intervention by State Executive bodies to save incumbent moderates.

In early December 2018, conservative MP Craig Kelly was saved from an almost certain preselection defeat by a last minute intervention from the Prime Minister. In the seat of Ryan, assistant minister Jane Prentice was ousted by conservative challenger Julian Simmonds. In the seats of Stirling and Curtin conservative nominees won preselection despite the local members recommending moderate successors.

Conservatives also relegated Senator Gichuhi to an unwinnable position on the Senate ticket and filled George Brandis’ casual vacancy with a conservative member.

Further, the conservative wing of the party has successfully sabotaged key moderate policies. For instance, some members of the Liberal Party stated that they would vote against the National Energy Guarantee, despite the party room endorsing the policy. Popular proposals to change the law regarding same sex marriage and a republic were also successfully torpedoed by conservative members, who have become dominant in the party room. In late 2018 the Liberal Federal Council adopted conservative stances on issues such as moving the Israeli Embassy and privatising the ABC, resolutions which even conservative government ministers chose not to endorse. The effects of these policy decisions and reversals are evident through the many independent ‘moderate liberals’ who are contesting notionally ‘safe’ Liberal seats. Candidates such as Oliver Yates in Kooyong, Zali Steggall in Warringah, Julia Banks in Flinders and Kerryn Phelps in Wentworth, all portray themselves as socially progressive Liberals who want to be more representative of their blue ribbon electorates. If the Liberal Party was dominated by, or had a significant presence of moderates, the party wouldn’t be having these socially progressive insurrections. Moderate liberals don’t win votes against other moderate liberals.

Another indicator of a cultural shift to the right is the desire to appeal to and negotiate with more conservative parties for votes and preference deals.

After the Longman by-election in 2018, Christopher Pyne said that the government needed to listen and talk to One Nation voters; in March 2019, Tony Abbott continued to advocate for placing One Nation higher on Liberal how to vote cards than Labor. Even though Scott Morrison ruled out giving Liberal Party preferences to One Nation, he was not able to make the same assurances for the Queensland branch of the party, nor the National

17

"If the Liberal Party was dominated by, or had a significant presence of moderates, the party wouldn’t be having these socially progressive insurrections."

Party. In 2017, both the LNP in Queensland and the Liberal Party in WA entered into negotiations with One Nation, with WA Liberals even preferencing One Nation over the WA Nationals, their then coalition partner.

Scott Morrison created another issue when he entered into a preference deal with conservative businessman turned politician Clive Palmer. While Palmer is by no means on the ‘far right’ of the political spectrum, it goes to show that the party has drawn closer to the conservative side of politics and is willing to negotiate with destructive and incompetent minor parties. While these deals will help candidates in certain seats, they will also alienate moderate voters in others. This was made evident by former Premier Colin Barnett, himself a victim of a One Nation preference deal that alienated moderate voters and cost him the election. If the Liberal Party was seriously a moderate party, it would be soliciting preferences and primary votes from other moderate parties, not negotiate with the fringes of its own extreme wings, or the fringes of society.

While not evidence of a grassroots ‘cultural shift’ within the party, branch stacking in certain areas is still prevalent and has led to tighter conservative control.

The Victorian branch of the party is a good example of this, with Liberal powerbrokers signing up hundreds of new members from socially conservative and religious

18

backgrounds, intent on dragging the party further to the right. The full extent of the stacking was revealed in mid 2018. This has resulted in very conservative members being elected to senior positions in the party normally held by moderates. This has led to more conservative candidates being preselected including several candidates formerly associated with conservative Christian parties. The pre-selection of federal candidates who have made controversial comments about religion, sexuality and public schooling are quite possibly a by-product of this.

Perhaps one of the most concerning issues for remaining moderate Liberal voters is the looming deficit in senior moderate leaders. Prior to the election, there has been a mass exodus of Liberal ministers who will not contest the federal election, such as Julie Bishop, Michael Keenan, Christopher Pyne, Kelly O’Dwyer and Craig Laundy. The moderate’s loss of so many senior members signals the movement to the right.

There is often a huge internal conflict between factions after election defeats. Interestingly, it appears that the Liberal party has already fought, and the moderates have lost. While factional dominance ebbs and flows, for the time being, the Liberal Party is now unquestionably conservative in policy, membership and ideology.

HOW TO VOTE: A RUNDOWN OF THE THREE MAJOR PARTIES’ POLICY FOR STUDENTS

Words by Imogen Hindson Disclaimer: Imogen Hindson is not directly affiliated with the Greens party, rather is representing the parties’ point of view as detailed on the website: www.greens.org.au REAL ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is one of the core debate topics at this election, with the various effects more transparent than ever: severe and ongoing drought, rising sea levels, the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, and more intense bushfire seasons. The Australian Greens plan to embrace renewable energy and tackle climate change directly.

This would be achieved through the phasing out of coal and a move towards 100% renewable energy (resulting in 180,000 new jobs), providing support for coal workers and surrounding communities during the transition, prioritising clean and affordable public transport, kickstarting the electric vehicle revolution, and ending political donations from mining companies. All of these factors combined could see Australia at the forefront of global climate policy, fulfilling the Paris Agreement targets in strides, while benefiting the everyday Australian by reducing their everyday energy costs (and you know, living on a healthy planet).

FREE UNIVERSITY AND TAFE The Greens intend to fund Universities and TAFE in a myriad of ways. Firstly, the Greens intend to make undergraduate and TAFE study free for everyone: no catch,

no loophole, just free University. Furthermore, the Greens intend to raise youth allowance by $75/week, bringing it above the current poverty line. Also, you’ll hypothetically be able to earn an extra $100/week before your overall payment is reduced. The Greens emphasise that you shouldn’t have to sacrifice study time to work two jobs and not achieve your goals at University. The final catch?

There’d be a 10% raise to University funding to improve teaching and learning conditions, reduce class sizes, and allow you to fully engage in proper research at Uni. For those of you who are still studying, the Greens intend to raise the HECS help repayment debt to the minimum wage of $52,880 from 2019 onwards, in comparison to the Liberal government’s plan to decrease the repayment threshold to $45,881.

For the University staff reading this, we’ve got a hot perk for you if you vote Greens: The Greens promise to ensure Universities are held accountable for insecure teaching positions (casual, fixed term contracts) by working with staff to encourage higher spending.

ACCESSIBLE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH SERVICES One of the focal points of the Greens policy is reinvesting in, and rejuvenating, the current health system. By placing preventative measures at the centre point for the health

19

industry, the Greens intend to reinvest the private health rebate into public health care, implementing team based healthcare for people with chronic conditions, and reinvesting in public hospitals to increase accessibility.

Furthermore, with 1 in 4 young people facing mental illness, the Greens intend to build a better healthcare system that has a strong focus on mental health, decrease the stigma while actively providing young people with the services they need. The Greens intend to achieve this by improving access to government online services, improving services for young people in crisis, increasing funding for mental health research, all while focusing on early intervention and prevention.

RAISE NEWSTART The Greens believe that one of Australia’s core values is our willingness to help each other when they need it, and our contributions to our tax system ensure that this support is there when we need it. The Greens intend to increase Newstart by $75/week, which hasn’t been raised since 1994. At only $278/week, the payment is technically below the poverty line. In combination with this goal, the Greens will attempt to bring pack the Parenting Payment and abolish punitive measures such as the cashless welfare card.

Words by Ali Amin IMPROVED HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING The Liberals have frozen University funding and capped places, locking tens of thousands of students out of getting a degree, as well as gutting research funding and capping the HECS repayment threshold.

The alternative could not be starker. The Labor party has announced their plans to uncap places, reverse the HECS repayment threshold, as well as rebuilding strong public TAFEs. Labor has also committed to establishing a National Commission of Review, which will examine all aspects of Australia’s post-secondary education system.

It will examine and make recommendations about how our vocational and higher education systems address the country’s economic and societal needs. This is an essential step in decommodifying and transforming the higher education sector in Australia.

HIGHER WAGES, ENDING WORKPLACE EXPLOITATION AND TAX CUTS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE We have seen our rights in the workplace eroded. The current Liberal Government has overseen record low wages growth, cuts to penalty rates, as well as rampant wage theft in our workplaces.

Labor has committed to reversing the cuts to penalty rates within their first 100 days and will change the laws to make sure they can’t be cut for anyone again. Young workers are concentrated in retail, hospitality and food, which were especially impacted and will be up to $6,000 better off under a Labor Government.

20

Workers will also need more bargaining power in their workplaces to ensure that they get their fair share in the

context of increased productivity and record profits for big business. Labor will increase the minimum wage (which will have flow on effects on wages), improve bargaining power for Unions and workers, reverse casualisation and crack down on wage theft, with significantly higher penalties and better enforcement.

Labor is also proposing to increase a tax offset for low and middle-income earners, which will mean extra money in your pocket while you’re at University and when you graduate.

At the median undergraduate student income of $21,000 you would receive a $90 tax offset, increasing to $350 for those earning $25,000, which would then increase to a peak offset of $1,080 when you graduate and earn incomes between $48,000 and $90,000.

For postgraduate students earning the median HDR and coursework income of $40,300 a year, Labor's announcement offers a tax cut of $549.

FIGHTING STUDENT POVERTY Recent data from Universities Australia, the peak body for Australian tertiary institutions, revealed that one in seven students is regularly unable to afford food and other essentials. Students have to pay rent and bills and keep food on the table, including to support their own children, all while juggling paid jobs and study. So many university students are older or have family or carer responsibilities than was previously the case.

Education is meant to come first when you are studying; for students living on the financial edge, that’s simply not possible. That is why Labor has proposed having a rootand-branch review of our government’s payment system on Newstart and like-minded allowances and payments. This

will mean an increase to Centrelink payments while you’re studying and indexation that will mean they’ll increase with the cost of living into the future.

Centrelink, instead of concentrating on their studies. A Labor Government will invest in 1,200 new permanent, full-time Medicare and Centrelink staff around the country which will mean better services and wait times.

The Liberals have also cut thousands of permanent Medicare and Centrelink jobs – and outsourced staff.

As a result, services have suffered. Call wait times have blown out, and students are spending hours waiting at

Words by Kian Rafie-Ardestani Saturday May 18 will be one of the most important elections in our history. For many students, this election will be the first federal election they can vote in. Here are some of the reasons you should vote Liberal on May 18.

ECONOMY Our economy is finally heading back to surplus following the damage caused by the Rudd-GillardRudd government. The Coalition has restored faith in our economy, meaning there will be more jobs for us as young people. As University students, almost all of us feel anxious that there may not be a job for us at the end of our degree.

An oversaturation of graduates in a huge number of fields has led to a significant lack of jobs in an increasingly automated world. Since forming Government in 2013, the Coalition has delivered more than 1.3 million new jobs, including delivering over 100,000 jobs for young people in 2017-18. If you want to continue enjoying the benefits of a stable economy with a proven track record of delivering jobs, vote Liberal on Saturday May 18.

MENTAL HEALTH As students, we are constantly thrown curve balls that stress us out to the point where it feels like there is no escape, regardless of whether that stress is caused by university pressures or external factors. The Coalition already has a good track record for tackling youth mental health through the headspace foundation, a terrific organisation established by the Coalition in 2006 that provides support for young people struggling with their mental wellbeing.

The Coalition is building on its strong record with mental health through pledging an additional record $503.1 million investment into the largest suicide prevention strategy in our history. The suicide rate in our young people

is far too high, accounting for one third of Australian deaths aged 15-24. There is no shame in battling with mental health, and all sides of politics must come together to address this pandemic that affects so many of our generation.

ENVIRONMENT Climate change a very real problem that we must address. However, we must take a pragmatic approach to addressing climate change rather than an extreme and unsustainable approach, particularly with regard to energy.

The Coalition will develop a National Electric Vehicle Strategy where a realistic plan will be implemented, rather than an unrealistic forced purchase of an electric vehicle like Labor is proposing. The Coalition will also continue investing in renewable energy in Australia through Snowy 2.0 and Tasmania’s Battery of the Nation.

BORDER SECURITY Border security is an incredibly important issue for all Australians. Although border protection doesn’t affect us directly as university students, strong borders are necessary to ensure we continue to thrive as a safe and successful nation. The Coalition has finally fixed the mess Labor made of Australia’s border security. The Coalition effectively put an end to parasitic people smugglers attempting to enter Australia, allowing our humanitarian program to increase from 13,750 in 2013-14 to 18,750 in 2018-19. As the son of a refugee, I can sympathise with all of those who are trying to find a better life in our great country. However, there are correct processes for this, and paying people smugglers to come here illegally is not the right way to go about it.

Vote Liberal on May 18!

21

Quadratic Voting: Radical Democracy?

Words by Riley Harris

How can our government be representative of the needs of the people, disseminate power, and allow equal consideration of everyone’s interests? One proposal is quadratic voting, sketched by Eric Posner and Glen Weyl in their book “Radical Markets”, the proposal replacing ‘one person one vote’. Equal say in the formation of government is quite a good system, better than many others. The proposal is that we should instead have equal influence on governance.

Under quadratic voting, everyone would receive an equal number of voting credits to be used to influence governance. Perhaps you might use a few credits supporting an important issue be raised by the government. Perhaps you might vote on current proposals. You have a limited number of votes, the same as everyone else, which can be used to influence the issues you care most deeply about. You might be motivated by climate policy, local affairs, mental health, gay marriage, or anything else. Use your influence on what is most important to you.

Our current system can often allow a passionate minority to be overwhelmed by the disinterested masses. But if an issue affects a certain group a lot, and most everyone else is largely indifferent, shouldn’t the minority get their way. Perhaps a new healthcare program would clearly benefit rural aboriginal communities, and they know this. Most everyone is unaware, or indifferent,

22

so the program wouldn’t find political support in our current system. Why shouldn’t they be able to use their influence to create that specific change?

The proposal helps another problem, people often know about their interests. It sounds obvious, but its important. If we exert influence where we are passionate, then often we exert influence within our circle of expertise. I can think of many examples of people who have done deep research on an issue they are passionate about, understanding that narrow topic, while being broadly ignorant of most other things. I am of course included. The proposal of equal influence allows voters to be more informed on the issues they vote for, without any extra work.

Perhaps you can already see a problem. Of course, a passionate minority could overwhelm a disinterested majority, giving minority groups too much power. Perhaps a policy is bad for a small group of people but gives a small benefit to many millions of people and is thus worthwhile. Perhaps this could be outvoted by just a small lobby group. I am imagining for example a tariff that benefits a small group of producers at a small but significant cost to everyone else.

There is a simple solution to this problem. We give everyone equal ability to impact everyone else. This simply means giving everyone equal voting credits to spend and adjust the cost of voting. Rather than one credit buying one vote on any issue, make the cost of a vote the cost inflicted on others of your extra influence on a given issue. Economists have calculated it as the square of the number of votes (hence quadratic). The cost of one vote is one credit, the cost of two votes is four credits, the cost of five votes is twenty-five credits, you get the idea.

The passionate minority can still win where they should win but can’t tyrannise the majority.

The proposal is that we should all have equal impact on governance. This proposal strengthens what is good about current forms of democracy, distributing power to the people. It does better on a few things, voters are more informed where they have influence, and minorities can indicate what they care most about. Because of my own disposition, I would add a hedge. Even the best

system in theory may have hidden problems, and we should test and trial on a small scale, finding out where theory doesn’t fit the real world.

So where might it be implemented first? Perhaps in state government, or local, or just in the managing of a single company. It seems like for some board decisions, or company wide action, there’s a sense that consensus was reached, that no one is responsible, but the decision went ahead anyway. In these scenarios, perhaps quadratic voting gives us the exact tool we need for accountable decisions. Sure, the board came to a consensus, but you spent half your budget on this single issue, you should justify your decision. This isn’t a new benefit, but the flip side of the personal knowledge argument at the national level.

23

THE OTHER Words by Stasi Kapetanos While Australia is having an election this year, America’s multi-year presidential primary election extravaganza is about to begin. Unlike Australia, which chooses its candidate for head of government in the form of the Prime Ministership from party conventions in smoke filled rooms, America holds presidential primaries. This is the process in which each political party holds a public vote in each state to elect delegates to select their party’s candidate for President of the United States at party conventions.

24

ELECTIONS The Republican Party Primary will definitely choose Donald Trump again.

The Democrats on the other hand have a choice to make between Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders style bold left-wing outsiders, disappointing party favourites and Andrew Yang, with his bold plan to give everyone a thousand dollars a month.

Bernie Sanders, the beloved grandfatherly face of American left-leaning politics, was an unsurprisingly close second place finisher in the 2016 Democratic Primary and long-time successful Independent Congressman from Vermont. Bernie is reasonably well liked by rural white Americans (including Fox News viewers) in addition to the entire working class and progressive multiracial youth. This amounts to basically everybody besides Hillary Clinton’s former campaign staff and the uber rich people who hate the thought of their tax dollars being invested in the future of America’s education and healthcare – a supposedly trivial luxury for the privileged few.

Bernie’s self-identification with democratic socialism is a bit intimidating for many, including some very delusional or dishonest smear merchants who claim he will turn America into Venezuela.

Shameless hack talking points about the world’s most powerful nation becoming a third world post-colonial petronation aside, no one could turn the US into Venezuela because America cannot impose crippling sanctions on America.

Bernie’s model for what he wants America to be more like is Scandinavia, which has among the best quality of life in the world, high taxes, strong welfare, having the most start-ups in the world and low

unemployment, making it the closest thing to an ideal capitalist society to ever exist.

I’m not going to say for certain that Bernie will win, but if he was allowed to go up against Trump in 2016, he would have.

There are however plenty of candidates who are a lot like Bernie Sanders, and who share a lot of his views along with plenty of their own original contributions to American politics. They tend to appeal to the same people who form Bernie’s core support base, albeit to a lesser extent.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a strong advocate of financial regulation and a strong government willing to correct the flaws of capitalism, is one such candidate. Warren first got involved with centre-left politics whilst participating in the struggle against laws intended to restrict the rights of individuals to declare bankruptcy.

As the policy decisions to place more restrictions on the economic rights of individuals while deregulating larger financial institutions proved to be disastrous during the 2008 financial crisis, Elizabeth’s profile as one of the few politicians to oppose these decisions rose rapidly. Amongst her current interesting policy ideas are student debt cancellations and ‘trust busting’ big tech companies, an idea that many on the left and the right are increasingly realising may be necessary.

Two other voices challenging orthodox Democratic politics are Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard, and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, both are however extreme long shots, with the latter expressing disinterest in actually

25

being President. Both candidates have fairly progressive records on healthcare, the environment and women’s issues. However, their main reason d’êntre is their radical opposition to military interventionism, aggression towards third world nations and a desire to see much of America’s military budget reinvested in improving the lives of Americans, instead of ruining lives overseas.

Although the above candidates are all firm believers in trying to fix America’s many problems and creating a slightly better world, there are others who are obvious careerist, ready to throw anyone else under the bus political purposes.

Most famous among these politicians is former Vice-President Joe Biden, who is known for often making a fool of himself, this might just be the best thing about him. As a former Senator from Delaware, a tax haven masquerading as a state, Joe’s role was to defend the interests of the various owners of shell companies, republican ex-congressmen, and arms dealers he called constituents.

Joe also worked closely with white supremacists like Strom Thurmond to expand civil asset forfeiture (in which the state steals everything someone convicted of certain drug crimes owns), and helped pass legislation banning judges from using their discretion to prevent imprisoning people when personally deemed unnecessary.

Joe’s cold dead heart can be most clearly seen in how he questioned Anita Hill when she was testifying against a supreme court judge, Clarence Thomas’ nomination on the grounds he had sexually assaulted her. Joe thought it was a good idea to ask her to recount the most ‘embarrassing of all the incidences’ she had alleged, before later inviting a group of republicans to ‘plum her credibility’ - all on national television. Joe also prevented any of the other accusers from coming to testify against Judge Clarence Thomas. Given his talents in shaming sexual assault victims, he would have made a perfect vice-president for Donald Trump.

26

Another less than stellar candidate is California Senator and former state Attorney-General Kamala Harris, who fought to prevent attempts to reduce overcrowding in California’s prison system.

Prison conditions had been ruled unconstitutional, thus violating prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. She also fought a bill which would’ve forced the Attorney-General’s office to investigate police killings.

Beto O-Rourke is an accomplished and relatively young candidate with experience as a former Congressman and former acting Mayor of El Paso. He is also a former proto alt-right troll who spent his teenage years running a blog where he interviewed Nazis and promoted misogynist propaganda. Now he is running a campaign based on meaningless platitudes and whatever steam he got out of nearly defeating Ted Cruz.

Andrew Yang, however, is the most bizarre candidate - a successful entrepreneur and proponent of Universal Basic Income (UBI), who started out as a bit of a meme but seems to be getting serious (remind you of someone?). He also seems to have some political acumen and knows how to appeal to American sensibilities, cloyingly naming his UBI plan the ‘Freedom Dividend’. This progressive plan sounds like something American conservatives would decry as “Communism!”, yet it is appealing even to libertarians and some members of the hard-right. Andrew also wants more psychologists everywhere, including a presidential psychologist, alongside free marriage counselling.

The interesting thing about Yang’s worldview is the recognition that Capitalism, especially as it exists right now, is failing to properly distribute resources and provide an environment that is conducive to positive mental health. Just looking at the guy any of the Democratic candidates is going to run against, it’s hard to deny that America has reached the stage that Presidential psychologists are definitely necessary.

SPINELESS POLLIES, FROM TURNBULL TO SHORTEN: HOW LABOR’S SOFT STANCE ON SOCIAL POLICY COULD COST THE PARTY THE PROGRESSIVE VOTE Words by Imogen Hindson Malcolm Turnbull will go down in history not as the leading figure on marriage equality, but rather as Australia’s most spineless Prime Minister. If the Labor government does not take an active stance on progressive social policy, Bill Shorten could become the former Prime Minister’s parallel.

NEWSTART One of the focal points for the 2019 Federal Election has been raising Newstart. Those receiving Newstart receive $275 per week, averaging $40 per day. With 700,000 Australians relying on Newstart, the payment is 27% below the national poverty line. Newstart has not been raised since 1994, back when Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating was in office.

This being a major topic of discussion in the upcoming election, Labor’s approach to raising Newstart has been one of protecting the party over national interest and an insufficient policy response. Rather than promising to raise Newstart immediately, opposition leader Bill Shorten has promised an investigative review into Newstart. This could take up to 18 months to finalise, with no back-payment or effective change to Newstart during this time. The Labor party has refused to state whether Newstart will be raised after this time. With dangerous Work for the Dole programs continuing while recipients remain in poverty, one has to wonder – is the Labor party really for the people?

This lack of backbone from the Labor party promotes the ongoing inadequate stereotype that people remain unemployed because they choose to, rather than focusing on the factors which impact employment rates. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the current ratio of job seekers to job vacancies is 16:1. In outback Queensland, the youth unemployment rate has reached 25.7%. With these factors to often unconsidered within the broader discussions relating to employment, we end up with a divide between those with work and those without (the poor). Protecting the working class cannot be reliant upon employment status, especially when opportunities for employment are so limited.

This approach to Newstart can be drawn back to the Labor party’s ideologically neoliberal approach to politics, that the citizenry must remain poor for the benefit of the economy. When tied to broader discussion surrounding budget surplus and promoting economic growth, it is clear that the Labor party has lost touch with its working-class roots. What the Labor party has forgotten in their strung-out, long term approach to raising Newstart, is that leaving people below the poverty line has long lasting and irreversible effects.

In 2016, a Government funded report found that 64% of Work for the Dole sites failed to meet average health and safety standards. In April 2018, Josh Park-Fing died while working on a Work for the Dole site in Queensland. In some cases, the low rate of Newstart has forced people into homelessness. While Labor reviews the Newstart program, people suffer.

OFFSHORE DETENTION Labor have taken a strict approach to mandatory offshore processing, with its ‘tough on people smugglers’ approach, the rhetoric preached by the Labor party is similar to the Coalition’s. Despite internal debate regarding the treatment of asylum seekers in 2018, the party has recommitted to supporting offshore detention. As explained by the Labor party, “bringing people from offshore regional processing centres to Australia is not an option”. As of March 26th 2019, there were 350 people left on Nauru. Although intending to limit detention to 90 days while exploring regional resettlement in New Zealand, in light of information being leaked from offshore detention, this approach is hardly an attempt to gain the progressive vote. Comparatively, the Greens propose removing all people from offshore detention, with a seven-day waiting period.

CLIMATE POLICY In light of the upcoming election, Climate Analytics have rated the Labor party’s climate change targets as being consistent with the 2015 Paris Agreement, but only just. Still, the Labor party are failing in many ways to take proactive action regarding the climate crisis. Firstly, Labor have taken an ambiguous position regarding the Adani Coal mine, which according to Stop Adani, will create up to 4.6 billion tonnes of carbon pollution. Further, the Labor party’s inability to phase out fossil fuels demonstrates how poorly they are doing in taking an active stance on climate change.

Comparatively speaking, Labor’s emission reduction target of 45% by 2030 is much more generous than the Coalition’s 2628% emission reduction target by 2030. However, it isn’t even in the same ballpark as the Greens, with a 62-82% emissions reduction target by 2030. The Greens also received an almost perfect score from the Australian Conservation Foundation of 99% for their environment and climate change policies. It appears the Labor party have done just enough to promote their active stance against climate change, yet relatively speaking, this seems like just another election strategy when compared to the Greens active stance against rising emissions.

In the post Paul Keating and Gough Whitlam era of the Labor party, where progressive social and economic policy were at the forefront of party change, one has to wonder: is the Labor party intending on making fundamental change to Australian politics, or proposing a well-dressed, yet similar approach to Coalition’s government? One can only hope opposition leader Bill Shorten has a stronger backbone than the former Liberal Prime Minister.

27

VOTE [1] CLIMATE POLICY Words by Henry Armfield

There are various reports and statistics doing the rounds on social media about climate change.

Optimistic reports give global society about ten years for total reform in order to dodge tangible negative effects from our use of carbon.

Earlier this year, Vice published an article named “The Climate Change Paper So Depressing It's Sending People to Therapy”.

The article details Professor Jem Bendall’s paper “Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy”. One reader told Vice, in simple terms; “We're fucked”.

The paper sending people to therapy is more radical in its predictions for the decade than the widely accepted time frame set by the Paris Accord, which brings us to ways we can meaningfully try to fix this issue on a global level. The average person has no means of living without fossil fuels, but if they are an adult, they have a vote. A majority government does have the means to systematically reform society, and hence, could meaningfully address this issue to the furthest possible extent in the ten years we have left.

So, who should you vote for?

If you watched Mad Max: Fury Road, Waterworld, or 2012 and thought to yourself; “This actually looks pretty sick, I’d thrive so hard in this environment”, there are plenty of parties who will do nothing about climate change.

One Nation, Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party, Australian Conservatives, and Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party all fit the

28

bill. All you need to decide from there is what brand of conservative populism you like best!

The Liberal-National Coalition has changed their stance on climate policy since their leadership spill. Turnbull and his moderate conservatism/’lower case L’ liberalism might have at least encouraged a market solution to climate change. Up until his backflip on an emissions goal, there was at least the illusion of concern.

‘Clean coal’ obsessed Morrison now leads the party. Abbott, who recently bet a Guardian reporter $100 that the climate would not change in the next 10 years is back in the fold.

The coalition boasts the only emission reductions fund in the world that gives money to coal power plants for maintenance.

With Turnbull not only out of power, but the party entirely, the Right controls the coalition, and they should be considered just as inactive on climate change as the fringe right-wing parties.

If you would like to address climate change in a meaningful, but limited fashion, the Australian Labor Party should get your vote. The ALP’s climate policies are far more progressive, and existent than that of the aforementioned conservative parties. However, they are limited by Labor’s commitment to keeping workers employed and maintaining our mineral exports. The ALP exists in a limbo of progressive climate policy and workers’ rights advocacy.

The removal of fossil fuel mining and energy production would have a serious impact on working people, as well as the overall economy.

The ALP proposes no barriers to the export of fossil fuels, protecting a staple of Australian exports. Coal briquettes alone make up 19% of Australia’s net exports, with petroleum gas providing a further 8.3%. The ALP preaches adaptation, not disruption.

The Australian Greens party are the clearest in how they seek to address climate change.

Their current policy outlines 31 principles, and 36 aims which directly address climate change. They are the only party that acknowledges carbon exports as contributing to overseas carbon output. If climate change is the only issue in your life, or you share the same views as Professor Bendall on how soon it will end modern society, you should probably vote Greens.

Although The Greens will most likely not form a government, they will have a small presence in both houses, which seeing as the election will likely result in a minority government, gives them significant swinging power.

Greens party policies, despite what Murdoch rags or Liberal politicians say, do not include the criminalisation of coal exports, but rather the exportation of renewables and a gradual phasing out of fossil fuels, with the goal of zero emissions. The Greens have the most comprehensive published policy of any party when it comes to climate change, so if you see it as the most pressing issue this election, vote for them first, and the Labor party second.

29

NDIS CUTS WHAT THEY MEAN TO ME Words by Shona Edwards

“You will be contacted within 21 days.” This is the letter you receive after submitting an access request to the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme).

It’s been 2 months since I have submitted my request, long enough that I had to fork out for the mobility aids I can’t live without. By delaying access, the NDIA (National Disability Insurance Agency) can evade paying for these things as they won’t need to be replaced for a few years.

From my calls checking up on the status of my application, some of the younger operators, in sheepish tones, break from script. They admit that calling to complain merely jumps you from one long list to another just as long, and that they are required to give the ‘21 days’ line despite most applications taking minimum 3 months. This is clearly a broken, strangled system, and being left to use up my savings merely to exist feels almost malicious.

To me, the budget surplus is a slap in the face to those of us left begging for help.

I struggle to understand how the government can be proud of savings made by taking money away from those who need it most. The hoops that we are required to jump makes me ashamed to think of those who can’t advocate for themselves, of those who trust the system will care for them. According to the Guardian, there is no one chasing up stalled access requests that need more information. Service providers admit to ‘having a man on the inside’ to give application tips. People shouldn’t need to use personal connections, and secret know-how. It feels as though there is only so much to go around.

To win scraps in this arena, you must fight.

30

The bigger picture of the NDIS cuts must include the Disability Support Pension and Newstart. NDIS is designed not as a pension, but a payment to cover equipment and services. In practice, the pool of money available to someone on the NDIS could be a lot less than they need. What must be clear here is that disabled people can’t go without their aids to try to save money. For me, my mobility aids come first, food and bills second. If you deny disabled people DSP and NDIS, they will drop to Newstart.

Only 30% of DSP applications are successful. As Anti-Poverty groups throughout Australia make clear, Newstart is well below the poverty line, and hasn’t risen in decades. If your Newstart money goes to disability costs, how much is left for rent and food? Independence is out of the question, and we must rely on family, on favours, and on the help of strangers. This country has seen 28 years of continuous economic growth, yet the most vulnerable of us live dangerously close to homelessness.

When I see NDIS cuts, I think about what is left for those denied it. Just other programs similarly underfunded, with similarly desperate struggles.

The bottom line is, disabled people don’t just go away if you make cuts, they end up on other programs, or in hospital for a bed and a hot meal, and they end up costing the government and country in other ways. When assigning funding for the NDIS, I would ask the government to look at the data on homelessness, on those on Newstart unfit to work, on the sacrifices families of the disabled make every day. I would ask the government to think of the moral cost to their surplus.

THE EXPENSE OF THE BUDGET SURPLUS Words by Sofia Arlotta and Chelsea Fernandez

Frydenberg’s announcement of the 2019 Federal Budget predicts the return of a surplus. This aligns with the decision to depart with $3 billion of funding for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The decision to cut NDIS funding has both economic and non-economic consequences that will inevitably expose the stupidity of a strategic political move fuelled by the motive of re-election.

Australia has Pavlov’d themselves into associating ‘good economy’ and ‘economic prosperity’ with “budget surplus”. To many, a surplus is the missing link between Australia and true wealth, economic security and prosperity. So naturally when Frydenberg, in an attempt to appeal to the average Australian voter, linked those magic four syllables together, the Australian people were left absolutely and uncontrollably frothing at the mouth.

The average Australian citizen flinches at the possibility of being in the ‘red’. Morrison calms this individual; he reassures them that there is a way to bring Australia back to surplus. Politics is no stranger to using fear tactics, and these NDIS cuts to showcase a budget surplus are no exception to this methodology. By predicting a surplus, the Coalition delivered the budget in a desperate attempt to alter their public perception, painting themselves as heroic while simultaneously bathing in their own glory. With the upcoming election starkly in the peripheral of its contents, the Budget acts as a promise for prosperity. Here lies a desire to appeal to voters, reliant on the fear that Labor will create a budget deficit and cause a consequent decrease in economic growth. By creating this fear, the Coalition can convince voters that their economic management is stronger than Labor’s, supposedly validated by their budget surplus.

However, economic affluence cannot be measured by the comparison of spending and revenue. The economy is as complex as it is multi-faceted, and to define prosperity by surplus and by deficit, we are restricting ourselves though simplifying the concept.

This simplification of a fundamental pillar of our society ultimately disservices us, and in this case especially those caught in the crossfire of this misunderstanding: those who rely on NDIS funding.

To achieve such a surplus, the Coalition has relied on cuts. The choice to dramatically cut NDIS funding was no accident - it was a multi-layered strategic move that fit in perfectly with their notorious fear campaign.

Since 2013, the Liberal government made it known that they inherited one of Australia’s biggest budget deficits

of all time. This was an attempt to humiliate the Labor government in the eyes of the public, whilst drawing attention away from their incompetency for effective economic management. It is a case of scaring the public into the thought of economic depreciation.

To understand the strategy behind this proposal, one must look at who the funding was taken from and where it has been reallocated. Firstly, the money was taken from the NDIS. Those receiving NDIS funding are often reliant on it to receive the proper care, treatment, and other services their disability requires. Many of these families are from lower socio-economic classes, that tend to vote Labor. The portion of those who have the capacity to afford what the disability funding provides, without funding, are generally from a higher socioeconomic class and therefore more likely to vote Liberal.

A portion of the cut capital from NDIS funding is going to fund the drought relief programs. Those impacted by the droughts are namely farmers, a demographic of dominantly Liberal voters. Previous Liberal failure to control water theft—with a direct impact of farmers— could cause doubt within even the most loyal voters.

From this reallocation of money to drought relief from the NDIS, the Coalition are essentially moving funding to regain and sustain the support of Liberal partyinclined voters.

And sure, there are internal issues within the NDIS systems. With these issues stems greater problems with the overall narrative pushed in the Budget address.

This narrative tells the story that with less demand for the NDIS scheme, by simple way of economics, NDIS spending must be cut. This thinking is ignorant to the fact that systematic issues are often driving factors behind overall demand. Does our Government not then owe a responsibility to fix these issues, to prioritise these issues? Reducing spending does not address the internal complications, but rather renders them less important.

The Liberal Party has done what they have always done: disadvantaged the already disadvantaged and advantaged the already advantaged. This Budget contains tax cuts to fundamental services like health and education, but does nothing to address the disproportionately low taxation of higher incomeearners. To perpetuate the Liberal’s surplus comes at cost to the people who we should be protecting. Maybe the grass isn’t greener when we are in the black, but it is greener, fresher and more vibrant when we are a society that supports and cares.

31

Film Review: The Island of the Hungry Ghosts 2018, Dir. Gabrielle Brady Reviewed by Samantha Bedford Christmas Island, a tiny Australian territory in the middle of the Indian Ocean has been the site of centuries of migration, from Malay phosphate miners in the 1800s to the endemic Red Crab which undergoes a great exodus during late autumn in which the entire population synchronously wanders into the sea. Most recently, Christmas Island has been used as a holding place for those seeking asylum in Australia. In March 2019, Scott Morrison pledged that its infamous detention centre, which fell under huge scrutiny by the UN for its abuse of detainees and the impact of isolation on their mental and physical health, would be reopened if the Coalition were to be re-elected on May 18th.

A continuation of her 2017 short film, The Island, Gabrielle Brady constructs a powerful narrative, an almost quasi-documentary, which centres on Poh Lin, a trauma therapist who listens to the stories of the detainees. The natives of Christmas Island perform rituals for the “hungry ghosts stuck between worlds, trapped between homes,” the spirits of the refugees who died on the island and in its surrounding waters doomed to wander

32

for eternity. The tormented and restless spirits of the deceased wander the island and the native population make offerings to them in earnest that they are enough to make them “free from uncertainty” - to rest in peace in the afterlife.

Meanwhile, the Red Crabs make their advance to the ocean, an endless cycle which repeats every year.

In The Island of the Hungry Ghosts, the Australian mainland is framed as a paradise, an idyllic resting place from the chaos of war and immense hardship, interweaving folklore with the traumatic uncertainty of indefinite arrest and the forced stasis of waiting for resettlement. Gabrielle Brady’s metaphor for the liminality of the refugee experience is a powerful contemplation on geopolitics, the primordial nature of movement, and the humanity inherent to all.

4/5 stars

MASSACRES VS. MASS DEMOCRACY Words by Lawrence Hull

At the end of March Al Jazeera released a documentary titled: ‘How to Sell a Massacre'.

The documentary unearthed One Nation’s intention to seek donations from the NRA and water down Australia’s gun laws. Rodger Muller, an Al Jazeera investigative journalist masqueraded as a pro-gun advocate and secretly recorded conversations he had with One Nation members, Pauline Hanson, James Ashby, and Steve Dickson. The documentary sent shock waves throughout Australia and a media frenzy ensued.

objectively unethical fails to fully understand the true nature of investigative journalism.

One Nation was forced to give a public response and held a press conference shortly after part one aired on the ABC. In the press conference Hanson attacked Al Jazeera and labelled it an “Islamist Network”; which was nothing more than a smear that exposed her racism, xenophobia, and bigotry. In a firm tone, but with a clear sign of underlying fear, Hanson urged the ABC not to air part-2 of the documentary. Much to her dismay, they of course did.

Rodger Muller and Al Jazeera have not come anywhere near breaching journalistic integrity.

Power must be held to account. And in this particular case the end well and truly justifies the means. There was no entrapment or ‘sting’.

One Nation was in a position to make its own choices. Pauline Hanson chose to court the idea that the Port Arthur Massacre was some kind of conspiracy theory. She was not led into saying that.

Al Jazeera has come under scrutiny in relation to the ethics used in the production of the documentary. Even Peter Greste, a former Al Jazeera journalist said that they had crossed a line. While this is of course a legitimate debate to have, the public interest in this instance must be given precedent. We are talking about an Australian political party attempting to raise money from a foreign corporation in return for watering down Australia’s gun laws. This. Is. Huge.

The Australian body politic should be thanking Al Jazeera for unearthing the true intentions of One Nation. It is clear in the documentary that One Nation aimed to weaken Australia’s extremely effective gun laws. It is clear in the documentary that One Nation is for sale. And it is also clear in the documentary that Australians cannot trust a political party that is so ideologically driven that it is prepared to put Australian lives at risk.

Investigative journalism does not have a universal codified set of ethics. It is of course dependant on each individual scenario. To unequivocally say that recording people without their consent is

Investigative journalism is dynamic. It’s rigorous, courageous, and it is exactly what we need in the 21st century. All manner of dishonest reasoning is used in an attempt to curtail the role of journalists in contributing content to the public sphere. Claims of “national security” or “unethical journalism”, are often no more than a front by those in power to silence journalists.

Given what seems to be a universal crack down on journalism, and with the recent arrest of Julian Assange, it is important now more than ever that journalists use the means at their disposal to hold power to account.

33

A GUIDE TO AUSTRALIA’S MINOR PARTIES (The Nationals and Greens not included) Words by Stasi Kapetanos

A ‘fair and balanced’ guide to the minor parties small enough to be called minor, but not so small that they aren’t worth mentioning.

The Centre Alliance The Centre Alliance is basically the successor of the Nick Xenophon Team, but without Nick Xenophon. Even without Nick Xenophon, it is still largely an anti-pokies and pro-South Australia party. The transition from a one man show to some kind of middle of the road centrist platform and its ability to once again defend the seat of Mayo from the Downer dynasty, will define whether the Centre Alliance remains a relevant political force.

Surely, with lower expectations and less seats to compete for, they can’t do much worse than SA Best and last year’s lacklustre performance.

The Australian Conservatives Another mostly South Australian based political party with a recent history of weak political performance is The Australian Conservatives.

Led by ‘genius political strategist’ Senator Cory Bernardi, this party have failed to break out beyond the tiny niche of eastern suburbs happy clappers and traditionalist Catholics. Whether they’re promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Cultural Marxism or bravely calling out gender quotas, whilst self-servingly demanding some sort of political ideological quotas for more conservatives to be on the ABC, this party shows much promise in becoming a great political embarrassment for all South Australians.

Luckily, they are not very well known or relevant, particularly in others states. Let’s keep it that way.

34

One Nation Australia’s political comedy of errors that never seem to go away, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation marches on after humiliating scandals, constant defections and outrageous stunts. Nonetheless, this party has managed to weather many storms, reappearing in 2016 after a decade of electoral obscurity and has shifted focus away from Asian immigration to whipping up anti-Muslim paranoia and low brow anti-PC politics. Its main test is whether or not it can get a climate change denying, wacky former British citizen, Malcolm Roberts, elected once again as senator in Queensland. The party faces more hurdles compared to the last election, including whether or not they will continue to overcome the great press that their former candidate Steve Dickson got for them during his recent visit to the United States and Clive Palmer’s preference deal with the Liberals.

The United Australian Party Clive Palmer’s latest hairbrained scheme, the United Australia Party, named after the predecessor of today’s Liberal Party, currently consists of Clive himself, a former One Nation senator, the various terrible actors we’re forced to see in his ads and presumably the 19 year old he hired to make his Facebook memes. By constantly antagonising Australia’s greatest trading partner, sending unsolicited text messages about banning unsolicited text messages and acting like an imitation Donald Trump, Clive Palmer not only serves as living proof that businessmen don’t necessarily make good politicians, but that shit businessmen make even worse ones.

The Australian Democrats Your dad’s centrist party has decided to try and make a comeback this election cycle. For a party that has been almost completely irrelevant since their support of the GST, it’s hard to imagine the Democrats making a One Nation style comeback with Centre Alliance already dominating their old niche of South Australian regionalism and middle of the road ‘small l’ liberal politics.

The Great Australian Party Founded by disgraced former One Nation senator Rod Culleton, who as the leader of any truly patriotic party, appealed for foreign backing when disqualified from the Senate by attempting to take his legal proceedings against disqualification to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. It seems no one in the Great Australian Party has ever heard of the Australia Act.

The Citizens Electoral Council Probably Australia’s most bizarre political party.

They are based on the strange ideas of Lyndon LaRouche, an American conspiracy theorist whose elaborate ideas and anti-establishment radicalism would put Alex Jones to shame. They even won a by-election in Queensland against a future Deputy PM of Australia in the now defunct seat of former Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Supporting the creation of a national bank, nationalising natural resources, a stronger war on drugs and accepting more immigrants, the CEC hold an odd mix of beliefs for any political party. What really sets them apart is their belief that climate change is a Nazi psyop and that the Port Arthur Massacre was indirectly perpetrated on the orders of the British Royal Family.

#Sustainable Australia Sustainable Australia takes the title of Australia’s least racist anti-immigration party, placing at least some degree of separation between their staunch neo-Malthusian xenophobia and the need to treat asylum seekers and refugees humanely. They are strongly against certain large infrastructure projects which they consider to be ‘over-

development’. While they may have the support of entrepreneur Dick Smith, few experts support their conclusion that environmental destruction and Australia’s lack of housing affordability are largely the result of immigration.

The Liberal Democratic Party The Liberal Democratic Party is an American style right-wing ‘libertarian’ party, founded by disgusting sexist David Leyonhjelm, with a name probably chosen to attract the votes of confused, ageing, disgruntled, or stoned Liberal voters. If you support sexually shaming women for political reasons and decreasing the size of government so even the smallest corporations can ruthlessly manipulate it, this is the party for you.

Unfortunately for them, star party candidate Mark Latham defected to One Nation last year and beat David to an upper house seat in New South Wales.

The Shooters and Fishers and Farmers Recently saw success in rural New South Wales due to gross water mismanagement by the Coalition. Hopefully they don’t act like an Australian NRA. We already have One Nation for that.

The Conservative National Party Fraser Anning must have come up with this party name when he realised that Aryan Brotherhood and Combat 18 were already taken.

The HEMP Party Help End Marijuana Prohibition. A single-issue party we can all get behind.

Animal Justice Party A party dedicated to providing constitutional rights for animals and strongly against live animal export. They also believe that banning live export would bring economic benefits to Australia, particularly rural areas. They have two members in the New South Wales Upper House and one in Victoria’s. Like PETA, but with more clout.

35

MY SURPLUS IS BIGGER THAN YOURS Words by Aiden Bedford

In any principles of economics course, the tutor or lecturer will ask students what economics is about. Eager first years will often say “money”, a misconception which will be immediately dispelled. In fact, you almost certainly won't encounter money in a model until final year, or even perhaps honours. Economics is about the management of scarce resources. Any assessment about the state of the economy must solely be in relation to real indicators i.e. inflation, unemployment, real wages growth, exports, imports, real exchange rates, capital depreciation and investment, the capital and labour shares of national income, etc.

So why is it that when we consider the abilities of either major party to successfully manage the economy, the sole domain of analysis that trumps all other metrics by which we can assess how well the economy is functioning, is whether or not they can manage money? It is so tiring to hear this inane talking point that every Joe Blow brings up in every sphere of political discourse, “Labor creates a fiscal mess that the Liberals have to tidy up!”. Besides this statement not even being empirically true, with the Liberals effectively doubling our outstanding debt since taking office in 2013 and then saying they have achieved a surplus (despite this being a mere forecast), it is entirely irrelevant to any assessment of the state of the Australian economy, or of either party’s ability to manage it.

As a monetarily sovereign nation that issues all of our debt in a currency that we are the monopoly issuer of, we cannot ever face an involuntary crisis of solvency. There was never a budget emergency and there will never be one. Unless tomorrow we decide to join the Eurozone, or start using US dollars, we will never be able to fail to pay the interest on a government bond or to pay the wages of a public servant.

This is not a new idea, with economists from both the left and right of the political spectrum acknowledging that this is an inherent characteristic of any fiat money system, where the state permits free flows of capital and maintains a floating exchange rate.

The implications of this fact means that both major parties are perpetuating a frankly destructive myth. There is nothing inherently good about a surplus, and nothing inherently bad about a deficit. I’m going to do some very basic maths now to highlight this point.

Gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all goods and services sold within a country during one year can be measured in two ways: income or expenditure. This is the expenditure approach, where Y represents GDP, C is consumption, I is investment, G is government spending and (X-M) is the balance of trade (exports minus imports) Y = C + I + G + (X-M)

36

"...BOTH MAJOR PARTIES ARE PERPETUATING A FRANKLY DESTRUCTIVE MYTH." This is the income approach, where Y again is GDP, C is consumption, S is savings, T is the total taxation Y=C+S+T By construction these must be identical giving us: C + S + T = Y = C + I + G + (X-M) With consumption cancelled out, S + T = I + G + (X-M) Rearranging we have the three sectors of the economy; Savings minus investment, the balance of trade, and the government budget position (S-I) + (M-X) + (T-G) = 0 ∴ (G-T) = (S-I) + (M-X) A government surplus means, by definition, that the other sectors must be in deficit. Our nominal demand falls, meaning households can buy fewer goods and services - we become poorer holding all else is equal.

In response to surpluses in the past, especially those of the Howard government, households have taken on massive amounts of debt to maintain their total levels of expenditure. Conversely when the government runs a deficit, it adds dollars to our balance sheet, meaning we have more money to spend on goods and services.

In reaction to this position, the typical response is something along the lines of “if governments can just print money, hyperinflation will ensue!”. Yet this is what they have already been doing since 1983, and in that time, we haven't seen hyperinflation; in actuality prices have been more stable. This is why my earlier point is so critical. It is real indicators that matter; the price level is a constraint, employment is a constraint, capital utilisation is a constraint - the government budget is just a tool to manage the real economy, one subject to these constraints.

That is why during this, and every subsequent election cycle, we should be assessing the real indicators I mentioned previously: How much wages have risen, how much households are saving, how high inflation is, what is the level of unemployment etc. as indicators of the efficiency of a given party’s economic management. I fear Labor is setting themselves up to fail by promising consistent surpluses of 1% of GDP by 2022-23, something that, given the current level of household savings and our colossal levels of private debt, is a pure fantasy. We can run all the surpluses we want, we can have no government liabilities. But, of what use is that to any of us, if this drive leads us into becoming an economic wasteland? That is where we will surely end up if we are not looking at the economic measures that really matter, the factors that really ensure the long-term prosperity of the nation.

37

WORDS / IMOGEN HINDSON

EAT YOUR (GREENS):

01

02

03

Come Home (Cardinal Pell) Tim Minchin

Beds Are Burning Midnight Oil

Scott Green Dune Rats

UNION BALLADS -- LABOR:

04

05

Solidarity Forever Pete Seeger

Do You Hear The People Sing Aaron Tveit, Eddie Redmayne

06 There Is Power in a Union Billy Bragg

38

07

08

09

Tiny Dancer Elton John

Run The World (Girls) Beyonce

Rasputin Boney M.

10

11

12

What I Like About You The Romantics

The Horses Daryl Braithwaite

September Earth, Wind & Fire

YOUR MONTHLY MIX

BOOMER BEATS -- LIBERAL

SCOMO’S MIXTAPE

BILLY’S JOGGING TRACKS:

13

14

Africa Toto

Danger Zone Kenny Loggins

15 Jump (For My Love) The Pointer Sisters

GAME DAY BATTLE TRAX:

16 Eye of the Tiger Survivor

17

Barracuda Heart

18 Another One Bites The Dust Queen, David Bowie 39

THE SIGNS AS BILL SHORTEN ‘ZINGERS’ ARIES

TAURUS

GEMINI

March 20th-April 20th

April 20th-May 21st

May 21st-June 21st

"[Joe Hockey] should just go down to Bunnings. Not Bunnings, go to Kmart or Target, buy himself a white tea towel, put it on a wooden broom and wave surrender on his silly changes."

"But I tell you what, if you want to get in the horse race, and pick the horse which is going to do better things for your superannuation, then vote Labor.”

"[Tony Abbott] lives in a house with no mirrors because if he did, he'd see who should be blamed.”

CANCER

LEO

VIRGO

June 21st-July 23rd

July 23rd-August 23rd

August 23rd-September 23rd

"The ABC once used to mean the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

It now means Abbott's Budget Cuts."

‘'Good morning. Or, as Senator Canavan might say, Buongiorno.'

"The government's used the term 'Team Australia' a lot.

I'm worried about the emergence of 'Team Idiot'."

LIBRA

September 23rd-October 23rd

SCORPIO

October 23rd - November 22nd

SAGITTARIUS

"Once upon a time, I thought denial was a river in Egypt.

It's actually the attitude of the Abbott government. "

“It's not the Prime Minister's budget which keeps me up at night, it's his unfair budget to all Australians."

“The good news for me is I’m running for prime minister, not running for Dancing With The Stars.”

CAPRICORN

AQUARIUS

PISCES

December 22nd-January 20th

“They’ve got the GP tax, they’ve got a petrol tax and now they’ll go for a ‘lie-fecta’ of taxes which will be an internet tax.”

40

January 20 – February 18

“I’m not an Elizabethan.

Technically, I'm a Victorian.”

November 22ndDecember 22nd

February 18th-March 20th

"These people opposite are the cheese-eating surrender monkeys of Australian jobs."

WORDS BY IMOGEN HINDSON

1: COSMOS MIDNIGHT

7: MAGGIE ROGERS

When: May 10 Where: HQ Complex

When: May 25 Where: Thebarton Theatre

2: BABE RAINBOW

8: CERES

When: May 11 Where: Lion Arts Factory

When: May 31 Where: Crown and Anchor

3: HORROR MY FRIEND

9: WEST THEBARTON

When: May 17th Where: Fat Controller

When: May 31 Where: The Gov

4: WING DEFENCE

10: SWEATER CURSE

When: May 18th Where: The Exeter

When: June 7 Where: Rocket Bar & Rooftop

5: THE PORCH SESSIONS: ALL SECRET LINE UP When: May 19th Where: Oakbank, SA

11: MEG MAC

6: BROODS

12: RUNNING TOUCH

When: May 22 Where: Thebarton Theatre

When: June 15 Where: Lion Arts Factory

When: June 13th Where: HQ Complex

41

To the boy who can't tell me he doesn't love me Gemma Thorne

You tell me I taught you how to love again But I wish I had taught you how to do it better.

When you say that you lied to me and not them Why don't you understand that if you are telling me you love me, Then them that you don't understand why I won't stop calling, Then you have passed honesty like a forgotten roadside on an abandoned highway about two rings ago.

And you probably told me you were meeting me two hours ago...

The confusion of why I'm hurt or upset Looms around us all in sticky nightclubs Because they do not understand why I would cry when you take another girl home Let alone why I would even stand next to you...

Why I have that right.

When you told them, rolling shrugs of responsibility off your shoulders, that you had not made that promise to me, you walked so far into a land of secrecy that I don't understand how you still have your tongue, Or why it doesn't rot.

When I run into the girl that you fucked and lied to, saying we were over because 'you didn't want to make her feel uncomfortable.'

Even though you were a layer of skin upon my skin And the sweat from my palm moistened your cheek mere hours before...

You need to look around and evaluate the situation you have put yourself in, Put me in.

Because now I'm thinking 'I don't want to make her uncomfortable’.

I should not have to be quiet, so why do I feel like hands are pulling at my neck and turning the corners of my eyes upward?

Why is it that if I spoke the truth, she would doubt me and not you?

Why is it that fear keeps me silent?

And isn't that a culture we are taught to preach against ?

I want to scream to everyone you mislead That they are the fools in this story not me.

Yes I was lied to, but at least I had a truer version of reality than they did.

I saw every affectionate romantic action, I heard every hollow promise.

Yes, I was cheated on, but at least I know how you held me the night after in your arms and promised me there was no one else.

That girl you slept with doesn't.

I saw her too.

She briefly makes eye contact with me leaving bars or public bathrooms And she looks at me and her eyes scream that they know this face, but they don't.

Because T., she is the one you lied to.

At least, I understood her part in the story, At least I knew yours.

And no wonder she doesn't understand why I'm not going along with the allocated lines.

She's scrambling through the script because she can't figure out where this scene is and why I'm acting so out of character.

'Cos I'm not the character you portrayed.

An action we wouldn't replicate,

42

Like staring at a woman your ex has moved on to for just too many uncomfortably long seconds, We call crazy.

She calls me crazy, 'Cos she doesn't know that I wasn't your ex when she had you.

When she fell for you.

When she heard about me.

That you messaged her from my bed with my legs wrapped around you.

That you messaged me telling me you loved me the night you went home with her.

Why do I have to sew my lips shut because it makes me look petty to want the truth to come out.

But I don't speak the truth.

I play your role.

I make it look to your friends... to your lovers‌ that I am nothing.

I know there are certain people I am not allowed to say certain words to.

All of this is unspoken But over time you slowly teach me the character I am supposed to become.

The jokes on them, I think.

I don't hold your hand walking down the street near someone you know But you will kiss me in the alleyway when they aren't looking and it will taste so sweet.

When the lights dim and the crowd cheers You will throw flowers at my performance And when l hiss the final soliloquy Vibrations still moist from my saliva Soon will be your tongue, sweat, tears and truth that I taste.

The promises of never leaving and always loving. That is reality.

They are the fools.

And the charade is worth it, if it makes you stay.

But one day I can't taste you.

The way you looked at me when you felt their gaze is plastered on your face and I can't scrub it off.

Your effortless slip in to a different character.

You created this performance so the transition would be seamless.

I don't get a goodbye because we were pretending you had left long ago.

I don't get an explanation 'cos it's become the bullshit we would tell other people, Not the words you would say to me at night.

And I don't have time to explain here, That I was your best friend more than your lover, So that betrayal hurts more than heartbreak ever could.

That you know why I won't stop calling, But you lie to them and tell them you don't.

Because you know every time I do, That I'm thinking there is no way you would ever let the call ring out.

Because you promised me you wouldn't.

And you cannot tell me you don't love me anymore, Because then you would have to admit to them you ever did.

And you don't want to lie anymore.

43

GREY EYES MICHELLE ROYLANCE

It started with a scream.

An ear-piercing scream.

Veronica Parker’s scream.

Like a wave of tumbling dominoes, the crowd around her fell back until a distinct circle noosed her.

All attention had left the stage and the green-eyed man standing there in his freshly pressed suit.

Silence filled the auditorium as everyone waited anxiously for the reason behind the girl’s outburst.

Veronica Parker was nothing special to look at, she could almost be considered plain, and yet 298 of 300 pairs of eyes were one her.

One of the missing pairs, were her own. Her brown eyes were scrunched, tightly shut, which may have been why it took the crowd so long to realise she was actually in pain. It was a small boy who first tugged on his mother’s thick wool coat to tell her the crazy girl had a ‘boo boo.’ Then they all noticed as Veronica Parker’s blue cardigan started turning purple; as if someone had simply spilt their glass of wine on her and the liquid was being seeped up. If only that had been the case.

“Call an ambulance.” Someone said rushing forward, just as Veronica Parker slumped forward, her limp hand revealing the red stab wound that it had so neatly concealed only seconds ago.

Like a swarm of bees, the crowd rushed to her side; hovering, staring, whispering, crying.

The other missing pair of eyes, grey, ignored this commotion, they watched their own heavy, booted feet as they made their way up the side of the stage.

The man in the pressed suit looked on at the crowd with concern, but only a fool would believe it was concern for Veronica Parker’s life.

The heavy boots stepped onto to the platform and walked towards the suited man.

Green eyes met grey and quickly filled with panic.

The suited man scrambled back, tripped over his own fumbling feet and fell back hard, onto the stage floor.

The pair of grey eyes watched calmly as tears filled the green.

“You’ll make me a martyr.” The suited man quivered.

He got no reply.

“Don’t do this.”

The grey eyes narrowed and watched as they raised their own hand and brought it down.

The green eyes widened in shock, then closed.

44

Free for Members #AdelUniUnion #getmore 45

NoRTh TeRRaCE

De-sTReSS YoURsELf! Friday 7 June · 11AM - 3PM Cloisters

g in n a H re! e h T

Hot Tea And Bikkies · Bath Bomb Workshop · Hygge Tent · Beer Yoga · Meditation Lie In · Massages · Sip And Paint Class y’� d o Nob fect !

Pur

ma a r D No ama!

Ll

Touca n Do It !