Happy New Year!

Well, its been pretty quiet around the place lately, with no posts for a week or two - but its Christmas and to be expected. I had wanted to draft a Christmas message to the people, but time got away, and after hearing John Howard's - thought that it's almost impossible not to come off sounding corny and pathetic. Plus, we're new to this job of running a parallel government and not quite ready for a year in review.


Still, we're very much looking forward to our first full year 'in office'; 2007. If the last act of 2006 - the hanging of Saddam (For the record, I can see both points of view on executing Saddam; the Iraqi's have the right to deliever justice as they see fit, yet its plain to see that his death will not bring closure but only greater bloodshed) - is any indication, there will be plenty to discuss and a raft of issues that will continue to plague us. David hicks is still imprisoned, the Earth gets warmer (and drier), Genocide continues in Darfur (make no mistake about that), worldwide war on religious lines beckons, the UN issue letters and does little else, and George Bush continues to steer the US into the ground. The great thing about New Years is that it offers hope of a fresh start, and the promise that things will get better (even if sometimes it feels that they can't get worse).

My ministers and I will officially be back at the coal face next week, and we look forward to seeing our small band of readers then. In the meantime, Happy New Year!

Organ Donation

In a classic episode of the Simpson’s, Grandpas kidneys explode and Homer reluctantly donates one of his. This prompts Lisa to congratulate her dad: “I know you're a little peeved at Grandpa, dad, but you've done a wonderful thing!” and Marge to note: “Yes! You've shortened your life significantly so someone else can have a slight extension of theirs!

While this episode is undoubtedly hilarious, it also prompted me to think about the rather pathetic organ donation rates around the world and the reasons why that is the case. Marge’s astute observation about live organ donation is one thing, but what about the huge lists of people awaiting an organ, such as a heart from a deceased donor? In 2005, there were only 7,593 deceased organ donors in the entire United States (recently 300 million people); while in Australia there were only 204. Considering the large number of patients dying on organ waiting lists worldwide, it seems criminal that such a low number of people are consenting to help.

If you’re wealthy and desperate enough (or perhaps arrogant is more accurate in some cases) rumor has it that a flight to China and a tour of the local prison will solve your personal organ shortage. After picking out a suitable match, the execution of the prisoner is expedited and voila – prison revenue is up, and you got yourself a new heart/liver/kidney etc. It is also said that members of Falun Gong (a persecuted religious group in china) have the most valuable organs, due to their healthy lifestyles – and these are harvested for a premium from concentration camps where they are held.

Now, this may or may not be true – but in any case, the fact is that few Australians can afford this radical solution (financially, or ethically). As far as setting policy goes then, the solution lies (as is usually the case) in looking to the world leader in this area. As it happens, Spain has the greatest number of donors per million of population (35), while Australia is a poor 16th (10). Disappointingly, even Spain falls well short of keeping up with demand.


Legislatively, the difference between the two systems hardly seems significant: the Spanish system requires donors to actively refuse the use of their organs (when no preference is indicated, organs are used), while here in Australia donors have to actively opt-in. There is also the complication of asking grieving loved ones to adjudicate on the decision of whether or not to donate as well as myths surrounding the procedure, such as ““If I'm in an accident and the hospital knows I want to be a donor, the doctors won't try to save my life!” and “Rich and famous people get moved to the top of the waiting list, while ‘regular' people have to wait a long time for a transplant.”

Slight improvements have been made here in Australia, following the formation of the Australian Organ Donor Register (over 800,000 have registered) and the inception of the David Hookes foundation (and the participation of Cricket Australia). However, the waiting list for a transplant regularly remains over 2,000. This Administration proposes the changing of organ donation legislation (in-line with the Spanish), to require donors to explicitly dissent to a donation during their lifetime – as well as an increased effort by the government to dispel the myths that prevent people from participating. Organ donation is one of those issues that few people think or care deeply about; that is until you need it.

Euthanasia

Overnight, former pathologist Jack Kevorkian was granted parole from his Michigan prison after serving 8 years for second degree murder. Kevorkian is colloquially known as Dr. Death for his history of advocating voluntary euthanasia, (also known as assisted suicide or sometimes mercy killing). Between 1990 and 1998, Kevorkian allegedly assisted in the suicide of nearly one hundred terminally ill people who themselves took the final action which resulted in own deaths. Despite a decade of controversy where he widely promoted his views on assisting the terminally ill or intolerably in pain, he crossed the legal line in 1998 by personally administering lethal injections to a man with Lou Gehrig's disease and sent the tape to 60 minutes. His impending release re-opens the emotional debate surrounding euthanasia; a debate this Administration believes should re-explored here in Australia. Settle in, this could be a long post.

For context, Australia has its own pro-euthanasia campaign, begun by our own Kevorkian, Dr. Phillip Nitschke. Nitschke successfully campaigned to legailise euthanasia in the Northern Territory in 1995 (subsequently overturned federally) and founded the group Exit to disseminate his views. The group remains active today, despite federal legislation passed in June 2005 that forbids the viewing or possession of 'suicide promotion material' – which sought, it seems, to end the euthanasia debate in this country. For me, part of the problem during the first round of discussion on this issue was the messenger - as both Kevorkian and Nitschke were viewed as weird (and creepy) angels of death, with media focus very much on their ‘death machines’ and clinical (read heartless) view of the issue. Nitschke’s promotion of plastic bags with elastic bottoms, designed for suffocation (called Exit Bags) is a clear example of this lack of tact.

Other nations have managed to rise above the hysteria, have a discussion of the issues and pass legislation supporting euthanasia. Belgium, Switzerland, and the US state of Oregon all have approved bills while the Netherlands is perhaps the most famous proponent of these laws. The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act took effect in 2002 and 1629 cases were reported the next year. The key to the workability of the Dutch law is the strict guidelines in place for its use. These include: Unbearable suffering, with no prospects of improvement, voluntary (and repeated) request by the patient, full patient awareness of their prospects and verification of the condition by more than one doctor, to name a few.

Now with all that in mind, I think it’s an issue well worth revisiting here in Australia. You only need to meet a single person suffering from a terminal illness, or in unbearable and incurable pain, (or to conceive of yourself in such a position) to believe that these people at the least deserve the option of euthanasia. It is indeed one of the (morally) slippriest slopes in medicine and admittedly, has the potential to be misused. However, following the Dutch model, and this Administration’s own policies on stem cell use – the correct guidelines and oversight would ensure that it was used only for good. Interestingly, the Swiss law guards against misuse of euthanasia by specifically requiring that the motive for death to be ‘unselfish’.

Unfortunately this is yet another issue where the Liberal’s have stifled public debate of a vital issue, and allowed the religious right within their midst’s to have the last say. This Administration is committed to re-engaging the people about euthanasia and working towards a time where it can be legally practiced in this country.

More Than a New Look

This Administration has not sought to comment on the new Labor leadership pairing of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard – frankly because it doesn’t mean much in itself. Labor have had four leaders in the past 3 years, and changing the salesman has failed where changing the product might have succeeded. So far Rudd has spouted the usual rhetoric, but faces his first real chance today to do something different when he names his new front bench. While the media focus on the power of factional forces in allocating portfolios, and speculate on which one Julia will choose for herself – my hope is that he would shake things up entirely by creating some new ministries:

1) Minister for David Hicks and Other Foreign Combatants

Even the most hardened proponents on the War on Terror have trouble explaining why Australian David Hicks has been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002, without charge. Now while I think he’s probably guilty of something having been captured guarding a Taliban tank (and photographed with that famous rocket launcher), and with a history of fighting in the Kosovo Liberation Army – it would be nice for someone who knew the facts to decide that. American officials have described him as the “worst of the worst”, while his father (and lawyer) insist that not only has he not been formally charged, but wonder what crime deserves being held in solitary confinement for much of his imprisonment. Being an Australian citizen should afford you justice, anywhere in the world, and Labor would be well served exposing the Government’s lack of involvement on this issue, with a dedicated minister.

2) Minister for Water and Drought

I know we have a Shadow Water Ministry, its currently held by Anthony Albanese along with the Shadow Environment portfolio – until this afternoon anyway when he makes way for Peter Garrett. What I’m talking about though is a designated Minister whose sole purpose will be to seek out and co-ordinate solutions for our continuing water shortages – beyond the Government’s current subsidy ‘solution’ (subsidies invariably lead to inefficiency and are generally a bad idea). Kevin Rudd is already under scrutiny for a dam he didn’t get built in Queensland over a decade ago, and what better way to answer this criticism than with a concerted effort at finding current solutions.

3) Minister for Religious Harmony

A quick response to Pauline Hanson’s crap is always necessary, but offering some solutions to public concern instead of just calling her a nutbag would help make her pipe down. Now we have a Ministry for Immigration and Multicultural affairs (Annette Hurley and Tony Burke oppose Government Minister Amanda Vanstone), but it has done little to quell growing tensions between ethnic and religious groups in Australia. Approaching the anniversary of the Cronulla Riots, a new minister dedicated to finding common ground between Australian Christians and Muslims (and those not religious at all) would be a positive step. Ongoing harmony between these increasingly large and diverse groups should be a full time endeavor, separate from the issue of immigration and the outdated concept of multiculturalism.

Hopefully, while Mr. Rudd is browsing this Administrations policy positions he agrees that his Shadow Ministry not only needs fresh faces but new directions.

The Bitter Taste of Hypocrisy

Dick Cheney, the Vice-President of the USA, is about as conservative as they come. Representative of many of the right wing ideologies of the Republican Party, he is a controversial figure, to say the least. He oversaw the first Gulf War, while Secretary of Defense for Bush I, and served as CEO for energy giant Halliburton before becoming VP for Bush II. He has attracted media attention over his long political career, most notably for: ‘dodging’ the draft for the Vietnam War, shady financial dealings with former employer Halliburton, his hawkish staging of the current war in Iraq and accidentally shooting lawyer Harry Whittington while hunting. However, it is his implicit support of conservative gay marriage bans that has courted the greatest controversy – considering that his second daughter Mary is gay.

During the 2000 election campaign, Mary worked for the Republicans, who went out of their way to avoid media scrutiny of the clash between her sexuality and the Party’s policies. In fact, she was used to help soften the Party’s hard line image. Rival politicians, particularly John Kerry were admonished when they tried to bring this issue out into the public forum. The issue came to a head in 2004 when the Bush administration supported a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, while banning civil unions and other legal rights for gays. Though the amendment failed to pass, divisions within the Party and in Cheney’s personal and public life were demonstrated.

This week Mary Cheney is in the news again after announcing that she and long time partner Heather Poe are expecting a child. The announcement has already prompted a range of denouncements for conservatives across the country, but is a huge positive for gay couples the world over. Again the issue of gay rights is thrust back into the spot light, and it will be difficult to say the least for Mr. Cheney to stake out a position that perpetuates Republican oppression of gays, while anticipating the arrival of a new grandchild. Family Pride executive director Jennifer Chrisler summed it up best when she said: "Grandfather Cheney will no doubt face a lifetime of sleepless nights as he reflects on the irreparable harm he and his administration have done to the millions of American gay and lesbian parents and their children." It’s hard perpetuating discrimination when your own daughter is the recipient.

Trust me, Johnny - Update

It’s been a slow old news cycle lately, with little to get excited about. Today though, the media seems to be overflowing with comment worthy articles, and it’s a welcome change. Overnight, Kay Patterson's private member's bill to allow 'therapeutic cloning' finally reached the floor of the House of Representatives (about a month later than I originally indicated) - and lo and behold, it passed.

Despite the objections of a string of prominent House members, including the PM, newly elected opposition leader Kevin Rudd, old mate Tony Abbott and even champion of the left Peter Garrett – the bill sailed through by 20 votes. For the record, new deputy opposition leader Julia Gillard supported the bill, along with (surprisingly) renowned oppressors Brendan Nelson and Phillip Ruddock. Scientists will now be free to create embryos from donor eggs and use them to extract stem cells for research into a range of debilitating diseases. Finally, they will be free to explore the full range of possibilities that stem cell research offers.

All I can say is: Justice. This Administration was a strong supporter of this bill and has faith in the scientific community to ethically use these tools to advance the treatment of some of societies worst ailments. A conscience vote was the correct way to decide this issue and credit to Howard for allowing it (if nothing else) – and the result brings with it hope to millions of Australians.

Save Your Energy for Election Day

Thousands of protesters are expected to turn out today in capital cities across Australia to show their support for over turning Howard’s Industrial Relations reforms. The Labor Party and Union organised demonstrations are expected to draw up to 150,000 people across NSW and 55,000 alone at Victoria’s MCG (Jimmy Barne’s role as a draw card is debatable). My advice though to these disgruntled workers is to stay at home, squeeze all of your anger up into a bitter little ball and release it at the appropriate time: Election Day.

Now don’t get me wrong, this Administration is against the current set of IR laws, which undoubtedly discriminate against workers across the board and particularly those in manufacturing and factory jobs. CEO’s and executives are used to negotiating individual contracts and can rely on their indispensability, while the backbone of our workforce need the security of collectively determined pay and conditions. The problem is not with Labors plans to repeal the laws – it’s that traditionally these causes tend to lose momentum the closer we come to fresh elections.

Last time around, demonstrations against Voluntary Student Unionism, higher tertiary education fees, detention of asylum seekers and the invasion of Iraq amounted to nothing and the government was re-elected with an increased majority. A small tax break and good economic news (mixed with scare mongering on rising interest rates) was enough for most Australian’s to forget the misdeeds of Howard and vote him back in. If anything, the idea that these demonstrations can be ignored was reinforced and today’s rallies will be no different.

Let us then learn then from the misadventures of the past. Stay home today and stare angrily at a John Howard poster, spar with your Peter Costello punching bag and burn your Alexander Downer effigies in the privacy of your backyard. Bottle your anger, concentrate your discontent – and when it comes time to vote in 2007/8, make a choice that will actually make a difference.

We Know What's Good for You

The problem with making policies these days is that most of the time, the public doesn’t know what’s good for them – and politicians are too busy ‘spinning’ to try and convince them otherwise. The example of nuclear power is topical at the moment, so let me start with that.

Global warming and concern for our environment is no longer the sole domain of hippy’s and Peter Garrett. Increasingly, as drought takes hold, a percentage of the South Pole drifts towards NZ and beers take longer to chill in the esky – more of the public have environmental concerns and want to see action. Ultimately though, the action they want to see is like a scene from the Teletubbies: large green hillsides, full of windmills and pretty flowers, with brightly coloured middle-aged men cavorting around amongst them, gibbering incoherently. Unfortunately, clean energy from wind or solar power is about as far-fetched as this scene and is highly unlikely to be our saviour within the next generation. Still, when confronted with a realistic alternative, like nuclear energy, the same people campaigning for the environment are against harnessing the atom. Now, the adoption of nuclear power is a complicated issue, but my point is this: the public don’t understand the real alternatives and are forcing politicians to take the safe and often wrong options – and Kim Beazley is reveling in it.

Raising taxes is another classic example, where in short, the public want bountiful public services like health and free education – but balk at contributing. Can you recall a politician that ever dared to recommend raising taxes? And yet how often do we see a minute tax rebate around election time? To stop from making a tired point, let me propose the solution. The people in power need to demonstrate, with their actions that they can be trusted to make decisions that contribute to the common good. Raise taxes, and deliver services. Expand the nuclear debate, and help the public understand that it is one of the real alternatives that will help stem the emission of greenhouse gases, on our way to developing clean alternatives. This Administration as we have already demonstrated is not about spin, but an honest appraisal of each issue in turn. The people of this country long for that change.

Divided We Fall

There are clear lessons to be learnt at the moment for our fledgling Administration from the behaviour of the opposition parties in both the US and our own federal government. You will no doubt remember that the US Democrats have reclaimed the House and Senate for the first time in over a decade (but while Bush is President remain the ‘opposition’ in some sense), while our beleaguered Labor party has been in opposition for a similar period.

The Democrats have started badly, only a matter of weeks after their landslide election victories – disrupted by internal conflict and factional fighting. Their designated leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi (who will be the first woman Speaker ever) has struggled to bring together the disparate factions within the party and to present a united public front. This was most evident in the Party’s debate over the House Majority leader – Pelosi’s deputy. In short, her favoured candidate, John Murtha was easily beaten by incumbent Steny Hoyer, despite her urgings. To the media, this was indicative that her hold over the Party was weak. It also indicates that if your friend (Murtha) is an outspoken proponent of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and has been tainted by decade old corruption allegations, then you shouldn’t advocate his promotion (Hoyer isn’t free of the stink of corruption either, but is held in marginally higher regard). Following this embarrassment, Pelosi is working to extinguish the fire started by left-leaning Charles Rangel who is proposing the obviously controversial reintroduction of the military draft. As she tries to galvanize public support, fringe Democrats are pursing extreme issues. Ultimately, the factions within the Democratic Party are at war, and that is no way to win the Presidency in 2008.

That story seems all too familiar as Federal Labor play factional games and destroy their public credibility. The question of party leadership has again resurfaced, possibly after Kevin Rudd read my post about Beazley being unelectable. The Opposition Leader’s recent mistaking of Karl Rove (US political advisor) and Rove McManus was yet another nail in his political coffin. The caucus is divided over sticking with the mis-speaking Beazley, known election loser – or upgrading to the unknown quantities of Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard or maybe even Wayne Swan. Opinion polls, for what they’re worth, show that Julia Gillard is the most favoured and electable as far as the public is concerned and Kevin Rudd is the least. The problem is that few Party members are thinking about the most electable candidate and most are concerned with the power of right and left within their own ranks. Gillard is from the ‘Ferguson Left’ and is in the minority, as is current deputy leader Jenny Macklin who belongs to the slightly larger Socialist Left. All the numbers are with the Right of the Party which boasts the allegiances of Beazley, Rudd, Swan, Simon Crean, and Stephen Smith to name a few. In the end, if Beazley is replaced it’s likely to be by another personality-free drone from the Right – despite the presence of brighter, more publicly popular candidates.

Its one of the oldest cliché’s around: united we stand, divided we fall - and yet many of our politicians are oblivious. If either the Dems or Labor is serious about challenging for control of their governments they need unity, and more importantly, the vision to propose a candidate that can win – and not just please internal party agitators and power brokers. This Administration can see the error of these policies, and is committed not only to unity, but to offering leaders that the public can get behind and be proud to vote for.

It’s Happened Again

Just when we thought it was safe to venture out in public again another of Hollywood’s setting stars has destroyed his reputation with a minute long racial tirade. Michael Richards, known primarily for his role as Kramer on Seinfeld, was in the middle of a stand up routine when he launched into a viscous attack on some hecklers. He repeatedly called the black men “niggers” and made reference to how they would’ve been lynched 50 years ago. Its makes for truly amazing footage, from the point of view that it’s so unexpected in this day and age.

Watch it here for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UomfLKQr57U&NR

Hot on the heels of Mel Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic rant, the subsiding wounds have been reopened and we need to acknowledge that racism is alive and well - particularly if you’re a wealthy American entertainer. Thankfully, in Australia our ‘stars’ are generally much more circumspect and manage to retain some humility when they make their millions (Russell Crowe is an obvious exception, but he’s not really Aussie). This is partly because most of them are ‘B’ celebrities (who cares what Sarah-Mari, or Hot Dogs has to say), but mostly because the truly mega stars have had to work so hard to be famous. Nicole, Hugh Jackman, Kylie, Cate Blanchett, Eric Bana… there are plenty of down to earth Aussie ambassadors. I don’t care much for the power and money that movie stars are allowed to wield but remain thankful that Australian ones, for the most part, tend to remember their roots.

Just Sign it Already

World leaders met in Nairobi overnight at the UN climate change conference to discuss ways to combat climate change and global warming. This time around, the meeting was meant to have an increased sense of urgency after the recent spate of natural disaster’s and unusual weather patterns. Hurricane Katrina devastated the southern coast of the USA, a tsunami crashed through Indonesia and glaciers now float off the coast of New Zealand. This week alone it snowed in drought stricken Ballarat, giant waves crashed into the Hawaiian coast after an underwater earthquake and Sydney weather all too closely resembled Melbourne’s: rainy, windy and sunny all within an hour.

Following the meeting, Australia’s environmental position remained the same as the US (surprise, surprise): we’ll sign the Kyoto Protocol when the developing world has the same targets that we do. Additionally, our main argument against signing is an economic one; cutting back on fossil fuels and limiting emissions will cost jobs. Both seem to be paper thin diversions at a time when the earth is becoming increasingly angry with its treatment.

As a country that aspires to be one of the foremost developed nations, we should be leading by example and set a goal to have the lowest emissions and greenest policies. Understandably the pollution levels of larger nations like the US, China and India have a greater impact on global warming that we do – but we should be operating on principle here and making for the moral high ground. Kofi Annan said yesterday that the challenge of global warming is suffering from a “frightening lack of leadership” and that, to me, creates a huge opportunity for Australia to step forward.

As far as economic impact goes, we have clearly relied on resources for much of our history for economic growth, blessed with an abundance of mine-able commodities. One day though, those reserves will be exhausted and we will need to rely on the skills and creativity of our people. The consequences of global warming merely bring forward the date on which we need to evolve our markets. We’re an entrepreneurial society, full of innovators and the minute that the government gives the go-ahead (and some incentives) new businesses harnessing green technology will spring up. This phenomenon is already being demonstrated in NSW (which has a emission reduction scheme) by companies such as Easy Being Green who are actively trading (and profiting from) carbon credits with corporations who need to meet emission targets. The net effect is that reducing pollution becomes financially attractive to businesses – the only way that the majority is going to get onboard.

So, Mr. PM let me summarise for you. There is no such thing as clean coal. Sure you can catch the CO₂ and pump it under ground, but how long will that be viable for (and is it even a solution)? The coal lobbies are pouring poison in your ear and you’re falling for it. The economy will be fine, if you have the boldness to spend some of your 15 billion dollar surplus on new energy technologies, re-training our mine workers and encouraging the innovators in Australia to create new green businesses. My Administration would act before the Great Barrier Reef disappears and Tasmania becomes a diving attraction – what will yours do?

Viable Alternatives

One of the strongest arguments for my Presidency and corresponding Republic is that a career in politics tends to suck the creativity, honesty and life itself out of those who commit to it. This creates a situation where charismatic leadership is harder to find than justice at Guantanamo and the choice of candidates to lead the country (or state) is short and uninteresting (a little like the PM).

In NSW, as well as federally at the moment, this situation is all too apparent. Morris Iemma’s Labor government seems to be self destructing in recent weeks, with the sackings of Police Minister Carl Scully (after repeatedly misleading parliament) and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Milton Orkopoulos (on child sex charges). The cloud of corruption surrounding state Labor has continued to darken after allegations of domestic violence against (Blue Mountains candidate) Phil Koperberg, drink driving charges against (now withdrawn Port Stephens candidate) Aaron Beasley and repeated speeding fines for front bencher Kerry Hickey.

Plenty has already been written on each of these incidents and on the crisis facing the party, leading up to the March 2007 elections – which, they seem to be doing all they can to lose. There’s one compelling reason though why I think Morris will still be Premier next year: Peter Debnam. The Opposition Leader is widely known for his emotive outbursts and sound bites, surrounding delicate issues like the Cronulla Riots (lock the bastards and Middle East thugs up, etc) and glib one liners like “the public has a right to know” (which don’t mean anything). I wouldn’t trust him to run a coffee cart, let alone the state of NSW. Which leaves voters with a bleak choice: an increasingly corrupt Labor government or a Liberal one led by one-dimensional Pete?

The same parallels can be made federally, with the unelectable Beazley trying to unseat the increasingly cocky and powerful Libs. As a voter, it’s disillusioning. I want real choice returned to the ballot, and I want one of the choices to stand for integrity, leadership and maybe even some personality.

A Solution for Iraq

I know we’re on the other side of the world to Iraq, but I still wonder why it isn’t more of an issue to everyday Australians considering our soldiers are in harms way. So many questions go unasked, even when we manage to corner the PM long enough to get the chance. During a recent interview on the ABC, Howard managed to cover off on the entire problem of Iraq, by saying in effect, we are determined to stay, we’ll change tactics if necessary (to what, we wonder), but we’re staying.

Stay the course. It’s short, pithy and well, it doesn’t really mean anything. It shows how steely our resolve is and avoids coming up with solutions to the nasty problems that are now present on the ground in Baghdad. The stay the course mantra was initiated by Bush, but since it’s recently cost him the congress, he’s all open-minded all of a sudden. He and the American people eagerly await the findings of the Iraq Study Group, to give the situation some fresh perspective – but wouldn’t it be great if our leaders thought independently about Iraq and had solutions of our own.

For perspective, the war in Iraq has deteriorated to such a level that there are indeed few remaining options. Which is to say that there are more than the two championed by our current leadership. Howard wants to stay, Beazley wants to leave. The only thing most agree on at the moment is that it is a significantly more difficult problem to solve than those choices indicate. The current options being tossed around are: 1) Keep doing what we’re doing, but ask the Iraqi’s to ‘step up’ and take care of law and order themselves 2) Withdraw to a nearby friendly base and wait and see, or more radically 3) Divide Iraq into three regions (that were there before Churchill drew new borders after WWII).

Option 1 has been tried for 6 months and setting milestones (or threatening) the new Iraqi government is no solution. The withdrawal proposed in option 2 is favoured and probably the most likely course we’ll see taken in the near future. It is argued that insurgency will die with the last of the American troops, and we can easily intervene if/when terrorism takes seed. Just like the invasion though, it is an overly simplistic idea that depends too heavily on our expectations on how the people of Iraq will respond. Ultimately, the guerilla war will continue, but over a greater distance.

As radical as it may seem, dividing the country along ethnic lines, into a Kurdish north, Shia South and Sunni West, may prove to be an effective way to quell the sectarian fighting that is gripping the country. This would be best achieved while coalition forces are on the ground, to minimize the ethnic cleansing that has been associated with redrawing ethnic borders in the past. In effect, the Kurdish people are already self-governed and the Shia’s in the south are beholden to Iran. The Sunni’s cling to the hope of returning to power in Iraq, after so many years in that position – but care more deeply about their access to oil reserves. A successful oil sharing agreement between the three factions could be sufficient to keep everyone happy.

This Administration knows there isn’t a solution that doesn’t involve more bloodshed, nor is there a lasting solution that involves a quick withdrawal of troops. It would be nice though to expand the conversation here in Australia beyond stay or leave.

Trust me, Johnny

Since this Administration has been formed, we’ve been pushing pretty hard at some controversial issues that both the current political parties seem to avoid. We’re anti-bogans and Bathurst, pro-nuclear energy, pro-gay, critical of the UN, anti-Howard, anti-monarchy and so on. Check the archive for a full list of our policies to date. We’ve not shrunk from any of these issues and are keen to take strong stances on the most important of issues, without being pigeon-holed as any particular ideology.

With that said, the most controversial topic this week is Stem Cell Research, following the Senate’s decision to overturn the existing ban in a tight (34 – 32) vote. The legislation now has to be passed by the House of Representatives to become law, and the Government has announced that members will be entitled to a conscience vote – free from the obligations of party affiliation. John Howard states his current position as conflicted, and as he is no doubt a keen reader of this Administration’s policies, I thought I would spell it out for him.

Before I get there, I think that this is another issue that will be tainted by religious views, particularly in a conscience vote setting, ignoring the scientific merit of the procedure. How much molecular biology do you think John Anderson has under his belt? How confident are we that Barnaby Joyce knows the difference between a stem cell and, well a head of lettuce?

But I digress; the system is how it is for now, so fingers crossed my message gets across before tomorrows vote. Michael J. Fox, recently campaigning in Missouri for stem cell research expansion (the bill was passed incidentally), summarised my view point best when he said in effect: we have to trust our scientists. The potential for stem cell technology is amazing, though as yet unrealised. It may take decades of research, at the full capacity of our means before a result is achieved – but that result will be truly life changing for millions.

I dismiss the pro-life arguments around this research (that don’t apply for some reason to IVF), and that it is a slippery slope towards human cloning and egg farming. This is not an abortion issue, it’s one of science and society. Every day, our researchers tread the line between right and wrong when they grow all types of human cells from tissue, conduct drug trials on humans, and experiment with animals. The ethical requirements surrounding these undertakings are stringent and clear. There is no reason to expect that the same high standards would not be met for stem cells.

In summary, my dear PM, you have a chance here to provide hope for the majority of your citizens - that know someone with Parkinson’s, Alzheimer's or with a spinal chord injury. Don’t let this be another issue over-run by the Pro-life lobby or by the religious right. Give your scientists the tools to make a difference, and expect of them the same strict ethical oversight that they have demonstrated for generations.

Dems Win

The world’s most powerful democracy went to the polls yesterday to elect a new House of Representatives and a third of its Senate. As the majority of the counting concluded in the early hours of this morning, the Democrats had emerged as the big winners and the big theme of the election was one of change. In the 2002, Bush’s Republican Party gained control of both houses, and has wielded unchecked power for 4 years. Disillusioned citizens sent a clear message that they disliked the way this power was being used, returning the House to the Dems (229-196 with 10 undecided) and possibly the senate too (50 – 49 with 1 undecided).

In the end, the Republicans were undone not only by their faltering war in Iraq, but also a raft of corruption and sex scandals that plagued many of their representatives. Ultimately, control of both Houses made some Republicans complacent and greedy and certainly allowed Bush free reign to dig a deeper and deeper hole in Iraq. The wake-up call that this election brings comes too late for the ousted senators and representatives, but should have Howard and his Liberals looking nervously back over the missteps of their fourth term.

Since our the Liberals took control of both Houses of our government, it has continued to privatise Telstra, enacted controversial workplace reforms, abolished compulsory student unionism, made it easier for media barons to control large swaths of the media and over-ruled an ACT same-sex unions law. The Liberals have also committed troops to Iraq and have been stained by Australian Wheat Board bribery scandal. Most recently, Howard’s government has maintained its stance on refusing to combat Climate Change by ignoring the Kyoto Protocol and pandering to the coal lobbies.

When you look at it that way, it’s been a torrid 2 years, during which a lot of questionable legislation has been pushed through. Come next election, it is my great hope that Australians acknowledge the value of senate oversight, and perhaps even decide that we too are in need of sweeping change in our government.

Keep God on the Side

Every so often the media will pick up a horrifying story of the public stoning of an adulterer, the de-handing of a thief, or the lashing of some other petty criminal. Most often these reports come from a mysterious Arab country that sounds familiar, but that your average Today Tonight viewer could never find in their atlas (you know, that book with all the maps in it). Saudi Arabia and my old friend Iran are traditional favourites. Then, viewers collectively shake their heads and mumble something about the cruelty and backward nature of some societies, while the reporter tries to explain the application of Sharia (Islamic) Law.

While I agree that this system is heavy on the violence and isn’t my preferred model for law and order in Australia, neither is any other religious based governance. Now while Australia is generally a Christian nation, it has managed for much of its history to separate church and state. Increasingly though, in step with the rise of American Evangelicals (watch Denton’s “God on my Side”) and their influence on politics, political decisions in this country are coloured by religious beliefs. Tony Abbott injected his ‘morality’ into the medical debate surrounding RU486 (and thankfully got slapped down), Howard continues to deny Gay Rights, has proposed the introduction of religious advisors in public schools (don’t even get me started on that) and publicly supports "the lunatic Right" (nice one Barnaby) party, Family First. Other issues of importance to our society like euthanasia and stem cell research are also frequently high-jacked with religious arguments, preventing reasonable public debate.

In short, many of the current Liberal (and Family First) policies run counter to those put forward by my Administration and are anchored deeply in Christian conservatism. Many of these tenets are literal interpretations of the bible (in context it was written over 2000 years ago and translated from Aramaic), extrapolated from passages even devout Christians have never read. In my view, the role of religion is a personal one and should be kept well separated from the running of the country. Controversial issues require free public debate, logic and compassion; ingredients sadly, that are currently lacking.

Genocide isn't Funny

Has anyone else had enough of Iran? I can’t believe the lengths their leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to, in order to alienate the international community. If the ASIO boys were up to it, I'd think about making him my second assassination. Currently, as they enrich uranium and test fire long range missiles to carry the payload, the world, and the UN stand by idly. This is frustrating, but not new. Neither is it new that they continue to deny the right of Israel to exist, as well as actively advocating its annihilation. The latest stunt though, has pushed me over the edge, and if I could assassinate a whole country I would.

In response to the infamous Danish cartoons featuring the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, an Iranian newspaper launched a competition in search of the best Holocaust cartoon. Seriously, that really happened. On presenting the winner with their $15,000 prize, the Culture and Islamic Guidance Minister, Mohammad Hossein Saffar-Harandi, praised Ahmadinejad (who has described the Holocaust as a myth) and said "People should not think that by questioning the Holocaust they are committing a crime." Actually, by not a crime, he means it is a crime in Austria, Belgium, The Czech Republic, France, Germany Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain Switzerland and Israel.

News flash: the Holocaust really happened. The Nazis murdered over 8 million Jews, in a coordinated effort to eradicate their race. It’s just a fact. We know it’s a fact, because the Nazi’s meticulously recorded the details of the crimes, with tens of thousands of photographs and documents that survive to the present day. Denial of this event has enjoyed varying levels of popularity since WWII, but seems to be peaking lately, with Hamas controlling Palestine and Ahmadinejad erratically steering Iran. At times like these, leaders of the rest of the world need to take action and not let this behaviour continue. Ongoing inaction only encourages other nut bags to shoot their mouths off; just to get their mugs on TV (isn’t that right Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly?).

This administration has a zero tolerance policy on this sort of ignorance and hatred. There is just no excuse for it. Oppressed peoples everywhere look forward to the day we are elected and can give them the protection they deserve.

Gay is the new Black

And I mean that in the most serious way. I mean that this country’s treatment of the Gay and Lesbian community is reminiscent of the treatment of African-Americans by the USA in the first half of the 1800's. After decades of oppression and treatment as second class citizens (or as sub-human) American society found its conscience and has worked since that time to undo the damage caused to these people. In modern times, thanks to education and the stigmatisation of racist behaviour, it is now difficult for our current generation to conceive this level of segregation and mistreatment – at least based on skin colour.

In this context it never fails to surprise me that prejudice against the Gay and Lesbian community is so widely tolerated and even supported. Our current leadership has happily agreed to deny members of this community the basic rights to marriage (and the associated legal protections) under the pretence of protecting society and the institution of marriage. Please. This is not a social issue, but one of civil liberties. It is disgraceful that legislation exists that restricts the behaviour of a specific subset of our community. The tide against this outrage is slowly beginning to turn and in another 50 years society will no doubt look back with the same shame that now surrounds slavery. I for one aren’t prepared to wait that long.

In 2006, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada and South Africa legalized same sex marriage. New Jersey has just stumbled upon the fact that they’re discriminating against homosexuals and are legislating a solution. Australia, under this administration would quickly follow suit.

Taking back Nationalism

Ever since the Germans goose-stepped their way across Europe in WWII, nationalism as a political concept hasn’t been the same. Sure, people still love their countries, but the minute you try and unite people behind a common national identity, critics start coughing “Aryan” behind your backs. It has been demoted to an extreme right wing ideology, serving xenophobic regimes the world over, fed by the fear of confused citizens.

Things have only gotten worse since the War on Terror. Once Bush decided that patriotism was an interchangeable word with loyalty – America’s unique brand of nationalistic passion has become a tool of oppression. If you don’t agree with the Bush Administration (and don’t eat all your Freedom Fries), you’re not a patriot, and increasingly, you’re Un-American. Like every other trend in the US, this one is catching on here, with everything from flag burning, to fare evasion (and everything in between) dubbed Un-Australian. In fact, 87% (it feels like that many doesn’t it?) of all stories on A Current Affair, contain behaviour considered Un-Australian.

Well, I don’t care for it. This administration vows to reverse these ugly trends and return a love for your country to a top national priority (we also plan to abolish crap current affairs shows). Our change to a republic will now doubt require a change of flag – but that flag will be flown proudly from the flagpole in every front yard, draped enthusiastically around our victorious athletes, and planted heroically on all of our conquered territories.

A Real Republic

Some of you more astute readers would’ve noticed by now that one of the key hurdles to becoming President of Australia is the need to change our system of government. Those even more on-the-ball will note that this was already tried in 1999, by referendum and was defeated with roughly a 55% majority.

Much of the problem 7 years ago (and to this day) was that republicans were divided over which model of republic they were in support of (see http://www.republic.org.au/6models/). In the end, the referendum proposed a figure-head president, to replace the queen and governor general and to preside over ribbon cuttings the country over. He or She was to be appointed by the parliament, a prospect widely viewed as un-democratic. In retrospect this model was not necessarily the most likely to bring about better governance, but was the middle-of-the-road option that placated the majority of republican factions.

It’s a terrible model and one I’m happy was not implemented. I understand that as a society, we’re largely conservative – but the adoption of a republic provides the first opportunity for real change in over 200 years (I think the monarchists “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality is simplistic, at best). I favour the Executive Presidential model, where the President is elected by the people and is both head of the government and head of state. In short, we get a real president, not a symbol. The President elects a cabinet, of experts, who are definitionally not political representatives (career politicians rarely make good managers – or in recent history, good leaders). The two houses of parliament provide oversight of the cabinet and concentrate of legislating and serving their electorates, while the President’s party does not necessarily hold a majority in either house.

I am under no illusions that changing the constitution and the government will be an easy task. However, if we’re ever going to have dynamic leadership and experts in charge of our essential services, it’s a change that we need to make.

The Nuclear Option

Fear is an irrational response. One incident can prejudice people against an entire subject. For me its water skiing. When I was a kid, I heard of a guy who hit a submerged twig on a river, and wound up with a broken neck. To this day, I wouldn’t get behind a speed boat for all the adopted African kids in Hollywood. I know the chances of it actually happening to me are remote, but it’s not worth it.

The same scenario seems to have affected Australia in terms of nuclear energy. Ask the average citizen on the street what they know about nuclear power and the response will be unanimously Chernobyl and then: nuclear energy bad. That’s about the extent of it. In context though, the Chernobyl disaster happened 20 years ago, was the end product of letting under-trained and careless workers pilot a poorly designed and cheaply constructed reactor. Like giving a 3 year old a loaded shot gun. That’s the Russians for you though, you can’t trust them. While there is no question that this was a disaster of gigantic proportions, it just wouldn’t happen in a developed country like ours. The Three Mile Island reactor in the USA suffered a partial meltdown seven years prior to Chernobyl and caused no immediate radiation deaths, with the projected increase in cancer related deaths later judged to be “approximately one”.

As such, the USA currently has just over 100 operating nuclear reactors, while France generates 80% of its electricity using nuclear technology. The hurdles to nuclear energy are generally a large start-up cost, ongoing fuel costs, the storage of waste products, accident or attack and possible proliferation for nuclear weapons. Currently, Australia is uniquely placed to overcome all of these obstacles. We have a large GST-fed budget surplus, large uranium reserves, even larger tracts of uninhabited land on which to store spent fuel and are wealthy enough to build with the best and safest technology.

Its time we stopped being afraid, and strode into the 21^st century, trusting our scientists to lead the way.

Public Transport Reform

Now I'm the first to admit I'm not Robinson Crusoe when it comes to complaining about public transport. There are legions of people in the 'burbs who are subjected to the fickle whims of this feisty mistress on a daily basis (I know this because some of my advisors made a trip out to the outer fringes of Sydney (see www.whereis.com.au/Marrickville) once a couple of years back and spoke to them). However, in my official capacity as the future Minister for Transport in the Republic, I feel obliged to point out the shortfalls in the current system and this administration's proposals for the future.

One day recently in a fit of Al Gore-induced environmental friendliness, I decided to leave the car at home and catch public transport to work for the day. Now imagine my surprise when the journey took me 3 times as long as the one had I commuted in the comfort of my private car! Once I had waited outside my office long enough to be satisfied the Candid Camera guys weren't coming (maybe they were on a bus?), I began to think to myself about the trade off I had just made. One hour of my life in return for the pleasure of sitting on the bus next to a guy whose arthritic elbows prevented him from applying deodorant (I assume), telling 4 or 5 people that I was in fact commuting to my paid employment so I would have some change for a phone call and perhaps they should try the same, and exerting myself walking from the bus stop such that I needed a shower on arrival. Of course the polar ice caps also shrunk one billionth of one percent less that day which subsequently melted some of the ice-cap around my heart.

Does anyone else see the problem here? 30mins in an air conditioned car, arrive fresh, no walking, cheaper!! OR Kilometers of walking, crowded stinky bus/train, 90mins. You would have to be the virgin Mary herself to take the public transport option for the sake of the environment. I personally have wired electrodes to my privates for a little 'negative reinforcement' next time I wake up feeling all John Lennon-imagine no possessions-and think a bus is a good idea. Instead I've got my hot air balloon out of storage and dusted it off for those occasions. It's good clean LPG, and based on my recent experience I've decided submitting myself to the mercy of the prevailing winds has me far more likely to arrive at work on time, refreshed, and suitably unaware of Sydney's homelessness problem than via Sydney buses. So as part of our proposed public transport reforms I'm pleased to announce a new 10% rebate on all hot air balloon sales to complement a new Transport Hotline Initiative called T-Line including a handy bus self-exclusion service and daily wind reports. That and the obvious additional powers for bus inspectors to question and detain any person deemed to have taken the bus in lieu of their car with no good reason, because there's clearly treachery afoot there.

So there you go. If New Zealand can continue ad-nauseum to pretend to be a real country, I can add my voice to the countless billions who think public transport in this city is a disgrace. My one man boycott is hitting the Howard/Iemma regime where it hurts, and the formality that is the collapse of those governments can only be days away. While you wait patiently for the day our glorious President rises to power in their ashes, be sure to raise your normally downcast commuting eyes to the sky, and wave to me as I float by.

Motor Racing

If the great Charles Darwin was a bogan, he still would've to be tempted to perform a little of what I like to call 'divine evolution' (Did you mean: genocide) once a year, in a little place in country NSW called Bathurst. Every year in October the God of Mt Panorama awakens from his drunken coma, climbs off his sister, dons his best Ford dressing gown and cracks open a hair-of-the-dog VB. Then, like worker bees summoned by their queen only with less capacity for autonomous thought, bogans in their tens of thousands hear the call of the tinny and descend on the mountain, eager to stake out the space from which they'll see all the action. Or at least the squillionth of a second each car is visible... "Did anyone see the number on that one?? I think it was Skaifey! What an athlete he is!". Are these guys serious? Clearly they're a few octane points short of premium when they call this a sport, with the participants 'Athletes'. Sure they hop out of their little mobile saunas all hot and sweaty, much like Clinton leaving the oval office or our adversary John Howard on return from his morning constitutional. But sweating at work does not equal athlete any more than being alive means you should be allowed to breed, as each of our 60000 'Motorsport' loving subjects are testament.

Eventually, after exhausting our catalogue of taped episodes of 'A Current Affair' and 'Today Tonight', we see the winner on the podium. What a hero. What a day. "The best race ever!" they exclaim, without even needing to add "except the ones Brockie won" because everyone knows that's what they mean. This bloke (who gets paid ludicrous sums to drive a car) managed to negotiate the same track 160-odd times without a new wall sneaking up on him. Someone get some ice for his accelerating foot! Let us lift that champagne lest you injure those million dollar steering arms...

Spare me. Spare us all. That's exactly what this administration will be doing when we outlaw motor racing. No doubt you the voting public are eagerly awaiting our position on law enforcement, education, healthcare and tax to name a few. Well watch this space, but in the meantime take our your blackest, most permanent marker, and cross motor racing off your respective lists.

The Pacific Solution

You’ve got to wonder sometimes, who comes up with these policies and which bright spark gets to name them. Clearly the lights were off and no one was home in the halls of power when our government came up with its policy for diverting asylum seekers and called it the Pacific Solution. Obviously everyone at that meeting hadn’t heard of a little thing called WWII and the other famed ‘solution’. Nice work.

Our current immigration policy is pathetic. It is based entirely on the premise that we need to make Australia seem like a foreboding, unapproachable fortress – else the hordes of Asia descend on us. Now I’m not saying Howard and the boys haven’t done a good job of making us look like heartless bastards. They legislatively reduced our immigration inclusion zone, established a raft of offshore and remote mainland detention centers, holding some applicants for more than three years. Pretty intimidating stuff, but hardly pleasing to human rights watch groups, like Amnesty International. So far, the government had been able to get away with it for one simple reason: hating and fearing foreigners is currently fashionable in the USA (who are building a fence along their 3000 km border with Mexico) and Europe (where right wing nationalists keep coming to power on a tide of xenophobia). Way to go with the flow.

Obviously, there are better solutions to this issue, but it isn’t practical to merely grant visas to everyone arriving on our shores. There is a necessity to process new arrivals, both in terms of the validity of their refugee status and their health – before putting them into the community. The key to a workable policy in this area though is simple: definitive detention periods. For example, let’s say 3 months (I’m no visa processing expert, but I think that’s a fair time). That’s the limit, no exceptions. In that time, asylum seekers can be given medical treatment and health checks, English lessons to help them make their way in our society, and offered vocational training if they wish, to make them more employable – all while their paper work is verified. Independent, free legal representation and translators can ensure that are treated fairly. At the end of that time, you have happy, healthy people ready to join our community – with the bonus being that we no longer have to be ashamed at how we treat those less fortunate than us.

Three Free Assassinations – Part 1

Over my life I’ve come to hear enough conspiracy theories to believe that each American President gets three free assassinations, no questions asked. From the day of their inauguration they need only to write a name on a napkin, pass it to the correct CIA agent and the person meets with an ‘accident’. While it’s disturbing to think that this might actually be the case, it makes me wonder which three people Australia would be most improved without.

The first one strikes me as a no brainer, and I’d be scribbling his name the instant I was sworn in. My ASIO henchman would be immediately dispatched to the home of the Honorable Tony Abbott MP. Certainly Australia and maybe the world would be a better place without this ultra conservative religious zealot. He’s on the record as being anti-abortion, anti-trade unions, has reduced spending on the PBS, made insensitive comments about aboriginals and on mental health (specifically kicking John Brogden while he was down). He has also been outspoken on restricting gay marriage under the guise of protecting ‘family values’. In short, I would despise living in the society he envisions, and so I assume would millions of other Australians. I’m surprised that a man with such incendiary views has risen to the top of the political tree – and could one day lead this country. The quicker he’s wearing concrete shoes, the better.

UN "Peacekeepers"

I saw a poster this morning posing the brain teaser: "The UN: Peacekeepers or Imperialists?". To any citizen of planet earth who can register a response on an EEG, the answer is painfully obvious: neither.

The UN as an organisation has been broken for a long time, though recent events serve to highlight its ineptitude. When Israel responded to Hezbollah's cross-border raid in July, it took the UN a full month to broker a cease-fire - and the last troops only just left. The 'peacekeepers' needed to restore order had to be squeezed from unwilling member countries, who didn't want to put their troops in harms way! (They're soldiers, that's their job) While the issue of the invasion of Lebanon is a complex one, the over riding message sent by the UN was: Nations are free to invade whoever they see fit and have at least a month before any international action is taken. Not a great precedent to set in modern times.

The other obvious examples of UN bungling are the continued genocide in Sudan and Iran's unchecked progression towards nuclear weapons. In Sudan, the UN have insufficient political clout to get the government to co-operate (hardly imperialists) and the land itself is strategically insignificant enough to not arouse the interest of its permanent members. Articles are written, Hollywood actors lobby and UN resolutions are debated, but no action is taken. Much has been written about Iran too, but the bottom line there is that the UN policy of placating rogue nations (or at most, writing them softly worded letters) continues to be a failure and not offending Muslim sensibilities has become too high a priority.

When I become President, my highest foreign policy priority will be to overhaul the UN and make it a functional entity (Obviously making the international community care what Australia says will also be a priority). For starters it needs a permanent standing army at its disposal and the ability to deploy them with meaningful mandates. The army should be drawn on a rotating basis from member nations, proportionate to their size and trained specifically for peacekeeping - a very different sort of training to that given to US marines, for example. After the first few successful interventions the new UN may find that there are less wordy resolutions to pass and that the peace is easier to keep.

Long Weekend

The long weekend may have stalled the momentum of my posting, but the pursuit of the presidency never rests. While I wasn't asked to give a lame speech at the AFL breakfast, nor to look like an awkward tool on the NRL podium - I was immersed in finals fever. Having some concept of our national sports puts me ahead of 99% of our current leadership, and I look forward to a day when the good public don't have to cringe when the PM gets near a moving ball. The footage of little Johnny trying to bowl a ball still haunts me. The swannies were noble in defeat, and the storm were robbed.

But I digress. The main reason for this post was to reassure the voting public that this presidential bid is not one that is taken lightly or ill conceived. It has been years in the planning and stems from an honest belief that I could do a better job, with better policies. I have the requisite left wing, philanthropic first-lady; a collection of wise and trustworthy advisors that form an unbreakable inner circle; an unwavering belief that I am right and a willingess to benignly govern. Frankly, my only concern is that I've arrived too late.

So I'm going to be President

I just decided today. I'm going to be Australia's first president. I've always wanted to lead this great nation but have been put off by the necessity to join one of the major parties - or their feeder organisations. You start out as a Young Liberal or Labor member and 30 years later maybe you get to be in the right place or kiss the right arse and they stack a branch vote to give you pre-selection. By that time, you're a jaded, washed-up, shell of your former self.

Thats the suckers way. If we're ever going to have someone who isn't a wanker running things we need a new system. A republic is the obvious answer, facilitating the election of the best human being for the job (or at least the richest, or most charismatic), not the best Party spokesman. No need to go out looking for the perfect candidate, because I'm standing up. My friends call me Doc, but you can call me Mr. President.