Hypocrisy and the colour Beige

Greetings Rambling Masses,

Well, here I am, about to head off to the Byron Bay Blues Festival, to blast the cobwebs and negative vibes out of my skull with some fine music and the joys of the communal camp. However, I just couldn't resist the call of just one more gentle rant before I go...

Hypocrisy is an interesting concept. The pot calling the kettle black, people in glass houses throwing stones, and so on. I would like to draw the attention of the Rambling Masses to what I feel is one of the finer cases of hypocrisy in the modern age (at least in Australia, anyway).

I refer to our illustrious leader, "Beige" Howard - the man with so little spine that he seems to be an evolutionary throwback to the gastropoda class of creatures. Let's inspect the definition of gastropods:

There is usually a definite head, bearing one or two sensory tentacles and a mouth that is often equipped with a rasplike tongue called a radula. The lower surface of the animal is modified into a large, flattened foot, used by bottom-dwelling forms for creeping about. The foot and other soft parts of the body can usually be completely withdrawn into the shell.

Yes, that definitely sounds like our Beige. And what slimy trail has this particular snail left in our political landscape? Let's explore this important question, whilst also returning to the introductory concept of hypocrisy:

Point 1: Every time that talk of saving the environment springs up (you know, little things like the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, actually getting behind and backing development into our greatest and most abundant renewable energy resources such as wind and solar, moving away from the intensely stupid concepts of coal and *shudder* nuclear power, stopping logging of old-growth forests), this spineless Beige twerp brings up the same old tired arguments - "mnah, errh, I will not do anything that puts Australian jobs at risk, mnah, mneeeh".

Point 2: (And here is where the delightful stench of hypocrisy wafts like a vast tsunami wave under the nostrils of the Rambling Masses) Beige jumped onto old George Dubya's leg faster than you can say "lap dog" and started to hump for all that he was worth. What I am referring to is the signing of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. Did our fine snail stand up to the monied powers and actually broker a decent agreement for not just us, but for our future generations? Naaaaaah! Of course not. So now, we are stuck with an FTA that guarantees Australia loses billions of dollars each year (and probably tens or hundreds of thousands of good old Australian jobs).

I bring the following salient points to your attention:

1. Pharmaceuticals - Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) guarantees Australians some of the cheapest medicines in the world. That’s why US pharmaceutical companies lobbied to undermine the PBS throughout negotiations for the Australia-US FTA. Among the biggest and richest corporations in the world, these companies argued that because consumers in Australia can buy medicines cheaper than in America, the PBS is an unfair subsidy which should be changed to allow them greater profits.
   
   
2. Agriculture - Despite a promise to Australians by Prime Minister Howard on November 21, 2003 that "if we can't get something quite big on agriculture then we won't have a free trade agreement", the FTA delivers few new export markets to farmers. At the same time, it threatens local markets by giving all US imports into Australia (many of them subsidised by the US government) "immediate duty-free access", and by making changes to quarantine standards to allow more US produce in.
   
   Quotas for Australian beef exports to the US will remain for the next 18 years, until 2022, before free trade is instituted. Australian dairy exports will be allowed to increase to a tiny 2% of US imports. Sugar is excluded from the deal.
   
   However, local produce which will be threatened with increased imports of subsidised US produce including processed foods, soups and bakery products, fruits and vegetables, dried onions, fruit and vegetable juices, dried plums, potatoes, almonds, tomatoes, cherries, raisins, olives, fresh grapes, sweet corn, frozen strawberries, and walnuts.
   
   
3. Quarantine - The FTA will also give the US unprecedented influence over Australian quarantine laws by creating a new body to oversee quarantine, on which the US government will sit. The US Government has stated that using this new body, "food inspection procedures that have posed barriers in the past will be addressed, benefiting [US agricultural] sectors such as pork, citrus, apples and stone fruit."
   
   Opening up Australian markets to these US imports will not only threaten Australian growers, but will bring in new pests and diseases against which current quarantine rules protect.
   
   
4. Manufacturing - Under the FTA, more than 99 percent of U.S. manufactured exports to Australia will become duty-free immediately upon entry into force of the Agreement. U.S. manufacturers estimate that this elimination of tariffs could result in US$2 billion per year in increased U.S. exports of manufactured goods - that is, an increase of US$2 billion per year in Australian imports.
   
   Trade unions have predicted that this change will result in tens of thousands of jobs lost as local production is displaced by imports from technologically superior American manufacturers.
   
   Even Toyota Australia has warned that the FTA could destroy the Australian car industry, causing manufacturers to move to the US, where production would be cheaper. Whistleblower website Crikey.com.au has also published rumours that Ford is considering the closure of its Factory in Geelong, Victoria as a direct result of the FTA.
   
   
5. Environment - The FTA will undermine Australia's existing environmental laws and fetter Australian governments seeking to legislate to protect the environment. And while US law requires a formal environmental assessment of all trade agreements, the potential environmental impacts of this agreement for Australia have never been formally assessed by the government. Many serious questions about the environmental consequences of the AUSFTA therefore remain unanswered.
   
   The Australian Conservation Foundation makes this point about the FTA's potential impact on Australia's environment - The FTA Investment Chapter obliges the Commonwealth Government to compensate US investors if Australian laws on the environment, human rights or labour standards "significantly interfere" with their investments. This provides greater rights to US investors than are currently enjoyed by Australians under the Australian legal system. If this obligation is breached, the US Government will have the right to seek compensation.
   
   
6. Australian Culture/Audio-Visual Content - Local Content Rules in Australian TV and radio ensure that Australian stories and Australian voices are heard over the deluge of American programming. But the US, not content with this, has used the FTA to limit Australia’s right to regulate its film, TV and radio.
   
   The US has reported that "the FTA contains important and unprecedented provisions to improve market access for U.S. films and television programs over a variety of media including cable, satellite, and the Internet."
   
   
7. Intellectual Property - The FTA significantly increases the rights of intellectual property owners - mostly large corporations - over users - mostly ordinary people. Changes under the FTA include:
   
   
   • extension in the term for copyright material from life of the author plus 50 years to life of the author plus 70 years. Such increased copyright protection will impose serious costs on the public who will have to pay to use large numbers of everything from music to film and books which would otherwise be in the public domain. Further, this restriction will stifle creativity, discriminating against new and small artists who are further restricted in their ability to use material which would otherwise be in the public domain.
   
   
   • enormously increased powers for copyright-owning corporations, enabling them to disturb business, attack normal consumer practices, and suppress information;
   
   
   • draconian requirements of Internet Services Providers which would be burdensome for those businesses, and intrusive into the activities of businesses and consumers;
   
   
   • issue of patents for mere descriptions of business processes, which is completely at odds with the very notion of patents, and seriously constraining on the conduct of business.
   
   Among other effects, these changes will limit the ability of Australian software developers, companies, and users to benefit from and contribute to the Open Source software industry. Again, this benefits large software corporations such as Micro$oft, and stifles the creativity of ordinary computer programmers.
   

So, what do you say, oh Rambling Masses? Is it not finally time (long overdue in my opinion) to go to your local hardware store, spend up big on snail pellets, and start throwing them at Canberra?