A tale of two press conferences: parallels between Abbott and the Sex Party
|
A tale of two press conferences. A three-headed Coalition monster at the Langham Hotel’s “Alto” function room at Southbank, (eerily recalling the Coonan/Turnbull/Hockey triple header of last October), followed by a Sex Party knees up at a somewhat-sketchy nightclub on the other side of the Yarra. Not exactly bosom buddies you’d think, given the latter’s rejection of Tony Abbott’s brand of barren Catholicism. But, with the overwhelming theme this morning of getting the government monkey off the back of everyday Australians – the kind that have both mortgages and subscriptions to pay-per-view sleaze shows – it seems the two could have slipped into bed together. As Tony Abbott promised to slash bureaucracy to “help to ease the cost of living for families”, the Sex Party — an arm of p-rn industry lobbyists Eros Foundation — similarly railed against “greater government intervention into our lives”. The party’s number one Victorian Senate candidate, Fiona Patten, wasn’t across the detail of the Coalition’s earlier pledge to hack $1.183 million from the budget bottom line, but in an echo of Joe Hockey’s renowned libertarian streak, she questioned whether Canberra bureaucrats should be prying into what people secrete on their mobile phones. Asked by Crikey whether the party supported the cuts to spending Hockey said would ease the burden on small business, Patten said she would be looking closely at what the cuts meant to all the mum and dad p-rnographers struggling to make ends meet. “I certainly think small business is our background and we would be looking at all legislation and the effect on small business, ” she said. And Abbott’s dubious “action contract” dovetailed nicely with Patten’s pledge to be the party of “real action”, in the personal realm where it really mattered. Patten, and Eros director Robbie Swan (also ex-partners) have historically railed against Tony Abbott’s predilection for nanny-statism, but this morning it appeared the Greens were the real target, with Patten saying that Bob Brown’s local lieutenant in the state seat of Richmond, Kathleen Maltzahn, wanted to “criminalise prostitution” and should therefore be avoided. The other baddy was Clive Hamilton, whose enthusiasm for Stephen Conroy’s internet put him firmly in the prude category. There are other parallels. While Joe Hockey highlighted the last time Labor had presided over a government surplus was in 1989, the year The Bangles topped the charts with Eternal Flame, the S-x Party’s candidate in Warringah, Austen Tayshus, was still riding high in suburban beer barns milking his number 1 hit Australiana. Tayshus, like Victorian ALP pool staffer Conrad French, has promised to appear on the campaign trail sans dignity. But Patten poured cold water over Sex Party-branded togs on the campaign trail, seemingly leaving Tayshus in the lurch: “We’re not hoping for any mankinis or Speedo shows,” she joked. The Sex Party is famously concerned with personal politics, and if Crikey’s deadline had allowed, it would have been interesting to see whether it backed the Coalition’s deification of monetarist economics. Cut government spending, the Coalition appeared to be saying, and small business would reap the benefits through lower interest rates. At both forums, the detail was lacking. Hockey said he would “to outline some of the detail in these initiatives”, with Robb promising to creat a “line by line” breakdown in savings. But that never came, with the Debt Reduction minister listing instead recent increases in utilities prices, apparently caused by the ALP. Quite what the Sex Party stands for, aside from individual freedom to do almost anything, also remained opaque. |
|
|
|
Historically Hung Over: The Crikey Guide To The 2010 Federal Election
28 Comments
That I don’t need to see.
What more do they need to say?
The SP is an obvious rival of the slowly-becoming-the-establishment Greens, but I can’t help thinking the name is unnecessarily off-putting.
what’s off-putting about a sex party?!
^ Nothing … unless you’re not invited.
‘Quite what the Sex Party stands for, aside from individual freedom to do almost anything, remained similarly opaque’.
That’s exactly the point!
(As for all the worried comments here about ‘what’s in a name’ May I suggest that such comments say a lot about how uncomfortable some adults are with healthy sexuality in a public forum in general, and that’s really quite sad, given the century of science, education, and reason we live in - and of itself, I think, a valid reason for the Sex Party to exist as the ‘Sex Party’).
The ASP are positioning as the antithesis to ‘august’, conservative, moralistic, straight and narrow-minded, god-fearing (why ‘fearing’? -I digress again) politicians with high-falutin’ agendas, that, for the most part, don’t, and probably won’t, affect most working stiffs all that much, ever. No matter how much the media try to spin it.
What does matter is the growing neo-conservatism sneaking in the back door of late.
And what’s wrong with engaging in the missing debate about what’s really happening with Australian sexual mores, and needs, and importantly, issues anyway?
Why is that somehow ‘lesser’ than the issues the puffed up media bang-on about, when everybody but them, the billionaire puppet-masters, and the polly-parrots are jaded-sick of it.
Joe sixpack is more interested in easy access to x-rated material and cheap Viagra, than big mining and little leaky boats.
Don’t ‘misunderstimate’ a large swathe of the voting public!
They’ve just never had a chance to tick that box -until now…
@willmacadam,
Yes indeed.
The Brits have had The Official Monster Raving Loony Party for decades and were happy to vote for the late Screaming Lord Sutch, so it’s time we had a similar opportunity.
IMO, Stephen Fielding’s only chance of re-election would be to include the words ‘raving’ and ‘loony’ in his party’s name.
The Raving Loony Family First Party…sounds like christmas with my family.
Asdusty,
You have until 12 noon Thursday 29 July to nominate, so get your skates on!
Willmacadam is right. It’s wrong to misunderstimate sex.
I’m a candidate for the Sex Party in the seat of Swan. It’s interesting that Andrew Cook characterises the Party as coming out of the P*rn industry. They like to call it the Adult Industry, since they imagine that people buying legal sex aids are engaging in something other than pornography. Crazy though it is, the Sex Party believe that sex should be de-stigmatised and that those who want it should be allowed creative and expressive sex lives .
Let’s put the name to one side; the Sex Party is in favour of Australia becoming a leader in progressive social policy, in areas like euthanasia, drug reform, censorship and sexual equality (eg. gay marriage).
It’s a party unencumbered by the weight of a constituency so it’s allowed to say sensible things like, hey, why do we have 8 state and territory governments all making laws about the same things - perhaps we should have a look at that.
It’s a good thing that we are able to table these views; our parliament is dominated by Christian conservatives. 37% of federal politicians are members of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship; essentially a prayer group. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s not representative of attitudes in the general population who are by and large progressive, tolerant and not committed Christians.
The only thing that will stop us making a valuable contribution to debate in this country is dismissive journalism like this.
Andrew Crook, well done:
I’ve waited a long time to read those words: “Asked by Crikey …” Too much web-surfing and not enough primary research. I hope this is a sign of things to come.
Bret Treasure, when you can demonstrate you know the difference between curtailing the nanny state and “becoming a leader in progressive social policy” you will earn my confidence that you’re not falling into the trap that destroyed the Australian Democrats - confusing libertarianism with just another kind of nanny state. In particular, are you still trying to mandate an equal number of women and men in each house of parliament?
Hi Power,
I’m not sure there’s much to be gained discussing terms like ‘libertarianism’ and ‘nanny state’. From the Sex Party’s perspective, we’d like Australia to support such things as euthanasia, drug reform, constitutional reform, gay marriage and we don’t believe the Government should become the arbiter of what’s shown on the Internet.
We support increased numbers of women in Parliament; do you agree that’s a desirable outcome? Personally, I think we have too many lawyers.
The major parties don’t seem to want to alter current pre-selection processes and quotas are obviously one way of introducing more balance. Let me know if you have other suggestions.
OK, I have two suggestions.
1. Drop this affirmative action thing for parliament. If less women than men are stupid enough to leave the real world and engage in a life-draining quest for power, who are you to tell them they’re wrong? If voters want more women to go in parliament they can vote more women into parliament.
2. Drop this anti-federalism, “constitutional reform” thing until you’ve done your homework on the theory behind our federal Constitution. The strongest reason for “8 state and territory governments all making laws about the same things” is because autonomous states within a federation - with free movement of citizens across state borders - enables interstate competition to act very much like inter-business competition. You may think it’s inefficient but it’s responsible for far more of Australian quality of life than anything the Commonwealth government has ever done.
Sex Cauldron - I thought they shut that place down!
The hit-and-run approach from Bret Treasure is not encouraging. I was actually willing to take the Sex Party seriously but it’s starting to sound more and more like some university O-Week thing, fixing all the world’s problems around a table in the student association bar. The love-child of Bob Brown and Baby Spice.
Well speaking as someone from the left, I see little in Bret Treasure’s commentary to which I’d take offence. Indeed, I’d see destigmatising sexuality as admirable. I’m not sure how one can go about making policy to acheive this goal, but I’d be open to argument.
At no point did Treasure advocate affirmative action to increase the numbers of women in parliament, so that objection seesm off base.
The original article seemed to imply that the ASP were right of centre libertarinas, and if so, I wouldn’t endorse that, but if their libertarianism is confined to matters of personal lifestyle choice, then they sound eminently supportable. More power to them I say.
@POWER It didn’t take you long to resort to very vague assertions:
“autonomous states….responsible for far more of Australian quality of life than anything the Commonwealth government has ever done.”
How?
Logically, and by your reasoning, there only be one state with the best quality in any aspect of life while the others are lagging behind.
Surely then the Sex Party has a legitimate platform to try and raise the quality of Australian sex lives.
I don’t see you contending at all with Bret’s criticism of the disproportionate religious influence on Australian politics. Are you religious yourself? What is your opinion on sexuality being promoted and celebrated?
@powerisnotstrength,
When the debate moves beyond one’s own capacity to stomach any challenge to social constructs as one clings to them , one simply belittles said debate to beneath taking seriously. Problem solved!
You wish…
FURRYBARRY - I’ll answer the last question first. I agree with the Sex Party on its core planks of opposing legislated wowserism. The old days of prohibition against the sex trades contributed strongly to a ghastly underworld of children being abducted for movie-making, prostitutes enslaved by drug-habit debts by their pimp/drug dealers, and police corruption. These things have not disappeared, and they are severely exacerbated by the continuing War on Drugs.
The state is well free of the reign of the First Estate from the Ancien Régime. It continues to wield influence, along with the latterly called Fourth Estate (the press), the unions (far more powerful than any church in Australian history), the business associations, professional associations, industry associations like the National Farmers Federation, charities, clubs, local communities, and so on. As long as they don’t return to being enshrined in the constitution, what of it?
“Logically, and by your reasoning, there only be one state with the best quality in any aspect of life while the others are lagging behind.”
Exactly right. In much the same way that at any one time, one bank or car dealer or ISP will be offering you the best deal for your purposes. States compete for relative population increases, because this reflects better quality of life - including some things the state has no control over, such as climate, but also better management. Thus Queensland has boasted for years about taking the refugees from the southern states.
Comparison between state successes and failures in various policies leads to prestige for the winner and electoral backlash for the loser. Victoria leads the way in criminal justice reform - for example recidivism among former prisoners in Victoria is far lower than in the rest of the country, reflecting successful innovations in criminal jurisprudence and related areas. Other states have tried different innovations with less success, so all states are now examining Victorian jurisprudence with a view to adapting parts to their own regimes. ACT leads the way in prison management with the new humane Alexander Machonachie Centre. In time I believe this will show results and other states will copy it.
Shall I go on? Different state approaches to IR have shown what policies really lead to lower unemployment, higher wages, safer workplaces, and a general empowerment of workers.
Before 1942, different approaches to taxation did the same. The takeover of taxation by the Commonwealth (a story much more complex than just a simple power grab) has subsequently led to a power grab by Commonwealth governments, rescuing the states from themselves by coercion, breaking down the institutional self-reliance of the state governments and forcing premiers to come to COAG with their hands out begging for grants, showing off how broken down their state is to get more money. That’s what economists call moral hazard. By way of special grants and dependency, Federal Labor is gradually taking over healthcare, housing, transport, education, industrial relations … where does it stop?
The Sex Party claims to stand up for freedom. But if the Commonwealth runs everything, the citizen’s only power to choose government will be the vote every three years. And the power of that vote is vastly overrated. It counts for nothing unless seven million others agree with you, and overwhelming opposition did not stop Australia joining the Iraq war.
The writers of the Australian Constitution understood this, so they wrote that citizens are guaranteed free movement between the states. Citizens who can vote with their feet are free citizens, even if it is inconvenient for most to do so unless the differences become extreme. I would have thought a political party concerned with freedom and respect for citizen choices would have appreciated this.
@POWER
Once again you’ve voluminously skirted the issue.
Do you honestly think that migratory competition has a beneficial effect on sexual freedom in any one of the states?
How many voters do you estimate have moved to a different state just to engage in or of legal prostitution?
The federal election is the most obvious and most legitimate place for the Sex Party to make their pitch as it is federally that all issues of human rights have always been dealt with.
No state is actively dealing with the issues that the Sex Party raises, or for that matter any main stream politician at any level; local, state or federally, other than to appeal to conservative religious blocs.
Your argument has no practical grounds, nor any moral ground from the point of view of the majority of voters not driven by dogma.
FURRYBARRY, my first paragraph was directly about sexual freedom, and I then showed how it fits into the bigger picture of civil freedom. I also made the point that draconian laws on sex have far more serious consequences - such as increasing child p0rn - which are of far greater concern to me than the satisfaction level of your sex life, something I could not give a toss about one way or the other. I do not require your agreement, but I would appreciate if you avoid pushing substantial statements off the screens of other readers with half a page of empty denial. Or if you feel you must have the last word every time even when you say nothing, at least say it with single line spacing.
I don’t claim a background in constitutional law but I refer @power and others to the work of Dr Mark Drummond who has done a PhD on the subject, identifying up to $50 B in potential savings.
http://members.webone.com.au/~markld/index.html
I’m sure there are some benefits to having the states but are they worth that amount?
It may be that we’re wrong but the major parties are unwilling to raise the topic. Small parties are less constrained in what they can discuss. I think that’s a good thing, though I understand that some people will want to shut that down. Would rather have some larger themes discussed than the relentless emphasis on hip pockets.
@POWER
I’m sorry my paragraphs are relatively to the point.
The issues the Sex Party raises are indeed about civil rights and freedoms, and you made no such link with your banal anecdotes to state social programs and taxation.
Your statements of “substance” were nothing more that a distraction from the original contention, which was your insistence that the country not have consistent legislation at federal level as the states can somehow compete with each other to attract sexual libertines.
One more question (not that I expect a straight answer at this point); what have the Sex Party policies, current or anything previously discussed got to do with increasing child porn?
Did you even read what I wrote before getting my point backwards? The old prohibitionism caused more of these terrible crimes and that’s why the Sex Party’s core planks are good. But when they branch into areas outside their expertise like federalism, they get it wrong.
Bret Treasure, thank you for the reply. There is a huge body of literature on the pros and cons of federalism, and I’m sure the contribution from Mark Drummond is a welcome addition in a 200-year-old debate.
But … You campaign on relaxation of civil liberties, people’s sex lives are their own business - that’s good, that’s a focussed, civil liberty based, People vs Larry Flint agenda. I respect that and if it stayed focussed I’d seriously consider voting for it.
Oh and by the way, while you’re there you want to rewrite the Constitution and abolish the 1901 Federation. Are you serious? Don’t you think that relegates your core social issues to a minor footnote, and you should really be called the Unionist Party or something?
Sex Party FTW!
@Power The work that Mark Drummond has done does not suggest replacing federalism; it is suggesting we replace the states with local government and move from three levels of government to two. It’s hyperbole to say that the Sex Party want to ‘rewrite the constitution and abolish the Federation’.
You’re right about our civil liberties orientation; that is our platform. We don’t regard social issues as a minor footnote; we believe they are too often overlooked and we would like Australia to lead the world in social policy. That would not be minor.
We don’t believe we should limit ourselves to social issues though and where we believe there is a need for debate in other areas we will raise those matters, knowing that we will be accused of not being expert enough or serious enough.
Hopefully it will result in a broader debate than what we’d get if we left it entirely to the major parties because their focus seems increasingly narrow.
Then you would lose my vote if you were representing my electorate (you’re not). As I said earlier, I regard the Sex Party’s social liberty issues as far more important than just a bit of frivolous rolling in the long grass (even if much of the community support is humourous in nature). Prohibition of lifestyle choices, and enshrined discrimination against vulnerable minorities, lead to ugly cycles of destruction such as gay-bashing and enslavement which can destroy lives.
Fiona Patten made an excellent impression on me last year, and I was hoping someone of her calibre and philosophy would stand for the Senate in my state. I note that you’re standing for a House of Reps seat that is not my electorate.
But the above discussion shows you too easily stray into stuff you know nothing about and which has nothing to do with liberty. I don’t know, maybe you think for example that Tasmania’s anti-gay laws prior to 1997 were a barbarity that would have disappeared if there were no states. But what if the same bigoted legislators had joined Howard’s government - being the only government in the country making criminal laws? The difference would be, people actually being threatened with 25 years prison for being gay would have had nowhere to run.
I would expect a special-agenda party to choose between prevailing orthodoxies on the stuff it’s not expert on, rather than bringing in something out of left field to rewrite the Australian Constitution - only 8 successful attempts out of 46 in 109 years, all of them small - and abolish six state constitutions. It’s like something out of Clive Hamilton, or even worse, George Williams. Stuff which will simply get your entire party laughed at in parliament and detract from any chance of having your core agenda taken seriously.