Earlier this evening, Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan presented the Rudd Government’s 2009 budget in Parliament House, Canberra. This early report in Bloomberg.com – Australia Budget Deficit Grows to Record on Recession -  summarizes the budget’s main initiatives and most of the key assumptions.

Australian Treasurer Wayne Swan: punting that growth will return

Swan announced the largest Federal budget deficit in history. The deficit is projected to decline only by 2011-2, by which time it’s assumed high rates of economic growth will have returned. Restoration of a Federal surplus is not expected for six years – and projections are the accumulated deficit will spike at around $120 billion!

A prompt and sustained return to global economic growth is therefore the crucial assumption in today’s budget.

The prospect of returning to surplus within a few years – and paying off the national debt in the foreseeable future – is entirely dependent on the resumption of rapid growth, worldwide and in Australia.

This assumption is problematic. I want to highlight one problem that almost certainly won’t be mentioned in tomorrow mornings’ newspapers.

Israel is pushing for another war in the Middle East. Its new, even more extremist government is chomping at the bit to pummel Iran. Few governments in the western world – certainly not the Australian Government, judging by its record – have the guts to demand that Israel halts its murderous plans.

IF there’s an attack on Iran in the next few years, expect oil prices to rise to AT LEAST $200 per barrel – plunging the already ailing world economy into a tail-spin. Other commodity prices would probably plummet as growth contracts even more sharply; in that scenario, Australia would be pushed towards implementing savage cuts in social benefits.

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith: needs to make maniacs see reason, daren't say boo to a Zionist goose

The man in cabinet with the toughest job of all, in my opinion, is Foreign Minister Stephen Smith. He has to tell yahoos like Netanyahu and Lieberman to pull their horns in – without upsetting Kevin’s insidiously powerful chums such as arch-Zionists Frank Lowy and Rupert Murdoch. Alarmingly, there’s no indication he’s even trying.

Let’s hope Mr Smith – and his counterparts in the USA, Britain and other countries – succeed in pursuing peace in the Middle East. In practical terms, that means at minimum getting the Israelis to stop attacking other countries. If Israel does start a war with Iran, the Australian budget following would be like a funeral for our national prosperity.

I’m also concerned about the nature of the growth in the Australian economy that’s projected for when economic expansion returns. I fear large components in the government’s growth projections are exports of coal and other minerals. If so, the Government is effectively banking on rising greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a short-term solution similar to giving plenty of heroin to an addict. It avoids cold turkey, but the underlying addiction is untreated.

Beyond that, the most shocking comment I heard in the ABC’s post-budget commentary was when Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey claimed the dollar value of the government’s cash handouts exceeds all infrastructure components of the stimulus package. I’d like to hear more analysis on that. If true, it does seem grossly excessive emphasis on sustaining the consumer economy in the short term, as opposed to laying the foundations for long-term success and sustainability.

It was recently reported in the Melbourne Age that some 80% of the South Korean stimulus package is being invested in green technology. The same statistics put the equivalent figure for Australia at around 10%.

Instead of listening so intently to the Lowy institute, the Rudd Government should send a fact-finding delegation to Seoul. It must learn how to fashion polices that advantage the long-term interests of all Australians, as opposed to the short-term profits of shopping centers.

“Use it, or lose it” as the saying goes.

A generation that fails to articulate and re-state the case for the free expression of opinions may well be the generation that loses it.

Fortunately, it’s not just a few bloggers who care about the issue. Some defenders of free speech may be reasonably described as ‘big guns’. One of them is Michael Sexton, the New South Wales Solicitor-General.

NSW Solicitor General, Michael Sexton

Today’s (Murdoch-owned) Australian newspaper carries an opinion piece by Sexton: Defend to last their right to say it which concludes with a deceptively simple sentence:

“The real answer is to accept that opinions, no matter how offensive to some or all members of the community, should be immune from all civil or criminal proceedings.“

In these few wise words, Mr Sexton cuts right to the heart of the issue. No ‘Bill of Rights’ is needed in Australia to support that proposition – and Sexton explains why, expanding on another must-read article he wrote for The Australian in late 2008: Rights are about who gets to decide.

What’s needed above all is to forge consensus – within our society – that OPINIONS should be immune from all civil or criminal proceedings.

To those who can’t join the consensus, we should respectfully, but firmly, say ‘tough!’ – and carry on speaking our opinions freely. None of us, after all, need listen to opinions we dislike. We can always switch the channel or leave the room. Those who disgaree can continue to argue openly for censorship…

Sexton’s most recent article begins with the case of Dr Frederick Toben, who fell victim of Australia’s ‘Racial Discrimiation Act’ (and Human Rights machinary!) because he offended powerful Jewish sensibilities over his beliefs about World War Two.

Using what is a tiresome but apparently ‘necessary’ formula to get anything touching on the Toben case published in Australia’s mass media, Mr Sexton drops a bucket of verbal excrement over Mr Toben before defending his right to communicate heterodox opinions free from legal sanction.

Sexton’s article then discusses other cases, such as religious vilification proceedings taken by some Muslim converts against a Pentecostal Christian group, harassment of a euthenasia campaigner on his trip to Britain – even a heavy-handed attempt to silence criticism of umpires by the Australian Football League!

As I publish this blog myself, I’m free from the pervasive, stultifying need to pander to ‘consensus’ verities enforced by the likes of News Corp. Consequently, I can take issue with Sexton over the remarks he made about Toben. This is what Mr Sexton says:

The federal Racial Discrimination Act… may result in the imprisonment of Frederick Toben, who posted material on the internet arguing that there was serious doubts that the Holocaust occurred.

His is an absurd proposition and offensive not only to Jews but to anyone with the least knowledge of modern history. But that is not a reason to prevent Toben from expressing this utterly misguided view.

Naturally I defend Mr Sexton’s right to say this. He may well believe it, for all I know. But could he please explain in a reasonable amount of detail – to himself if if not to the rest of us – what “serious doubts that the Holocaust occurred“ actually means?

The NSW Solicitor-General is presumably referring to events that took place during World War Two (1939-45). However, he uses a term (‘Holocaust’) that wasn’t coined to signify those events until the 1960s, and wasn’t used widely for that purpose until the 1970s.

Dr Frederick Toben: OK to mention him, as long as you say he's a shit

Before then and since, a plethora of histories have been written about World War Two. Books published after the 1970s typically used the term ‘Holocaust’; Few books published previously did. These books have all been different, sometimes differing significantly in substance as well as detail; there is no ‘established consensus history’ of World War Two.

Exactly what set of beliefs about World War Two does Mr Sexton believe it is an ‘absurd proposition’ to doubt?

While my own understanding of modern history may not be a patch on Mr Sexton’s, I do have more than “the least knowledge of modern history“.

Contrary to Mr Sexton’s stated assumption,  I don’t find Toben’s opinions about World War Two self-evidently offensive. That’s not to give blanket endorsement to any of Dr Toben’s views or writings. On occasion, I dislike his manner of expression when discussing Jewish people. I disagree with his views about the precise nexus between Judaism and Communism. There’s more…

But I also happen to disagree with most of the political talking heads that appear regularly on my TV screen. I disagree with them about lots and lots of things. For example, I loathe their often expressed views about bogus ‘terrorism’ and support for illegal wars.

To apply the ‘Toben formula’ in an even-handed manner, every time I discuss anyone at all I’d first need to say what I most dislike about them in a pithy sentence or two.

I might therefore refer to Mr Sexton, from now on, as “the man who succumbs to conformist pressure by ritually demeaning anyone pilloried by Zionists, before he (very capably) defends their right to express opinions freely in public.”

That would be fair and balanced, in my opinion.

Taking it further, instead of a friendly “G’day” to my neighbour, perhaps from now on I’ll say “I don’t like your ears and I think your hat looks ridiculous!”.

If universally adopted, this way of greeting and discussing each other would make for a most interesting post-modern culture. The consequences are hard to predict. I suspect it might drastically lower the birth-rate.

Even so, as long as people uphold the right to express opinions freely, there’s a chance we’ll notice and correct mistaken ways and keep the flame of hope alive.

Different folk have different coping strategies. One of mine is writing nonsense poetry.

Hilaire Belloc's 'Matilda': should be compulsory reading for all journalists

I had a burst of zany creativity around the middle of last year, when I penned the following ditty, part of a short series inspired by the incomparable Cautionary Tales of Hillare Belloc.

In early February this year, devastating bush-fires hit Victoria. Suddenly, the notion of deriving even a droplet of mirth from the subject of fire-bugs seemed a very bad idea.

But time heals. The public inquiry into the tragic Victorian bushfires is now underway. The cynical hunt for easy targets to brand as ‘culprits’ for the bushfires, whipped up by irresponsible journalists in the immediate aftermath of the fires, has subsided to some degree.

I think it may be time to take the wraps off on The Fire Bug, which tells the tale of an imaginary bushfire that, while annoying, caused less immediate devastation…

The Fire Bug

The shocking tale of Luton, a boy who started fires and lost his innocence

Moral: Don’t be a fire-bug!

A cheerful young boy was Luton de Ploritts
His father worked quite near the zoo
When animals called at their home for short visits
Luton generally guessed what to do

He consoled aging birds, too grumpy to fly
While amusing green frogs with his whistle
And the minutes and hours passed happily by
As he groomed local goats with a bristle

But wait, this tale isn’t yet even half over…
There’s more about this to relate
For Luton de Ploritts was soon to discover
That life can deteriorate

Young Luton, in spite of his brains and his charm
Was attracted to fire, you see
It was not that he wanted to do any harm
He just liked burning small things for free

He enjoyed striking matches, he loved burning leaves
He set fire to boxes and paper
He delighted in bonfires that melted soft cheese
He thought all conflagrations a caper!

Then big Mr Ploritts caught junior one day
Setting fire to an old wooden broom
He shouted at Luton, took his matches away
And dispatched the young rogue to his room

For weeks, it seemed possible Luton’s small crimes
Had been nipped in the bud by this warning
Those weeks, looking back, were the happiest times
Then he went out with matches one morning…

Young Luton was cunning and didn’t dare light
A fire too close to his home
But he thought “I’ll have fun setting fire to the bush!”
And decided to go all alone

He found some dry grass on the side of a hill
And began to assemble some kindling
Then he lit a small fire, always sure of his skill
To stop any time – at his choosing

Yet that was the error that ruined Luton’s day
For the fire, once loose on the slope
Ran out of control – burning fast and away
And the scared little boy couldn’t cope!

Luton raced down the hill shouting ‘Fire! Help! Fire!’
‘Til he found a policeman and said
“I have started a blaze that’s remarkably dire
If my dad catches me – I am dead!”

The policeman called firemen, and next he called dad
Meanwhile Luton was locked in a cell
The firemen were cross and they looked slightly mad
And their truck had a large silver bell

The fire brigade in Matilda's day

They tore off to the hill that was blazing and hot
And found a large dam to pump water
Then they put out the fire but never forgot
The boy who had started the bother

Soon all of the children who lived in that town
Were told “Never play matches with Luton!”
Next Luton de Ploritts developed a frown
And began to read books on his futon

Now it’s time that this story is brought up to date
For Luton has since grown quite tall
He’s a stockbroker these days and works till it’s late
He wears suits, had two sprogs and he’s bald

De Ploritts finds no time to cheer aging birds
Or to whistle to froggies who grin
He worries a lot that his children are nerds
(“But at least”, says his wife, “They are thin!”)

So if ever you think that it’s fun in the least
To start fires when there’s really no need
Consider the fate of poor Luton, who’s ceased
To please beasts and to live without greed