Tag Archives: Tony Abbott

No excuses! Except that we have really, really good ones.

December 16, 2013
Written by: Rossleigh
32 Replies

When Tony Abbott promised a “no excuses, no surprises government”, I must say I only half believed him. What I mean by that, is that I expected plenty of excuses, and because that’s what I expected, I didn’t think I’d be surprised.

But Tony Abbott has surprised me!

I really didn’t expect that anyone could be this incompetent.

As for the excuses, we have Paul Sheehan today complaining how Labor “booby-trapped” Australia’s future. He complains that Labor is blocking the carbon and mining taxes in the Senate, but overlooks Abbott’s blocking of the ETS in 2009. Only some things are a mandate apparently.

“And what do we get? Labor and the Greens opposing all four mandates, and everything else, and some of Labor’s booby traps already exploding. Rudd’s authorising of spying on Indonesia’s President and his wife blew up on Tony Abbott, who suffered further damage as he doggedly covered up for Labor. Labor’s multi-billion-dollar expansion into school education, a state issue, also exploded when Education Minister Christopher Pyne ineptly fumbled his attempt to rein in its costs and impositions.”

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/how-labor-boobytrapped-australias-future-20131215-2zf8y.html#ixzz2na3KxxRy

So there you have it, “Labor’s multi-billion dollar expansion into school education” which Tony Abbott promised to keep before the election wasn’t part of his mandate. Only the things that the Coalition truly believe are part of their mandate, and everything else is just something that you say to get elected. And surely, the voters know which is which!

You know, things like bringing down the debt, that wasn’t a “real” promise. And they’ve made a good start on that, by cutting $3 billion dollars worth of taxes that have been announced, but not enacted. “We don’t need taxes to pay off the debt,” they seem to be saying. “If only we could get rid of this MASSIVE carbon tax, we’d have the deficit ballooning out by so much that we could really complain about Labor… Oh, wait we’re the Government.. Doesn’t matter, it’s all Labor’s fault!”

Paul Sheehan’s article is so full of contradictions that answering it would be like allowing Mitch Johnson to bowl at a blind man. (Actually, not being able to see him may help the English batsmen.) Perhaps, he’s trying to outdo Bolt in the hope of boosting his readership, but somehow he just sounds like he’s making excuses.

Of course, he’s not part of the Government, so we can’t really hold Tony Abbott accountable for what some grumpy, old man writes to excuse the Coalition’s failings.

So, on the promise of repealing the carbon and mining tax, we have the excuse that it’s being blocked in the Senate. I suppose one could argue that’s a reason, not an excuse.

On “stopping the boats”, well, they’ve been very successful, haven’t they? They’ve slowed them, we’re told. But by only announcing arrivals once a week in a press conference that Morrison discourages the press from attending by announcing its location at the last minute, refusing to renew the contract of the Salvation Army to provide services to detainees and sacking the Howard appointed health advisory board they’ve certaining stopped the flow of information. Which is practically the same as stopping the boats, isn’t it?

And, anyway, it’s all the fault of the Indonesians. As Tony said, it’s high time they cooperated! I mean, we expected them to do that when we told the public that we had a good understanding about turning back the boats, and wandering in to Indonesian fishing villages with a wad of cash saying, “Who wants to sell their boat for twice what it’s worth?”

Again not an EXCUSE. A reason!

Christopher “Hey, presto!” Pyne had a neat little act with the incredible disappearing and reappearing $1.2 billion that sounded suspicious like an excuse to me. But Abbott stepped in and announced that Christopher didn’t know what he was talking about and there were no excuses needed because everything was going ahead, so no need to look at this closely any more.

Then we come to the NBN, which they aren’t going to be able to deliver on their promise of a 2016 date. Oh, and the costs have blown out.

‘Mr Turnbull said he didn’t “feel any shame” about the government’s inaccurate pre-election forecasts.

“They were (cost) estimates done in the best of good faith from opposition,” he said.

“As far as the 2016 target is concerned, I’m very disappointed that the company is not going to be able to do that.” ‘

The Age, 15th December.

You see, the estimates were done in good faith. From Opposition. They can’t be held responsible for promises they made then. Sorry. ESTIMATES. Only Labor makes promises. The Liberals have aims, objectives, goals, aspirations, and ESTIMATES. And as for the target, Mr Turnbull is very sorry that THE COMPANY is not going to be able to deliver on the timeline that he ESTIMATED in Opposition. (Gee, I think he should sack the people running that Company and appoint more competent people… Oh, these are the more competent people that Malcolm just appointed. Better bring up your support for a conscience vote on gay marriage, Malcolm!)

There you have it, they’re all REASONS. I don’t know why some people keep calling them excuses.

I first published this before the election, but I think it’s time to shout bingo.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Tony Abbott’s problem with the truth

December 13, 2013
Written by: Carol Taylor
50 Replies

Image courtesy of smh.com.au

People lie for a number of reasons: sometimes it is accidental that through the person’s own ignorance, statements are made which gives the appearance of being deliberate; the aim being to deceive. However, and of course, all is forgiven because it is abundantly clear to the reader/listener that the “lie” was purely accidental and its consequences unintended.

People also lie as a defence mechanism, that via that person’s emotional and mental immaturity they are incapable of providing an honest answer, but must resort to a simplistic lie. Ego also comes into play with the person incapable of accepting responsibility for the fact that they have made a mistake.

Revenge is also a motivator for lying.

However, with the exception of revenge, such behaviour can fall within the confines of what is considered normal. It is not a pattern of behaviour but something which occurs in response to exceptional circumstances. The abnormal is when lies are told by a person with a personality disorder, and an example is morbid narcissistic complex disorder whose traits include:

A sense of entitlement – an unrealistic, unmerited or inappropriate expectation of favorable treatment or conditions. Good examples in Tony Abbott’s case being; “I was robbed of becoming Prime Minister”. “It’s all the Independents’ fault”. “I want another election, and I want it now!” Ad nauseum.

Blaming – the practice of identifying a person or people responsible for creating a problem, rather than identifying ways of dealing with the problem. I have never known of Tony Abbott to do other than blame the person, using even formal occasions as an opportunity to attack others.

Impulsiveness – the tendency to act or speak based on current feelings rather than logical reasoning. This is known in some circles as Abbott “brain farts”.

Lack of conscience – individuals who suffer from Personality Disorders are often preoccupied with their own agendas, sometimes to the exclusion of the needs and concerns of others. This is sometimes interpreted by others as a lack of moral conscience. Turning to Tony Abbott, does he even recognise the hypocrisy of his alleged rorting of the travel allowance scheme, yet all the while expecting low paid child care workers to return money already paid to them?

Pathological Lying – persistent deception by an individual to serve their own interests and needs with little or no regard to the needs and concerns of others. A pathological liar is a person who habitually lies to serve their own needs.

Consider that in 2010 Tony Abbott said, “The statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth are those carefully prepared, scripted remarks”. This was quite an extraordinary admission from Tony Abbott who was promptly dubbed “Phoney Tony”.

It is not the exaggerations which although not entirely acceptable, come under the general heading of “what else do you expect from a politician”, but rather the instances where Mr Abbott seems completely oblivious to the fact that he is telling an untruth.

Examples of Tony Abbott’s failure to be able to address the truth are numerous and no doubt inspired by any of the motivators provided above. Here are but a few of the much publicised instances which come to mind:

The Indonesian government consistently told both Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop that should the Coalition be elected and if they persisted with their Turn Back The Boats policy, that they, the Indonesian government would find this unacceptable. Abbott went to the election promising the authenticity of his statements and with the blatant lie that he had the full support of the Indonesia government.

In August 2012 Laurie Oakes wrote:

Abbott’s own truthfulness came under the microscope, however, after a blundering performance in an interview on ABC TV’s 7.30 program on Wednesday evening.

Earlier that day he had claimed BHP’s decision to put the Olympic Dam mining project in South Australia on hold was partly due to the Federal Government’s carbon and mining taxes.

That was porkie number one. BHP CEO Marius Kloppers had blamed such factors as the eurozone financial crisis, the slowdown of growth in China and weakness in commodity markets.

And:

When Abbott stuck to his claim despite what Kloppers had said, interviewer Leigh Sales asked: “Have you actually read BHP’s statements?”

Abbott replied: “No.” The next day he claimed he had read the BHP announcement after all – soon after it was made.

He attributed the damaging answer in the 7.30 interview to a misunderstanding of what Sales had asked him. But her meaning could hardly have been clearer.

Just in case there was any doubt, she had gone on to say in her next question: “You haven’t read their statements today but you’re commenting about what they’ve announced.”

The conclusion is inescapable that, in trying to explain away a dreadful gaffe, Abbott resorted to another falsehood.

Tony Abbott lies about the impact of the Carbon Price on a new car:

During a doorstop interview in Geelong on April 11, 2013, Tony Abbott claimed:

First and foremost we are not going to hit the motor industry with a carbon tax and the carbon tax is adding $400 to the cost of every car manufactured in Australia.

Where was the evidence that the carbon tax added $400 to the cost of the car? And if the carbon tax was such a killer, why is he not blaming it as one of the reasons behind Holden’s closure?

Tony Abbott lies on Radio about not doing deals:

On February 20, 2013, Tony Abbott was interviewed by Neil Mitchell in the studio of 3AW.

Neil Mitchell: Will you talk to the Greens about cooperating with you?

Tony Abbott: Look, I think that’s been part of Julia Gillard’s problem. She embraced the Greens. This turned out to be a fatal embrace and I don’t do these sorts of deals with people. I mean, I wasn’t prepared to give the independents, I wasn’t prepared to give the Greens what they wanted. Julia Gillard was and I think her government, from the beginning, has been fatally compromised.

Neil Mitchell: So no deals to get into power?

Tony Abbott: I don’t do deals, Neil.

Neil Mitchell: You tried to.

Wednesday, 11th December 2013:

Holden did not make a bid to replace Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s “C1” car and the existing eight-year-old fleet of nine armour-plate caprices for the government, The Daily Telegraph reported. According to the report, it was only Audi and Mercedes and two other car companies with submitted bids.

And today:

Holden angered by media reports it did not submit bid to supply ‘blast-proof’ vehicles for Australian government VIPs.

The revelation appears to contradict reported Abbott government sources as saying Holden had not even submitted a bid in the tender because the car maker simply ”was not interested”.

These extraordinary events give every indication the government pursued a vendetta against Holden

Kim Carr

Holden viewed that claim – which appeared in a News Corporation newspaper on Wednesday, just hours before the car maker announced its withdrawal – as part of a deliberate negative backgrounding campaign by Coalition ministers designed to make the company look uncommitted to Australia.

Tony Abbott will continue to say anything and do anything regardless of whether he believes his statements to be true or not. Why in this instance did Tony Abbott simply not tell the truth, that BMW were given the tender as the Holden model was not up to the standard expected, and for security reasons? As reported by news.com:

The only options of a semi-local built car was believed to be a newer version of the retrofitted Holden Caprice offered by British Aerospace at a cost of $800,000 each, or a “ground up” model based on a Holden chassis, which cost $1.2 million for just one vehicle.

However, neither option is believed to have been able to meet international standards for protection against attacks.

The Federal Government is now expected to sign a contract to buy cheaper, off-the shelf BMW High Security 7-series vehicles, at a cost of $525,000 each, which meet higher international standards of protection against ballistic and gas attacks – and which can be serviced in Australia.

When lying becomes a compulsion (and a pointless exercise) one must consider that the person should not be in any position of authority or where they might do harm to others. A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit who will bend the truth about everything large and small. For the compulsive liar, telling the truth feels awkward and uncomfortable while lying sits well, giving the person a sense of empowerment and confidence. Often when confronted with the absolute necessity to tell the truth, the person will enter into a state of panic, perhaps unable to speak, or physically fleeing.

Does this perhaps offer us an insight into Tony Abbott’s problem with the truth?

Lucy Who?

December 11, 2013
Written by: Kaye Lee
23 Replies

One could be forgiven for not knowing who Lucy Wicks is – even her electorate had never heard of her before she was parachuted into the seat of Robertson in a captain’s pick by Tony Abbott, bypassing the pre-selection process, much to the chagrin of the local Liberal Party membership:

“NSW State Executive of the Liberal Party have endorsed Lucy Wicks as the Candidate for Robertson. No preselection was held and the executive of the Robertson Federal Electorate Conference was not notified, only told that this was under consideration today. Nominations for Robertson have been open for 5 months, Lucy Wicks being a member of that State Executive that delayed nominations”.

The comments from local Liberals were scathing, as the above link testifies. A poster with the aptly-named persona of Back Room Deals summed up the sentiment thus:

“Lucy Wicks lives in Warringah, Tony Abbott’s electorate . . . hmm. Wicks nominated on Thursday and was rushed through NRC. Then the vote went to State Executive on Friday. The problem is that our leadership has shown no integrity in this issue. To fix the problem in Dobell, a problem of their own making, they take away the democratic rights of Robertson branch members. We will not stand for these tactics, there are 10 branches in Robertson . . . 10 branches with hundreds of unpaid foot soldiers who will walk away, let Head Office pay for the lot come the Election”.

Lucy then called in the big guns, hosting a morning tea at which Bronwyn Bishop spoke. This was the reaction from someone who attended that function:

“Lucy Wicks was totally uninspiring and seemed like an impressionable kid that didn’t have a brain between her ears. The helpers there all seemed like young Liberals that were nice, but really, did nothing to add any degree of credibility at all. Dressed like they came off a refugee boat. Doesn’t some-one give them a dress code at all? As for Bronwyn, she was the main star and Lucy apart from telling us she worked in a factory in the Central Coast really had nothing to say. And it showed. Bronwyn did all the talking and Lucy shut up which is just as well I think”.

Even though there was a 0.1 per cent swing against the Liberal Party, there was an even larger swing against the Labor sitting member, Deborah O’Neill, who in my mind was a hard-working MP who ably represented her constituents. 21.8 per cent of the vote went to the minor parties and Independents. Hardly a resounding victory for the Coalition.

So it was with interest that I watched Lucy ask her first question in Parliament:

“My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. I remind the minister that childcare groups and parents in my electorate of Robertson have told me of the burden that the previous government childcare rules and regulations placed on costs for centres and parents. Will the minister tell the House how the Government plans to fix the red-tape mess and reduce costs?”

Up bounced Christopher Pyne’s sidekick, Sussan Ley, who seems to have learned her oratory skills from her Minister, to tell us that axing the carbon tax and cutting red tape would fix all the woes of the childcare system. Her proof of this was a couple of anecdotal stories about turning the lights off for an hour and eating individual cupcakes.

Perhaps Ms Ley is unaware of what her colleague in the NSW State Parliament is doing:

Community preschools across the state could be sent broke under changes to state-government funding for three-year-olds as daily fees nearly double for parents of the younger children.

The sector is warning many community centres will be forced to close under a new model that slashes funds for the age group in a bid to get more four- and five-year-olds into classes before they start kindergarten.

In what has been slammed as a further blow to the chronically underfunded sector in NSW, the Community Child Care Co-Operative claims one in three centres could be forced out of business if parents switch their children from preschool to cheaper long day care.

The report, by UNSW professor Deborah Brennan, said the state government would need to “substantially increase” investment in early education to meet its commitments as community preschools had been underfunded for “decades” compared to those in other states.

Ms Ley also failed to mention that the Coalition have cut $300 million from the Early Years Quality Fund:

A $300 million funding boost aimed at improving the wages of 30,000 childcare workers looks increasingly likely to be axed as the federal government continues to sit on the Labor-approved initiative.

The money was to be spent in 1100 childcare centres to bolster the meagre $19-an-hour wages of certificate III childcare workers by $3 an hour and early-childhood teachers by $6 an hour. The starting wage for a university-educated early childhood teacher is $42,000 a year.

The government wrote to childcare centres who had accepted the funding soon after winning office, revoking the conditional funding offers and advising it was reviewing the $300 million Early Years Quality Fund (EYQF).

Ms Ley did not specify what “red tape” would be removed, and when Graeme Perrett asked “What—you’re going to have free-range kids in the childcare centres!”, he was promptly ejected by our fearless arbiter, Bronwyn Bishop.

The National Quality Standard for Education and Care Services can be found in Schedule One which appears at the end of the Regulations.

Having glanced through them, I am not sure which of these guidelines could be dumped, and how that would improve the quality of the service. But then again, quality of education isn’t a goal of this government.

So it is with a great deal of trepidation that I reiterate the question asked by Lucy Who and could we please have some detail to your answer rather than “axe the tax and cut red tape” slogans.

“Will the minister tell the House how the government plans to fix the red-tape mess and reduce costs?”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

It Goes to the Character of the Man

December 3, 2013
Written by: John Lord
70 Replies

Photo: The Courier Mail

Has Australia ever elected a Prime Minister so devoid of character? So lacking in the qualities of leadership? So deficient in empathy of social conscience? So ignorant of technology and science? So oblivious of the needs of women and same gender people? So out of touch with a modern pluralist society? And worst of all an unmitigated liar.

A Christian man who once had a calling to the Priesthood but now sees lying as a political truth. A Prime Minister who believes that truth is anything you persuade people to believe.

For the entirety of his time as Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott was proclaimed by the media (Murdoch in particular) as the most effective ever. I have never understood this. For three years his sole intention was to bring down a government. He lied continuously while at the same time creating shock and awe throughout the community. His negativity became legendary. Hardly a day passed without his accusing the government of telling the most awful fibs while at the same time perpetuating his own. On a daily basis he used sexism, misogyny, bullying, confusion, saturation, populism, diversion, racism, character assassination, panic mongering and even the re writing of history if it suited him.

And the media said he was effective. Well if they mean by that, that he was negatively effective then perhaps I have to concede he was. On the other hand if they mean he was effectively presenting himself as an alternative prime minister then I would have to disagree entirely. As opposition leader he did nothing to advance the country and the result of six years in opposition has not produced one major worthwhile policy. In fact he has become the Prime Minister for undoing. Not doing.

During his tenure as opposition leader when I was often in conflict with those of the opposite persuasion about the character of Tony Abbot, I would often ask his supporters to list five characteristics they thought he had that would make him a worthy leader. In five tries I never received a reply.

You see character as a combination of traits that etch the outlines of a life, governing moral choices and infusing personal and professional conduct. It’s an elusive thing, easily cloaked or submerged by the theatrics of a presidential campaign, but unexpected moments can sometimes reveal the fibres from which it is woven.

Abbott has none of these. He is and always has been a gutter politician of the worst kind. A repeat offender. He is a man who has failed to articulate a narrative for Australia’s future. Someone of such little virtue that he places the occupation of the lodge higher than the service of his people.

He is a man of loyalty to institutions. To the church and the monarchy. To people of wealth and influence. He lacks reformist zeal for the common good. He is, however, intent on undoing the good that others have done. His purpose in life seems to be (as was Howard’s) the maintenance of authority. A self righteous man who shows little aptitude for diplomacy.

All in all a man with a litany of lies and nonsensical ill-founded statements behind him. Of discriminatory declarations against women. Of disrespect for the conventions of Parliament. A man of slogans. A Luddite of technology. A denier of science. A right to rule elitist with no altruistic values.

It is indeed sad that the Australian public has entrusted the country’s future to a man of such little virtue.

Commentators of the political world have said that he has not yet switched from Opposition Leader to Prime Minister. How appallingly and ignorantly naive of them. Here we have a man with the deepest of neo conservative values. Values of rusted on negativity. Of Tea Party mentality surrounded by acolytes of little intellectual capacity. An inarticulate street fighter who would rather have a fight than a feed. Do they honestly expect him to overnight become a person of dignity and trust? A leader with aplomb, self-confidence and composure. Someone cool with grace and style. His only thought the common good of his fellow citizens.

Sorry we are talking about Tony the pugilist. It’s not going to happen. He is what he is. A liar. Just ask him. He said he is.

Watching him on Monday during question time empathised this point. The personality of the pugilist was wanting to escape the confines of Prime Ministerial nicety but was trapped inside. You can see it in his interviews. The same stress of being locked into conformist comportment. Trying to be dignified when in reality you want to smack someone in the face.

The most damming indictment he made against Labor when in office was that they were dysfunctional and that they lied. They broke a core promise.

Now he stands accused of the same thing which only goes to show that he has little judgment and little character.

He came to power after six years of negative behaviour and no policy development.

As Ross Gittens puts it.

‘’It’s as if Tony Abbott believes returning the Liberals to power will, of itself, solve most of our problems. Everything was fine when we last had a Liberal government, so restore the Libs and everything will be fine again.’’

Message Control

December 3, 2013
Written by: Kaye Lee
40 Replies

I think we all agree that Labor shot itself in the foot by using the media to broadcast their internal squabbles. Conceding that, far greater forces were at play.

The other seemingly obvious cause was Labor’s failure to get their message across. Their achievements in government were significant, their policies were vastly superior (in most cases), and their ministers, if not overly charismatic, were at least competent and knowledgeable in their portfolios.

We all watched with increasing concern as they allowed the Coalition, ably abetted by the Murdoch press, to dictate the message. Carbon pricing became a “lie” and a “toxic tax”. Rather than answering this campaign with the obvious advantages of carbon pricing in dealing with climate change, they went into defence mode and we now find the carbon tax being blamed for everything to do with the economy, investment, manufacturing, jobs and cost of living.

It doesn’t seem to matter that the economy has a AAA credit rating, that we have had record investment, and that the average household is $14 000 a year better off now than they were in 2007. It doesn’t seem to matter that, until very recently, the mainstream business community was behind carbon pricing. It doesn’t seem to matter what reasons businesses give for closing, we are told it’s the carbon tax. And even after the repeal of the carbon tax is underway, and we still see businesses closing, it’s still the fault of the carbon tax.

In an astonishing transformation, we saw Tony Abbott move from an attack dog to Prime Minister, from misogynist to Minister for Women, from telling Aborigines they should pick up rubbish to crowning himself Minister for Indigenous Affairs.

The Opposition had a strategy to keep the focus on the Government, to present a small target, to keep it simple and to exploit fear and populism. In other words, they controlled the message. They began the campaign with the infamous headless chook ad but when it was panned as childish and inappropriate they quickly morphed into the ‘adults’ carrying out a positive campaign warning us that Labor would get nasty. Actually, looking back, the ‘negative’ ads from Labor were quite prophetic.

So the Coalition won, promising us transparency and accountability – no surprises. They assumed they would be able to control the message in government as they had so successfully in opposition. Tony began by shutting the Indonesian press out of his first press conference on their soil. It did not go over well. His tough guy rhetoric for the domestic market has not been well received on the international stage.

His obsession with axing the tax might have done well for Tony here where he, along with people like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones, have convinced many people that climate change is crap. In the rest of the world his actions are being condemned and his rhetoric is being drowned out by the latest IPCC report and the growing commitment of other world leaders to take action on climate change.

In a further attempt to control the message, all interviews with Ministers have to be approved by the Prime Minister’s Office 24 hours prior to the interview. Scott Morrison is perfecting hiding the boats and Joe Hockey won’t tell us why the debt ceiling needs to be increased. Julie Bishop refuses to disclose details about any of her meetings with foreign leaders and the briefings from departments to the incoming government will not be released.

Newly appointed head of NBNco, former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski, has certainly changed his message from 2003 when Telstra told the Senate Committee that the copper network was at “5 minutes to midnight” to now, when he told them it is “robust”. He has also been instructed not to talk to the media.

Experienced public servants have been sacked in their droves and an ‘Independent’ review panels have been set up to look at … well … just about everything. The trouble is that these review panels are composed of ex-Liberals and businessmen who have already expressed very strong views about what they are supposed to be reviewing, and as they have only been given a few months to prepare their advice, they will not be consulting with other concerned bodies. I would suggest these panels have been selected because they already know the message they are supposed to give.

We have BHP advising on climate change, the BCA which represents banks and mining companies doing the Commission of Audit, the former head of the Commonwealth Bank reviewing the finance sector, and one of the fiercest critics of Labor’s NBN, columnist for The Australian Henry Ergas, on the three man panel to do a cost-benefit analysis of the NBN.

And now we having Tony Abbott’s speeches being airbrushed from history – or is it is lies being airbrushed from history? – and his ‘excuse’ for the back flip on school funding highlights what could best be described as a classic case of ‘gaslighting’ (as pointed out by one of The AIMN’s readers):

“We are going to keep the promise that we actually made, not the promise that some people thought that we made, or the promise that some people might have liked us to make”.

From Wikipedia: “Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception and sanity”. With the amount of message control we are being fed that certainly appears to be a technique of the Abbott Government.

Eric Hoffer once said “Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves”. With the growing reach of the fifth estate, it is becoming harder to control the message and there is little excuse for self-deception. However, we should remember that:

“If people in the media cannot decide whether they are in the business of reporting news or manufacturing propaganda, it is all the more important that the public understand that difference, and choose their news sources accordingly.”

– Thomas Sowell.

We need to put message control into the control of the right people.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Who do you admire?

November 30, 2013
Written by: Kaye Lee
43 Replies

You can tell a lot about someone by whom they admire. It shows their priorities in life.

An early influence was founder of the DLP party, Bob Santamaria. A staunch Catholic, who believed the Church had a role to play in governing the State, Santamaria was vigorously opposed to birth control and abortion and decried what he described as contemporary sexual decadence. He wanted to turn us into a nation of farmers and cottage industries, with women permanently barefoot and pregnant. He was convinced that Australia was under threat from Communism, warning people that communists in Australia were buying up arsenals and guns in preparation for the revolution, and likening the Vietnam War to a crusade.

In a speech in 1998 Tony Abbott described Santamaria as “a philosophical star by which you could always steer” and “the greatest living Australian”. Abbott has said that what impressed him about Santamaria was “the courage that kept him going as an advocate for unfashionable truths”.

And then we have Cardinal George Pell, the man who has been complicit in the cover-up of child sexual abuse for decades, actively assisting pedophile priests in avoiding prosecution. Pell told a World Youth Conference that “Abortion is a worse moral scandal than priests sexually abusing young people”. Like his spiritual advisor, Tony Abbott also assisted a pedophile priest to avoid punishment by writing him a reference.

In recent days, Tony Abbott again defended Pell’s actions saying “Cardinal Pell is a fine man . . . Cardinal Pell is one of the greatest churchmen that Australia has seen”.

In April this year, Tony Abbott expressed his admiration for Rupert Murdoch, the man whose media empire illegally hacks phones and bribes officials as standard practice. Murdoch has said power is his aphrodisiac and he revels in manipulation of public perception and his role in bringing down governments.

Abbott described Murdoch as Australia’s most influential businessman going on to say “Along with Sir John Monash, the Commander of the First AIF which saved Paris and helped to win the First World War, and Lord Florey a one-time provost of my old Oxford College, the co-inventor of penicillin that literally saved millions of lives, Rupert Murdoch is probably the Australian who has most shaped the world through the 45 million newspapers that News Corp sells each week and the one billion subscribers to News-linked programming”.

Tony also greatly admires Gina Rinehart, the woman who sponsored that fruitcake, Lord Monckton, to do a speaking tour on climate change denial. This is a woman who makes a million dollars every half hour but cannot afford to pay the mining tax, and who wants a special tax zone in the North so she can pay even less. At least nine Coalition MPs have declared in their register of interests that Ms Rinehart has supplied free travel, hospitality and accommodation and she donated $50,000 directly (and up to $700,000 indirectly) to Barnaby Joyce’s campaign to win New England.

As Tony Abbott said, “Mates help each other; they don’t tax each other”, and Gina must be well pleased with the fruits of her investment so far, with the mining and carbon taxes about to be repealed and the biggest coal mine in Australia getting fast-track approval already.

And let’s not forget John Howard. Tony considers himself Howard’s protégé and longs for us to return to those halcyon days. This despite the fact that Howard’s government has been identified by the IMF as the most wasteful ever, whose middle class welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy have saddled us with a structural deficit, and whose sale of assets cost us billions in future revenue. Howard lied to take us into a war that cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. He lied to us about the children overboard affair. Eleven of Howard’s Ministers either resigned or were sacked for indiscretions and many more were forgiven for their conflicts of interest and rorting of entitlements, a practice which this government seems to also enjoy.

Tony Abbott told his former leader and mentor John Howard on election night that he was the only person he could turn to for real advice in his new role as Prime Minister. That may explain Tony’s view that climate change is crap and that we should spend whatever it takes to stop the boats.

On the international stage, Tony has expressed his admiration for Japan (don’t mention the whales), and Indonesia (doing a great job there in West Papua), and Sri Lanka (hey shit happens . . . what’s the odd kidnapping and torture between friends . . . need some gun boats?). He loves America and China so much that he wants their corporations to be able to sue us if we hurt their profits with health, safety, competition or environmental laws.

Add to that the fact that Tony’s Chief of Staff not only makes policy decisions, she now also dictates who the public will have access to and what they may reveal. I call it pleading the Morrison Amendment – say nothing that may incriminate you. And we have Tony’s chief strategist and PR guru entering the world of foreign affairs and diplomacy by comparing Indonesia’s Foreign Minister to an aging porn star. These are the people who run and advise our government – the Star Chamber.

So, in summary, our PM admires staunch Catholics, power, wealth, big business, climate change deniers and all world leaders with whom he can have a photo taken. He prefers the advice of advertising spin merchants and power brokers to that of experts.

“If you care about other people, that’s now a very dangerous idea. If you care about other people, you might try to organize to undermine power and authority. That’s not going to happen if you care only about yourself. Maybe you can become rich, but you don’t care whether other people’s kids can go to school, or can afford food to eat, or things like that. In the United States, that’s called “libertarian” for some wild reason. I mean, it’s actually highly authoritarian, but that doctrine is extremely important for power systems as a way of atomizing and undermining the public.”

Noam Chomsky “Business Elites Are Waging a Brutal Class War in America”.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

So how’s Tony Abbott’s Australia traveling so far?

November 28, 2013
Written by: Kaye Lee
118 Replies

We have been condemned worldwide for our moves to repeal the ‘carbon tax’, our abolition of climate change bodies and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) (even though it’s making a substantial profit), our failure to send a politician to the Warsaw climate change talks and our refusal to provide any funding for the Green Climate Fund. At the Warsaw talks we received 4 Fossil of the Day awards, caused a walkout by other delegates frustrated with our obstruction, and were given the overall Colossal Fossil award.

We have been condemned for, not only attending the CHOGM meeting in Sri Lanka, praising its government and excusing it’s human rights abuses, but for arming said government with 2 gun boats at a cost of $2 million to us, so they can stop people fleeing from their abuse.

We have been condemned for interfering in the dispute between China and Japan and openly siding with Japan (and America). We have been rebuked for comments made by our Foreign Minister criticising China and for her action of calling in the Chinese Ambassador to chastise him.

We have been criticised for abandoning Palestine, ignoring an International Law Court ruling and giving tacit approval to controversial activities including the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

We have insulted Indonesia before the election by saying “we don’t need their permission” to turn back boats, and after, by the inept handling of the spying allegations. In the ultimate ironic twist, Indonesia is now threatening to halt the live cattle trade.

We have upset PNG by firstly calling their leader a liar before the election and since by not honouring our promise to use local businesses on Manus island.

We have been widely condemned for our inhumane treatment of asylum seekers, placing them in indefinite detention and carrying out acts of bastardry such as separating a mother from her new-born, separating families and sending unaccompanied minors to offshore detention camps.

We are in the process of dismantling the mining tax just when it was set to start making us a return as mining companies move from the investment to the production phase. Whilst the mining companies may be chuckling about this one, we just gave away billions in future revenue.

After being told this government’s priority was to pay down the debt and to live within its means, we are now being asked to increase the debt limit by $200 billion; a lot more than the $50 billion that the Coalition said was unacceptable when Labor did it, and the promise of a surplus has disappeared.

When every group from schools to the productivity commission to big business to social welfare groups says that education is a crucial factor in improving the economy, productivity, lifestyle and well-being, we have our Education Minister doing a complete back flip on his pre-election promise and abandoning the education funding reforms.

Countless charities, NFPs and community groups have had promised funding cut; eliminating vital services and putting many people out of work.

Assistance to the car industry has been slashed which is threatening to cause the industry, which employs 230,000 indirectly, to close completely. We have been told we should not prop up the industry whilst we give far greater assistance to the banks and mining companies who continue to make record profits. And now it seems that State Premiers are being offered bonus funding to privatise assets, and Qantas looks like getting sold to foreigners.

Tony Abbott has been condemned by a majority of the population for challenging the ACT legislation for marriage equality and not allowing a conscience vote in Parliament.

Tony Abbott is changing the marine park laws, delaying the Murray-Darling water buy-back, scrapping the schoolkid’s bonus, the superannuation guarantee increase, the superannuation co-contribution, the periodic payment to pensioners, scrapping the increase in the tax free threshold to 19,400 people and scrapping the instant asset write-off for small business.

Tony Abbott has halted the rollout of the NBN whilst they do a whole heap of dancing which won’t be amounting to anything anytime soon.

I have always said that there is good in everyone, and it’s important to find it. Help me out here. I’m struggling to find one positive thing that has happened since this government came into power but the negative list grows by the minute. Their only goal is to erase every piece of legislation passed by the Gillard Government regardless of its worth. It has become so much of an obsession for them that they are willing to sacrifice millions in revenue and research and development of renewable energy, funded by the CEFC, which is making a PROFIT, whilst increasing our renewable energy market share. That is the PRIME example of cut off your nose to spite your face, but they are too set on their crusade to listen.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Abbott’s Nice New Parliament

November 11, 2013
Written by: John Lord
51 Replies

In a speech to the Western Australia Liberal Party last weekend Prime Minister Tony Abbott promised a “respectful” new parliament when it assembles for the first time on Tuesday 12 November, promising the Labor years will soon fade like “a bad memory”.

Here are some other snippets from his speech:

Mr Abbott pledged a parliament that “discusses the issues, rather than abuses individuals”.

The prime minister said the parliament wouldn’t impugn the motives of opponents or trash their reputations.

If anyone tried to go over the top, new Speaker Bronwyn Bishop would sort them out.

“And I am confident that after just a few weeks of the new parliament – that parliament that diminished our policy and embarrassed our citizens over the last three years – will soon seem like just a bad dream’’.

“I want to say that we have made a good start, that the adults are back in charge and that strong, stable, methodical and purposeful government is once more the rule in our national capital”.

“I think all of you will have noticed that there is a new tone and a new style in Canberra”.

“Yes, we will speak when we need to speak. But we won’t speak for the sake of speaking and we won’t bang on things for the purposes of a PR gesture”.

He is also on the record as saying this:

“We will restore accountability and improve transparency measures to be more accountable to the public”.

Sometimes I have to pinch myself in order to know that what I am reading, seeing and hearing is in fact real.

Let’s backtrack to Tony Abbott, Opposition Leader.

During his tenure as opposition leader he used colourful aggressive language. He was bullish in his attitude to others, particularly to the female Prime Minister of the day. His negativity was legendary. He was a repetitive liar by evidence and by his own admission. He held in contempt procedures of the House of Representatives and the conventions it upheld.

There has been no other Opposition Leader in my memory who has held the institution of Parliament in contempt to the degree Abbott has. He was the leader intent on creating a sense of crisis, of disorder and dysfunction. His sole aim was the forcing of an early election at which he failed miserably.

His appalling parliamentary behavior was on show for all to see. The abuse of Question Time and the endless suspension of standing orders. The constant refusal of pairs. The over use of censure motions and calls for quorums were all designed to distract the minority Labor Government.

The demeanor of him and his parliamentary colleagues (particularly Christopher Pyne) over the period of the Gillard/Rudd Governments was disgraceful and a blight on our parliamentary democracy. It is true that Abbott found a formula (or was the formula) in Opposition that was suited for the political circumstances of the time. The formula will probably never be repeated because it is unique to certain personalities. There are not many who could play the unconscionable bastardy role that he did. Although his gutter mentality was profoundly suited to it.

And now he wants us to believe that after his attempt at the willful destruction and exploitation of our Parliament (including an attempt to overthrow it), and he now expects us to believe all the bullshit at the beginning of this article.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the character of a person who behaves in such a belligerent manner in opposition and then sees no fault in it. Instead he places all fault at the foot of his opponents. It takes a deluded personality to do so.

Now no one can deny that the behavior of our politicians needs an urgent makeover and we will find it to some degree in this Parliament. However the reasons will not be of the Government’s making. It will be because on the floor the Government has a sizable majority which takes the tone down. Tony Abbott, the new one that is, will as Prime Minister take on a more dignified persona and Bill Shorten is not a negative personality.

Christopher Pyne as the new Leader of the House has already indicated a more reasoned approach to debate despite holding the record as the most ejected politician in Parliamentary history. No one has ever feigned indignation better than the most disliked politician in Australia.

And as Speaker of the House, Bronwyn Bishop will preside over the Standing Orders she so often abused.

If the first few weeks of the Abbott led Government have shown anything, it is the contempt with which they hold the Australian people. We are not fools. We know that a politician whose grounding in politics is adversarial cannot simply change from gutter politician to reasoned leader without taking some slime from the residue of his past with him.

If it’s one thing I dislike, it’s politicians who try to con me. This attempt to eliminate facts, science and knowledge in the information age is ignorance that only a Luddite of Abbott’s technological illiteracy could display. I can acknowledge the reasoning of over exposure but I fear the real one is the suppression of material that may affect opinion. Or it is just lying by omission?

Thus far he has shown a propensity to run from questions, avoid criticism, shut down debate and shut the mouths of ministers. He is fast becoming confused by his own cleverness. An attitude born from his period as Opposition Leader where he came to believe his own bullshit. He is like a very bad actor in a performance of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. He is not in control of what personality he wants to be and reverts from one to the other without thinking.

And it’s all contrary to this statement:

‘’We will restore accountability and improve transparency measures to be more accountable to the public’’.

Tony Abbott should be judged by his own standards and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

We told you things would be bad (part 2)

November 8, 2013
Written by: Michael Taylor
35 Replies

Some things just slip under the radar, such as this piece of news which was “concealed” on the website of the Department of Human Services this week:

The Australian Government has committed to abolishing the Schoolkids Bonus. On 24 October 2013, the Government released an exposure draft of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 that includes abolishing the Schoolkids Bonus. This legislation will be introduced into Parliament on 13 November 2013.

What did we tell you before the election?

If you have school-aged children…

Under Labor you would receive the Schoolkids Bonus of $410 a year for each child in primary school and $820 a year for each child in secondary school.

The Coalition would axe the Schoolkids Bonus.

It’s apparent that if you want to know what the Government is up to you’d need to scour their department’s web sites. But really, who would have thought to look up the draft MRRT bill on the Treasury web site to first learn about the fate of the Schoolkids Bonus?

Yes, I say again: We told you things would be bad.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

We told you things would be bad

November 8, 2013
Written by: Michael Taylor
36 Replies

I can’t disagree with this comment on The AIMN from Geoff of Epping:

The Coalition voters around Australia, are, mostly sane, hard working people who through no fault of their own have been cruelly duped by Abbott’s softly softly campaign, and will, in a very short time realise that they are not uppermost in Abbott’s mind. They were a means to an end, they have served their purpose.

But I might add that we told you so. We told you things would be bad.

We learn today that the government is coming under fire over its decision to scrap super payments for low-paid workers. Here’s the gist of it:

The Government is continuing to come under fire for its decision to scrap a superannuation payment for low-paid workers, after announcing yesterday it would also abolish a proposed tax on super earnings for the better-off.

The Coalition also wants to scrap the low-income super contribution, also introduced by the previous Labor government as part of its mining-tax package.

It gives up to $500 a year to help those earning $37,000 or less save for their retirement.

More than 500,000 sales assistants, checkout operators and food and hospitality workers will pay more tax under the Abbott Government’s plan to scrap the Low Income Superannuation Contribution which will mean 3.6 million low paid workers will lose a yearly tax refund of up to $500.

We told you this was going to happen in our post “Your vote might just be worth something after all”, where we wrote that:

If you’re a low income earner…

The Coalition would abolish the low income super contribution, which pays people who earn $37,000 or less per year up to $500 each financial year to help save for their retirement.

But to those Coalition voters around Australia, who are, mostly sane, hard working people who through no fault of their own have been cruelly duped by Abbott’s softly softly campaign, all I can say is . . .

… You voted for it.

We tried to tell you things would be bad.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

What If Bolt Had Been Given The Job…

October 31, 2013
Written by: Rossleigh
19 Replies

Andrew Bolt’s Application to Host Media Watch

TO Mark Scott, ABC managing director:

…Don’t assume I’m not available. Hear that ripping sound? That was my contract for my Network 10 show.

Mark, I want you to know I stand ready to serve when your current host, Jonathan Holmes, stands down by the end of the month, as I read…

From Andrew Bolt’s Blog, 2nd May, 2013

Sources tell me that Andrew Bolt wasn’t actually considered for the job of Media Watch host as there were a few technicalities with his application. The first was that he never actually submitted it – he only shared it via his blog. There’s a longstanding tradition in applying for jobs in this country that one doesn’t do it in via a national newspaper. (The exception to this being when one wishes to take over as leader of a political party. Then one may declare that one is available, that one has no intention of challenging for the leadership or simply tell a journalist that – off the record – there’ll be a challenge within weeks.)

So what if Bolt had actually applied and been successful? I suspect we’d have got something like the following:

Hello, I’m Andrew Bolt, welcome to Media Watch.

After October’s ridiculous attempt by climate alarmists to politicise the NSW fires and to link them to their scare campaign, we now get this from the ABC’s news bulletin:

“HEATWAVE LINKED TO CLIMATE CHANGE”

The bulletin then went on to quote some Professor without pointing out that this person had a vested interest in the topic. He has been studying climate science for the past twenty-three years. Hardly what I’d call a disinterested party. Of course, the usual suspects jumped on this story. From a newspaper which I won’t name because of the ABC’s ridiculous no brand names because it contravenes advertising policy, which, by the way, previous hosts of this show used to flout quite regularly, but my freedom of speech was suppressed when I just mentioned in last week’s show what a great drink coke was and thanked Mercedes for the great deal they gave me on the car:

“MORE HOT WEATHER TO COME”

This hysterical article then went on to predict another five days of temperatures above thirty degrees, ignoring the evidence that last night cooled to a mere twenty-two degrees. Then having softened us up, the opinion page had this letter:

“When is this direct-action policy of Abbott’s going to start? This hot weather should get us all thinking.“

Since when did weather have anything to do with the climate? This completely overlooks that fact that we’ve had weather going back to the time that Captain Cook first discovered this uninhabited land. And as for the letter writer’s obvious left wing bias in demanding thinking, well, it should be no surprise that the writer of this letter had, in fact, completed his secondary education. These sort of academics are good at twisting arguments, but most of my readers are down to earth folk who intuitively know that I’m right.

Of course, the ABC has been trying to suggest the world is warming for decades. Such as this from 1972:

Admittedly, that was the American ABC, but the point remains. Of course, we’re used to the Bolshevik view coming from the ABC, but now the so called “free press” has joined in. The latest IPCC evidence shows that these ‘warmists’ are just plain wrong. I call for all journalists at non-Murdoch owned papers to be sacked and the ABC to be privatised immediately.

Now, unto a rather troubling matter. Again, there have been complaints about Alan Jones getting some minor detail wrong and calls for him to be removed from the air. These sort of politically correct attempts at censorship must be stopped. So what if he’s a few degrees or a couple of hundred percentage points out – this makes no difference to his actual argument that certain people need to take a good hard look at themselves and would benefit from a sound caning. As an ex-private school boarding master, Alan knows all about the benefits of that. Freedom of speech is one of our most important principles.

Until next time, I’ve been Andrew Bolt and you people listen to the ABC so you must be wrong.

Good Night.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Crap, Hogwash, Wikipedia and Other Strong Evidence

October 26, 2013
Written by: Rossleigh
69 Replies

“I mean in the end this whole thing is a question of fact, not faith, or it should be a question of fact not faith and we can discover whether the planet is warming or not by measurement. And it seems that notwithstanding the dramatic increases in man made CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped. Now admittedly we are still pretty warm by recent historical standards but there doesn’t appear to have been any appreciable warming since the late 1990s.”

Tony Abbott: A REALIST’S APPROACH TO CLIMATE CHANGE Speech – July, 2009

From Abbott’s Interview with Andrew Bolt:

Bolt: (Volunteering to fight) the fires. Was there an element of running away from the office?

PM: Ha! Mate, I got up to the station at 4pm Saturday and I got back to the station at 10 Sunday morning. So there’s no question of running away from the office, because the office is closed then. The office is closed.

AB: I’ve been struck by the insanity of the reaction in the media and outside, particularly linking the fires to global warming and blaming you for making them worse potentially by scrapping the carbon tax.

PM: I suppose, you might say, that they are desperate to find anything that they think might pass as ammunition for their cause, but this idea that every time we have a fire or a flood it proves that climate change is real is bizarre, ’cause since the earliest days of European settlement in Australia, we’ve had fires and floods, and we’ve had worse fires and worse floods in the past than the ones we are currently experiencing. And the thing is that at some point in the future, every record will be broken, but that doesn’t prove anything about climate change. It just proves that the longer the period of time, the more possibility of extreme events … The one in 500 year flood is always a bigger flood than the one in 100 year flood.

Bolt: The ABC, though, has run on almost every current affairs show an almost constant barrage of stuff linking climate change to these fires.

Abbott: That is complete hogwash.

Bolt: It is time to really question the bias of the ABC?

Abbott: But people are always questioning the “bias” of the ABC.

Later in the same interview:

PM: I would say that there tends to be an ABC view of the world, and it’s not a view of the world that I find myself in total sympathy with. But, others would say that there’s a News Limited view of the world.

From “The most depressing Discovery about the Brain, Ever”

“In other words, say goodnight to the dream that education, journalism, scientific evidence, media literacy or reason can provide the tools and information that people need in order to make good decisions. It turns out that in the public realm, a lack of information isn’t the real problem. The hurdle is how our minds work, no matter how smart we think we are. We want to believe we’re rational, but reason turns out to be the ex post facto way we rationalize what our emotions already want to believe.

For years my go-to source for downer studies of how our hard-wiring makes democracy hopeless has been Brendan Nyhan, an assistant professor of government at Dartmouth.

Nyan and his collaborators have been running experiments trying to answer this terrifying question about American voters: Do facts matter?

The answer, basically, is no. When people are misinformed, giving them facts to correct those errors only makes them cling to their beliefs more tenaciously.”

And just in case you missed it at the time:

“I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change.” (Tony Abbott, quoted on the “ABC 7.30 Report” (27 July 2009).

People are entitled to their own point of view. We all accept that. It’s a free country, after all. I’m sure that Andrew Bolt would agree that we’re all entitled to express a point of view. Even if it’s demonstrably wrong. For goodness sake, if Bolt had to rely on facts for his point of view, he wouldn’t have a column.

The trouble with the exchange of opinions is that it very rarely goes beyond, “You’re wrong and I’m right, therefore nothing you have to say could change my mind.”

And so I find our beloved leader’s comments – the ones I highlighted – in the Bolt interview disturbing. Tony Abbott seems to be saying that extreme events aren’t evidence of anything, and it doesn’t matter how many we have, that’s just the nature of things. Records are made to be broken, after all.

This is fairly consistent with the way in which climate deniers view things. One extreme weather event is just the exception. Two is just coincidence. Three, well, that’s the norm – we have weather like this all the time.

Now, I think that there is a discussion to be had about how much of a link can be drawn between climate change and the current bushfires. And I have some sympathy for the view that maybe Adam Bandt could have timed his comments a little more sensitively. I can accept that we’ve always had large bushfires and that, in the distant past, some of them even occured in October.

However, I think that we need to actually look very closely at the evidence – even if it means hours on the computer looking up Wikipedia. To say, as one person wrote in response to the Climate Council’s Bushfires and Climate Change in Australia – The Facts (which suggested that bushfires in the last thirty years had been more frequent), that we had large bushfires in the past too. The person then went on to talk of three over the space of sixty years prior to 1983.

It’s difficult to argue about climate change when people like Bolt and Abbott seem to suggest that every event can be taken in isolation and therefore nothing is part of any pattern. Bolt may be right. There may be no significant warming. But he is no more of less qualified to assert his position than the bloke down at the pub who tells me that Greater Western Sydney will make next year’s Grand Final. He is not an expert and lacks formal training in the area – something that he is quick to point out about those he disagrees with. After arguing for years that the climate is actually cooling, Bolt jumped on the IPCC report which suggested the planet wasn’t WARMING as fast as they predicted, completely ignoring the fact that this went against his contention.

So, records are always being broken, according to the Prime Minister. Linking the fires to climate change is “complete hogwash”. We don’t need a Climate Commission to look at evidence. We know these things. Who needs a Science Minister? It’s either part of trade, or something you do at school. Science, itself, what’s that?

As for the Audit Commission, who thinks that they may recommend delaying or scaling back the Liberal’s Direct Action initiatives?

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

We allowed Women and Slaves to Vote, Now We Have Abbott as PM and next I’ll marry a goat!

October 25, 2013
Written by: Rossleigh
44 Replies

TONY Abbott says he will “do the right thing” and attend his gay sister’s wedding but could never support the marriage.

And his sister Christine Forster’s engagement to partner Virginia Edwards will not dim his Government’s fight against the country’s first same-sex marriage laws in the ACT.

“If there’s a ceremony of some kind, yes, I will be there with a present,” the Prime Minister told 3AW of his sister’s upcoming nuptials.

“I’ll do the right thing.”

But while wishing the couple well, he revealed he saw no way he could ever change his mind and support same-sex marriage.

News.com.au

As someone once said to me if you come across a person who you strongly disagree with, walk a mile in their shoes – that way you’re a long way from them and you’ve got a new pair of shoes.

At various times over the past few months, I’ve tried to force myself to see the world as someone who voted for The Coalition would. And it just makes me more outraged at Abbott than if I was one of those latte-sipping, chardonnay swilling socialists. Honestly, I wanted Mr Action Man up and running fixing all the problems of the country, but instead he’s off somewhere fighting fires. Admirable yes, but that’s not what I expect a PM to do. I want him to stop the rorting of travel allowances, not say that people will always try to cheat, so what can you do? I want Parliament recalled as quickly as possible to repeal this Carbon Tax so my power bill will be next to nothing.

So, I apply my “let’s get a new pair of shoes” thinking to Abbott’s statement about his sister’s wedding.

Ok, let’s start by adopting an anti-gay marriage persona. Mm, even in this persona, the argument that a child has a right to a mother AND a father seems illogical. I mean, are we going to round up all the children of single parents and place them in nice, traditional family because that’s their “right”. Or possibly we could force single parents to find a partner within three months of the child’s birth or the loss of a partner. No, this argument doesn’t satisfy me no matter how hard I try. There are similar problems with the argument that we can’t have same-sex marriage because they can’t have children naturally. Should we demand that of straight couples who use IVF divorce? Or disqualify couples that don’t want children?

The slippery slope argument has some appeal. “If we allow this, next we’ll have to allow polygamy and bestiality.” Of course, if you can find me a goat who can give informed consent and fill out all the necessary paperwork, I’d be prepared to marry her myself. Polygamy. Ok. Yep, the slippery slope sort of works for that.

And, of course, the “it’s against God’s will” argument. That can work, if I close my eyes and imagine Him or Her saying something like, “You’ve got one of your own and that should be enough for you, unless you want to have children in which case you can share it!”

So now I’m all happy. I have my reasons for opposing same sex marriage. It’ll destroy the fabric of society and I’ll have to take on an extra wife, as well as possibly marry a sheep. Allowing gay marriage would be a sin. Like breaking one of the ten commandments. (Although God strangely forgot to include Thou Shalt Not Allow Gay Marriage, and did include something about keeping the Sabbath holy – we may need to shut down shops on Sunday!)

This is where I find Abbott’s comments on his sister’s wedding a little disappointing. As someone who regards all sins as equally against God’s word, let me presume that Gay Marriage is akin to Thou shalt not kill. So instead of his sister’s wedding, let’s imagine another sibling – let’s call him Cain – has a certain desire to kill people and film it. Abbott’s position is now.

TONY Abbott says he will “do the right thing” and attend the event where his brother, Cain intends to make a “snuff film” but could never support the killing.

And his brother’s directorial choices will not dim his Government’s fight against the making of snuff movies in this country.

“If there’s a ceremony of some kind, yes, I will be there at the first screening,” the Prime Minister told 3AW.

“I’ll do the right thing.”

But while wishing the film well, he revealed he saw no way he could ever change his mind and support the making of such films.

Ok, that may seem absurd to some of you. But nowhere near as absurd as Abbott turning up at a gay wedding – even his sister’s – when he argues so strongly against it. When they get to the part about if anyone objects to this wedding, how can Abbott say nothing?

Or is sometimes “doing the right thing” just deciding that it’s their wedding ceremony just because you don’t like it, that’s no reason to interrupt?

The ACT have just passed some laws allowing same sex marriage. Strangely, the Federal Government think it’s ok to interrupt. Not because they don’t like it, mind you, but because they think that marriage laws should be consistent throughout Australia.

There is a simple solution to that which doesn’t require the cost of a High Court Challenge.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

What is the Minister for Women’s Affairs going to do for women in this country?

October 24, 2013
Written by: Michael Taylor
25 Replies

Since forming government we’ve heard a number of Coalition Ministers speak about, or take action on their portfolios. For example, Environment Minister Greg Hunt has shut down the Climate Commission, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, has determined that asylum seekers were now to be referred to as ‘illegals’ and has done his utmost to demonise these poor people, Treasurer Joe Hockey keeps raising the debt ceiling (and his level of stupidity) whilst blaming it on the previous government and Christopher Pyne, the Minister for Education has threatened to overhaul the higher education system and turn public schools independent.

I, and most readers here as well as a large percentage of the wider community have been horrified by their announcements but at least we do know what they’re doing. Not so with the Minister for Women’s Affairs, Tony Abbott. He appears, on the surface, to be as distant from any of the the issues as he is from a probing question.

The Coalition’s September 2013 Policy for Women tells us a little more. Five whole issues fill its pages, being:

Relocate the Office for Women
A Real Paid Parental Leave Scheme
Help Make Child Care More Accessible and Affordable
Take Further Steps to Reduce Violence Against Women
Increase the Annual Target for Women at Risk Visa Grants

It’s not a real lot, is it? And it is safe to assume that only a small percentage of the country’s women will benefit from any of these policies, if indeed they are initiated.

There is nothing for the majority of women, or more importantly the disadvantaged women in our society that don’t rate a mention in the above policy document, such as these:

Female workers

The pay packet is always smaller and the gap between what men and women are paid is still widening, according to the latest workplace survey figures. A study carried out by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) found a $266 a week overall difference between what men and women in full-time work earn. There are also proportionately fewer women in key positions in the Australian workforce.

What will the Minister for Women’s Affairs be doing about that?

Mental illness

Women are more likely than men to experience anxiety disorders (18% compared with 11%) and affective disorders (7.1% compared with 5.3%) and are more likely to have anxiety and affective disorders in combination.

What will the Minister for Women’s Affairs be doing about that?

Homelessness

Over 40% of homeless people in Australia are women.

What will the Minister for Women’s Affairs be doing about that?

Lesbian couples

Thousands of lesbian couples in Australia want the opportunity to marry their partner.

What will the Minister for Women’s Affairs be doing about that?

Underemployment rate

In August 2012, the extended labour force underutilisation rate was higher for females than males (15.2% and 11.3% respectively). Not to mention the 350,000 Australian women that are looking for work.

What will the Minister for Women’s Affairs be doing about that?

Indigenous women’s health

Aboriginal and Torres Strait women experience poorer health across all health areas compared with non-Indigenous women.

What will the Minister for Women’s Affairs be doing about that?

Poverty

A 10-year study has found Australia’s most disadvantaged are more likely to be, among others, women.

What will the Minister for Women’s Affairs be doing about that?

All of these are issues that should be a priority for the Minister for Women’s Affairs … if he cares.

My views on the self appointment of Tony Abbott to the Women’s Affairs portfolio are well known, which are based on his out-dated attitudes to women and a complete disregard of their place in modern Australia. Here’s a recap of what I published earlier:

“I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons.” Tony Abbott Four Corners 15/03/2010.

“While I think men and women are equal, they are also different and I think it’s inevitable and I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all that we always have, say, more women doing things like physiotherapy and an enormous number of women simply doing housework.” Tony Abbott Herald-Sun 06/08/2010.

“I won’t be rushing out to get my daughters vaccinated [for cervical cancer], maybe that’s because I’m a cruel, callow, callous, heartless bastard but, look, I won’t be.” November 9th, 2006

“I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question . . . [their virginity] is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don’t give it to someone lightly, that’s what I would say.” January 27th “The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.” 2010

It has been revealed that after having being defeated by Barbara Ramjan for the SRC presidency, Tony Abbott approached Barbara Ramjan, and after moving to within an inch of her nose, punched the wall on both sides of her head. news.com.au 09/09/2012

‘I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak’ cited 23/08/2012

Gaining momentum across everywhere but the mainstream media are allegations that Opposition leader Tony Abbott inappropriately touched Aboriginal author Ali Cobby Eckerman in an Adelaide cafe last March. First Nations Telegraph 20/06/2013.

Tony Abbott urges women to save their virginity for marriage and reveals mixed feelings about contraception in a new interview. The Australian 25/01/2010.

And who can forget his behavior: standing in front of people as they hold signs calling Julia Gillard a bitch or a slut; rubbing shoulders with people after they’ve said on air that Julia Gillard should be dumped at sea; supporting members of his party who suggested Julia Gillard should be kicked to death. He also failed to reprimand those in his party who said Julia Gillard needed a bullet.

He can’t even address a female by name; it’s either ‘her’, ‘she’, ‘it’ or someone with sex appeal.

I could best describe his elevated appointment as ‘token’. He may prove otherwise, but as the above problem areas suggest he has a lot of work to do to prove it. If not, 100,000s of women in this country will remain disadvantaged and quite frankly, I believe that’s the way it’s going to stay. Unless of course, Abbott’s Number One policy of relocating the Office for Women turns out to be the most social and economic reforming program ever enacted in this country.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

The Economy is Like a Giant Blancmange, Except that it’s Not.

October 23, 2013
Written by: Rossleigh
11 Replies

Many people see the economy as like a household budget. You need to keep it all neat and orderly and manage it. Others see it as like the weather. There’s nothing you can to do change it, so you just have to adjust as it happens. I could find plenty of analogies for what the economy is like, but I think it’s worth quoting George E. P. Box here: “All models are wrong; some are useful.”

As far as the economy goes, here in Australia, we’ve often been encouraged to see it similar to the “weather” model: Lots of things beyond our control dictate how well it performs and beyond having an umbrella handy, there’s nothing much we can really do about it. We’re a small country and we don’t have the scale or clout to affect things very much.

Of course, this is partially true, which is what makes it compelling, but let’s not forget that all models, all analogies, all comparisons are arbitrary and man-made.

An economy is – well, an economy. And while there are various ways we can look at it, break it down into sub-sections and individual parts such as the local economy or the world economy, in the end these are just to give it meaning and structure. When Margaret Thatcher said that there was no such thing as society, she may as well have added that there is no such thing as “the economy”.

I make this point, not as a sort of first year philosophy discussion, but because a lot of convention wisdom about the economy is just that. It’s an agreed set of beliefs that economists generally agree about (and disagree, within certain parameters). A few years ago, for example, I heard an economist explain that China was doing the wrong thing by not floating their currency. Apparently, the reason China wasn’t doing this is because it was to their advantage. But it was the wrong thing to do.

Australia has been doing the “right thing” for years – opening borders, privatising, floating the dollar, reducing Government spending in certain areas. And it could be argued that this has served Australia well, but that’s a rather large debate and not completely relevant the point I’m making.

The Labor Government copped both praise and criticism for the way it responded to the Global Financial Crisis. The strongest comeback for Labor is that Australia was one of the few countries in the world that didn’t go into recession. To counter this, the argument that the Liberals have been running for years is that the money they spent was too much, and mismanaged. Of course, it’s always easy to argue hypothetically about something past. (I can argue that if Melbourne Football Club had appointed me coach two years ago they’d have been in the finals now, rather than near the bottom of the ladder. Nobody can prove me wrong!)

Labor did what it did, borrowed what it borrowed and spent the money on identifiable things. But let’s not take up the politics of this, or the conventual economic view that Labor were wise to get into as little debt as possible, let’s take a totally “irresponsible” view. What if Labor had borrowed twice* as much, and awash with funds set up a state of the art, world class research facility which would have attracted the best scientific minds in the world. Or something long-term to help our competitiveness in the future. Like improving the availability and speed of the internet. Oh, yes, I forgot. When’s that stopping again?

The thing is Labor were in Government. They had control. They could have spent more, or less. They could have lowered taxes, or raised them. They had lots of ways in which they could affect the economy. The debt itself wasn’t the issue. …

The debt was political. The Liberals would have squawked about things getting out of control under Labor. Whereas now, a 66% increase in the debt ceiling is ok. Except that we’re not meant to be hitting it for ANOTHER THREE YEARS. That’s three years of “responsible” economic management.

Responsible economic management that may include the sale of Medibank Private, which was mentioned before the election, and the sale of the HECS debt, Australia Post and a range of things that weren’t. Imagine if Labor had tried even selling one of these to pay off debt or to bring in the NDIS.

Of course, the real reason that Hockey is increasing the debt ceiling by so much, I suspect, is so much that he expects to hit it, but that he doesn’t want to have raise it again before the next election, and that not hitting it will be used as “sign of good, responsible management” as in Labor raised the debt ceiling more that once, but we just did it the once and look we haven’t hit it, aren’t we good?

I think that’s about the size of it, economically speaking. As the economy is like the weather, I’ll end with this analogy:

Labor was blamed for the rain. They then bought too many sand-bags to use in the levy bank to protect us from the flood. We didn’t need that many sand-bags because no water got over the levy bank, so we put the Liberals in charge. It’s stopped raining. We put in an order for nearly twice as many sand-bags. When the next lot of rain comes, the Liberals will claim credit for the fact that they didn’t use all the sand-bags.

So Labor went $285 billion into debt to save us from the GFC, what’ll be the Coalition’s excuse?

*Someone I’m sure will point out that funds were not easy to obtain in the GFC, even for Governments. I’m conveniently overlooking that because it’s not relevant to the points I’m going to make later on, and as this is hypothetical, I can – like Tony Abbott – completely ignore reality when it doesn’t suit me.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

World Peace: Australia’s Role in Global Demilitarization

Dutton is a man of little compassion and…

Compost: a climate action solution

The River Road

Balancing eSafety and Online Censorship, 2024

Ignorant. Woke.

Violence in our churches

Treasuring the moment: a military tattoo

Tag Archives: Tony Abbott

No excuses! Except that we have really, really good ones.

Tony Abbott’s problem with the truth

Lucy Who?

It Goes to the Character of the Man

Message Control

Who do you admire?

So how’s Tony Abbott’s Australia traveling so far?

Abbott’s Nice New Parliament

We told you things would be bad (part 2)

We told you things would be bad

What If Bolt Had Been Given The Job…

Crap, Hogwash, Wikipedia and Other Strong Evidence

From “The most depressing Discovery about the Brain, Ever”

We allowed Women and Slaves to Vote, Now We Have Abbott as PM and next I’ll marry a goat!

What is the Minister for Women’s Affairs going to do for women in this country?

The Economy is Like a Giant Blancmange, Except that it’s Not.