Ignorant. Woke.

By Bert Hetebry Yesterday I was ignorant. I had received, unsolicited, a YouTube video…

Violence in our churches

We must always condemn violence. There must be no tolerance for brutality,…

Treasuring the moment: a military tattoo

By Frances Goold He asked if we had anything planned for Anzac Day. "A…

Top water experts urge renewed action to secure…

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) has today urged…

Warring Against Encryption: Australia is Coming for Your…

On April 16, Australia’s eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, issued with authoritarian…

Of Anzac Day

By Maria Millers For many the long-stablished story of the Gallipoli landings and…

Media statement: update on removal of extreme violent…

By a spokesperson for the eSafety Commissioner: Yesterday the Federal Court granted…

Why I'm Confused By Peter Dutton And Other…

I just realised that the title could be a little ambiguous. It…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: Tony Abbott

Two things I have trouble with involving the Abbott Government … all right, three!

OK, I know it’s obvious, but I want to know why Justice Heydon can say that there was absolutely no reason for him to disqualify himself for accepting an invitation to be the guest speaker because – as he points out in his sixty seven page justification – it doesn’t demonstrate that he agrees with the politics of the organisation where he’s going to speak.

So there’s no problem with him accepting the invitation. Got it! Except now the question is why he felt that he had to change his mind about speaking there. It might be perceived as bias. But now his ruling on apprehended bias is that a “rational” person wouldn’t see it as bias.

I guess, from that, one could infer from that as Heydon decided to change his mind about speaking then he isn’t a “rational” person.

We also learn that Justice Heydon is famous for not reading emails.

Which seems a clear link to the Liberals who have a reluctance to read anything (as Kaye Lee pointed out in “Less Shovels And More Reading” a few days ago).

While not reading emails or anything going to their office has been a popular pastime for Liberals since Peter Reith and the children overboard fiasco, I suspect that it may become popular for unionists in the coming days.

“Sorry, Justice Heydon, but I’m well-known among my colleagues for not reading emails, opening letters, checking bank statements or anything else you wish to question me about. I wasn’t aware of any of this and I don’t see how any rational person would expect me to keep track of what I’ve been doing when – as a union leader – everyone knows that I’m a bludger who never does anything but wage war on those poor multinationals who are providing jobs for Australians as part of their charity program.”

But I’m more concerned about the Fairfax “jihad”.

Yep, that’s right. Minister for Not Reading Press Releases, Mr Peter Mutton told everyone that Fairfax were waging a “jihad” against the Abbott Government. Which if you look up almost any definition of the word, is a wee bit confusing. For a start, surely they need to be Muslims to wage a “jihad”. Although Waheed Aly does occasionally write a column for them, so perhaps he’s converted Amanda Vanstone and Peter Reith to the cause. And Paul Sheehan. None of those columnists ever show the Abbott Government in a positive light.

Yes, yes, I know. Allowing such people to give you their thoughts does make the Abbott Government look bad. Anyway, the Petester wasn’t finished, obviously concerned that he didn’t have anyone at “hello”. Or “jihad” for that matter.

PETER DUTTON: I think it would be helpful if some of the commentators in the area, in this space of politics, started reporting on the incidents, as opposed to being players themselves.

I think there’s a huge move by Fairfax at the moment to try and bring the Government down, that’s fair enough. But they aren’t, they aren’t….

They aren’t supposed to be political players, they’re supposed to be objective reporters of the news and I think many of them have morphed into frustrated politicians themselves.

Yes, they should get back to simple reporting of incidents the way the Murdoch Press does. Then we can see simple reporting of incidents like the fabulous: “We Need Tony” or “Kick This Mob Out”!

Although I seem to remember that we were told that News Limited were a private organisation and that they were allowed to be biased. Fairfax, on the other hand (sorry Andrew Hastie but that wasn’t directed at you!), should stick to reporting the facts because, well, they’re being “helped by the ABC” according to Pete the Insignificant.

But I find it strange that he thinks that “commentators” should stick to reporting “incidents”. I thought the whole idea of commentators was to commentate, but I’ve always been a bit funny about words and their meanings. You know, I’m one of those that thought that when Abbott said that there was no difference between him and Rudd on Education, I thought that meant that he was saying that he’d implement the same policy, not that they both had a university degree. Or that no cuts meant that he wasn’t going to reduce the funds to pensioners, not that he wasn’t going to take a knife to them.

Still to be fair, all our Minister for Operational Matters actually said was that “it’d be helpful” if they stuck to reporting incidents. Objectively. You know, factual reporting. Using last Friday’s events maybe he’d be happy with something like this appearing in Fairfax.

“Operation Fortitude was called off when a clumsy worded press release caused people to compare the Abbott Government with Hitler and Stalin and to make comparisons between the Border Force’s black uniform with the Nazi SS. The press release wasn’t read by the Minister’s Office because they don’t have anything to do with the day-to-day operational matters, so they didn’t think that it was worth reading something sent to them. The Prime Minister assured us that he knew nothing.”

Yeah, that should make him happy.

That, and a decision by the media to stop reporting that there’s disharmony in the Liberal Party, because it’s not really news. People leaking. As Dutton himself told us, people could have a pretty good idea who was doing the leaking, and they’re doing it for their own ambitions and they should be sacked. But there’s no disharmony, and any attempt to report disharmony is just due to the Labor/Green/ABC/Fairfax/socialist/Jewish/alien/Islam/foreign/World Trade Centre conspiracy to bring down the natural rulers by refusing to mention that all they think about is Jobs and Growth And Security, and if you think about something often enough, then it happens. We all know that, we’ve all seen “Field of Dreams” and we know that if we build it they will come.

Mm, perhaps I should apply for a job as Tony Abbott’s speechwriter.

 

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

Donate Button

 

Transfield shares go up and so does the debt

LABOR CRASHES THROUGH PREVIOUS DEBT LIMIT TOPPING QUARTER OF A TRILLION DOLLARS

October 12, 2012

Joint Media Statement: Andrew Robb and Joe Hockey

The Gillard Government has driven up Australia’s credit card to a record $256.4 billion according to latest Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM) figures.

The previous debt ceiling of $250 billion was raised by Labor to $300 billion in the May budget further confirming its inability to curb its debt addiction.

Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey, in a Liberal Party eNewsletter 27 July 2013, comments on the ALP’s “debt” TV commercial:

Kevin Rudd and Labor have increased Australia’s debt limit from $75 billion, to $200 billion, to $250 billion and now to $300 billion. The Treasury has told us that debt will hit $290 billion by Christmas, just $10 billion shy of the current legislated limit.

Only the Coalition will get the Budget back into the black, start to pay down Labor’s debt, and implement our economic Plan to grow the economy and create jobs.

Australians can’t afford another three years of Labor’s reckless spending.

Debt is certain to exceed $425 billion by Christmas

As at last Friday, 28 August 2015, gross government debt was $384.7 billion – the highest level ever recorded. This represents an increase of $111 billion from the level inherited by the Abbott government in September 2013. It is just as well Treasurer Joe Hockey scrapped the debt ceiling legislation early in the Abbott government’s term because he would now be having to introduce legislation to have the ceiling raised beyond $400 billion, a figure that will be exceeded before year end.


With the gross debt increasing by over $1 billion per week under the Abbott government, we have seen funding slashed to health, education, Indigenous Affairs, countless NGOs and charities, the CSIRO, the ABC, the NBN, and many other crucial areas.

We have seen the superannuation guarantee rise put on hold and the low income co-contribution abandoned. I’m not sure if axing the schoolkids bonus has passed yet. Family Benefit, after being reduced, is now being dangled as a sweetener again. Getting rid of the carbon and mining taxes cost low income earners in various different ways. Thousands of public service jobs have gone, as have many more in manufacturing and mining

So what have we got for the increased spending?

Plenty of money for defence and national security.

Since its election, the Government has invested more than $22 billion in Defence capability projects. The Government will provide Defence with $31.9 billion in 2015–16 and $132.6 billion over the Forward Estimates. This is an increase of $9.9 billion over the Forward Estimates when compared to the 2014–15 Budget and represents record expenditure on Defence.

Apparently Border Force is to have 6,000 officers. Taxi drivers beware! Perhaps some of those retrenched public servants could apply, provided they are willing to wear a black uniform, take an oath, use force, and fire a gun.

And lots of money for offshore detention.

Transfield has been providing services on Nauru, which has 637 asylum seekers, since September 2012, and on Manus Island since early 2014. Its existing $2.2 billion contract with the Department of Immigration for both centres will expire on October 31. Despite the many incidents and reports criticising the running of the detention camps, Transfield has just been awarded a further five year contract. The announcement saw Transfield shares rise by 9%.

Tony Shepherd, the head of Abbott’s Commission of Audit, was chairman of Transfield and had spent over a decade on the board, quitting only in October 2013 to take up the job as Commissioner.

Mr Shepherd left with more than 200,000 Transfield shares, allocated to his family superannuation fund, on top of his final salary of $380,000.

In a move strikingly similar to Dyson Heydon judging himself, Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann left it up to the audit commissioners to rule on potential conflicts of interest among themselves.

Shepherd now heads the WestConnex Delivery Authority which will award contracts to build the proposed Sydney toll road, co-funded by the Abbott government. He is also a director of the international arm of Virgin Australia.

Not that I am suggesting anything untoward in this tight knit circle.

“Mates help each other, they do not tax each other.” – Tony Abbott, February 23, 2011.

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

Donate Button

Corruption, kickbacks and slush funds – see ICAC

It’s not hard to work out Tony’s game plan for the next election. He is going to run hard on union corruption and their connection to Labor.

Heydon ruling himself unbiased in the eyes of a reasonable person has laid the ground work. Why did they try, unsuccessfully, to smear this honourable man? What have Labor and the unions got to hide?

When he released his 1800-page interim report in December last year, Mr Heydon said the 87-page third volume needed to remain secret to “protect the physical well-being of those witnesses [appearing at the commission] and their families. This is unfortunate, because the confidential volume reveals grave threats to the power and authority of the Australian state“.

If it is a secret one wonders why he makes such a public comment on it. Don’t you just stamp it confidential without such hyperbolic description? And if it is so explosive, why has nothing been done about it for 9 months?

Tony Abbott offered a personal briefing to Jacqui Lambie on its contents to try and secure her vote for the re-establishment of the “tough cop on the beat” ABCC. Is this information being suppressed to be used as a political bargaining chip, to be revealed at a time deemed appropriate by the government?

On the advice of the Federal Executive Council, in October last year the term of the TURC was extended for a year with the report to be tabled by December 31 2015. Could this be pertinent to the talk of a March election?

It was also requested that the following paragraph be inserted into the Letters Patent:

“(ia) any criminal or otherwise unlawful act or omission undertaken for the purpose of facilitating or concealing any conduct or matter mentioned in paragraphs (g) to (i);”

One would assume they felt it necessary to have that included so I wonder about its implications.

In 1989, Justice Heydon conducted an inquiry for the NSW Liberal Government into the “Duties and Fiduciary Obligations of Officials of Industrial Unions of Employers and Employees”.

In February 2014 Tony Abbott announced “the establishment of a Royal Commission to inquire into alleged financial irregularities associated with the affairs of trade unions.”

Heydon’s 1989 report called for improvements in the governance of trade unions, and for union officials to be equated with company directors, and overseen by the corporate regulator — now ASIC.

In March 2013 Tony Abbott introduced a private members bill to amend legislation on registered organisations such as trade unions.

“There is a need for comparable penalties for comparable offences whether the offenders are union officials or company officials,” Mr Abbott told the lower house. “Commit the same crime, face the same punishment.”

Liberal Party policy going into the election bore a strong resemblance to Heydon’s recommendations from decades ago.

This attack on unions and Labor has been in the planning for a long time. No doubt there has been some corruption in unions but to tar all of them for the actions of a few individuals is unwarranted. The unions themselves want to, and have, prosecuted corrupt officials. It was their civil action that saw Kathy Jackson found guilty, ably supported by Wixxy’s incredible body of evidence – the RC had nothing to do with it.

So far, four people have been arrested by the TURC Police Taskforces and a total of 26 people have been referred to the following 11 agencies: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, SA Director of Public Prosecutions, QLD Director of Public Prosecutions, VIC Director of Public Prosecutions, WA Direction of Public Prosecutions, Australian Securities and Investment Commission, Fair Work Building Inspectorate, Fair Work Commission, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and the Australian Information Commissioner.

Wouldn’t it have been more sensible to give the information to the bodies that can prosecute in the first place and save the $61 million?

But it is a useful distraction from what has been going on at ICAC.

In nine months, 11 Liberal politicians resigned, stepped down or moved to the crossbench. Two Labor politicians have been expelled from the party.

In Operation Credo, the ICAC is investigating allegations that persons with an interest in Australian Water Holdings Pty Ltd (AWH) obtained a financial benefit through adversely affecting the official functions of Sydney Water Corporation (SWC) by: including expenses incurred in other business pursuits in claims made on SWC for work on the North West Growth Centre; drawing from funds allocated for other purposes; and preventing SWC from ascertaining the true financial position, including the level of the executives’ remuneration.

The Commission is also investigating whether public officials and others were involved in the falsification of a cabinet minute relating to a public private partnership proposal made by AWH intended to mislead the NSW Government Budget Cabinet Committee and obtain a benefit for AWH, and other related matters.

In Operation Spicer, the ICAC is investigating allegations that certain members of parliament and others corruptly solicited, received and concealed payments from various sources in return for certain members of parliament and others favouring the interests of those responsible for the payments. It is also alleged that certain members of parliament and others solicited and failed to disclose political donations from companies, including prohibited donors, contrary to the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981.

In both of these matters, the Commission is also investigating the circumstances in which false allegations of corruption were made against senior SWC executives.

Liberal Party fundraising bodies keep coming up.

In the lead-up to the 2011 state election, the Free Enterprise Foundation donated $700,000 to the New South Wales Liberal Party. ICAC counsel-assisting Geoffrey Watson SC told the inquiry “prohibited donations were made to the Free Enterprise Foundation, then remade to the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party then simply disclosed a donation from the Free Enterprise Foundation, thereby disguising the true source of the money”. ICAC alleged the attempts to disguise illicit donations was well known by senior Liberal Party figures, including the party’s acting New South Wales director, Simon McInnes, and Paul Nicolaou, who formerly headed the New South Wales Liberal Party’s main fundraising organisation.

Eightbyfive was an alleged slush fund set up by Tim Koelma, a former senior policy advisor to former New South Wales Liberal energy minister Chris Hartcher. The fund received $183,342 from AWH while Arthur Sinodinos was serving as deputy chairman or chairman which Koelma said was for consulting work he did for Nick Di Girolamo.

Joe Hockey’s North Sydney Forum was also put under scrutiny in the article disclosing that members could pay for access to the Treasurer. During the three years AWH was a member of the forum, the company’s chief executive was Liberal fund-raiser and former lobbyist Nick Di Girolamo, whose gift of a $3000 bottle of Penfolds Grange Hermitage to Barry O’Farrell shortly after his March 2011 election win led to his resignation as premier.

North Sydney Forum deputy chairman Robert Orrell said he was “sure” Mr Di Girolamo – a close friend of Eddie Obeid jnr, who was employed by AWH – had attended private boardroom meetings with Mr Hockey.

There were also emails revealed by ICAC revealing that, in March 2011, while the Coalition was in opposition, Peta Credlin used a major donor to the Liberal Party, Brickworks, as part of Tony Abbott’s campaign against the carbon tax.

Brickworks was one of the largest corporate donors to the Liberal Party, giving $384,000 in a nine-month period from July 2010 to April 2011.

The ICAC has heard that Brickworks used the Free Enterprise Foundation, a shadowy Canberra-based organisation, to channel $125,000 in illicit donations to the NSW Liberals for the March 2011 state election.

One of the previously suppressed emails reveals that, on March 1, 2011, Mr Nicolaou sent Ms Credlin an email titled “Re Carbon Tax” advising that Brickworks was “a very good supporter of the Party.”

Mr Nicolaou attached an earlier message from the company’s managing director, Lindsay Partridge, which read: “Paul, Tell Tony to stick to his guns on no carbon tax.”

Coincidentally, Bronwyn Bishop was also referred to in the same volume of exhibits.

She was a director of the Dame Pattie Menzies Foundation Trust, which received $11,000 from the Free Enterprise Foundation on December 9, 2010, which it then directed to the NSW branch of the party for use in the 2011 state election.

The previous day, Mr Partridge sent a cheque for $125,000 to the Free Enterprise Foundation with a note that read: “We trust this donation will provide assistance with the 2011 NSW State election campaign.”

In July 2010, Mr Nicolaou, who was getting a 6 per cent cut of all donations he collected, emailed Simon McInnes, the finance director of the NSW Liberal Party boasting: “Please note! Another $50k for us via Free Enterprise Foundation from Brickworks.”

Only a minute earlier, Mr Partridge had sent an email saying: “Paul, via the diversionary organisation there is $50k for NSW, $250k in total.”

Karen Macnamara, member for Dobell has also had to front ICAC about discrepancies in her fundraising.

So if we want to talk about corruption, kickbacks and slush funds, let’s start with our politicians.

 

Abbott’s Ever Diminishing Campaign Options

I read online Friday morning that Australian Border Force were planning to conduct visa checks across the Melbourne CBD starting the same day and continuing over the weekend.

I read that the ABF would be “positioned at various locations around the CBD” and they would be, “speaking with any individual we cross paths with.” They warned Melburnians to “be aware of the conditions of your visa; if you commit visa fraud you should know it’s only a matter of time before you’re caught out.”

At first I thought it was a piece of satire but on closer view I realised it was wasn’t. What on earth did it mean? I don’t have a visa so if I went into the city should I take my passport with me? If I’m accosted and don’t have any identification on me, will I be apprehended?

The messages were very clear. The ABF were up for interrogating anyone on the streets. I decided I would stay home. Then later in the afternoon I learned that, in a ‘William Wallace’ type twitter call to arms, the concerned citizen response was swift and united.

A crowd of several hundred complete with banners, megaphones and plenty of spirit converged on Flinders Street Station. To borrow the now immortal words of one of our favourite sons, the late Ted Whitten, they ‘ stuck it up them’.

It happened, I read, because the Twittersphere went viral.

policeOne can’t help feeling for the Victorian Police. A body the majority of Victorians view with the greatest of respect, was somehow blindsided, along with Yarra Trams, the Victorian Taxi Directorate and others, into playing ball with the Australian Border Force when the ABF had no real idea what they were doing.

As a result of the protest the entire exercise was cancelled and the blame game began. The MSM were in no doubt that the real culprit was Immigration Minister Peter Dutton. Whether he was or wasn’t became irrelevant when the broader reality dawned.

Up until yesterday national security was the only issue the Coalition had in their kit bag that they hadn’t already stuffed up in a monumental way.

‘Border Farce’ as it quickly became known, has taken care of that. While it’s anybody’s guess when the next election will be held, one gets the feeling that the government is fast running out of winnable strategies to take to the people.

National security was going to be front and centre. Having now missed that bus, one would think that all their efforts will be concentrated on the Trade Unions.

No, hang on, they stuffed that up too. Whether Dyson Heydon stays or goes won’t matter. His personal query directed to Bill Shorten that he was “concerned about his credibility as a witness” has sort of rebounded, quite spectacularly.

They can’t campaign on health, education or infrastructure without making people laugh. Nor on our reputation overseas which has gone from sound and steady, to mockery and derision.

Science and Technology are two more no-go zones for fear of the gasps that would come from an incredulous public. They could have a crack at renewable energy technologies but that would be a bit hypocritical.

peterThey will also have to be careful how they play the ‘economy’ card. If you juxtapose their record over the past two years with their rhetoric leading up to the 2013 election, it makes for a litany of confusion and contradictions reminiscent of Joh Bejelke Petersen’s days as Queensland premier in the 1970s.

When Joe Hockey said he would produce a budget surplus in his first year and each year thereafter, he unwittingly demonstrated how ill equipped he was for the job. We all know how that’s working for him now?

Both he and the Coalition are also seriously compromised on the ‘How are you going to pay for it’ wedge. Joe Hockey is presently unable to tell us how he would fund the intended tax cuts he so desperately wants before he reveals any other goodies he might be contemplating.

They can hardly campaign on their overall performance either because they haven’t done anything…oh wait..yes, they got rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax and stopped the boats.

In the meantime they doubled the budget deficit, added $1 billion to the national debt for each week they have been in government and broken so many promises that any promise they make this time around, will only be met with more fits of laughter.

If Tony Abbott is still at the helm when the election is called, it is difficult to see them mounting much of a campaign at all. If Scott Morrison is the new PM then the extreme right wing of the party will have shot themselves in the foot.

If it’s Malcolm Turnbull, there will be some hope but given everything else that has transpired, it is hard to see him restoring enough confidence back into their copper veins any more than Kevin Rudd did for Labor in 2013.

Turnbull’s performance with the cost blowout of the now second rate NBN has left him looking quite sheepish and vulnerable. He’s also a republican which won’t help. Then we have Julie Bishop who has never been seriously tested and, I think, would not cope with the pressure.

abfThey have, in fact, limited their options so severely that their only weapon will be fear. That might work but then again, they wouldn’t want to promote the ABF as the nation’s great protector.

Their last resort would be to try and convince the more gullible within the electorate into thinking that no matter how bad they are, the alternative will be so much worse.

Given how bad they have been themselves, that would really stretch the limits of our imagination, wouldn’t it.

Introducing finger number 3, community safety

Jobs, growth and . . . what was the other one . . . oh yeah, community safety. Has anyone got anything?

The government’s backpedalling explanation of Friday’s Border Farce debacle raises more questions than it answers.

The press release was sent to Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s office but nobody bothered to read the document.

Last year it was revealed in Senate estimates that the Immigration and Border Protection department employs more than 95 communications staff and spin doctors, costing taxpayers at least $8 million a year.

Morrison defended this saying ”These are large organisations which require a significant amount of internal and corporate communication work on behalf of these agencies.”

And none of them thought they should read a press release before it was issued? Are they using the Heydon defence – I didn’t open that attachment?

In typical fashion, a spokesman for Mr Dutton said “The nature of the operation was the same as activity and operations conducted when Labor was in Government.”

Are they ever going to be able to own any action without reference to Labor?

As PDuddy ducked for cover we were told “the Minister was not made aware of the Media Release. The Minister does not direct ABF operational matters.’’

The Prime Minister emphatically denied knowing anything about the operation.

So who does direct ABF matters?

Has Abbott created a rogue secret service that is answerable to no-one, that is deciding for themselves what to do with no direction from government?

“I think there’s a bit of hyperventilating going on here,’’ Abbott said. “All sorts of press releases go out all the time but they go out under the authority of the relevant officials … and that all happens at arm’s length from ministers.’’

“Obviously it was a mistake. The press release was clumsy. It was over the top and wrong.”

The Prime Minister warned those who sought to demean the role of Australia Border Force on the basis of a “badly-worded press release” should be “a little ashamed of themselves”.

What about the Department who failed to read it? Shouldn’t they be just a little ashamed? And I do not think it hyperventilating to be concerned that unapproved statements of this nature are put into the public arena.

The press release still appears on the official government Department of Immigration and Border Protection website.

“While the ABF regularly conducts a range of compliance field-work, this is the first time we’ve been involved in an inter-agency operation of this nature and we’re very proud be able to support each of our organisations to achieve our common mission of promoting a secure and cohesive society here in Melbourne.”

“ABF officers will be positioned at various locations around the CBD speaking with any individual we cross paths with,” Mr Smith said.

“You need to be aware of the conditions of your visa; if you commit visa fraud you should know it’s only a matter of time before you’re caught out.”

The inter-agency outfit will continue to work together on an ongoing basis to target crime in and around the Melbourne CBD to make the city a safer place for everyone.

Is Abbott suggesting that Don Smith has been misquoted?

There seems little doubt that this was a very deliberate action to fit in with Tony’s “community safety” slogan.

 

Dual citizen? Beware the Border Force street patrol

In many cases, buying into a conspiracy theory may result in an instant loss of credibility. However as reality becomes increasingly more absurd and Government policy more outrageous, what may once have seemed ludicrous now verges on genuine possibility. Friday the 28 August 2015 will go down in history as the day the citizens of Melbourne stood up against a police state and fascism. It will also be remembered as one of the most appallingly planned and ridiculously thought-out operations by a Government agency ever. And it demonstrates just why the instant revocation of citizenship in the proposed Allegiance to Australia Act is so incredibly dangerous.

Just weeks ago, the notion of Abbott’s paramilitary Border Force, prowling the streets of Australian cities and towns, searching for ‘visa fraudsters’ would have been laughed off as lunacy. The very thought of immigration and customs officials leaving their posts on the actual border of the nation and mingling among Saturday shoppers in the CBD of Melbourne would have been written off as an April Fool’s Day joke.

But no. Friday’s events showed that national security is no laughing matter for Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the now-missing-in-action Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton. The suggestion of potential identity checks of thousands of Australians meandering through the CBD was not so much of a suggestion, as part of an actual, real, planned inter-agency ‘safety’ operation with Victoria Police.

Astoundingly, the Australian Border Force issued a statement inferring that officers would be checking the visa status of people who crossed their paths on an ordinary weekend in Melbourne. There was no high profile event to warrant the operation, no actual security risk or suspected imminent incident of a terrorist nature. No. It was part of a crackdown on antisocial behaviour and outstanding warrants and to promote a ‘secure and cohesive’ community.

While Friday’s events were analysed, examined and ridiculed endlessly from every angle in the hours following the debacle, the whole concept of on-the-street visa checks ties in quite cleanly with another of Abbott’s new national security policies.

Earlier this year Abbott introduced the Allegiance to Australia Bill, which sets up a number of circumstances under which dual citizens may lose their Australian citizenship. While in some cases an actual conviction for an offence is required, there are many other cases where a person automatically renounces their citizenship by action.

Section 33AA of the Bill provides that where a person ‘acts inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia’ the renunciation has immediate effect from the moment the person does that action. Naturally, once the Minister becomes aware of the act and renunciation of citizenship, the person may be detained and deported.

The actions considered to be inconsistent with Australian allegiance include such things as engaging in terrorist activities; providing or receiving training connected with preparation for, engagement in, or assistance in a terrorist act; and financing terrorism or a terrorist. According to the University of Sydney’s Dr Rayner Thwaites and Dr Anne Twomey, a highly respected legal expert, the broadly worded provisions potentially apply to many innocent dual citizens. It means a law-abiding science or chemistry teacher, gym instructor or a member of a shooting club could inadvertently revoke their Australian citizenship if the skills they imparted or shared later helped a person commit a terrorist act.

As if this isn’t concerning enough, organisations such as Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd have been labelled as terrorist organisations, as have other environmental groups. People protesting against mining are considered such a threat, ASIO has reportedly spied on them.

Of course, the Allegiance to Australia Bill has not yet become law, but section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 already allows the Minister to cancel the visa of any Australian resident who is not a citizen on a range of ‘character’ grounds. The ‘test’ does not require any actual criminal convictions or any proof of criminality; not that the Minister has to provide the evidence used for a decision anyway if he can cite ‘national security’. The Minister basically decides a person is not of the calibre expected of an Australian resident and abolishes their right to live in the country – no matter how many decades they may have called Australia home.

With 28% of Australians born overseas, and an estimated third of Australians thought to be dual citizens, there are potentially millions of Australians at risk of detainment and deportation. Approximately 600 visas have already reportedly been cancelled by the Minister on ‘character grounds’ in the past year alone.

Which raises the question – just which ‘visa fraudsters’ was Mr Don Smith and his Border Force officers intending to intercept?

Many commentators have pointed out the absurdity of notifying visa over-stayers of an operation cracking down on illegal immigrants. Clearly those without lawful authority to be in Australia would have stayed clear of the Melbourne CBD.

But now, consider the operation was jointly between Victoria Police and other agencies, including the Border Force. According to Victorian Police Minister, Wade Noonan MP, it was a standard police operation focusing on antisocial behaviour and to ensure the safety of the community. He accuses Border Force of ‘unfortunate and inappropriate characterisation’ of the joint venture.

This may be so, but it does raise serious questions about how such an operation, if it had continued, would have been carried out. How many people, lawfully in Australia, holding permanent resident visas, would have been potentially caught up in the fishing exercise? How many would find themselves suddenly detained on the murky grounds of failing to meet the ‘good character’ requirements of the Migration Act? There need be no criminal offence committed, conviction or even evidence provided. What constitutes ‘antisocial behaviour’, and would suspicion of such warrant the immediate detainment and deportation of a New Zealand national, for example?

And if Abbott has his way and the Allegiance to Australia Bill becomes law, how exactly does Dutton intend to ‘discover’ those automatically renouncing their citizenship? Will the sight of Border Force agents patrolling shopping centres and malls be a regular and common occurrence? Will the Border Force be sent out to catch dual citizen commuters automatically revoking their citizenship by dropping a gold coin donation in a Wilderness Society tin? Will Border Force agents be pouncing on dual citizens buying chemistry sets from the National Geographic shop?

The ramifications of Friday’s aborted operation are huge. Despite Victoria Police seeing sense and cancelling the ridiculous event, the fact it was planned in the first place is cause for alarm.

The concerns about Border Force and Operation Fortitude has gone beyond racial profiling. Are we in the midst of a national cleansing program?

 

They don’t instil confidence any more than they display it

In 2012 Tony Abbott said “Imagine the reaction, for instance, had the Howard government sought to gag naval personnel after ‘children overboard’. But the principle of free speech badly needs reaffirmation now, because of the current government’s attempts to bully critics into silence.”

Yes, he truly said that!

This from the man who has been so highly critical of the ABC and the Guardian for revealing allegations of animal abuse in live exports, abuse of asylum seekers by naval and security personnel , spying on foreign leaders, and the payment of people smugglers by our government. Q&A has evoked hysterical overreaction and government interference with the independence of the national broadcaster.

This from the man who has silenced his own Ministers. He has gagged the public service, journalists, border force personnel, and all people who deal with asylum seekers under threat of gaol time. He has defunded the Freedom of Information Office which is now run by one man working from home. Whole departments no longer answer requests from the media. Reports paid for by us are not released. Advice that does not support the government’s political view is rejected. The phrases “operational matter” and “commercial in confidence” are flung around with gay abandon to stop stakeholders from having any input and the public from having information.

If you are so sure you are right, why keep information secret?

The Abbott government tells us that the adults are in charge but they have veiled their governing in secrecy and reacted ferociously to any criticism. Instead of confidently answering legitimate concerns, they dismiss, attack or ridicule the questioner.

When Obama spoke about the need to protect the Great Barrier Reef our Treasurer responded that Obama “hasn’t had great success” so far with his own plans to cut carbon emissions. Julie Bishop inferred that he didn’t know what he was talking about.

When the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, suggested that bushfires would get worse due to climate change and that Direct Action was a very expensive way to address it, Tony Abbott said she was “talking through her hat”.

When Gillian Triggs produced the Forgotten Children Report, she was mercilessly attacked as a partisan hack and her resignation was sought by the Attorney General.

“The Human Rights Commission, in my view, is an important national institution, but it has to be like Caesar’s wife, it must both be and be seen to be above partisan politics,” Senator Brandis said.

One wonders if he feels the same about Dyson Heydon and the TURC.

When Sarah Hansen-Young expressed alarm at allegations in a submission to a Senate inquiry that she was spied on by security guards at the Australian-run detention centre on Nauru, Peter Dutton slammed her as an attention-seeking “embarrassment to our country” with a record of making unsubstantiated claims that inevitably were proved to be wrong. We are still waiting for his apology.

When the Mackay Conservation Group were successful in court action delaying the approval of the Adani mine, they were labelled as traitors and called every name under the sun, my favourite being “vigilante litigants” – an oxymoron from the moron who holds the position of our highest legal officer in the country and who is now seeking to take away the right of citizens to object to developments on environmental grounds.

When East Timor sought to take the Australian government to court for bugging their parliamentary offices to gain commercial advantage for a private company, George Brandis authorised ASIO officers to raid the offices of East Timor’s lawyer and confiscated the passport of the key witness. This landed Australia in the dock at the International Court of Justice and dealt a serious blow to Australia’s global reputation as a nation that respects the rule of law.

When Tanya Plibersek drew attention to the plight of displaced people in Syria, suggesting we should be providing humanitarian aid, our Foreign Minister accused her of advocating for a “terrorists’ picnic” in Syria.

When the Labor Party sought to ensure that there would be mandatory labour market testing for developments under the Chinese Free Trade Agreement, they were called “racist” and “xenophobes”.

When they questioned the legality of stripping citizenship, Abbott accused them of “rolling out a red carpet for terrorists” whilst refusing to make public the legal advice he had received.

When his own colleagues complain about the excessive control by the unelected Peta Credlin, Abbott calls them sexist.

They even refuse to debate in Parliament the decision to go to war.

Calm confidence is something we should expect from our leader. It is their job to reassure us that everything is under control.

But misplaced confidence can be a very destructive thing.

An increasing trend towards secrecy and virulent attacks on anyone who dares to question does not instil confidence any more than it displays it.

Bravado is no replacement for convincing argument that can bear scrutiny.

Border Force Farce And The Abbott Government!

Well, the Border Force in Melbourne sort of confirmed it.

Either they have no idea, or else they think that they’re writers who believe that anything Clark and Dawe can do they can do better.

When Peter Dutton refused an interview with the ABC because it was an “operational matter”, the whole idea I had for a piece had been stolen by the minister himself.

And if you can’t laugh at something like this, you have to take it seriously.

We were assured by the head of Australian Border FORCE that this was a low level press release. Mm, it was quoting the regional commander for Victoria and Tasmania, which means that either what he was saying wasn’t meant for public consumption or else the person writing the press release was simply making it up. Sort of like Godwin Grech and utegate.

Either way, Don Smith’s statement had a lot of people making unfair comparison with Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Let’s break down the most controversial part of Commandant Smith’s – sorry, I mean Commander, bloody autocorrect – statement.

“ABF officers will be positioned at various locations around the CBD speaking with any individual we cross paths with.”

Well, it certainly is clumsily worded. I mean, everyone knows that you shouldn’t use a prepostion to end a sentence with. But hey, it only says speaking with. It doesn’t say that they’ll be asking to see papers and taking into custody anyone who can’t produce their visa, does it? People who’ve lost their wallet won’t be taken to a detention centre until they can prove their bona fides, will they? So what’s the big deal. Who wouldn’t like a little chat with men in such spiffy black uniforms.

Secondly, I infer that the use of the word “individual” means that they won’t be talking to anyone in a group. And, as we all know, anyone travelling by themselves in the CBD is just asking for trouble. The message was clear, if you’re someone who’s overstayed their visa or snuck in by boat before Abbott was elected and you needed to go to the CBD this weekend, make sure you take friends with you. Or better yet, go to St Kilda where you won’t have to speak to anyone liable to remind you that your days in the world’s most livable city are numbered.

And, while “positioned” makes them sound like snipers, and the words “cross paths” does have a potentially threatening sound, as in the phrase, “You better not cross my path today”, this is mitigated by the full reading of the sentence. As the officers will be “positioned at various locations” it means that they’re not going anywhere and therefore don’t have a path to cross.

Which I guess means that they weren’t going to speak to anyone. Which makes it a rather pointless exercise and a waste of money.

So it’s really great that it’s been called off. I’m surprised that Joe hasn’t been trumpeting it as another example of them saving money, like when they dumped their Paid Parental Leave scheme – it’s savings like that which have enabled them to get spending back under control, so that we have the money to drop bombs costing upwards of $100,000 each on Syria. Yes, I know some of you lefties think that there should be something in place which mandated every time our government drops a bomb that they’re obliged to pick a school or hospital in Australia and drop the cost of the bomb into its bank account. Ridiculous, we’d go broke if we spent money with that sort of gay abandon.

(“Gay abandon” now there’s a phrase you don’t hear much any more, unless you’re talking about the Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite after the next election, when Abbott argues that it’s unnecessary because the people knew his policy when they re-elected him. Yes, I’m being ridiculous. As if Abbott is going to be re-elected. As if he’s going to be PM if he doesn’t hold the next election before Christmas.)

Ah, I’m glad it’s all been cleared up. The AFB wasn’t going to randomly stop people, and they weren’t going to use racial profiling to identify people who were worth “speaking” to. The latter being of particular concern to me because my physical appearance does resemble that of a New Zealander or an American who are amongst the highest countries when it comes to overstaying your visa.

Which sort of does leave one with the question of what exactly were they going to do?

Apart from be involved in “operational matters”, and we have no right to be told what they are . . .

 

The Governance Report

“You cannot believe in democracy and at the same time expect that the party you support is the only one that should ever win”.

What can you expect then, if your team doesn’t win? You won’t be happy and you know in your heart that the new government will do things that you disagree with. And it has every right to do so.

I have a general view of government that goes something like this.

“Good government is about making and implementing decisions that serve the common good. That give security to the people it governs. Follows the rule of law and is truthful about its intentions. When making decisions it must be responsive to the will of the people. It should allow its citizens to be participatory in the function of government.

It should be inclusive, equitable and supportive of the people’s right to know. By equity I mean the people have a right to a fair reward for the fruits of their labour and the wealth of the country. And above all it should be answerable to the people”.

And I might add that in the recipe of what makes good government the most important ingredient is ‘leadership’.

So I have an expectation that the government elected by the people in a democracy I support, might show competency. That it might govern for all the people keeping in mind that a fair proportion of them would have voted against them.

Looking back, the 2013 election was the worst in my memory. On the one hand we had a party with a public perception of dysfunction although the reality was that it passed 585 bills 87% supported by the opposition and was never defeated on the floor. It took to the election some excellent policy reforms. On the other hand the LNP, who never saw the government as legitimate, brought very little policy to the table choosing instead to play small target, piggy back Labor’s, and relied on the unpopularity of the government to secure victory.

From all this the public were the losers. There was no debate on the best way forward for Australia’s future. There was no exchange of ideas or credentials for government. It was an election devoid of intellectual integrity, discourse, ideals and honesty.

As the Abbott Government approaches its second birthday it’s interesting, for me at least, to in hindsight appraise the Prime Minister’s leadership and governance against my own performance criteria by measuring a few key factors.

Leadership

Abbott has been an abject failure as Prime Minister. His leadership has survived one challenge and as I write the feeling in political circles is that he will undergo another one soon. He chose to make unilateral captain’s calls that have done nothing more than reveal a predisposition for bad judgement.

He is a dour fellow with unrelenting negativity that runs like rust through his veins and has little time for ideas that don’t reflect his own. He is aggressive both physically and in the use of language. He is by evidence and his own admission a liar of some consistency.

Added to that he has a political gutter mentality and little respect for the institution of parliament and its conventions.

What sort of leader would say this prior to an election and then do the opposite.

“It is an absolute principle of democracy that governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards. Nothing could be more calculated to bring our democracy into disrepute and alienate the citizenry of Australia from their government than if governments were to establish by precedent that they could say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards” (Tony Abbott).

Abbott’s long history of making inaccurate and more often than not statements that offend individuals and groups is legendary.

As opposition leader he spent most of his time pursuing the demise of Gillard. Accordingly he went to the election with no policies, has developed none since, and has no vision of what a future Australia might look like.

He leads a government of political reaction. By that I mean that every reaction on whatever topic has the measure “how will it affect us politically” attached. Its first reaction is to always react rather than control situations.

Some governments manage to negotiate the inevitable potholes of office with a modicum of grace. The Abbott Government has been hopeless at crisis management. It has repeatedly failed to foresee obvious perils, and struggled to deal with soluble dilemmas. The cause of this has undoubtedly been very poor leadership.

Employment

The fact is that despite all its propaganda to the contrary there are now 800,000 people without a job. More than when Labor was in power. Or the highest total in 23 years.

Marriage Equality

Public support for Gay Marriage in current polling is at 69 per cent. With all the polls indicating such high support why is it necessary to spend 100 million of a plebiscite. The demand to act and act now is further reinforced. Otherwise the public will view a non-decision as nothing more than a tactic to first delay and then defeat the push for equality. Which it probably is.

The Economy

Hockey and Abbott whilst in Opposition hounded the Gillard/Rudd Governments as hopelessly incompetent financial managers. Abbott said things were so bad that he described the budget as an emergency, when the deficit was $18billion and Net Debt was $176billion. The deficit is now $35 billion and net debt $265billion. What explanation have they.

Hockey’s first Budget was the worst received ever and his second amounted to nothing more than a repair job on the first. It predicted a deficit of $35.1bn this financial year. This would be followed by deficits of $25.8bn in 2016-17, $14.4bn in 2017-18 and $6.9bn in 2018-19, and these figures assume the passage of contentious budget savings that are stalled in the Senate and unlikely to pass. On top of that the growth projections in the budget are considered by both Howard and Costello to be fanciful.

The importance of budget surpluses has been overstated. Since 1945, significant budget surpluses have been achieved only rarely: once by Ben Chifley, three times by Bob Hawke, and eight times by John Howard, who shared another with Rudd, who was elected during the 2007-08 fiscal year. That is, the Menzies, Holt, Gorton, McMahon and Fraser governments managed only a few, small surpluses. So much for the claim about the Coalition’s fiscal management being superior to that of Labor… The surpluses by Howard came from an unprecedented, never to be repeated mining boom and the sale of public assets. Let’s keep it in perspective.

The NBN

The NBN was a major initiative of Labor. Howard during his tenure of government tried 13 times to develop a policy and failed each time. Abbott being the Luddite that he is wanted to destroy it and appointed Turnbull to do so. He at least saw the light in terms of future benefits and possibilities but as it stands now the LNP continues to make a meal of the NBN rollout with a cost blowout of $15b since last estimate in December 2013.The budget had already blown out considerably (after having blown out to $41 billion, twice what the Coalition insisted their less-ambitious version of the NBN would cost before the 2013 election) and that NBN Co are going to have to find the money from either greater debt or private equity. Yes they were telling lies all along.

And the revised rollout of the network will end up being 20 per cent fibre-to-the-premises, 38 per cent fibre-to-the-node, 34 per cent HFC, 5 per cent fixed wireless and 3 per cent satellite.

Fibre to the house is the rolled gold connection and MPs will have to explain to their electorates why some are getting it and some are not. Are you in a marginal seat?

Morality of governance

The Abbott Government has demonstrated a willingness to govern for the rich, the privileged and corporations.

The word “lying” (in political terms) has been replaced with the more subtle reference of “overstatement. Almost everything spoken by him and his Ministers has an element of exaggeration or downright untruth about it.

By appointing Bronwyn Bishop as speaker he knowingly trashed an already tarnished Question Time. Bishop treated the position as some form of reward or distinction for longevity of service. Under her stewardship, and with Abbott’s approval, Question Time descended into a chamber of hate. Now it is just an excuse for mediocre minds who are unable to win an argument with intellect, charm or wit to act deplorably toward each other. And in doing so debase the parliament and themselves as moronic imbecilic individuals.

By allowing cabinet papers to be scrutinized by Royal Commissioners he trashed another long held convention.

The people’s right to know became obsolete with the FOI Commissioner forced to work from home because of funding cuts.

Ministerial responsibility became a principle of yesterday, unsuited to today’s politics.

Parliamentary expenses became privileges and over a long period the Prime Minister showed a taste for extras by leading the way.

Climate Change

Tony Abbott from the very start of his term of office has conveniently said that emissions cause Global Warming but his every action, his every statement, would indicate otherwise.

The Governments announced 26% target on greenhouse emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 is pathetically inadequate and less ambitious than most other developed countries.

We have a group of deniers being reluctantly dragged to Paris without a clue about what the science is telling them.

People should not be fooled by the % but consider the level by date and the end date. The government might also explain how it intends to pay for it.

On these numbers we would still be the world’s highest per capita polluter in 2030.

Royal Commissions

Abbott’s leadership has had all the hallmarks of retribution. Politics to him is as much about the annihilation of ones opponents as it is about making the country a better place. So he set about implementing Royal Commissions that in reality were nothing more than witch hunts against his opponents calculated to damage them as much as possible. There is nothing that has been found thus far that could not have been investigated by existing authorities. The appointment of Dyson Heydon who was a known Coalition supporter and the consequent controversy over his perceived bias has tarnished the process to the point that democracy itself is the biggest loser.

Women

Although he purports to be the Minister for women what he says and does are direct opposites. In the budget he withdrew money from Domestic Violence programs only to have to embarrassingly reinstate it later. On the whole he has done nothing to advance the prospects of women. Even in his own party, despite the rhetoric, women find it difficult to find a pathway to political representation.

Indigenous Recognition

Again he is found wanting in the area of Aboriginal advancement. There is much confusing talk that simply amounts to putting the ‘’black fellars’’ in their place but little in the way of constructive policy outcomes.

Conclusion

There are many other areas that I could have touched on like International Diplomacy, Health, National Security and the NDIS but I have said enough to make my point. Even if you voted against him you are entitled to expect better than this rabble. Even if, in all fairness, you admit that the winner has won the right to rule according to the parties ideological strategies, you are still entitled to expect a modicum of good government.

We have not had anything like it. On the contrary, commentators suggest Abbott has led the worst government ever.

People need to understand that to re elect him would only serve to reinforce his extremism. The consequences of which this writer does not want to even comprehend.

 

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 via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

The con in constitutional reform

The farce that is the ‘Recognise’ campaign and why there is a push for Australia to become a Republic, by Vanessa Kairies.

Once I started reading about the ‘Recognise’ campaign, I realised that there is a huge con in constitutional reform. It wasn’t hard to find. ‘Recognise’ reads as a promotional tool for the mining companies. There is war of terror happening in this country – terror against the land and against the people. And it was instigated by the Abbott government; the biggest environmental terrorists of them all.

(For those of you that didn’t have a chance to read my first article The biggest scam against Aboriginal Australia you may wish to read before proceeding, and for further information the Guardian’s article on Indigenous Australia’s response to ‘Recognition’).

Let’s take a look at some of the sponsors of the ‘Recognise’ campaign and their current activities in Australia.

They are Rio Tinto, BHP, Transfield, Chevron, Woodside, Lendlease and KPMG to name a few.

Some of these also donate to the Liberal and Labor parties.

Is there a conflict of interest?

My word there is. Here is why.

Australia is the world’s largest supply of uranium, and we sit at number three for the world’s top uranium producer, supplying about 30% of the world’s demands. Nuclear power, by the way, emits three times more greenhouse gases than wind power.

11751875_798583296922688_4068890776300096604_nIn March this year, the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission began in South Australia.

It was established as an independent inquiry into South Australia’s future role in the nuclear fuel cycle.

The commissioner is Kevin Scarce, friends with Julie Bishop and former Governor of South Australia. He has no recognisable formal background or training. He does however own shares in uranium miner Rio Tinto, one of the sponsors of ‘Recognise.’ It is hardly an unbiased report.

Renewable energy advocate Matthew Wright accused the Commission as using bias in order to promote the interests of uranium exploration and mining.

Kevin Scarce in the past has said “There would be no opportunity – in my view – without bipartisan support both at state and federal level to make the investment that would be necessary.”

Bi-partisan support just like the ‘Recognise’ campaign. The ‘Recognise’ campaign has cost the donors millions of dollars, I’d say they are vested now.

The Nuclear Industry in Australia would require both State and Federal legislative change to succeed.

George Brandis is working on that now. The government is currently trying to change it. The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 prohibits certain nuclear actions unless federal approval is obtained.

There have also been proposals to build an international high level nuclear waste dump in Australia, most likely on Aboriginal land. They looked into it in the Northern Territory. Woomera in SA has been suggested by Kevin Scarce. The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (prohibition) Act 2000 needs to be taken into account: an act to protect the health, safety and welfare of people in SA. I wonder if they will try to change it?

The current SA Labor premier, Jay Weatherill has gone against the Labor platform, which is anti-nuclear and has embraced the nuclear lobbyists. By doing this, he has made the pursuit of nuclear energy bi-partisan. There’s that word again.

In response, ‘Ngoppon together Inc’ (Walking Together Reconciliation Group) wrote a submission for the Royal Commission. I have copied my findings from it.

BHP: A ‘Recognise’ sponsor

BHP owns the SA Roxby Downs/Olympic dam uranium mine and have recently put in a proposal to expand. This included:

  • the rezoning of land to allow Roxby Downs township to expand
  • the establishment of a new temporary workers’ village for up to 10,000 people
  • the establishment of a new airport.

The planned expansion is currently delayed.

BHP Billiton is intending to use an incredible 250 million litres of water a day.

This was to be provided from the desert state’s water and leave a 44 sq kilometre mountain range of 76 million tonnes of radio-active waste uncovered, to be blown about by the fierce spring winds of the SA desert. This would also have used one quarter of South Australia’s electricity. The article goes on to talk about the health problems local communities could face if this proposal is approved. The full submission is in the link below.

Then I read an article from 2014. What a revelation it was. Again word for word from the article below.

The Energy Policy Institute of Australia (EPI) suggested in its formal submission to the Energy White Paper, that small modular reactors (SMRs) are particularly suitable for use in mines and towns in remote locations around Australia. What is the Energy White Paper? It is an overview of the Australian Governments vision for the energy sector. Well, you have to read it to believe it. What a joke. The link is below. http://ewp.industry.gov.au/ The BHP-funded Grattan Institute’s submission envisages a string of these little nuclear reactors, connected to the grid. Keith Orchison reports on the Grattan Institute submission: ‘The Abbott government is being told that now is the time to flick the switch to “technology neutral,” opening the way for nuclear options.’ It also goes on to talk about nuclear storage dumps. Funded by BHP, a ‘Recognise’ sponsor.

This article shows that the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission reports are misleading.

RIO TINTO: A ‘Recognise’ sponsor

The Ranger uranium mine has generated over 30 million tonnes of liquid tailings waste. Rio Tinto subsidiary Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) runs Ranger. Ranger is in the NT and is surrounded by Kakadu National Park. In 2005, ERA was found guilty and fined for a contamination incident in March 2004 where 150 people were exposed to drinking water containing uranium levels 400 times greater than the maximum Australian safety standard. Twenty-eight mine workers suffered adverse health effects including vomiting and skin irritation as a result

CHEVRON: A ‘Recognise’ sponsor

Chevron is the largest holder of untapped natural gas resources in Australia. For 30 years Chevron has been a joint venture participant producing natural gas for domestic use with partners in the nation’s biggest operational LNG project to date, the North West Shelf Venture (NWSV). For 25 years, the NWSV has been exporting LNG to international customers in the Asia-Pacific region. They are now developing the Gorgon Project, an LNG and domestic gas joint venture based in the Greater Gorgon gas fields off Western Australia’s Pilbara Coast, which contain more than 40 trillion cubic feet of gas, or 25 per cent of Australia’s total known gas resources. They also are developing their majority-owned and operated Wheatstone Project as an LNG and domestic gas operation near Onslow on the mainland of Western Australia. They also run a program to explore offshore opportunities and operate Australia’s largest onshore oil operation at Barrow Island in Australia’s north-west region.

SODEXO: A ‘Recognise’ sponsor

Sodexo is a company that offers camp construction, transport, logistics and waste management for remote mining sites. Sodexo offers the following products and services to the mining sector: Camp construction, camp operation and maintenance, mechanical and electrical maintenance, utilities management procurement,logistics,transportation services, waste management (removal and disposal) and welfare.

TRANSFIELD: A ‘Recognise’ sponsor

Easternwell a subsidiary of Transfield Services has been awarded a new Drilling Services Agreement with Roy Hill Iron Ore. Transfield Services, holds a $2bn contract for operational,maintenance and welfare services on Manus Island and Nauru. They have appeared before the Senate inquiry for public hearings. Three senior officers, were unable to answer a series of questions about the serious allegations raised at the centre, instead opting to take most questions on notice.

LENDLEASE: A ‘Recognise’ sponsor

Lend Lease’s Services business is a specialist maintenance and asset management contractor, providing services to the roads, water, power, telecommunications and industrial and resources sectors. With around 3,500 employees, the Services business has operations in every Australian state. Additionally, i.Power Solutions range of energy, control and power distribution products are installed at mining, utility and industrial sites throughout Australia.

KPMG: A ‘Recognise’ sponsor

KPMG member firms provide professional services to 80 percent of 50 Oil & Gas companies in the Forbes 1000. 78 percent of Oil & Gas companies in the FT Global 500. 74 percent of the largest Oil & Gas companies in the Fortune Global 500. Source: KPMG number of offices and country listing and headcount, Global Finance Team, 2013.

WOODSIDE: A ‘Recognise’ sponsor

Woodside hold a significant number of exploration permits offshore in Western Australia in the Browse and Offshore Canning Basins, the Exmouth Plateau and the Beagle, Dampier and Exmouth Sub-Basins. They are maintaining a program of exploration drilling in offshore Western Australia to build their gas volumes and maximise the value of their Australian assets, with recent discoveries in the Pyxis-1 well in the Dampier Sub-Basin and the Toro-1 well in the Exmouth Sub-Basin. They continue preliminary interpretation of the Fortuna 3D marine seismic survey (4,050 km2) which was completed in May 2014, providing the foundation for future North West Shelf exploration and appraisal programs.

In 2012 Australia created the world’s largest network of marine sanctuaries, protecting our marine life and way of life.

The Abbott Government has suspended our national network of sanctuaries, despite ten years of science and overwhelming community support (including from the majority of fishers).

National icons like the Kimberley, Geographe Bay, Perth Canyon, the Coral Sea, Lord Howe Island and the Great Australian Bight are all at risk.

URANIUM MINING

Here are four proposals for uranium mines, currently underway in WA. Wiluna – Lake Way/Centipede (conditional approval) + Lake Maitland/Millipede (scoping phase) Kintyre (under assessment) Mulga Rock (scoping phase) Yeelirrie (pre- scoping)

KINTYRE URANIUM MINE, WA: The Martu people oppose the building of the Kintyre uranium mine in Western Australia. The WA State Governments proposed uranium mine and its inevitable environmental damage, is causing extreme social disharmony in remote communities. Martu country extends over 15 million hectares of the Western Desert encompassing the Gibson, Great Sandy and the Little Sandy Deserts. The traditional owners have lived here for up to 60,000 years. In 1985, Rio Tinto discovered uranium 60km south of Telfer. Since 2008, the site, known as the Kintyre uranium deposit, has been owned by Cameco and Mitsubishi Development. In March, WA Minister for the Environment, Albert Jacob conditionally approved mining activities on the site. This plan to mine uranium comes on the heels of WA Premier Colin Barnett and Prime Minister Tony Abbott saying they will close 150 Aboriginal communities.

WILUNA URANIUM MINE, WA: Toro Energy Limited (Toro) proposes to extend the Wiluna Uranium Project located near Wiluna, Western Australia. Following an assessment by the EPA (EPA Assessment 1819) and EPA Report 1437, the Western Australian Minister for Environment gave Toro approval in October 2012 to construct and operate a uranium mine consisting of two deposits, Centipede and Lake Way, respectively located approximately 30 kilometres south and 15 kilometres southeast of Wiluna (Ministerial Statement No: 913). The Federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities also approved that proposal (EPBC 2009/5174) in April 2013. Since initiating assessment of that proposal, Toro has acquired two additional deposits, Millipede, also approximately 30 kilometres south of Wiluna, and Lake Maitland, 105 kilometres southeast of Wiluna, and proposes to integrate those deposits into an extended Wiluna Uranium Project. Ore from Millipede and Lake Maitland would be processed at the same plant as ore from Centipede and Lake Way. The capacity of the processing plant already approved in EPA Assessment 1819 and EPBC 2009/5174 would not increase under this proposal to extend the Wiluna Uranium Project. The plant’s operating life would double to beyond 20 years, the period during which sequential mining would be undertaken at the Centipede, Millipede, Lake Maitland and Lake Way deposits. During that period, the operation would produce up to 1200 tonnes per annum of uranium oxide concentrate. Construction and pre-mining are scheduled to begin at Centipede in late 2016 and at Millipede at the same time, subject to government approval and market conditions.

MULGA ROCKS URANIUM MINE, WA: Proposal: The mine would have a 15 year life cycle with nine open pits (mine voids,) 14 waste rock piles, in pit storage of radioactive mine waste – unclear if this will be one pit or 9 pits. Land Clearing would be 2,000 ha. The mine would use 9.5 million Litres of water per day and produce 1390 tonnes of uranium a year (total approx. 20,000 tonnes).

YEELIRRIE URANIUM MINE, WA: The Yeelirrie uranium proposal was referred to the WA Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in November 2014 by Canadian uranium miner Cameco. Cameco want to double the rate of production that was proposed by BHP Billiton, this means increasing water demand, increased number of trucks from Yeelirrie to Port Adelaide. The open pit would be 9km long and 1.5 km wide and 10 m deep and have 14 million tonnes of overburden. 7,500 tonnes per year of Uranium Oxide would be produced. 11.1 Million Litres of water a day would be used. 4 road trains a week as traffic. The mine would create 126,000 tonnes per year of Co2 emission. Tailings will be stored in the open pit – tailing on average contain 80% of the radioactivity of the ore Clearing of 2089 Ha of land. 17 -19 years life cycle. (2 years construction – 15 – 17 years mining and production) Highly variable work force – for the majority of the life of the mine the workforce will be between 225 and 300. A 9km stretch of open pit mining of a radioactive mineral in a highly mobile calcrete form in a region with high winds and the frequent occurrence of dust storms means significant public health risks and a high level of public interest.

OIL AND GAS MINING IN WA: There are some of the other mining interests in remote North Western Australia, this time for oil and gas. The land grab is on.

These interests sit on the Canning Basin. Covering some 530,000 square kilometres, the Canning Basin is the largest sedimentary basin in Western Australia extending almost to Port Hedland in the west and Fitzroy Crossing in the east. To the north is Derby and the Dampier Peninsular, and the Basin extends about a thousand kilometres south west of Broome. About a hundred thousand square kilometres of the Canning Basin is under the sea to the west of Broome.

Rey has a 25% interest in two highly prospective Canning Basin petroleum permits known as the ‘Fitzroy Blocks’ (EP457 and EP458). These interests are held in joint venture with Buru Energy Limited (Buru) and Diamond Resources (Fitzroy) Ltd a subsidiary of the global company Mitsubishi.

Members on the Board of Directors of Buru Energy previously worked for Woodside Energy Ltd and APEAA along with many other companies. Their contacts in the industry are immense. The Hon. Mr Peter Jones AM, also on the board of directors was a member of the Western Australian Parliament from 1974 to 1986 during which time he served as the Minister for Resources Development, Mines, Fuel and Energy. He has served as a Member of the West Australian Legislative Assembly and was a Minister of the Crown. He has connections to politicians.

FRACKING: In WA, the fracking industry is currently active and unregulated. Shale gas fracking in Western Australia could pollute the groundwater with toxic chemicals and threaten the health of the community. There could soon be thousands of fracking wells across iconic areas of WA, like the Kimberley, Ningaloo and farmland and wildflower country in the Mid West. Fracking will change these landscapes forever. Under state legislation, landowners can’t say ‘no’ if a gas fracking company wants to drill on their land. Farms, native title land, and national parks are all up for grabs.

COLLIE MINE PROPOSAL, WA: The proposed massive expansion of the Collie coal mine would take it from 4 Million Tonnes of coal per year (mostly used for domestic electricity), to up to as high as 20 Million Tonnes per year. This new production will be sold internationally and will be the first time that WA will be the home to a major coal export industry. Western Australia wants to be part of the solution to climate change, not to add fuel to the fire.

KIMBERLEY, FITZROY RIVER VALLEY, WA: Extensive coal tenements are being explored by Australia’s Rey Resources in the West Kimberley. These proposed coal mines are on the traditional lands of the Nyikina-Mangala people adjacent to the Fitzroy River. The river is sacred and culturally significant to a number of traditional owners groups.

Rey Resources plans to establish large-scale coal mining operations in the area and in May 2009 announced their intention to commence pre-feasibility studies for development of the estimated 500 million tonne (Mt) Duchess-Paradise coal reserves in the Canning basin.

Rey Resources propose to export 2 Mt (metric tonne) per annum of thermal coal to India through the existing port in Derby. However a proposed coal terminal at Point Torment would enable exports to rise to 6 Mtpa (metric tonne per annum) in the medium term and 10Mtpa in the longer term. Rey Resources propose to mine the coal using both open cut surface mining and high wall mining. If allowed to proceed this mine would displace hundreds of millions of tonnes of soil and waste rock. Even if the company backfills the open cut pits with waste rock, the potential for landscape collapse and alteration to groundwater flow patterns will still exist.

Water extraction from the Fitzroy river is likely to skyrocket because coal mines require the use of very large amounts of water. Add to this the increase in dust, pollution, noise, and traffic along the Great Western highway, and the impact will be felt across the Kimberley region.

We also have the new fleets of submarines which are still out to tenure. I wonder if the proposed submarines are nuclear propelled? The design is yet to be selected and we will find that out at the end of the year.

These are the acts (refer to the Constitutional framework for the regulation of the Australian Uranium Industry) that have been passed over the years. Changes to the Constitution could affect these, depending on the government’s agenda.

Tony Abbott supports nuclear power for Australia. In 2013, the Liberal party led by Tony Abbott gained power and re-opened discussions about the future of nuclear power in Australia. Several current members of the Abbott government have openly advocated for the consideration or nuclear power development, including foreign minister Julie Bishop.

There are a few questions that the politicians need to answer.

The first questions are to Bill Shorten. Bill, is the Labor Party intending to pursue nuclear energy in the future? Is the Labor Party planning to approve fracking? It appears the answer to the pursuit of nuclear energy is yes. That would give nuclear energy bi-partisan support.

The next question is to both the Liberal and Labor parties. Why did you lock out the Greens from the initial referendum into constitutional change? I’d say that the truth of the ‘Recognise’ campaign wouldn’t have sat well with them.

The final questions are for the Senator Richard Di Natale and all of the Greens senators. Will the Greens representatives still support the ‘Recognise’ campaign when it is intended as a land grab for new mining ventures? It goes against all of your policies. Will the Greens call a Royal commission into the ‘Recognise’ Campaign? It is long overdue.

11836721_902525666503059_8432122393627626196_nThere are serious Human Rights being abused around the country. The government has planned its way around that. After Abbott and Brandis’s attack on Gillian Triggs, the government appointed one of their own. Tim Wilson is now the Human Rights Commissioner. He spoke at a Liberal Party cocktail function with cheques payable to the Liberal Party. This seems to have gone unnoticed. He was promised Gillian’s job before she had left.

It is another way of silencing people. It was all part of the grand plan. Heaven forbid, if she was allowed to stick around and report on the happenings of today.

This is what Gillian Triggs thought of intervention in the NT.

George Brandis, the man responsible for the attack on Gillian, has appointed a new part-time commissioner of the The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC). Emeritus Professor Anura Surindra (Suri) Ratnapala is now part-time Commissioner until the conclusion of the review of Commonwealth Laws for Consistency with Traditional Rights, Freedoms and Privileges. Another person who has no understanding of culture. The interim report is out, it is in the link below, as well as the native title reform.

Another recent event is the attempt to change the Environmental Protection and Bio diversity Conservation Act. George Brandis quotes: “The Government has decided to protect Australian jobs by removing from the Environment Protection and Bio diversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) the provision that allows radical green activists to engage in vigilante litigation to stop important economic projects,” Protecting Australian jobs, nice try George. Important economic projects, at the expense of the environment. Haven’t you heard George? No-one’s buying our coal anymore. This has come on the back of the Carmichael mine being rejected. Abbott is claiming green groups were using the law to “sabotage” the coal industry. So they should, perhaps the government is concerned about the climate litigation that has commenced. It worked in the Netherlands. It will work here too. It’s another attempt to shut down the voice of Australia.

It is all one big stitch up. The Liberal party has moved beyond being far-right to being Fascists. Here is the definition for the nay-sayers. Fascism:an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Intolerant alright, to the Australian people and to the asylum seekers.

As far as the political parties go, The Greens are the best aligned to protecting the culture and the people from persecution. They need education and fast. People need to see them come out publicly and make a stand against the ‘Recognise’ campaign. We have and are going, to continually watch communities close and the land desecrated bit by bit. It is not going to happen all at once, that would be too obvious. Situations can be fought one by one, or people can unite to put the party in power, that may be able to overhaul the whole political system. It is desperately needed. You don’t hear much about the Greens in the media, thanks to funding restrictions and to Murdoch. They don’t receive the dodgy donations to run their campaigns like the others do. Give them the funding and see what happens. A vote for the greens is not a wasted vote, I’ve heard it all from the supporters of the Labs and the Libs. Besides, I can’t support a party that backs the Liberal’s policies on the asylum seekers. Are you listening Labor? Read the Green’s policies, you will be surprised and inspired by the possibilities of what Australia could become. Mention this in the public arena and you’ll get hammered. Humanity is afraid of change. It is a normal psychological behaviour. I am more afraid of what is going to happen if there is no change. What sort of country do you want to live in? Political apathy is killing our country. The Greens have never been in power, it’s time we gave them a go. Nothing could be worse than the way it is now.

I believe the forced closures of 150 communities is now a matter for the International community. There is no-one left In Australia that can or is prepared to help. The UN and the ICC need to be called in. The violation of human rights reported. The Queen needs to be notified and the advice from the crown all those years ago honoured.

11781661_10154371409493868_7073652732530336102_nThe politicians don’t seem to care that homes and culture will be destroyed and people will be forced to live somewhere else. They have no understanding of how the culture works. I wonder how the politicians would react, if their churches were taken over, if they were forced from their family homes, if they were arrested when they tried to protest. I am sure they wouldn’t behave in the same peaceful and dignified manner that the First Nations folk do. It is a consistent series of taking with nothing being given back in return. The trust has been broken time and time again. The promises are never kept or they are broken with no serious commitment to anything that will be beneficial. It has gone past the point of discussion. It was never an issue to be politicised. The lores and culture were ignored. Everyone knew them, they were respected. If they were broken, there was punishment. The tribes survived this way for thousands of years. The first settlers bought the politics with them.

I look at the case of Adani, at their proposal for the Carmichael mine. Mention the Great Barrier Reef and people were outraged. How many were aware, that the proposed mine, was going to destroy the ancestral home of the Wangan and Jagalingou people?

The population in the 150 communities to be closed are small, Australia needs to rally behind them and help. Here are a couple of petitions you can sign. Spread the word folks, get that bush telegraph working.

Australia’s attitude needs to change too. This article on The AIMN sums it up perfectly.

I am not a journalist. I worked in the production of television news and currents affairs for twenty years. I have seen things that the public don’t get to see as a result. I’ve followed politics for most of my life. I am an artist seeking answers to questions that the government refuses to answer. I started a series of cartoons to release my anger at the state that Australia is in. They became the hub for my research and media reports. Most portfolios are covered. Inside each one, in the previous comments, is where I store the information I have discovered. I have read it all. I know who I will be voting for from doing this. That was the intention. I am now trying my hand at writing and have been fortunate enough to have the support of The AIMN and others. I know how the media operates in this country. I have had first hand experience in being told what you can and can not put to air and why. It is for this reason I contacted the independent media sites. Ones that Rupert Murdoch has no interest in.

Australia has become stuck in its ways, we are moving backwards, not forwards. Before you criticise, open up these links, read it all, know what I know and you too, will feel heartbroken for our country.

Here are the cartoon folders with all of the information inside them.

 

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

Donate Button

Question Time fact check

In case anyone is unsure about the Coalition’s message, they are about “jobs, growth, and community safety…jobs, growth and community safety.”

Pull out the string and that is what you will hear from every one of them.

Oh, and “the Cabinet is doing exceptionally well” even if we do say so ourselves. Ok, even if we were just told to say that by Peta.

But every time they try to elaborate, we are subjected to a load of “trust me” that bears very little resemblance to truth.

Take Question Time today.

Every opportunity he got Joe Hockey repeated the figures that the Coalition created 38,000 jobs last month and 334,000 jobs since coming to office. He then went on to compare average monthly job creation with the previous government saying he was creating eleventy times more than they were.

A quick look at the Labour Force Survey for July 2015 shows that Joe is using the SEASONALLY ADJUSTED ESTIMATES (MONTHLY CHANGE) which states that “Employment increased 38,500 to 11,810,700.”

So Joe was correct about job creation for July but the same source shows he is wildly wrong about his other figures.

Between November 2007 and September 2013, employment increased from 10,583,200 to 11,645,800 – an increase of 1,062,600 in 70 months at an average of 15,180 per month. Remember this covered the period of the global financial crisis.

Between September 2013 and July 2015, employment increased from 11,645,800 to 11,810,700 – an increase of 164,900 in 22 months at an average of ….hang on….7,495 per month.

Under this government, full time jobs have increased from 8,133,700 to 8,170,400 – an increase of 36,700. Part time jobs have increased from 3,512,100 to 3,640,300 – an increase of 128,200, showing part time employment increasing at three and a half times the rate of full time jobs

Surprisingly, even with all these extra people employed, aggregate monthly hours worked decreased from 1,641.5 million hours in September 2013 to 1,633.2 million hours in July 2015.

A spokesman from Hockey’s office told me they use the ABS figures and the ANZ job ad survey. Using the job ad survey is obviously spurious as it does not differentiate between new positions and vacancies in existing positions, presumably because someone has taken another advertised job. Joe appears to be claiming his policies are responsible for every advertised job and is claiming credit for creating them, new or not, despite the different story shown by the ABS labour force figures he chooses to quote at other times.

And then we had Tony berating environmental groups for standing in the way of the “10,000 jobs that will be created directly by the Carmichael coal mine”, even though evidence from an economist commissioned by Adani itself – Jerome Fahrer of ACIL Allen – given in the land court earlier this year said: “Over the life of the project it is projected that on average around 1,464 employee years of full-time equivalent direct and indirect jobs will be created.”

Adani claims they are the jobs for the mine and about 70km of the 388km railway. An Adani spokesman said the higher figure included contributions from the mine, the Abbot Point coal terminal near Bowen, and the 310 kilometre rail line connecting the two.

Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche previously said the rail line alone could provide 2400 new jobs. Considering the source we can count on that figure also being highly exaggerated.

Even if Adani’s interpretation was correct, it meant the port and railway line would have to create “8500 or so plus jobs” for the 10,000 jobs figure to stack up. And as they cannot find a financial backer, the whole argument is moot.

A 2013 report by Deloitte’s found that the total Australia-wide value-added economic contribution generated in the Reef catchment in 2012 was $5.7 billion with employment (as measured in full-time equivalent workers) of just below 69,000. Why would you risk this unique asset?

Lenore Taylor points out the absurdity and inconsistency of the Abbott government’s approach when it comes to wind farms and jobs in renewable energy.

“When an environment group successfully uses 16 year-old national environmental laws to delay a project, the Abbott government tries to change the law to prevent them from ever doing it again.

But if an anti-windfarm group can’t find a way to use existing laws and regulations to stop or delay a project, the Abbott government tries to change laws and processes to make it easier for them to succeed.

The first is called green “vigilantism” and “sabotage” and the second is, according to environment minister Greg Hunt, a reasonable response because “many people have a sense of deep anxiety, and they have a right to complain.”

The government calls regulations that stop fossil fuel or mining projects “green tape”, but a wind commissioner and yet another scientific committee to look at unsubstantiated health complaints regarding wind turbines is apparently no kind of “tape” at all.

Question time also contained an attack on Labor for being xenophobes for questioning labour arrangements in the Chinese Free Trade Agreement. We’re all for jobs but 457 visas are an integral part of creating those jobs….apparently.

All in all I would say the first part of our new three pronged aspiration, jobs, is not doing quite as well as Hockey and Abbott would have us believe.

 

A ‘People’s vote’ on marriage equality: Abbott’s latest Truthiness phrase?

Following last week’s cabinet discussion on marriage equality, Tony Abbott announced that:

“going into the next election, you’ll have the Labor Party which wants [marriage equality] to go to a Parliamentary vote and you’ve got the Coalition that wants it to go to a people’s vote”
(12 August 2015)

According to our Prime Minister, he is champion of the people’s will when it comes to marriage equality – offering a ‘people’s vote’ over a ‘politician’s vote’ dictated by what he calls ‘stalinist rules.’ Certainly sounds like a no-brainer. Who would pick Stalin over the good people of Aus? We do live in a democracy after all – not Stalinist Russia – we should get a say.

But is Abbott’s claim to be the people’s champion true – or is ‘people’s vote’ just the latest entry in the Truthiness dictionary. (In case you missed my earlier article on Abbott-speak, ‘Truthiness’ is something which feels true, but isn’t necessarily backed up by facts. Or truth.)

Is Abbott really trying to facilitate the possibility of an outcome that might go against his stated position against marriage equality? Or is he taking a leaf out of his favourite ex-Prime Minister, one Mr John Howard’s playbook. Let’s roll back the clocks and have a look.

Roll back the clocks to late January 1996 …

Toy_StoryAussies have just passed a summer rapping to Gangsta’s Paradise and singing along with Seal. Toy Story is one of the most popular movies. And more importantly – for our story at least – an election has just been called for March and one of the key election issues is whether or not Australia should become a republic.

The push for this change had been mounting for a while. As early as 1977, polling showed that 58% of Aussies accepted that we don’t need a Queen. By the early 90s, the republican movement had critical momentum. In 1993, Prime Minister Paul Keating created a ‘Republic Advisory Committee’ to look into what changes would be needed to the constitution for Australia to become a republic. The chosen chairperson for this committee was then banker and lawyer, one Mr Malcolm Turnbull – but that’s another story….

This brings us to January 1996, and by this point it was fairly clear that the cry to consider that Australia become a republic – much like the current cry for marriage equality – was not going away. With an election pending, the leader of the Liberal party at that time – staunch monarchist John Howard – was left with no choice but to put considering that Australia become a republic on the table for discussion. Not wanting to adopt becoming a republic as Liberal party policy, Howard instead promised that if elected, he would make Australia becoming a republic a people’s issue – it would go to a people’s convention, and then to a people’s vote via a referendum. (Sounding familiar?)

Roll forward to 1999 – and Australia becoming a republic is looking good

Following his election in March 1996, John Howard kept his pre-election promise, and set up a ‘people’s convention’ to consider whether Australia should look at becoming a republic, and if so, what that would look like. He said he didn’t want to rush this because after all, ‘things won’t really change too much’ and there are ‘more important things to focus on than a republic’.

So it’s not until early 1998 that the people’s convention meets and comes up with a number of different models for an Australian republic – which mainly focused around who would replace the current Governor General (the Queen’s representative in Australia).

Support for Australia to become a republic had not waned during the 90s. The following graph shows opinion poll results on the question of Australia becoming a republic from 1993 to shortly before the referendum in late 1999. The green line represents the percentage of people who were for Australia becoming a republic, and the red line is people who were against it.

PollsPriorToReferendum99

Clearly the number of people who were pro-republic was materially higher than those against it. So how exactly did John Howard get the ‘people’s vote’ to go his way?

Tricky Howard divides and conquers

For Australia to become a republic, a referendum is needed to change the constitution. Howard clearly knew that a majority of Australians were pro-republic – so a simple vote as to whether or not Australia should become a republic was very very VERY unlikely to have gone the way he wanted it to. But like Abbott today, Howard never let a little thing like public opinion get in the way of him achieving his goals.

The key to reducing the ‘Yes’ vote was to divide and conquer. Simply put – those who were pro-republic didn’t all agree on which republican model Australia should adopt. The most popular model that came out of the people’s convention in 1998 was one where the public voted in a President to take the place of the Governor General. In fact, over 70% of Australians said that they were in favour of this model. A less popular model was one where the parliament voted for who was President (instead of regular Aussies).

And this was how Tricky Howard pulled a rabbit out of his monarchist’s hat – or should I say crown? He divided the pro-republic vote, by:

  • Combining the issue of whether or not Australia was to become a republic with the issue of what model should be used – asking only one question, and not two.
  • ONLY offering one republican model to the Australian people – and not the one that most people were in favour of. Instead he put forward the less popular model where politicians got to choose who the President was.

The actual referendum question put to Aussies was whether or not they approved of:

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Howard could have split this into two questions, asking first if people approved of Australia becoming a republic. And secondly, asking people which of two republic models they preferred (in the event that sufficient people voted yes in the previous question). But he didn’t do this.

By tying the question as to whether Australia became a republic to the less popular republican model, Howard all but guaranteed that the ‘Yes’ vote in favour of a republic would fail by dividing the pro-republic camp. And it worked. Instead of uniting against the ‘no-voters’, a portion of the ‘yes’ side switched camps, many under the mistaken belief that support for an Australian republic was so strong, that if the model they disapproved of was voted down, they would get another go at a vote for the model that they favoured.

And so the ‘no-vote’ – against Australia becoming a republic – triumphed. Howard’s divide and conquer strategy wasn’t the only reason of course – there were a number of others, including that the ‘no’ campaign utilised the popular campaign strategy of fear mongering – arguing that the republic would give even more power to politicians than they already had. In the words of the High Court Justice Michael Kirby:

“it was a belief that constitutional monarchy is a safer and more temperate form of government because it denies to political ambition the top office which such ambition commonly most prizes.” (Hon. Justice Michael Kirby, March 2000)

The vote for Australia to become a republic was defeated – 55 to 45.

And so tricky Howard, the staunch monarchist, was able to say that ‘good sense’ won out – that Australians had abandoned their desire for a republic, successfully hosing down the republic movement, which has been unable to gain any significant ground since then. Certainly it is not an issue that is commonly on the public agenda today.

Back to 2015, and Tricky Tony is facing his own battle on Marriage Equality

“From time immemorial in every culture that’s been known – marriage, or that kind of solemnised relationship, has been between a man and a woman.” (Tony Abbott, 23 October 2013)

This is not true of course – it’s another of Mr Abbott’s Truthiness phrases – but it does reflect Tony Abbott’s view on marriage equality. And just like Howard, he is faced with the fact that a clear majority of Australians don’t agree with him. In fact, according to regular polls which indicate that around 70% of Australians support marriage equality, an even greater proportion of Australians support marriage equality than did a republic.

So what is Tricky Tony to do? Well the two most honest options would be to:

  • Remember that he is the servant of the Australian people, our representative and not our ruler – and allow a ‘conscience vote’ permitting representatives in the LNP to vote in a way that represents their particular electorates. But if he did that, he’d risk not getting his way.
  • Come out strongly against marriage equality and seek confirmation from his LNP colleagues that this is their ongoing policy. Certainly based on last week’s party-room vote it seems that a majority of LNP representatives and senators do not support marriage equality – so he’d be likely to get backup in the party room for this. But if they did this, Abbot would risk Labor making this an election issue which might win them valuable votes – and let’s face it, he’s already looking pretty shaky.

Since neither of these options would lead to Abbott’s desired outcome on this issue, what he did instead was to ‘stack’ the party-room with National party imports, just to be doubly-sure that he had the numbers to stop marriage equality going to a conscience vote. But that wasn’t enough.

Abbott knows that he needs to neutralise marriage equality from becoming a problem for him at the next election – just as Howard did with the republican issue back in 1996. So Abbott, like Howard before him, has committed to putting this important issue to a people’s vote. And just like Howard, he has committed to do this in his next term of office – not straight away of course, but within three years of being elected. Just as Howard did.

According to Abbott, a vote for him is a vote for a people’s choice on marriage equality! Finally a story that is salable to the electorate and can potentially neutralise any advantage Labor has from its pro marriage equality policy.

But do we even need a people’s vote to introduce marriage equality?

No we don’t.

Unlike if Australia were to become a republic – which does require a referendum in order to change the constitution – a change to marriage laws doesn’t require a change to our constitution, and therefore doesn’t need to be put to a referendum (or plebiscite – which is essentially just a large opinion poll).

And people’s votes aren’t cheap – at least the way we do them currently. And while I’m all for people getting more involved in our democracy, at a cost in excess of $100 million, this is a HUGE expense, and will probably mean funding needs to be cut elsewhere.

Abbott could ask people what we think about marriage equality at the next election

We’re already going to the polls to vote at the next election. If Abbott is so committed to a people’s vote, he could put the question to us then. This would be a much cheaper and quicker way to give the people a vote on this issue than by undertaking a completely separate vote. But of course, according to Abbott, that would be distracting for us poor little voters. Apparently we’re unable to make more than one decision at a time.

Beware the politician bearing gifts – in this case a people’s vote

On the face of it, a people’s vote on marriage equality sounds like a good thing to do. But if Abbott is following Howard’s Playbook, then he will be looking for a way to divide and conquer on this question, just as Howard did with the republic. And if he succeeds at this – as Howard did with stopping the republic movement – at the end of the day, we’d be over a $100 million worse off, still not have marriage equality in place, and potentially set back the marriage equality movement for decades.

And so ‘People’s vote’ enters the Truthiness to English Dictionary

I’m calling it. The evidence is fairly conclusive – ‘People’s vote’ is a Truthiness phrase. When Abbott uses it, he makes it sound like he is supporting popular opinion on marriage equality, when all indications are that he is doing everything he can to make sure he gets his way on this issue.

I’ve provided the appropriate English translation below and it will shortly be entered into the official Truthiness to English dictionary as follows:

Truthiness: People’s Vote (as in ‘We’re going to put Marriage Equality to a People’s vote’)
English: Holding pattern – as in ‘I’m going to put Marriage Equality into a holding pattern until I can figure out how to make sure it doesn’t get through’

This article was first published on Progressive Conversation.

 

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

Donate Button

 

Tony’s circus maximus

 

If Tony Abbott is serious about listening to community expectations, if Dyson Heydon is serious about perceived bias, then it seems inevitable that Heydon must stand down.

As the Letters Patent are issued to him personally, the Royal Commission would be finished. Even if they could find a replacement, it would have to start again.

As it has already cost $61 million that would seem a huge waste of money.

Those who want the RC to continue point to the disclosures of criminality in the union movement which have led to some arrests.

I have heard claims that without the RC these wrongdoings would not have been exposed. That’s a bit rich considering it was reports in the media that got the ball rolling just as it was for the RC into child sexual abuse.

An investigation by Fairfax Media found several influential CFMEU ­officials, organisers and shop stewards in NSW and Victoria received bribes and other inducements from corrupt companies that needed their support to win multimillion-dollar contracts.

On the 28th and 29th of January 2014, the 7:30 Report aired two programmes about corruption, standover tactics, death threats and links to organised crime in the union movement.

If there was any doubt that Abbott saw this as an opportunity for a political witch hunt, one needs only to revisit his words at the time.

Mr Abbott seized on the CFMEU revelations to indicate he would broaden his original election promise to hold a judicial inquiry into the two decade-old Australian Workers’ Union slush fund that plagued Julia Gillard when she was prime minister, as well as the corruption in the Health Services Union, where former Labor MP Craig Thomson was an official.

“A royal commission is a form of judicial inquiry and we did promise a judicial inquiry into the AWU slush fund prior to the election,’’ Mr Abbott said. “I obviously have read the papers today. I have been following this issue, as you’d expect over the last few weeks and months. I notice there have been various calls including from people inside the union movement, inside the Labor movement more generally, for a fuller inquiry and the government will be making appropriate announcements in due course.”

Abbott seems happy to use the work of Fairfax and the ABC when it suits him, announcing the Royal Commission on 10 February 2014.

One wonders why the evidence wasn’t given to the police or the Fair Work Building Inspectorate rather than spending tens of millions on a televised witch hunt designed to discredit all unions and tarnish the Labor Party by association.

The unions themselves want corruption weeded out. To suggest that all unions engage in criminal activity is ludicrous. To extrapolate that all politicians who have been associated with, or supported by, unions are tainted is to deny workers a representative voice in parliament. Are we to allow big business to dictate policy unchallenged?

Even on The Drum they are asking “Has Labor avoided legitimate scrutiny over its ties with the union movement?”

The Gillard attack failed despite years of effort from an extraordinary number of people. Obviously, Abbott now wants to smear Bill Shorten.

Firstly, Shorten failed to declare that he was provided with an employee to assist him with his campaign to enter parliament. It could be equally suggested that Abbott is failing to declare the wages of many of his appointees who are actively working on his campaign.

It was also revealed that Shorten had negotiated for an employer to pay employees’ union fees. Whilst saving employees money, this no doubt boosted Shorten’s numbers, expanding his power base – a type of branch-stacking.

If we are going to object to that then there are many Liberal preselections that would also be under scrutiny, as would Abbott’s insistence on including the Nationals in a party room debate on a conscience vote on marriage equality.

It was suggested that Shorten should not have been dealing with the employer whilst there was an enterprise bargaining agreement under negotiation even though he was not directly involved. The union members were happy with the deal that was struck, the employers were happy, the workplace was harmonious.

These actions hardly seem to warrant the term “corruption” nor the millions of dollars being spent to pore over them.

It is no coincidence that the reintroduction of the ABCC is in the news again. Waiting in the wings to head the “tough cop on the beat” is/was John Lloyd, former director of the Work Reform and Productivity Unit at the Institute of Public Affairs and previous chair of the ABCC. While he is waiting for that gig, he has been appointed by Abbott as the Australian Public Service Commissioner.

In the past Mr Lloyd has preached about the need for greater casualisation of the Australian workforce, the “fact” Australian workers could not be guaranteed job security, and railed against the destructive nature of union militancy on productivity.

Be in no doubt about the nature of this Royal Commission. It is Abbott’s attack dog against his political opponents and the united voice of the workers they represent.

Let the police prosecute the criminals and stop wasting money on Tony’s circus maximus.

 

Emotional Intelligence and Leadership: The Case of Tony

The position of Prime Minister of Australia carries the burden of possessing and continuously honing the ability of great leadership to meet the demands of a diverse and complex range of societal and economic problems. Great leadership requires astute political skill. The factors of political skill are social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability, and apparent sincerity (Ahearn et al., 2004). In addition, political skill is directly related to the subordinate’s or public’s trust in the leader and the ability for the leader to motivate others to champion the leader’s causes (Treadway et al. 2004).

A great Prime Minister – a great leader must feel compelled to progress the country. Progress as a nation for the betterment of its citizens should always be at the forefront of a Prime Minister’s mind. For leaders to progress a country, they must lead through transformational leadership (Bass, 1990). Transformational leaders must have charisma (to gain respect & trust), inspiration (to inspire) and individualised consideration (so individual’s feel important to the leader) (Cossin & Caballero, 2013).

Intrinsic to transformational leadership and political skill is a high level of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2002).There are five factors of Emotional Intelligence:

  1. Self-awareness. The ability to recognize and understand personal moods and emotions and drives, as well as their effect on others
  2. Self-Regulation.The ability to control or redirect disruptive impulses and moods, and the propensity to suspend judgement and to think before acting
  3. Internal Motivation. A passion to work for internal reasons that go beyond money and status
  4. Empathy. The ability to understand the emotional make-up of other people. A skill in treating people according to their emotional reactions
  5. Social Skills. Proficiency in managing relationships and building networks, and an ability to find common ground and build rapport

As I know many of you have, I have observed quite a phenomena of regressiveness in our country. Our country appears to have stagnated. The question that needs to asked, to understand why is:

“If high emotional intelligence is intrinsic to transformational leadership and political skill, and these are antecedents for progress; then, is low emotional intelligence in a Prime Minister, a hindrance to progress?”

Emotional Intelligence is normally understood through a self-observation method/tool. However external observation methods have also been used (Pugh, 2008). For the purpose of this exercise, I am using a freely available Emotional Intelligence test (Institute of Health & Human Potential). Therefore, this is not as comprehensive as Emotional and Social Competence Inventory (ESCI) (Goleman, 2008) or other comprehensive EQ tests; but it will serve the required purpose.

goleman

Emotional Intelligence Analysis

As per the observation technique; I will show the question and my selection for the answer and qualify the answer below. I will then return the result for discussion. As this is a rather long blog post, feel free to skim past the explanations if you like. The responses are coded in red.

The Ratings Scale for all questions is:

Strongly Disagree / Disagree / Neither Agree nor Disagree / Agree / Strongly Agree

Question 1. I do not become defensive when criticized

Response: Disagree

Although Mr. Abbott has a practised technique to expertly avoid questions and scrutiny; he also uses covert defence mechanisms when criticised. He uses mechanisms such as denial. Mr. Abbott is reknowned for his broken promises and denial of wrongdoing. Another defence mechanism he uses is rationalisation. Mr. Abbott will often explain away the problem or issue, as if the wrong doing is justified. For example, when he used the term ‘Lifestyle Choice’ to defend the closure of Indigenous communities, he then further justified this term by stating he was just being realistic. Another use of rationalisation is blaming others. Blame Labor is a constant ‘go to’ for Tony Abbott to use as a defence for criticism. Therefore, I have chosen disagree instead of strongly disagree in this instance; as there are times that when challenged he does accept some responsibility (even if this is in the guise of a covert defence). Without a subjective perception, it is difficult to understand if he is using deep acting (genuine feelings) or surface acting here (non-genuine feelings) (Hochschild, 1979).

Question 2. I can stay calm under pressure

Response: Disagree

This question is actually quite tricky to answer as an observer; as I cannot directly experience any emotions Abbott may experience (thank God!). However, I have chosen this response due to the following reasons. Firstly, Tony Abbott definitely can remain calm under pressure to a general observer. As per the question above, he uses many techniques to deflect blame in a covert, yet defensive manner. Tony Abbott does have indeed some memorable responses when under pressure, such as when a journalist has backed him into a corner. An example is: “I know politicians are going to be judged on everything they say but sometimes in the heat of discussion you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark. The statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth are those carefully prepared scripted remarks.”

On the other hand, Abbott is also well known for being quite prone to gaffes, captain’s picks gone wrong and just plain ridiculous comments, not befitting of a leader (or the infamous stunned silence). This question points to social skills and the ability to regulate ones emotions and also the ability to make sound leadership decisions. Although, outwardly he may appear to be regulating his emotions; his proneness to ‘gaffes’ can be supported by stress and decision making theory. Leaders who make poor choices under pressure are more likely to have both low self-efficacy (self-confidence/belief) in their own leadership skills and low-level emotional intelligence (MacKinnon et. al. 2013). In addition; Abbott often makes ‘off the cuff’ decisions and is known for not consulting others, including his well known ‘Captain’s Picks’ which have now left a trail of failures. MacKinnon provides some insight into the fluctuation of calmness and confidence and on the flip-side irrational thought and poor decision making. This could be argued that this is due to state anxiety, rather than a constant trait. Where Abbott is feeling quite pressured within a narrow time constraint, this is where the gaffes and Captain’s Picks and embarrassing comments are exposed. Leaders with low self-efficacy and low emotional intelligence do not take the time to consider all the alternatives; they make decisions without considering all the information and they consider alternatives in a very disorganised manner. Therefore, I have concluded that this response returns a ‘disagree’ rather than a ‘strongly disagree.’

Question 3. I handle set-backs effectively

Response: Strongly Disagree

This question points to motivation and the ability to overcome setbacks and relentlessly pursue goals. I have chosen strongly disagree in this instance; as it has become evident over time that under the Abbott Government; our nation has become stagnated and regressive. It is questionable whether Abbott had any long term goals as a starting point; or only to achieve his short term goal of winning the Prime Ministership. Newspaper after newspaper, with even the most right leaning newspapers joining the fray; we now read stories about how his leadership is terminal, having achieved nothing substantial and already having one leadership challenge (although there was no evident challenger.) His inability to negotiate with the cross bench and opposition to pass legislation, speaks volumes that he lacks the ability to handle set backs effectively to and relentlessly pursue goals.

Question 4. I manage anxiety, stress, anger, and fear in pursuit of a goal.

Response: Strongly Disagree

Once again, this is difficult from an objective view point. I have chosen strongly disagree for this question; as historically Abbott is well known for his outbursts of anger from his University days, right through to his pursuit of the Prime Ministership whilst in opposition. His one notable poorly managed anger response was the infamous ‘shirt-front’ incident; where he exclaimed “I’m going to shirt-front Mr. Putin. You bet you are, you bet I am.” The nonsensical latter half of the comment also points back to question 2, with another gaffe. The shirt-front comment shows an inability to consider all the alternative responses when put on the spot. As decision making is strongly tied to achieving goal objectives, I will refer the reader back to question 2, as included in how I have come to the conclusion for the response for this question. In relation to fear, once again, it is difficult to determine whether Abbott is using the technique of deep acting, where he genuinely is fearful of terrorism in this country and also believes asylum seekers to be terrorists. He is also accused quite frequently of using fear and nationalism as a tool to distract from contemporary pressures on the Government.

Question 5. I utilize criticism and other feedback for growth.

Response: Strongly Disagree

This question points to regulation of emotions and taking responsibility for your own performance. I have responded with a ‘strongly disagree’ as discussed above, Abbott has already had one leadership spill and he has promised to change. Six months on, it is quite evident that nothing has changed. Over the last six months, the gaffes, captain’s pick fails and inability to consult with others has remained static. This also is supported by question 2; as Abbott, either a lacks the propensity to change or has the inability to judge the perspective of others’ opinions of his leadership. This provides strong support for strongly disagree in that he does not take criticism on board, nor does he apply criticism to his own self-development and growth.

Question 6. I am positive.

Response: Strongly Disagree

This is somewhat difficult to judge based on the subjective perception; but from my objective perception I have chosen strongly disagree as the response. This question points to social skills and regulation of emotions. With regards to social skills, positivity is a tool used to motivate others to champion your goals and as a regulator to remain positive about your goals and change. Abbott also has a very negative view of minority groups in Australia. It could be argued that his ideological punitive approach to minority groups is an agenda for stigmatisation. His agenda for stigmatisation is a negative act to attempt to debase these groups as the tool to motivate others to accept punitive measures. He has a reluctance to frame Asylum Seekers and Indigenous Australians as an inclusive and cared for group. He has made some absolutely inexcusable and ignorant comments regarding both groups. Where Abbott tries to reinforce positivity, by repeating his ‘achievements’ of stopping the boats and axing the carbon tax; this is viewed as empty and hollow and for some, suspicious that these have been achieved or are worthy to be called ‘achievements.’ The shrillness of his vocal during these times and the rhetoric sounds as if it is to convince himself and not just others, also points to low self-efficacy of leadership as discussed in question 2.

Question 7. I maintain a sense of humour.

Response: Neither agree nor disagree

For this response, I have chosen neither agree nor disagree. Abbott does indeed display that he maintains a sense of humour – Humour which he (and possibly some others) finds funny. His humour is either prone to a gaffe moment. During the election these were affectionately referred to as ‘Daggy Dad moments. These gaffes often lead to general public expressing his gaffes as cringe-worthy and he also gives the social media political punters ample fodder for meme making and some very clever you tube videos. The memes and videos are often viewed as more humourous than the original intended Abbott humour, usually at the expense Mr. Abbott.

Question 8. I try to see things from another’s perspective.

Response: Strongly Disagree

The reason I have chosen strongly disagree for this question, is that this question points to the use of empathy in leadership. Abbott’s ingrained ideology and punitive approach is evidence that he lacks empathy and humanity in his perspective of and treatment of those on welfare, asylum seekers and Indigenous Australians and the LGBTIQ community. Where others have tried to explain the situational factors which cause harm; he either champions the cause of operating in secrecy, fobs people off, deflects blame onto others (Labor) or insists on legislation which makes society more oppressive for these groups. In addition, his lack of negotiation skills to progress legislation through the Senate, clearly shows he has the inability to understand the different perspective of others.

Question 9. I recognize how his or her behaviour affects others

Response: Strongly Disagree

This question points to the use of empathy and social skills. I have selected strongly disagree as Abbott has a very poor display of empathy and also has a very low level of understanding how to negotiate and understand others to form collegiate groups who work together for common goals. His lack of empathy in this area can be demonstrated with two recent current issues. The LGBTIQ community and allies are currently pressuring the Government for marriage equality. His lack of understanding of how the behaviour of those he champions on the Christian right is hurtful to the LGBTIQ community is quite evident. In addition, where the actions of his Ministers and border force agencies under the secrecy of Operation Sovereign Borders have been exposed to be cruel and heartless, with fresh allegations arising now of water-boarding and other harmful acts against asylum seekers, including rape and child abuse; his lack of understanding how the behaviour of others (his MP’s and agencies) affects others is overwhelmingly astounding. The other instance also relates to the secrecy of Operation Sovereign Borders with the recent allegations of covert spying on Senator Hanson-Young. To come to learn that you have been monitored in the privacy of your hotel room, must be extremely hurtful and shocking. Abbott’s silence on this issue, whilst he allows Minister Dutton to use derogatory language toward Ms. Hanson-Young is beyond reproach.

Question 10. I air grievances skillfully.

Response: Disagree

This question points to self-regulation and social skills. I have selected disagree, rather than strongly disagree; as I am not privy to how Abbott airs grievances within his own cohort in the party room or amongst his colleagues. However, where he does have a grievance, such as opposition to Labor policies; he demonstrates very poor skill in airing his grievance. His time in opposition as opposition leader saw a complete defiance to work with the Government of the day and he used a combative approach, rather than a conciliatory one. Instead of negotiating, he chose to inflame situations to the detriment of Australians. The tactic he used to air grievances whilst in opposition, was to champion three word slogans, rather than having any in-depth conversation with the public. This may have worked in opposition, as he had the luxury of assumed trust. However, as a political tool to implement as a Prime Minister, it will be difficult to bring others on board with change, with a shallow approach of sloganeering with a trust deficit. As Prime Minister where he may have a grievance about a current situation, his approach is either to deflect blame (blame Labor) or where he cannot do this, he will be completely absent and in hiding (as per the recent Speakership debacle).

Question 11. I can listen without jumping to judgement.

Response: Strongly Disagree

This question points to self-regulation and social skills. I have selected strongly disagree, as this ties in with question 2 with regards to decision making. As discussed in question 2; Abbott does not display that he takes the time to consider all options and has an ingrained ideological perspective, which is regressive and stagnant rather than progressive. To progress; one must have the ability to listen to others and suspend judgement. His inability to consult with others, has lead to a range of failed captain’s picks which have caused embarrassment for the Government. His resolve in sticking to the side of climate denial, despite the overwhelming evidence, and the insistence to lag behind other countries (including conservative Governments) on both climate change and marriage equality, supports that he is far to rash in jumping to his own conclusions, rather than a strong leader who is open to suggestions and ready to receive and consider the advice of others.

Question 12. I can freely admit to making a mistake.

Response: Strongly Disagree

As discussed in question 1 and other responses, Abbott is prone to deflecting blame to others, or using the excuse of secrecy as a cover, or he removes himself from the pressure by remaining absent from public view. Although during the election, we heard empty rhetoric such as ‘responsible Government’ ‘grown-up Government’. Abbott has held a consistent line of avoiding responsibility for mistakes. The one instance where he did take responsibility was his broken promise on cuts to the ABC. This question points to honesty and integrity as the sub-factor for emotional intelligence. It is fair to say that due to Abbott’s reluctance to take ownership of mistakes; this has created a trust deficit with the general public. The Abbott Government’s confidence rating has hit a record low; even lower than the period of the global financial crisis (Roy Morgan Research 2015).

Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Result

Very Poor EQ

 

Based on my response selections, the EI Questionnaire has returned that Abbott would most likely have a Very Poor Emotional Quotient.
Research Question Response and Consequences for Discussion

Although some may find the findings argued here as amusing or something to joke about; I wanted to raise some points to discuss the seriousness of low emotional intelligence and leadership. Although this analysis was completed using an observation technique, readers should consider my responses based on my supporting reasons for each answer. I welcome any debate if your own conclusions differ.

Emotional Intelligence is critical for effective leadership. In light of the original research question: If high emotional intelligence is intrinsic to transformational leadership and political skill, and these are antecedents for progress; then, is low emotional intelligence in a Prime Minister, a hindrance to progress? The conclusion based on the analysis would be yes.

Observing low emotional intelligence, including low self-efficacy of leadership skill in a Prime Minister raises some serious questions:

    1. Low self-efficacy and low emotional intelligence affects the decision making ability of leaders. Is it fair for Australians to be Governed by someone who may be prone to making poor decisions?
    2. Considering the elements of risk; what are the worst consequences of poor decision making? Could poor decision making by a leader with low emotional intelligence and poor decision making skills result in war, famine or a collapsed economy?
    3. Self-regulated emotions which are managed poorly, can result in a trust deficit. What are the consequences if this causes a trust deficit between nations?
    4. When a leader shows a reluctance to welcome new ideas and rejects consultation with others regularly; how does this hinder progress and innovation to ensure a country is competitive and viable?
    5. How does the inability to show empathy and understanding towards citizens, particularly those in minority groups, increase stigma and isolation for these groups?
    6. To manage reform and progress, a leader must collaborate and co-operate with others. If a leader has poor skills in this area, how does a nation reform and progress?
    7. If we want the best people to lead the country, should testing such as emotional intelligence, personality testing, leadership skills and advocacy skills be included in the vetting process for candidate selection for all parties?

 

References

Ahearn, KK, Ferris, GR, Hochwarter, WA, Douglas, C, & Ammeter, A P, 2004, “Leader political skill and team performance” Journal of Management, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 309-327.

Bass, B, 1990, “From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision” Organizational Dynamics, vol. 18 no. 3, pp. 19-31.

Cossin, D & Caballero, J, 2013, “Transformational Leadership, background literature review” Working Paper, IMD Business School.

Goleman, D, Boyatzis, RE, & McKee, A, 2002, Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.

Hochschild, A, 1979, “Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 551-575.

Mackinnon, L, Bacon, L, Cortellessa, G, & Cesta, A, 2013, “Using emotional intelligence in training crisis managers: the Pandora approach.” International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, vol. 11 no. 2, pp. 66

Pugh, E V, 2008, Recognising emotional intelligence in professional standards for teaching. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 3–12.

Roy Morgan Research, 2015, “L-NP support slumps following resignation of Bronwyn Bishop as Roy Morgan Government Confidence plunges to record low” available at: http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6387-morgan-poll-federal-voting-intention-august-10-2015-201508100947 accessed 16/08/2015.

Treadway, DC, Ferris, GR, Duke, A B, Adams, G, & Thatcher, JB, “The moderating role of subordinate political skill on supervisors’ impressions of subordinate ingratiation and ratings of subordinate interpersonal facilitation” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 848855.

Zerbe, WJ, Hartel, CEJ, Ashkanasy, NM, 2008, Overview: emotions, ethics, and decision-making, in Wilfred J. Zerbe, Charmine E.J. Härtel, Neal M. Ashkanasy (ed.) Emotions, Ethics and Decision-Making (Research on Emotion in Organizations, Vol 4), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley UK.

 

Stories the Murdoch media would rather you didn’t see

In 2011 then News Limited chairman and CEO John Hartigan proudly announced that News Limited was “the only organisation that really takes it up to the Government“. And how true that was. That all changed, however, in September 2013. It coincided of course with the change in government.

Now it would appear that News Limited is the only organisation that ensures the government gets a free ride.

It wouldn’t bother me if the government was doing a good job. But they’re not. And in that case we could argue that neither is News Limited.

With the Abbott government going down in a screaming heap and the Prime Minister demonstrating he is unfit for the role, a news organisation that really takes it up to the government would have the printing presses running hot with condemnation.

Instead, if you want to find out about the big issues then you would be best to avoid the Murdoch media: they are the only organisation not really taking it up to the government.

If you want to find out about the lies and failings from our government then go elsewhere. The Murdoch media obviously would rather that you didn’t see them.

A quick look ‘elsewhere’ yesterday yielded some great articles with information that you’d think would be of interest to the average voter.

The Sydney Morning Herald tells us that Climate Change Authority head Bernie Fraser issued a blistering rebuke to the Abbott government:

Labor’s proposed emissions trading scheme does not equate to a new carbon tax and the Abbott government assertion that its emissions cuts are akin to the United States are incorrect, according to the government’s own climate change advisers.

Climate Change Authority chair Bernie Fraser issued the strong statement late on Friday, responding to the government’s post-2020 emissions targets announced this week.

I didn’t find any reference to this important announcement in the Murdoch media. They are obviously happy with Tony Abbott getting away with his lies.

Elsewhere, respected economist Bill Mitchell informs us that Australian wages growth is the lowest on record:

The day after the Australian government published their fiscal strategy for 2015-16, which assumes (unrealistically) a significant upstep in economic growth and hence taxation receipts, the Australian Bureau of Statistics published the latest – Wage Price Index, Australia – for the March-quarter today and we learn that the annual growth in wages is now at the lowest level since the data series began in the December-quarter 1997.

I didn’t find any reference to this important announcement in the Murdoch media. They are obviously happy with the government telling us that wages are spiraling out of control.

And speaking of records, elsewhere we read that in the United States wind power also hit the lowest price on record:

The cost of electricity from wind power fell to its lowest point on record last year as the industry continued its growth pattern, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).

A Monday report from DOE said wind power that utilities bought last year in purchase power agreements, the main measurement for comparing costs, was 2.35 cents per kilowatt hour, the drop of two-thirds from its 2009 peak.

Wind saw the most growth of any power source last year and, with 66 gigawatts installed, now accounts for 4.9 percent of of the country’s electricity demand, DOE found.

What do we read in the Murdoch media? The government’s mantra that wind farms are bad for our health and that the government has saved us $550 a year on our power bills – which they haven’t. Just let the lies continue unchallenged.

Also elsewhere, someone finally tells us that the government has had the week from hell:

As the accidents and bungles mount daily, the pre-eminent question in Australian public affairs seems to be moving rapidly from “whether” this farcical political period will end, to “when”.

Of course everyone knows that the government has had the week from hell. And of course, they didn’t read about it in the Murdoch media.

More on the week from hell elsewhere . . . Coalition a victim of its own trickiness as colleagues lose faith in Tony Abbott:

Behind the Abbott government’s very bad week – a careening series of disasters that looked like the political version of an AAMI ad – is a common thread that could wreck it permanently. Tricky politics has driven Tony Abbott into yet another crisis.

So many of the prime minister’s problems begin in the strange netherworld of decision making, where policy is crafted to fit a slogan rather than the other way around, based on the insulting assumption that voters are too dumb to notice.

It was an article in The Guardian. I can’t find articles like that in the Murdoch media.

And finally (because I had found enough to prove my point), the Auntie (the ABC) tells us that the OECD urged higher taxes on wealthy to address growing income gap:

A global study warns the gap between rich and poor is widening at a dramatic pace.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, or the OECD, has found that the world’s richest 10 per cent earns nearly 10 times more than the poorest 10 per cent.

I don’t think I need to remind you that the Murdoch media has been the most active in telling its readers that the poor are the ‘leaners’ in this country. Also, I don’t think I need to remind you that the Abbott government offers tax breaks for the rich.

You just have to wonder: Why isn’t the Murdoch media interested in any of this?