Get out the vote

It’s probably apparent to almost everyone by now that President-elect Trump is…

Emergency leaders say nuclear reactors pose unnecessary risk

Emergency Leaders for Climate Action Media Release NUCLEAR REACTORS WOULD introduce significant and…

No aid or access as Israel intensifies its…

Israel is in the late stages of ethnic cleansing of the North…

Ironic Dependency: Russian Uranium and the US Energy…

Be careful who you condemn and ostracise. They just might be supplying…

Donald Trump's quick trip to absolute dictatorship

By Noel Wauchope Comparisons are odious, particularly between Donald Trump and Adolf…

Arrest Warrants from The Hague: The ICC, Netanyahu…

The slow, often grinding machinery of international law has just received a…

Intelligence Isn't Everything But It Should Be SOMETHING!

“To make matters worse, the more we see someone, the more familiar…

Oxfam reaction to Australia’s pledge to the fund…

Oxfam Australia has called the new global climate finance goal smoke and…

«
»
Facebook

Michael recently retired from the Public Service and is studying law in his retirement. His interests are politics, media, history, and astronomy. Michael holds a BA in Aboriginal Affairs Administration, a BA (Honours) in Aboriginal Studies, and a Diploma of Government. Michael rarely writes articles for The AIMN these days, but is heavily involved with the admin team.

Website: https://theaimn.com

Abbott’s gone, so where to now?

For many of us the demise of Tony Abbott has seen our wish fulfilled. And it comes with an enormous amount of relief and satisfaction. But his demise also changes the dynamics of the next election, but for now that’s another story.

Tony Abbott has been good for us in one respect and we can thank him for that. The AIMN and countless other sites have thrived on his collection of stupid leadership gaffes and atrocious policies.

Some of us may be feeling a sense of emptiness. Tony Abbott, after all, was our signature dish. It is unlikely we’ll ever have a more inept Prime Minister served up for us.

But our work is not yet done.

As John Kelly rightly reminds us, we may have a new Prime Minister but we still have a failed government. And we will carry on fighting this government.

And on the other side of the political divide Jennifer Wilson points out – what many have been silently thinking – that Bill Shorten might not be the best person to take on Malcolm Turnbull. And we will carry on agitating for a better opposition.

And are we happy with the new Prime Minister? Certainly not when he simply carries on with his predecessor’s ineffective policies. Take climate change, for example. Kaye Lee reminds us that:

So far, Malcolm Turnbull has said there will be no change to the Coalition’s climate change policy. He needs to rethink that.

Yes, he does. And we will be arguing the case why he does.

And elsewhere, Van Badham over at The Guardian warns us that Turnbull will still be ruling ‘from and for the big end of town’. Wasn’t Abbott also doing that? Wasn’t that what we were also fighting against? Looks like nothing changes for us in that regards.

Any emptiness we might have felt with the demise of Tony Abbott will quickly be filled while we are still faced with the horror legacies he left us.

Abbott’s gone, so where to now? Answer: we keep heading in the same direction. We at The AIMN will be.

 

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

You know Tony doesn’t like you when . . .

When you think about it, this is rather clever (and too good not to share) and fairly well sums up Tony Abbott’s opinion of you based on his or his government’s announcements as to what he/they consider the un-Australian (anti-government policy) types are.

It was ‘borrowed’ from a meme I came across on Twitter posted by @RunawayBudgie, who I assume created it and as such I will afford him or her the credit. If I may add an introduction, it shall begin with ‘You know Tony doesn’t like you’:

  • If you’re a member of a union you’re an ‘economic traitor’.
  • If you’re a working mother claiming maternity leave you’re a ‘double dipper’ (unless you’re married to Mathias Cormann or Josh Frydenberg).
  • If you’re an ABC employee you’re part of a ‘lefty lynch mob’.
  • If you’re an asylum seeker you’re ‘illegal’.
  • If you’re concerned about human rights you’re ‘blatantly politically partisan’ and if you investigate allegations of human rights abuses for the UN you’re a ‘disgrace’.
  • If you’re a whistle blower you’re a ‘criminal’.
  • If you attend an anti-government rally you’re a ‘thug’.
  • If you’re a university student you’re a ‘whinger’.
  • If you’re a welfare recipient you’re a ‘rorter’.
  • If you’re getting paid penalty rates you’re ‘greedy’.
  • If you’re living in poverty it’s because of your ‘poor lifestyle choices’.
  • If you’re unemployed you’re ‘lazy’.
  • If you’re middle class you’re a ‘leaner’.

And an ‘add-on’:

  • If you’re not a supporter of the FTA with China you’re a ‘racist’ (this one was by @prof-rr).

Too true. Too good.

 

Independence: it’s all ours

Judging by regular and somewhat repetitive comments that have been sent to our site’s Facebook page it appears (still) that many people have absolutely no idea what the word ‘independent’ means. Otherwise we wouldn’t receive comments that dispute our claim to be independent. For those that cannot grasp the meaning of the word . . . this is what independent means:
  1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker
  2. not subject to another’s authority or jurisdiction; autonomous
  3. not influenced by the thought or action of others
  4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
  5. not relying on another or others for aid or support
  6. rejecting others’ aid or support; refusing to be under obligation to others.

Yep, that’s us. No-one owns us, no-one sponsors us, and no-one tells us what to do.

We are not affiliated with any political party, although some of our authors do belong to the ALP and some to The Greens.

Some of the other criticism we attract is that we’re left-wing.

So what?

A number of our critics seem to think that independence means you have to be balanced between left and right.

Does it? Do you see that balance in the Murdoch media or other right-wing journals? Of course not.

They are entitled to write about whatever they want. So are we.

If we want to write about the horrors caused by the Abbott Government then so be it. Some people seem to take exception to that as judged by the number of messages we receive telling us so. Well bad luck.

If the Abbott Government is replaced by a Labor Government who are just as bad as the current incompetents then we will no doubt expose them too. Independence gives us the license to do that.

Our independence also means we will not obliged to reject a submitted article just because it is not aligned with majority opinion, left or right. Perhaps some of our regular critics – those who don’t like what we write about or keep telling us what we should be writing about – might like to take the opportunity to submit a civil article for consideration.

 

The Abbott Government keeps backing the wrong horse

I’m not much of a punter. I’ve ventured to the track a handful of times only to invariably put my money on horses that ran last. Truth is, I wouldn’t know a good horse from a bad one. I was more or less throwing away money on something that was never going to win.

A bit like the Abbott Government, in a way.

They too keep backing the wrong horse. They just can’t seem to pick a winner.

They thought they had a winner with the Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program with their little wager of at least $20 million on what was sure to see former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd shackled for life. It would win in a canter.

But no, they just threw their money away. Their red hot tip didn’t even make it to the finishing line.

So off they raced to get on the next big tip and plunged $80 million on the Royal Commission into Union Corruption which would see another former Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, hung out to dry thus rejoicing in the knowledge that the investment was duly worth every red cent.

Guess what? Julia Gillard was the wrong pick.

But wait! There was more! A huge bet such as $80 million deserved a return. They couldn’t, so far, nail a former Labor Prime Minister but at least they could easily put down the ‘current future’ Labor Prime Minister in Bill Shorten.

Guess what? Bill took it up to them.

What a magnificent stuff-up that’s turned out to be. $80 million thrown away. A total of $100 million has been wasted on two Royal Commissions.

And the latter, of course, has lost all credibility thanks to the Dyson Heydon affair.

The government keeps gambling with our money in search of a political winner. Finding the missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 would give them a boost and they spent $100 million searching for it. We all know how excited Tony was about finding it. After all, he had earlier announced in Parliament that it had been found (yet continued to spend money looking for it – work that one out). Meanwhile, debris from the wreckage washed up on Reunion Island – more than a thousand kilometres from where Australia was looking.

That’s $200 million just on three ‘races’ the Abbott Government has wasted simply to win some political mileage.

I think they need stop going to the races. They too, don’t know a good horse from a bad one.

 

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?

The stage is set for a Turnbull challenge

Malcolm Turnbull will only get one likely chance to be Prime Minister, and that chance could be offered to him within days.

Both Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten have laid down his challenge.

The trigger will be Warren Entsch’s cross-party bill to legalise same-sex marriage, on which Tony Abbott has warned that Coalition front benchers who supported this bill would be sacked, should it came to a vote.

Turnbull supports same-sex marriage.

Shorten knows this, and has urged all Coalition MPs in favour of same-sex marriage to “stick to your guns”:

“We say to the Liberals like Malcolm Turnbull, stick to your guns. Stick to your guns Malcolm, stick to your guns Christopher (Pyne), Josh (Frydenberg) and George (Brandis)”.

If Turnbull has both the guts and the desire to challenge Tony Abbott he will indeed stick to his guns. I’m assuming, of course, that he does have the guts and does want to be Prime Minister.

We’ll find out.

If Turnbull votes for the bill and is sacked from the front bench then he is in the best place to launch a challenge for the leadership: the back bench.

If he doesn’t cross the floor and the cosy Liberal status quo is unruffled then he would be obviously happy to go to the election with his party facing a heavy defeat. Or he could also wait for Tony Abbott to eventually implode, but when might that be?

And let’s not forget Christopher Pyne. Knowing that he could be facing political oblivion at the next election, might he be the one who stands up to Abbott and goes on to launch a challenge? It might be his only chance at saving his political career.

Politics is about to get even more interesting.

 

Why shouldn’t retired politicians be made to wait too?

I saw this comment on Facebook that struck a chord with me and was too good not to share:

“Joe Hockey wants us to work until we’re 70, but he could retire tomorrow and start getting his parliamentary pension straight away. Wouldn’t it be good if retired parliamentarians had to wait until they too are 70 before they starting receiving their pensions?”

What a great idea.

Why shouldn’t retired politicians be made to wait too?

“I’m black and I’m proud to be”

The Adam Goodes’ saga reminds us that racial vilification is one of sport’s most contentious issues.

Racism in sport historically has been a display of taken for granted behaviors and attitudes. Without recourse, Indigenous Australians have been racially abused from the day they first stepped into the sporting arena. AFL, in particular, had fostered an environment where racist behavior happened systematically, and arguably racism become a sporting institution.

In the early 1990s the dimensions of racism were sufficiently bad for the AFL to convene meetings to discuss players’ code of conduct, albeit their efforts never went beyond being merely token approaches. It was not until Essendon’s Michael Long in 1994 made a public statement against the abuse he had to endure exclaiming “I’ve had enough of this shit. I don’t have to take it”, was it seriously addressed.

Despite years of inaction during which racial vilification sullied the football field, the AFL acted with admirable swiftness following Long’s complaint. By June of that year it introduced Rule 30, the Racial and Religious Vilification Rule, making it an offence for any player or official to threaten, disparage, vilify or insult another person on the basis of that person’s race, religion, colour, descent or national background. The then Federal Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Nick Bolkus called for the punishment of offenders found guilty of racial abuse, as by now the Long appeal was heard in the highest corridors of Australian society. By the start of the 1998 season, the penalties were a $10,000 fine for a player’s first offence and/or a $20,000 fine for the club.

One of the beauties of sport ‘is that it can, in a single moment of clarity, illuminate or delineate a mood or a movement or an era’ (Tatz et al, 1998:96). In 1993, the International Year of the Indigenous Person saw widespread public discussion of Aboriginal issues, but the most articulate summary of the national lassitude was non-verbal: the image of Nicky Winmar raising his guernsey and pointing at his black skin. This defining moment occurred as a response to loud racist abuse from the opposition’s cheer squad. Some reports suggest he yelled, “I’m black and I’m proud to be.” Whatever his words, the classic photograph of him defiantly pointing at his skin was a potent symbol that forced a nation to search its communal soul.

With the reputation of a player prone to extreme bouts of temper – no doubt as a response to the provocation of racist insults (personal view) – he had never been more eloquent or effective for his cause or his colour than he was in that moment.

Twenty years later Adam Goodes is confronted with the same abuse as he raises another potent symbol of his Aboriginality. And again we search our communal soul.

 

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

With all that is wrong with Australia, all we hear about is boats

I truly detest how this country is treating asylum seekers and I detest the policies of both the Coalition and Labor – none of which remotely consider the onshore processing of refugees who arrive or attempt to arrive by boat.

I also detest how the asylum seeker issue is thrust front and centre by the government as the issue which will most likely decide who wins the next federal election. With nothing else to take to the election, naturally it’s all that the government wants us to be focused on.

And of course, the compliant Murdoch media is an active agent in promoting the discourse in our popular consciousness that we need to keep our borders safe from ‘boat people’.

I live in hope that one day (soon, I hope) that we witness an Australian government adopt both a heart and a humane policy on ‘boat people’ and I would like to see it embraced by most Australians. The latter, of course, would require an absolute turnaround to our popular consciousness.

End of story.

I don’t want to talk about ‘boat people’ any more. With all that is wrong with Australia, all we hear about is boats.

Instead of the government and the Murdoch media telling us what the important issues are, we should be turning it back onto them.

Take away the blather and the bravado about our ‘right to be tough’ towards asylum seekers and dig into the core of what really is important to us and this is what you’ll find:

As at June 2015 over 753,000 Australians were unemployed. In September 2013 – the month of the federal election – the number was just over 706,000. So since the election 47,000 more people are out of work. What is the government doing about the trend? Nothing. What is the media saying about it? Nothing.

Are there more people unemployed in Australia than the number of asylum seekers attempting to come here by boat? Yes.

Housing affordability has gone through the roof (excuse the pun) as have house prices themselves. The median house price in Sydney – our most populated city – is expected to hit $1,000,000 by the end of the year while Australia wide it sits at $660,000. Young people are now struggling more than ever to enter the housing market as the “Australian dream” of home ownership is under threat. But not according to our Treasurer Joe Hockey who insists that houses in Sydney are not unaffordable while the Prime Minister says he wants house prices to rise. That’s right. Rise. With young people struggling to buy a house at today’s prices our Prime Minister wants them to pay even more, despite the fact that housing affordability already represents a long-term structural problem that has been neglected for decades. So, what then can I assume our government is doing about housing affordability? Well based on the attitude of our Treasurer and Prime Minister, nothing. It’s not a problem apparently.

I wonder, are there more people in Australia struggling to or unable to buy a house than the number of asylum seekers attempting to come here by boat? Yes.

Over two and a half million Australians, including over 600,000 children live below the poverty line. That number represents almost 14% of our population. Welfare recipients are most at risk of living in poverty, yet these are the people most likely to be adversely affected by this government’s budgetary measures. So is the government doing anything to reduce the level of poverty in Australia? No.

Are there more people living below the poverty line in Australia than the number of asylum seekers attempting to come here by boat? Yes.

On any given night there are 105,000 homeless Australians with 42 per cent of these being under 25. We do not hear the media talk about this as a damning blight of our society and neither do we hear the government offering any solution to it. But can we expect them to when Tony Abbott says that homelessness is a ‘choice‘?

And by the way, are there more homeless people in Australia than the number of asylum seekers attempting to come here by boat? Yes.

Around one in five women in Australia have experienced some form of domestic violence. These are “epidemic proportions” to the point that domestic violence has now become a national emergency. As has the number of women killed by a violent partner: with at least one women murdered every week. What is the government doing about it? Not much by the look of it.

Are there more people in Australia experiencing domestic violence than the number of asylum seekers attempting to come here by boat? Yes.

Australia is now the most expensive country to live in and Australians are “struggling to cope as the cost of living pressures bite“. An estimated one in three Australians cannot meet their cost of living expenses on their current incomes. What is the government doing about it? Nothing. What is the media saying about it? Nothing.

Are there more people in Australia struggling with the cost of living than the number of asylum seekers attempting to come here by boat? Yes.

Our economy is “grinding into stagnation” and rather than the three or so per cent growth each year we’ve come to expect, we might have to get used to 2 per cent GDP growth. And as a result, lower living standards can be expected while “everything here is going to be much tougher than before and compared to the rest of the world”. So what is the government doing about it (apart from blaming Labor)? Nothing. “The government neither has no idea – let along any proposal, plan or program – for how to boost Australian growth back up to three or four per cent per year“. They’re not even talking about it. Meanwhile, some of our largest and most potentially-innovative sectors are held back by the Abbott Government’s bureaucracy and regulation.

And will more Australians be affected by a stagnant economy and lower living standards than the number of asylum seekers attempting to come here by boat? Yes.

Oh how I could go on. I only wish the media would too. I wish the media would tell us not only the truth about the Abbott Government but question their appalling attitude towards climate change, the environment, job security, racism, Indigenous Australians, human rights … take a pick!

And how about our spiraling debt?

And how about Tony Abbott’s record of lies and broken promises?

Yet, with all that is wrong with Australia, all we hear about is boats.

 

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

I guess the Minister is only responsible if the Minister isn’t Tony Abbott

Four young men died ‘under’ the Labor Government’s Home Insulation Program. Events, so tragic and avoidable that our current Prime Minister ordered a Royal Commission into the program within months of taking office. The Prime Minister, in self-justification that the Royal Commission was the most urgent matter facing the nation boasted that it revealed a ‘litany of failures‘ from the Rudd Government.

Who could ever forget the political mileage he tried to get out of his ‘pink batts’ terror campaign. Labor caused four deaths! Under his smug self-satisfaction at having scored a point score against Labor, there was no indication of empathy for the victims or concern over general workplace safety issues.

And who could ever forget that it cost a Minister in the Rudd Government his job. Ministers are to blame, apparently.

Now let’s go back in time to 2001 and a media release from the ACTU titled ‘Government Fails To Stem Workplace Deaths’, which reads:

A national workplace survey has highlighted the failure of the Federal Government to act against workplace death and injury.

More than half of Australia’s workplaces are failing to carry out basic health and safety precautions, according to an ACTU survey of more than 1200 health and safety representatives.

“More people are being killed or injured in workplace accidents than on our roads, but there has been no national response like the road toll campaign. The Federal Government must take the lead,” said ACTU President Sharan Burrow.

“Despite more than 450 people being killed and 160,000 seriously injured on the job each year, the Howard Government has sat on its hands. Instead, the Government has cut funding to workplace safety and blocked the introduction of new national safety standards. The removal of safeguards from workplace awards has compounded the problem.”

Key findings of the survey include:

  • Less than half (47%) of workplaces carry out regular health and safety inspections;
  • 30% of sick or injured employees are pressured to return to work before it is safe to do so;
  • 20% of health and safety representatives have been bullied or intimidated by management after raising health and safety issues. The most commonly reported health and safety hazards are repetitive work causing muscle strain (63%), noise (60%), heavy lifting (57%), extreme temperatures (55%), inadequate staffing (49%), long hours (40%), dust and fibres (38%), cleaning fluids (37%) and lack of training (36%).

Appalling, wasn’t it?

Now I wonder who the Minister was in 2001.

Well, here’s a surprise, it was Tony Abbott.

  • Minister for Employment Services (1998–2001).
  • Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (2001–2003).

I guess the Minister is only responsible if the Minister isn’t Tony Abbott.

 

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

The Coalition has stayed true to its word

I generally don’t republish something from our archives but with this piece I come across yesterday – Some reasons why the Libs don’t want you to vote for the Greens – I make an exception.

First published prior to the 2013 federal election it provided a window into what to expect from the Coalition if they won power. Or more precisely, what not to expect. The article was based on a Coalition document which spelled out, in an indirect way, that there would be no social changes during tenure.

Given that some of the issues – such as same sex-marriage, and detention centres – are topical today, the document reminds us that the government stated their position and despite recent public pressure, in my opinion the government has stamped them ‘not negotiable’.

They told us this before the election.

Indeed, some governments do change their course on social issues after taking office but I consider the Abbott government to be more ideologically driven than any government I care to remember. And as such they will never change.

Anyway, have a read (re-read) of the article and be reminded that this is what Australia voted in favour of. Don’t expect the Coalition to change their mind now, regardless of any swings in public mood. It will never be ‘what the public wants’, it will always be ‘what we (the Coalition) want’.

* * * * *

If anybody wants to know what the Coalition plan to do in Government then they need look no further than the Coalition Speakers notes 1 July 2012 for an insight of the frightening world they would hope to thrust upon us. It looks at all the topical issues including Border Protection, Communications and Broadband, Employment and Workplace Relations, Foreign Affairs, Heath Higher Education, Indigenous Australians, Multiculturalism, Population, Superannuation and Youth.

But typical of any Coalition document it focuses more on attacking the other major parties than how and what should be done. The ‘hows’ and ‘whats’ are nothing more than a bit of chest thumping. There is much more passion in their criticisms of both the Government and the Greens than there is in beating their own drum. Just the usual scare tactics, you might say.

What struck me the most about the document was their rabid hatred for everything the Greens stand for. The Greens are not my party of choice, but after reading the document I’m convinced that they stand for much more than I gave them any credit for. And if anything, I’m more determined to vote against a party that opposes – or condemns – what the Greens want for our society.

I’ve made a list of some of the reasons why the Libs don’t want you to vote for the Greens. Upon reading them, you might also ponder how much the Liberals must be out of touch with the modern, progressive Australian. Here’s the list of what the Coalition fear:

The Greens believe in legalising same sex marriages.

The Greens believe in reintroduction of voluntary euthanasia laws in the NT & ACT.

The Greens support holding a plebiscite for an Australian Republic. The Greens will legalise the use of cannabis for specified medical purposes.

The Greens moved a private members bill entitled Anti-Terrorism Reform Bill 2009 to relax terrorism laws and calls for amendments to the Criminal Code and Crimes Act.

The Bill calls for greater freedom of expression and association, freedom from arbitrary detention, legal due process and privacy.

The Greens will repeal the sedition laws and will repeal mandatory sentencing legislation.

The Greens will prohibit the use of electroshock weapons and Tasers.

The Greens want an open door refugee and asylum seeker policy. They have said that they want to increase the number of refugees and asylum seekers Australia takes, but they haven’t said by how much; they also want to decrease the number of skilled migrants and increase the number of family reunion migrants.

Abolition of mandatory detention of illegal immigrants.

Restore Australia’s migration zone to match Australia’s territory and accept responsibility for processing all asylum seekers who seek protection in that zone.

Allow illegal immigrants unrestricted movement in and about reception centres.

Immediately grant illegal immigrants an asylum application visa (AAV) and move them into community reception centres after medical and security checks are satisfied or after 14 days.

Allow illegal immigrants with AAVs the right to work, travel, income support and access to ongoing educational and medical services anywhere in Australia while their claims are being assessed.

Ensure that refusal of an AAV is reviewable by the Administration Appeals Tribunal and that the illegal immigrant is housed in a facility close to an urban area.

Closing Australian ports and territorial waters to nuclear powered vessels and create nuclear free zones, municipalities and ports;

Prohibit mineral exploration, mining, extraction of petroleum and gas in terrestrial and marine nature conservation reserves.

Ban the exploration, mining and export of uranium and the storage of low-grade domestic nuclear waste in a remote location in Australia.

The Greens want a commonly agreed national benchmark to measure poverty and reform the social security system to ensure an adequate income for all.

The Greens will increase the number of marine reserves and implement a national framework for managing recreational and charter fishing.

The Greens will introduce an Oceans Act and establish a statutory National Oceans Authority to coordinate the sustainability of ocean uses. The Authority will report to the Parliament and enforce cosystem-based regional management plans and targets.

The Greens have called for a treaty with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders that recognises prior occupation and have sovereignty enshrined into the constitution.

The Greens will pursue the conclusion of a multilateral convention based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and enact its provisions into Australian Law.

The Greens believe in the full restoration of the Racial Discrimination Act in the NT and ending the federal intervention into indigenous communities regardless of any consequences.

The Greens will repeal amendments to the NT’s land Rights Act as they believe the amendments disadvantage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Want to abolish SES funding for private schools, which would discourage private investment in education and create more dependency on taxpayer funding to fund school education. Impose new federal controls on where new non-government schools can be built or how many students they could enrol, which would severely limit parental choice.

Want Commonwealth funding for private schools kept at 2003/04 levels, which would see many schools be forced to close or sack teachers in order to stay open. Oppose performance payments for teachers.

Believe that education unions are the appropriate industrial representatives in all educational matters.

And finally …

Will increase Youth Allowance to the level of a living wage, irrespective of the cost to taxpayers.

 

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

$8.8 million isn’t a lot of money, but apparently $66,000 is!

Refurbishment of the prime minister’s official Canberra residence will cost taxpayers more than $8.8 million – at least $5 million more than originally expected.

It doesn’t seem that long ago that the Liberal Party was complaining (via a booklet, of course) that $66,000 was spent on The Lodge for then Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

In November 2012 they proudly released a publication called The little book of big Labor waste, and if the money was to be spent for the benefit of a Labor Prime Minister then in their eyes it certainly constituted a waste and therefore earned inclusion into their little booklet.

It was a sloppy publication, by the way, which I wrote about here.

It’s worth taking a look back at this article because with the passage of time their claims look even more ludicrous and above all, it shines a very bright light on their breathtaking hypocrisy.

You will be gobsmacked when you consider what they now do themselves in office. The same things, on a grander scale, they criticised Labor for in their glossy publication.

Please enjoy . . .

I am grateful to Jason W for exposing how sloppy it really was and allowing me to publish his responses to the claims made. It’s a bit of a read, but hard to put down. I’ve also added a few comments, which are highlighted in blue. Let’s start:

Claim: “The Rudd-Gillard Government has been the most financially reckless government in Australian history”.

Response: Really? Then why is it, that an IMF paper is reporting that Howard was far more profligate in his spending, and had made more decisions worth over a billion dollars than the Labor government, in his budget?

“In 2007, Labor inherited a government with net worth totaling $70 billion. All that has now been squandered – all gone”.

Howard achieved a surplus by reckless selling of public assets and with huge cuts. Labor had to face the Global Financial Crisis and had to stimulate the economy with spending that created the deficit.

Thanks to Labor, Australia now has a government $147.3 billion of net debt – the biggest debt in Australian history! We are now paying almost $20 million a day in interest to service that debt.

What? The biggest debt, as a percentage of the GDP, was in the Hawke-Keating debt. Half of which was inherited from Malcolm Fraser!

In fact, under the leadership of Julia Gillard, the list of waste and mismanagement is increasing at an alarming rate. From the multiple billion dollar blow outs in the immigration portfolio to gold plated coffee machines for bureaucrats, the litany of waste is staggering.

Gold plated coffee machines? This already reeks of sensationalism.

What Labor does best is rack-up debt through waste and mismanagement – it’s in their DNA. The only way to stop Labor’s waste and pay back the debt is to change the government.

The debt is a manageable percentage of the GDP, and can be paid back within 4 years without austerity measures.

Labor’s failed border protection policies and Julia Gillard’s stubborn refusal to re-introduce the full suite of proven Howard Government policies that stopped the boats has resulted in an immigration budget blow out of $6.6 billion in the last four years. This does not include the full cost of reopening detention centres in Nauru and Manus Island and increasing the refugee intake to 20,000 people per year.

Border Protection? The boats still came during Howard’s time, they didn’t stop completely. As Malcolm Fraser noted, the only way to stop the boats is to let them in via humanitarian camps, which are cheaper to run than border patrol and detention centres.

NBN Co’s revised corporate plan reveals that Labor’s broadband policy is way behind schedule and way over budget. There has been a $4.6 billion blowout in the operating and capital expenses, and indirect operating expense – primarily staff costs – have more than doubled from $3.7 billion to $7.8 billion. In all, the total cost of the NBN has increased $3.2 billion, from $40.9 billion to $44.1 billion.

What about the coalition’s copper cable plans, which includes power exhaustive nodes, and will fail during times of flood. This investment is definitely worth the sacrifice, as it will develop infrastructure and create jobs. “Shit Happens” – Tony Abbott.

Labor is spending $69.5 million advertising the carbon tax, a tax Julia Gillard emphatically ruled out introducing before the last election.

First of all, it’s the CARBON PRICE, not a tax. Gillard did promise a carbon price. Second of all, it’s natural for a government to inform its populace of changes. This is to avoid misinformation and lies from being circulated.

Labor’s panicked reaction to an ABC Four Corners story threw the cattle industry into chaos, resulting an a $100 million assistance package. If Labor had stuck by its original decision to restrict live trade, instead of reacting to the a Get-up! Campaign, the need for an assistance package could have been avoided.

So we should just let animal cruelty reign? Of course, the subsidy is STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT compared to government revenue, which stands at a total of 267 billion dollars.

Labor’s bungling of the Australia Network tender cost taxpayers at least $2 million as the Government was forced to compensate Sky News. An Auditor General report into the tender found the process “brought into question the Government’s ability to deliver such a sensitive process fairly and effectively”.

Then isn’t the flaw technically due to the process of competition, and corporate laws? Again, statistically insignificant.

The current CEO said the $100 million a year in funding was too much for the body to manage efficiently. “It is actually impossible to spend that amount of money responsibly”, he said (in relation to the Carbon capture and storage facility).

Then why had $122 million dollars already been spent at the time, with the government defending their decisions to cut funding?

Taxpayers forked out more than $30 million in market research since Julia Gillard became Prime Minister in June 2010. This is double what Kevin Rudd spent in his two and a half years as Prime Minister.

Please explain John Howard’s actions, when he paid a billion dollars to US corporations to fund their spending.

Taxpayers are spending about $150 million a year on an army of spin doctors to sell Labor policies. There is now about 1600 staff employed by federal departments and agencies in media, communications, marketing and public affairs roles. Yet again, Labor’s focus on spin over substance is coming at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

Spin over substance? Coming from the LNP, I find this comment highly hypocritical. It seems like all they do is put out misinformation and spin. Besides, without people putting out facts, anyone’s reputation can be trashed. Just look at what happened to Gough Whitlam, and MSM.

$1.3 million was spent on payouts to terminated staff immediately following Kevin Rudd’s political assassination, and a further $5.5 million following the subsequent election. Australians didn’t just wake up to a new Prime Minister on 24 June 2010; they also awoke to a massive payout bill.

There would’ve been a mass desertion, if Kevin Rudd was not voted out. That might entail a bit more payouts. $6.8 million is not a “massive bill”, compared to the total tax revenue. Much more was being lost due to the number of Public Servants who couldn’t work under Kevin Rudd. The staff were dropping like flies.

Labor’s Clean Energy Regulator, better known as the ‘Carbon Cop’, has spent $4.4 million sprucing up its new offices. This comes after it was revealed the Department of Climate Change office rent jumped $1.3 million a year to $25.2 million under a newly signed five-year lease.

Give the poor public servants a break. They’ve been instrumental in reducing emissions by 8.6%. Oh, and Howard spent $18.4 million, over all those years, to maintain Kirribilli house.

Kevin Rudd spent $1.2 million on overseas travel in his first month as Foreign Minister, after being dumped as Prime Minister. It was obvious Julia Gillard preferred Kevin Rudd out of the country, but it came as a huge cost to taxpayers.

John Howard spent $7 million traveling between The Lodge and Kirribilli house. At least Rudd achieved diplomatic progress in his travels. What has Howard achieved by traveling at such a frequency?

Labor donated $10 million of taxpayer’s money to trade unions to train upcoming union leaders in its 2011-12 budget. This followed Kevin Rudd’s union donation in the 2010-11 budget. Unions have now been fully compensated for their $20 million donation to Labor at the 2007 election.

If you don’t pay it back, it’s called stealing. I thought the LNP empathised.

Labor will spend $20 million on a propaganda campain about the National Broadband Network in a desperate attempt to paint over the waste and mismanagement of the $44 billion off-budget project.

Waste and mismanagement? The LNP’s plans involving copper wires is not suited to the present day, far too expensive compared to fibre optics, and very exhaustive to maintain. Where’s the costings for the LNP’s repeated attempts to berate the LNP in ads, smear campaigns, etc?

Labor is wasting $67 million on administration costs to run a program to install set top boxes in people’s homes for an average of $350 each, even though Harvey Norman offers customers the same deal for $168.

The scheme is actually for pensioners, who are needy people. They most likely do not have the ability to install the top boxes, and some cannot even afford to pay for one, with what savings they have.

Labor has repaid the groups who have been the loudest supporters of the carbon tax by donating $3 million in grants to those who formed the backbone of the “Say Yes” climate change campaign, such as the Climate Institute, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Climate Works Australia.

At least they’re trying to help the environment and not dismissing climate change as “absolute crap”. What does the LNP have? A “direct-action” scheme already dismissed as a fraud by Al Gore?

$1 million was wasted holding a tax forum demanded by Independent Rob Oakeshott, another talkfest that delivered no results.

Oh really, then why is Oakeshott describing it as a success? Results includes the tax-free threshold being raised to $21,000 dollars, and an institute being set up for research into taxation. That is not “no results”.

Despite being unable to deliver a system that doctors can actually use, the National E-Heath Transition Authority still managed to spend $4.3 million on travel in 2011-12 and more than $1 million on events, conferences and dinners in five-star hotels.

Nonsense. There already was a version put out that doctors COULD use. A simplified version is now made as a beta built, and is being subject to trials.

To go with its new office, the Department of Climate Change is expected to purchase a suite of shiny new appliances for Julia Gillard’s ‘carbon cop’, including 23 bar fridges, 14 dishwashers, 26 microwaves, two ovens, two cooktops, two wall mounted range hoods and a 40-bottle wine cabinet.

Looks like the LNP is splitting hairs, there was already a point about spending on public servants. Aside from that, so what? The public servants are just going to sit there in some dingy, unfurnished sweatshop? When I joined the Public Service Howard was Prime Minister. All departments had those appliances.

Julia Gillard’s carbon tax has had an immediate impact on her electricity bills at The Lodge, with the July 2012 bill increasing 25% from the previous July 2011 bill. As the bill clearly states, there is $660 worth of carbon tax payments (including GST), some 12% of the total bill. But unlike ordinary Australian families, she won’t need to worry about how to pay for it – that will be picked up by the taxpayer.

Firstly, The Lodge is for the taxpayer to foot regardless of who is in power. Secondly, the effect of paying for The Lodge, to the taxpayer, is minimal. Thirdly, would Abbott stop whinging if he himself was in The Lodge? Fourthly, if one removes overseas travel from expenses, then Abbott actually spends FAR more than Gillard in terms of personal spending. (Gillard has to go on diplomatic trips, that’s part of her job). Abbott spends $380,000 more, factoring out travel overseas. Who’s straining the taxpayer more? What’s he doing traveling overseas, anyway, as opposition leader?

Fair Work Australia has spent more than $1.8 million on outside on outside legal and accounting advice for its investigation into the rorting of HSU funds, including $1.3 million on external legal advice, $100,000 on external accounting advice, $430,000 on KPMG’s review of the investigation.

Keep in mind, it is the LNP and Mainstream media who are pressing the charge and vilifying Thomson, so they are technically responsible for the costs.

The $1.8 million does not include the cost to taxpayers of launching FWA’s court action against Labor MP, Craig Thomson. The court action followed FWA’s findings that Mr Thomson had used FWA funds to pay for escort services and other improper purposes.

Craig Thomson’s wrongdoings were as a member of a union, not as a member of the Labor Party. All criminal persecutions should be followed through. It would be inappropriate to drop a case simply for the reason of saving money.

Labor spent $1.03 million researching the effectiveness of Julia Gillard’s taxpayer funded carbon tax advertising campaign. This follows revelations that Labor has installed a secret spin team charged with selling the carbon tax at a cost of $1 million a year.

More split hairs. The ‘carbon tax’ team is supposed to provide information to the general population, as any good government should, come time for major changes.

Labor wasted more than $5 million on its failed Malaysian deal, including $360,000 refurbishing motels in Malaysia, almost $50,000 on rent, $4.6 million in operating costs, $272,000 on its legal defence in the High Court and another $200,000 on “accrued costs”.

More split hairs. The deal was scuttled by the High Court as a result of lack of ethics in Malaysia and complaints from human rights lawyers. One cannot blame Labor for trying. Besides, the $5 million is statistically insignificant, even as a part of the immigration budget!

The number of SES level staff in the public service has blown out by 185 in the last three years. With an average SES pay level of approximately $150,000, this blowout is costing taxpayers an extra $30 million dollars a year.

There are 2850 SES level staff in total. The increase is insignificant. Those 185 SES were more than likely at the Director level and on approx $120,000 per year level before promotion, so in effect the increase is only $5.55 million.

The Prime Minister’s department and the Department of Climate Change were the biggest movers, increasing the number of SES staff from 42 to 90, and 18 to 56 respectively.

This should come as little surprise, considering that one of the key goals of the Labor Government was to tackle climate change.

The Auditor General has found that Labor’s literacy and numeracy national partnership program has produced no improvement in student outcomes, despite $540 million in payments over the last four years.

No improvement? -Primary schools achieved higher, especially in numeracy. -School participation in high school has increased. -There was an improvement in Indigenous students’ academia, albeit they are still below the results of non-Indigenous students.

Staff numbers in the Prime Minister’s office has blown out by almost 30% since Labor came to office in 2007, costing an additional $1 million a year. This is despite Labor promising at the 2007 election to slash ministerial staffing levels.

A bit of sensationalism here, the $1 million increase is NOTHING compared to the total amount spend on payroll. Most likely, those staff were already Public Servants who simply transferred over.

The Environment Department has signed a $500,000 contract to deck out its offices with indoor plants. Not to be outdone, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations forked out more than $1 million to decorate offices with pot plants.

More sensationalism. Let’s not forget, Howard arranged for giant pot-plants to be placed around parliament, when the US president came to visit to avoid people from seeing them. I know the DEEWR building well. It would be lucky to have 800 plants in the whole building. According to the LNP’s calculations that $1250 for each plant. Wow.

Federal public servants are purchasing gold-plated coffee machines at a cost of $15,000 each. The Department of Innovation spent $75,000b on buying and installing five high-end coffee machines for its Canberra offices. The Clean Energy Regulator spent $20,000 on eight machines.

John Howard splashed $250,000 on building a gold carriage for the queen. The LNP is equally guilty of splashing cash around. The only difference is, public servants benefit from the former, and might be motivated to work harder. How anyone in the community will benefit from the gold carriage remains to be seen.

Labor has sent Origami style cardboard cut outs of a $1.4 million taxpayer funded truck to all federal MPs to supposedly help them ‘understand’ how the NBN works. The actual truck, a prime mover with a specially fitted out trailer, has been organised to travel the country to promote the NBN.

More split ends hairs from the Carbon Price advertising claims. Some areas are quite secluded. It is important that they also have equal access to information.

Government agencies are spending more than $10.3 million a year checking what is said about them in the media. This bill would pay for more than $100 (I think they meant ‘100’) full-time staff each eearning $100,000 a year.

Substantiate the claim. I could find nothing about media monitoring as a means to save face. On the other hand, media monitoring is used as a means to receive information on community issues. This is so politicians can act on said issues. Media monitoring was going on when I worked under the Howard Government. This is nothing new.

The cost of renting and furnishing houses in the community for asylum seekers is costing on average $9,100 on average for each house, almost 30% more expensive than the original estimate of $7,100 for the average family of five.

Splitting hairs again. Paying for asylum seekers to come in via humanitarian camps, and providing for them, is still cheaper than putting up border patrol, detention centres, running processing centres, etc.

Senate estimates revealed that Senator Conroy spent $525,719 to select 11 ABC and SBS directors. At about $50,000 for each position, Senator Conroy appears to have created an incredibly wasteful and expensive process to fill ABC and SBS board vacancies.

Nice copy and paste from The Australian there. (See my comments below this post). The new process is merit motivated, as opposed to being picked by the Government of the day. If picked by the Government, the system would be prone to nepotism. The new system is instrumental to avoiding bias in broadcasting (Murdoch Media is enough).

Government bureaucrats sold two billiard tables for $6000 and then promptly stumped up $100,000 to investigate whether the sale was value for money.

Pure sensationalism. Where’s the evidence? Good question.

Labor has paid more than a half a million dollars for a questionable accounting scheme for Kenya. The $550,000 tender has been awarded to the Clinton Foundation for designing a national carbon accounting system. The Foundation’s expertise is not in carbon accounting but in HIV/AIDS which provides practical assistance for developing countries.

A mathematician, not a climate scientist, discovered the greenhouse effect. What’s your point? Beside which, aid to combat HIV/AIDS is still for a noble and worthy cause. It certainly isn’t worse than employing a catering company do to your budget costings.

While most people run blogs at no cost; Julia Gillard has spent $53,000 running two that will run for about three months. The blogs feature little more than articles about Australia-Asia relations and just one reader has bothered to make a comment.

Before making such comments, and referring to tabloid journalism, please release the costings for Tony Abbott’s blog.

One of the two blogs doesn’t even allow readers to comment – a staple of online blogs. Taxpayers are forking out for a fulltime editor and a part time assistant to run one of the blogs.

Yes, and on blogs that can comment, the amount of harassment and hatred from LNP supporters is astonishing. Abbott’s blog will block you, if you so much as make a dissenting comment.

Labor has handed out a $72,000 grant to the Auburn Community Development Network to host an ‘enviro tea salon’. Thanks to the funding, participants can now take part in “a weaving workshop” using “native Lemandra grass”. Participants will be ” . . . encouraged to share their energy efficiency tips in exchange for free seeding, re-potted into a recycled cup sourced from local businesses”.

Handing out money to help spread environmentalism isn’t such a bad idea. Besides, I thought that the LNP supported businesses. So why are they complaining about local businesses being benefited by the move? They should have given the money to John Howard’s brother.

Projects included $197,302 for “Sending and responding to messages about climate change: the role of emotion and morality”; $314,000 for a study to determine if birds are shrinking; and $145,000 for a study of sleeping snails to determine “factors that aid life extension”.

1. The money given to the research council, is for the research council to allocate.

2. Research about climate change, and its effect on humans isn’t a waste, it’s good preparation for the future.

3. Birds shrinking? Forgot a word there. It’s actually “Bird populations shrinking”. I was hoping the birds would shrink.

4. Aiding life extension sounds like a means to improve on medical science.

What waste occurred?

Hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars are going to promote the carbon tax to toddlers as part of Labor’s multi-million dollar carbon tax campaign. The Department of Climate Change has provided grants for:

1. $150,000 to Dirtgirlworld Productions Pty Ltd – producer of children’s television program popular with toddlers.

2. $200,000 to Green Cross Australia to run carbon tax ‘Show and Tell’ programs in primary schools.

What? If you actually check, they are merely schemes to promote environmentalism. It is absurd to think that they can peddle it into a children’s show. The most they can do is promote environmentalism, and that’s about it. Show me some video proof, or is this just more sensationalism?

Labor has handed the Australian Council of Trade Unions $93,000 to teach union officials how to sell the carbon tax to their members.

Bullshit. Even in your excerpt, the aim was stated to be “to provide information about climate change and energy reduction policies”. The carbon price is part of the set, but that doesn’t mean it comprises the whole of it!

Labor has spent $110,000 in six months on media monitoring for the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, while at the same time cutting vital funds from frontline border protection services.

WHAT CUTS?! Oh, rescinding Howard’s inhumane plans? As mentioned above, media monitoring is a means to keep up to date on potential issues.

$600 million of Australia’s foreign Aid program is being spent on developing climate change “leader’ in the Pacific, making DVDs and writing policy briefs for overseas bureaucrats on climate change.

Spreading a message about the environment is a noble cause, considering the effects of global warming and climate change. To me this sounds very subjective in the way the LNP has presented this. They are clearly hoping that the reader interprets it as though the whole $600 million is going into making DVDs and writing policy briefs.

Public servants from the Department of Climate Change spent $3.1 million on overseas travel in 2010. This equates to about $250,000 a month. 86 staff travelled first or business class during 2010, taking more than 250 individual trips to cities such as Paris, London, New York, and Madrid. Reasons for travel included “energy efficient discussions”.

Discussing environmental issues is, as repeated above ad nauseum, a noble cause, considering the world we live in. When I worked for the Howard Government, senior public servants always flew first or business class. It was part of their salary agreement and used as a lure to get staff onto Australian Workplace Agreements.

The endless rotation of Speakers during this Parliamentary term will leave taxpayers with a bill of almost $100,000 in portrait costs. Former Speaker Peter Slipper is set to be immortalised on the walls in Parliament House with a portrait costing taxpayers $30,000.

Peter Slipper is a member of the LNP. That was, before Gillard instated him as speaker. Really, who cares about this? Perhaps when and if the LNP win office they can have the portraits done away with. Replace them with photos.

This follows the recently completed $30,000 portrait of Harry Jenkins, who Labor removed as Speaker in favour of Mr Slipper. After Mr Slipper’s resignation, a third Speaker was installed, guaranteeing the need for at least one more $30,000 portrait.

It’s no wonder he resigned, the LNP stabbed him in the back (note the terminology) and vilified him over sexual harassment for 8 months, before the supreme court threw their case out, for it was a scam. The LNP is to blame here, for ruining Slipper and forcing his resignation. If the Opposition didn’t drive Jenkins mad then this cost could have been avoided. And they are being a bit too speculative in claiming Labor had Jenkins removed. I thought he resigned.

Taxpayers will be forced to foot a $200,000 bill for the Department of Climate Change to contemplate how it brands itself.

What? Go substantiate your claims, with a reliable source. Again, more sensationalism.

Labor blew $60,000 on designing a “National Carbon Offset Standard” logo – a logo experts say has no ‘wow’ factor.

Oh look, the LNP is getting desperate, and using more sensationalism. Labor was able to reduce emissions by 8.6%, with the carbon price. What will the LNP achieve, with their “market mechanism” scam? What logo experts?

Labor Ministers have breached their own rules on pork-barrelling after approving grants in their own electorates at least 33 times without properly telling the Finance department. And on 11 occasions, grants were approved by Ministers that government agencies recommended should be rejected! As Education Minister, Julia Gillrad approved grants to three schools in defiance of recommendations y her own department.

Don’t know what you mean by “properly telling”. It’s like saying that 90% of asylum seekers show up without papers, when papers specifically refers to passport. Here’s some good examples of pork-barrelling, Liberal style.

The Department of Parliamentary Services has spent about $2.4 million on “staff related and training” purposes – up $470,000 on the previous year. The Department’s annual report reveals the classes include advice on “getting a good night’s sleep”.

Sensationalism again. I thought staff training was important. The advice forms a PART of the whole training program. All the LNP seems to do is take a minor part of a scheme, and blow it up to vilify the scheme. Departments are required to spend an ex percentage on their entire salary budget on staff training. I remember when in the Public Service under Howard, the Government paid for people to have weekly massages because of getting sore backs from their seating.

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet spent $650,000 on training workshops in Julia Gillard’s first 15 months as Prime Minister. The department has spent thousands of dollars hiring performance coaches, some of who boast of improving emotional intelligence and ‘putting the lights on’.

More sensationalism? Give her a break, most jobs have training workshops. Abbott spent far more, as mentioned above, than Gillard on a personal basis. All footed onto the taxpayer. If those coaches can improve emotional intelligence and ‘putting the lights on’ I think they should be contracted by the LNP. Where the Department of PM&C got the job done for $650,000 I think there might be a cost blowout working on the Opposition. I’d guess somewhere close to $100,000,000,000.

Julia Gillard has received a new $66,000 hot water system at The Lodge, equivalent to replacing hot water systems in about 20 ordinary homes. And the new system isn’t even solar!

Yes, and the lodge is a 40 roomed mansion. The hot water system wasn’t ordered by Julia Gillard, it was ordered by the Department of Finance, after safety concerns. At the same time, they had to remove asbestos and improve on other safety issues. The actual water systems cost $32,000. The LNP just added all the costs! The water systems are Australian built, high efficiency systems, as mentioned in that article! I thought the LNP supported local business. Did John Howard break the last one?

Over $20 million has been wasted on administration costs to deliver new homes in Aboriginal communities under the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program. Yet again, Labor has been shown to be incapable of implementing a program without wasting millions of dollars in the process.

Did they get the job done? Yes, they did. So what’s the problem?

Taxpayers are forking out $2022 for each tonne of carbon dioxide saved under Labor’s Green Precincts Fund. This is compared to the $23 a tonne carbon price under the Labor/Greens carbon tax.

Sources, please?

Labor has splurged $15 million on a dozen ‘demonstration’ projects under the program, including a grant to Cate Blanchett’s Sydney Theatre Company to reduce their energy bill by $98,000, but cost the Australian taxpayer $1.2 million.

I thought the LNP already covered, and attacked a few of those schemes. Sources, please, for the claim about the Sydney Theatre Company.

Having looked through the Liberal book I was astounded to see that approx 90% of these claims were lifted from Murdoch media sites (namely The Australian and The Daily Telegraph), or from fluffy Liberal media releases. Simply amazing.

In government, nothing is an accident

I worked in government long enough to know how they operate.

Nothing is an accident.

Everything is planned or stage-managed.

It is especially so before a new, and particularly controversial initiative is to be announced. It’s always good for the government to get a ‘feel’ of how the announcement will be received. Conversely, if there are indications that the announcement would be in the face of public disapproval then it’s just as good for the government to say and do nothing. “It was just all speculation”. “It will blow over and soon be forgotten”.

And so it was when yesterday we learned that:

A national wind farm commissioner to investigate complaints about wind turbines will be appointed by the Abbott government as anti-wind energy senators move to curb the industry’s growth.

This government knows just who to turn to.

Talk around the water cooler suggests that most people see this as a swift response inspired by Tony Abbott’s much public complaint to Alan Jones that wind farms could represent health risks, and of course, his much-lampooned comment about them being noisy:

“Well Alan look, I do take your point about the potential health impact of these things,” Mr Abbott said.

“When I’ve been up close to these wind farms, there’s no doubt, not only are they visually awful, they make a lot of noise.

I beg to differ to the water cooler consensus. Experience in government tells me it was the other way around.

The government wants to appoint a national wind farm commissioner and was dangling its toe in the pool of public opinion first.

That’s where Alan Jones steps in – who else?

It was all stage-managed.

Conveniently Jones wanted to talk about wind farms and instead of being met with Tony Abbott’s customary responses that are littered with hesitant words the Prime Minister spoke quite fluently. It was not the Tony Abbott who is always lost for words when confronted with an off-the-cuff question.

Everything fell into place. Let’s run through them:

  • The government wants to appoint a national wind farm commissioner. It is a controversial decision given the world’s move towards cleaner energy.
  • The government ’employs’ Alan Jones to interview the Prime Minister about – among other things – wind farms.
  • The Prime Minister puts it out there that there are potential health concerns with wind farms, and of course they look ugly and are noisy.
  • The Murdoch media publish stories that support the Prime Minister. Public support has been mustered.
  • Bingo, government announces (conveniently through a leaked letter) that it wants to appoint a national wind farm commissioner.

The wind farm debate was no accident.

There are times when Tony Abbott knows exactly what he is doing.

 

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

How to avoid the democratic process within your own party

By Jennifer Wilson

In December 2014, then Immigration Minister Scott Morrison made this alarming lunge for sole power over citizenship decisions without recourse to judicial review:

The DIBP submission to a Senate committee argues that an elected member of parliament and minister of the Crown has gained a particular insight into the community’s standards and values. This particular insight therefore qualifies Morrison to overrule AAT decisions. It is the bill’s intention to grant a minister, in this case Morrison, the power to determine an individual’s “good character” or otherwise, regardless of any ruling made by the AAT. Morrison’s decision will be unchallengeable.

Peter Dutton has now replaced Morrison as Minister for Immigration and is in the process of attempting a similar grab for sole power over the stripping of citizenship from those he alone deems unsuitable to retain it.

No citizen can have confidence in a government or an opposition that supports one politician being granted absolute power over such decisions. It is absolutely contrary to all democratic instincts and practices. The question we must ask is why is it thought necessary to invest one politician with this much power? The answer is obviously that the government cannot risk internal debate, and is determined to avoid that democratic process. The Minister is answerable to no one within his party, let alone outside of it. It is only a matter of time before more Ministers are granted similar authority over who knows what circumstances, and anyone who believes or trusts otherwise has their head in a sack. The government has no mandate to invest a Minister with absolute power, not even within its own ranks.

 

∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫ ∫

 

There are currently so many disturbing events initiated by the Abbott government it’s difficult to triage, however, surely one of the more alarming is the decision to imprison for up to two years doctors, nurses and teachers who disclose adverse conditions at asylum seeker detention centres on Manus and Nauru.

In spite of the border protection rhetoric that surrounds this decision, it’s apparent to anyone with a brain that the only interests served by imposing these draconian restrictions on professionals who, in Australia, are mandated to report abuses they become aware of in the course of their work, are the interests of the Abbott government, supported by the Labor opposition.

Neither major party wants us or the rest of the world to know what goes on in the off-shore detention centres. Knowledge of abuses inflicted upon the detained cannot possibly be a threat to our national security, and if that is what the major parties continue to insist, they need to explain exactly how they justify that claim.

Indeed, if there was any logic to the government’s argument the ill-treatment of asylum seekers ought to be trumpeted from the rooftops as a deterrence to anyone else attempting to come here by boat. Not only will you never be resettled in Australia, you and your children will be subjected to inhumane treatment and conditions in tropical hell holes as well.

As head of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs so eloquently pointed out, we are currently being subjected to an erosion of rights that ought to have us taking to the streets in protest at the over-reach of executive power by the Abbott government. It is not far-fetched to imagine that a government prepared to imprison professionals for doing their jobs in off-shore detention centres will extend that threat to professionals doing their jobs in the homeland, should it serve their interests. There’s certainly no future in entreating the ALP to take a stand, indeed, the ALP seems more than happy for Abbott to do this dirty work.

Jennifer also writes on her own blog: No Place For Sheep

 

Who leaks?

Welcome to another Your Say.

Can we talk about leaks? They certainly have been big news this week:

Senior Minister Ian Macfarlane has described as “very accurate” media accounts of a rowdy Cabinet discussion on national security, which was seemingly leaked in detail last week.

Along with his Cabinet colleagues, Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop, Mr Macfarlane has denied being the source for the report, which featured quotes from several ministers questioning a contentious proposal to strip citizenship from Australians linked to terrorism.

One AIMN reader wrote to us with his/her suspected culprit:

My theory is that Scott Morrison is the culprit. I believe he dearly wants to be Prime Minister and wants Turbnbull and Bishop out of the way. The finger is being pointed at both these individuals and he remains clean.

After all, he has history when it comes to getting the job he wants.

So, dear readers, here’s the chance to have your say. Who do you think the leaker was? Are you also pointing the finger at Scott Morrison? And why?

Over to you.