Sunday 26 November 2017
1 “I would be staggered if the Coalition proposed a banking royal commission, that is rank socialism.”
“There have been some egregious errors and the law should operate harshly against any wrongdoing by any of the banks.”
“But the idea that you have a royal commission, that you put a successful segment of the Australian business community in the dock, and that’s what happens, and royal commissions go on and on and often go beyond their remit.”
“I would say to my former colleagues and the people I still support: don’t embrace a royal commission.”
The former member for Bennelong says division on the issue only adds to the impression of government instability and will foster ‘cynicism’ within the electorate.
Mr Howard also went on to say that National Party members shouldn’t harm the government just because some Coalition MPs were high profile supporters of same sex marriage:
“I would agree with those people in the National party about the substance of same sex marriage issue, but that is over,” he said.
“Let’s not visit upon the Coalition and the fortunes of the government your anger and disappointment on the issue.”
The “he” is no other than former Prime Minister John Howard and he gave his opinion in an interview with Sky News.
Is he suggesting that it’s only socialists who think Royal Commissions are appropriate when financial institutions have committed demonstrably wrong doings against their customers. That successful banks who have become successful by ripping off their clients, are beyond the enquiring minds of Royal Commissioners.
Conversely does he mean that Royal Commissions into Trade Unions organised by Conservative Governments are fine but certainly socialists should never countenance such ideas?
Or is he just criticising members of the National Party on the basis that they would cross the floor as a sort of pay back because some Coalition MPs were high profile supporters of same sex marriage?
Nationals Senator Barry O’Sullivan, one of the Nationals supporting a Royal Commission said of Howard’s statement:
“I don’t understand what he means.”
“If it’s good enough for conservative governments to have royal commissions into trade unions, pink batts and detention centres,” O’Sullivan said, “then it is good enough to have one for the banks, as they are more corrupt than the unions and on a scale much bigger.”
Howard steadfastly refused a Royal Commission into the abuse of children during his tenure in office. It took Julia Gillard to do so. He would probably describe it as a communist plot against the clergy.
Howard also said that Malcolm Turnbull should embrace tax reform, including personal, company and increasing the GST. He offered no suggestion as to how the government could afford it while bringing the budget into the black. No, that would take more intestinal fortitude (guts) than the government has at the moment.
His comments come as the Government is contemplating an enquiry into its own leaking after Peter Dutton suggested they should reconsider a Royal Commission into banks. Just imagine if they found him or her. Then they would have a real problem. Now they are in damage control. I daresay if you commissioned a survey on the question of a Royal Commission you might get near 100% yes.
As it now stands the Government without Joyce and Alexander stands the real prospect of a humiliating defeat on the floor of the House of Representatives – the chamber it is supposed to control.
2 Why is it when talking to the Press Peter Dutton insists that the refugees on Manus are under the control of Papua New Guinea but the Prime Minister when talking to the President of the United States said:
“They have been under our supervision for over three years now and we know exactly everything about them.”
And Peter Dutton said.
“I think it’s outrageous that people are still there and they have trashed the facility, they’re living in squalor and the Australian taxpayers have paid about $10 million for a new facility and we want people to move.”
And then I turn on the telly and the Reverend Tim Costello is standing on a vacant block telling the audience that it isn’t finished. “You can believe him or me,” he says.
The obvious question arises. Why are we spending 10 million on a facility if in the short term we plan to place them in other countries or is it just more jails to keep people incarcerated long term for not having committed a crime?
“You stick people on an island they never wanted to go to, treat them appallingly for almost half a decade, subject them to violence, fear, conflict and sustained uncertainty, and then expect them not to use what tiny opportunity they have to grab the attention of a country that has grown far too good at forgetting they even exist?”
3 Meanwhile the two by-elections are well underway. John Alexander served one into the net when a video surfaced of him telling a bad Irish joke and another about a black man in Chicago telling a rape joke. Just as well he has a 10 point lead nearing the 10th anniversary of John Howard’s loss of Bennelong.
And in New England, Barnaby Joyce who seems to be distracted by one thing or another rather reluctantly returned a $40,000 cheque to “AgDay”, described as the “brainchild” of his good friend Gina Rinehart. The award was for being the “champion of our industry”. The entitlements problem again?
4 And there we had Josh Frydenberg on Friday telling more lies by omission, saying that the states had agreed to the Governments Energy Guarantee Policy which wasn’t the case at all. In fact the Labor states sought further investigations by way of direct comparisons between the current policy and other alternatives, like an emissions intensity trading scheme for the electricity sector.
All sounds perfectly reasonable to me but Frydenberg, wants the states to agree to further policy design work on his own preferred national energy guarantee, policy.
Analysis of the policy by Frontier Economics, obtained by Guardian Australia, suggests renewables already incentivised by the existing renewable energy target will drive the first wave of price reductions under the policy.
A separate analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance released before the energy minister’s meeting says the guarantee could be an effective mechanism “but the outlook for renewable energy depends squarely on the ambition of the emission reduction target”.
The analysis warns that the Turnbull government’s proposed emissions reduction target for the electricity sector, which is 26-28% by 2030, “could decimate large-scale wind and solar construction” while a more ambitious target consistent with Australia’s obligations under the Paris agreement would continue the current boom.”
Unfortunately our country is currently being held to ransom by a few flat earth idiots who the Prime Minister is to weak to admonish. If we were to take a survey on what should be done with a question “Would you be agreeable to holding another election now” you would be assured of a 75% YES vote.
My thought for the day
“The simplest way to turn the profession of politics on its head would be to demand they tell the truth.”