When culture war games trend lethal

The right-wing ecosphere throws an idiot ball into the civic discourse with…

The year ahead

Most people turn away from politics over the holiday period when the…

Cutting Your Power Bills In Half And Other…

A few years ago there was a scam where people were promised…

Values Based Capitalism: The Imperative of Defining Commitment…

By Denis Bright Editorial insiders at The Weekend Australian (28-29 January 2023)…

A walk in the forest

Bayerischer Wald can be just as hard to get to than it…

An Emergent Premier Chris Minns - Uniting Sydney…

By Denis Bright After more than a decade in Opposition, NSW Labor is…

Forget Australia Day And Celebrate: Rum Rebellion Day…

After pointing out for a number of years that January 26th isn't…

Whither Constitutional Change?

Within a very short space of time, we are going to be…

«
»
Facebook

Living in an echo chamber

It has become increasingly apparent that this government exists in an echo chamber deliberately choosing who they consult, confident in advance that they will agree with party policy so they won’t be told anything they don’t want to hear.

They formed an advisory panel which has just recommended taking 25 per cent of the ‘no-take’ area away from our marine reserves allowing extractive industries to come in.

The panel included 11 fishing stakeholders, two scientists, one or two Indigenous members and one local council member.

The chair of the advisory panel, Prof Colin Buxton, had already said in July 2013, that all fresh fish for sale in Australia is sustainable and people shouldn’t worry about fish guides or [sustainability] cards produced by the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) which he said promoted an “anti-fishing agenda” based on “ridiculous emotive arguments.”

He particularly ridiculed them for criticisms against the salmon aquaculture industry in Tasmania. I wonder if he saw last night’s Four Corners program where one of the largest salmon farmers in Tasmania said there are real problems in the industry which are causing intolerable stress on the environment.

Another example of choosing your “independent” reviewer was the appointment of Henry Ergas, an open Liberal supporter and one of the most strident critics of Labor’s National Broadband Network policy, to conduct a cost/benefit analysis and review of the NBN.

Ergas had previously made a submission to the NBN Senate Select Committee in October 2009, arguing that the costs of building the NBN exceeded its benefits by somewhere between $14 billion and $20 billion.

In October 2013, he wrote an article in the Australian stating that “the greatest disasters” in government bore “Labor’s mark”. In the article, Ergas compared the NBN to the problematic Collins-class submarine project, and questioned many of the bases for its existence.

“Deploying fibre-optic cable should be one way among others of providing very high-speed broadband, not an objective in itself but … in Conroy’s theatre of the absurd, the tail completely swallowed the dog, leaving the farce of the big yellow button as the only action that mattered.”

It seems to me that Henry had made up his mind long before any review was even begun, which is no doubt why Malcolm chose him for the job.

It is worth noting from the IPA’s 75 point wish list:

69 Immediately halt construction of the National Broadband Network and privatise any sections that have already been built

When Christopher Pyne wanted the National Curriculum reviewed to “remove partisan bias”, he appointed the IPA’s Kevin Donelly to the job. (IPA wish number 12 Repeal the National Curriculum)

Donnelly was on record criticising modern school curriculums for enforcing ”a politically correct, black-armband view”, arguing that schools are places where ”feminists and left-wing advocates of the gender agenda argue for the rights of women, gays, lesbians and transgender people”.

His personal think tank, the Education Standards Institute, instead favours ”a commitment to Christian beliefs and values”.

Donnelly claimed in 2000 that the Queensland curriculum focused ”on such issues as the environment, multiculturalism and social justice; all with a future perspective to ensure that students were ready to embrace the brave new world of the politically correct.”

He also felt the history curriculum ”undervalues Western civilisation and the significance of Judeo-Christian values to our institutions and way of life.”

In 2006 the federal minister for education, Julie Bishop, argued that a ”back-to-basics uniform national curriculum” was necessary because left-wing ”ideologues” had ”hijacked” the curriculum and school students were subjected to ”trendy educational fads.”

Conservatives don’t like how the curriculum has expanded, encouraging students to question non-egalitarian structure, business values and impacts on community and environment. They don’t like activism and don’t want teachers giving their students ideas that might cause them to question the status quo.

Their review, unsurprisingly, put together all their previously expressed views. No wonder it only took them a few months.

Another shining example of picking the man for the job was the appointment of Dyson Heydon to preside over the Trade Union Royal Commission.

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.”

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.

Sound familiar?

Sometimes, the evidence is so overwhelming that even the hand-picked reviewer can’t distort it in which case it just gets ignored as happened with the review into renewable energy by climate sceptic Dick Warburton.

We are now in the situation where the government has given up any pretence of listening to, or even seeking, independent advice, sacking department heads with whom they disagree, restricting terms of reference and refusing to release reports they don’t like, abandoning even doing modelling of the impact of their policies. Anyone who speaks out has their personal credibility attacked as we have seen with Gillian Triggs, Justin Gleeson, the Save the Children staff, Sarah Hanson-Young, all unions and many others. The gutter attacks are appalling.

If you genuinely want the best outcome for the most people, you don’t just consult with big business and the Christian churches, you don’t just consult with people who agree with your preconceived layman’s opinion. Politicians are not experts. They should not be distorting, disregarding and dismissing information or seeking it in the strict confines of an echo chamber.

 

never-assume-that-every-critic-is-a-hater-not-everyone-is-hating-on-you-some-people-are-telling-you-the-truth

 

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

 636 total views,  2 views today

24 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.com

    It is clear from the “quality” of the policies of this government, that they are conceived in echo chambers as when put under the light of day, they simply crumple. Has there been one policy, one, that has actually stood up as being well thought through? I can’t think of a single policy in any portfolio that they have managed to undertake with any real finesse. Pretty much everything has been sub-standard, and largely because they won’t consider any other perspective, and their party system encourages arse-licking toadyism, and bare-faced lying.

    The backpacker tax folly is a perfect example where the consequences were simply not thought through. Interestingly, it has managed to expose the often illegal practices of many in the farming community who seem to be significantly underpaying their staff, such that easily exploitable backpackers were the preferred option, and now that is at risk. Talk about an own goal – no wonder the Coalition voting farmers were furious.

    But this government simply don’t care. The reality is that however much they stuff hings up, is doesn’t impact them personally, so what is the worry? But far too many of them seem to have God complexes – Turnbull in particular, who having been nearly rejected by the populace has decided to go all Old Testament, and punish whomever he can.

  2. Ella

    Kay Lee, a very worth while article. Correct me if I am wrong , but it was the Abbott gov that started adopting the IPA’s wish list and so our clone of TA continues in the same vane.
    I find it alarming that ; Minister Dutton openly attacked and made veiled threats to the presenter of the ABC’s Media Watch. So now we start bashing the ABC as it happened in the Abbott era.
    The other thing worth while watching is the push to get TA back into cabinet.( ref, this morning’s ABC 24)
    This Gov is becoming worse than the communist gov I lived under. They just got rid of their opponents …but…this gov is not content to just get rid of them, they have to destroy their chances of future employment.
    They buy and sell people , including our futures. Shame on them.

  3. Harquebus

    “The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.” — Maximilien Robespierre

  4. Kaye Lee

    God complexes – Morrison, Dutton, Brandis, Bernardi – the reason they keep stuffing it up is because they don’t consult with stakeholders. They ask Kate Carnell what she thinks and away we go. In fact, as I looked through the IPA’s wish list, an astonishing number of their recommendations have been enacted and many more proposed. There is no original thought in this government. There are no solutions for today’s problems let alone the future’s because they are living in their ideological past. They stick with what they know.

  5. Kaye Lee

    Ella,

    I spoke to one of the producers at the ABC. They are under sustained attack from Dutton (again, he really hates them) for their story about Nauru.. At the same time they are answering questions and providing evidence to the Don Dale RC. They are under a lot of pressure.

  6. Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.com

    The Coalition are so on the nose they are now attacking anything and everything. This will only get worse. There is no placating them. Everything will now be attacks on Labor and anyone who might support Labor. Divide and rule.

    Their underlying push is towards corporatism, essentially modern feudalism, where the wealthy classes control, and the great unwashed do as they are told. Australia, with its cosy duopolies and cartels, is perhaps the clearest example of what can happen when “the people”, i.e. our democratic system, has been completely subverted by the desires of the very wealthy and their political minions.

  7. Pingback: Living in an echo chamber — The AIM Network – johnlward010

  8. johnlward010

    https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/unlawful-reallocation-of-clean-energy-investment-by-the-coalition,9567 https://secure3.convio.net/gpeace/site/Advocacy? During the recent Australian election campaign Prime Minister Turnbull purported to have the authority to redistribute CEFC funds by: $1billion from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to fund his new Clean Energy Innovation Fund (CEIF last week they took $800million from the CEIF to make up for the loss of the ARENA debacle).
    $1 billion was also set aside to finance a ‘Better Cities Fund’.
    A further $1 billion ‘drawn ‘ from the “Green Bank ” to clean up the Barrier Reef.
    $1.5 billion for a second Bass Strait under sea cable link to the mainland.
    $100 million was set aside to prevent the closure of the Steelworks in Whyalla SA . The University of Tasmania’s Northern Campus in Launceston received a pledge of $150 million to be extracted from the CEFC.
    Prime Minister Turnbull is saying to Tasmanians and UTAS, “you can have an expanded Northern Campus or a renewable energy industry, but you cannot have not both”.
    Cabinet Ministers have conspired to remove all funds from the CEFC by pledging the total amount left in the CEFC account to other ‘good LNP causes’.
    Malcolm promised money he cannot access, with the total pledged so far being around $5.0 billion.
    Cabinet Ministers have conspired to remove all funds from the CEFC by pledging the total amount left in the CEFC account to other ‘good LNP causes’.
    At the same time Malcolm Turnbull is subsidising the fossil fuel industry (Oil, Coal and Gas) with (IMF numbers) $1,712 per person a year or $41 billion of taxpayer funds.
    This includes exploration funding for Geoscience Australia and tax deductions for mining and petroleum exploration.
    The president of the World Bank stated that it was crazy that governments were still driving the use of coal, oil and gas by providing subsidies. “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now,” he said. In July, Nicholas Stern estimated that tackling climate change would require investment of 2% of GDP each year. IMF indicates, that if the government stopped fossil subsidies would benefit gov 3.8% GDP a year Prime Minister Turnbull, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, Former Prime Minister Abbott, Ministers Pyne, Hockey, Cormann and Hunt are attempting to falsely convince the public that the Cabinet can “re-purpose and re-direct the Act” without going back through the Parliament. These attempted changes to the CEFC Act 2012 are yet to be legislated. . https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/unlawful-reallocation-of-clean-energy-investment-by-the-coalition,9567
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/australia-still-subsidising-fossil-fuels-at-rate-of-1712-per-person-a-year-33164 httphttps://www.ucsusa.org/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/gas-cartel-holding-nation-ransom-60079
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/energy-incumbents-fight-changes-that-could-accelerate-battery-storage-73260
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/murdoch-coalition-go-guns-blazing-wind-solar-74901
    John Ward
    johnlward010@gmail.com
    03 62921211
    20 Grosse Road
    Gordon
    Tasmania
    7150

  9. johnlward010

    Democracy, freedom, community and relationships are not rights granted to you. These are things you must fight for every day. . Constitutions can be enshrined and carved in stone, they are only words, but there is no guarantee they will be with you tomorrow. These intangibles can easily be eroded by neglect unless cherished. They can be taken away unless defended. And they will become dulled, if not valued and continually improved each and every day. We must nurture, protect, and improve them each day in order to preserve them.

    Neglect them, and they become meaningless. We have a duty of care to democracy, to ensure that the people have well-informed with factually based options on which to make their decisions.Truth is at the core of Democracy.

    In our recent election, the Conservatives have chosen to divide inflame and misinform. Thereby failing in their duty of care towards democracy through acts or omissions, that could reasonably be seen likely to damage the very fabric of our democratic institutions.

    A fog of lies and confusion turned many away from a dreary mess of slogans and exhortations. To such an extent, that 1 million voters did not care to register a formal vote, and 2 million did not vote at all.
    Democracy is dying of neglect It must no longer be acceptable that political offerings can avoid scrutiny, be deceptive or misleading, or be distortions, half-truths and exaggerations or scandalous rumours that we have experienced recently.

    The Australian electorate swallowed all the duplicity and lies that Howard spread to win elections and they still cringe in fear when they are confronted by the concept of asylum seeking or ‘boat people’.
    Never forget that under Chifley and then Menzies, brought many thousands of Nazis (not ordinary Germans) as refugees into this country. This was done at the behest of the west’s intelligence community (Five Eyes) after the second world war, to fight communism. They were given sanctuary, and they were a greater threat to our security than today’s refugees. We had just fought a war to stem their ideas, and now we embrace those same ideas. Dr Goebbels propaganda methods of creating fear and a false enemy, that Tony Abbott is so adept at using, has created a generation of frightened bigots that will get him elected once he has demolished the ‘Australian’ strength of character we used to think we had. Nazism had no place in the Australia I once knew.

  10. johnlward010

    People in the renewable energy industry are afraid to take on the Government due to their apprehended consequences.
    I need help, to back me up by enabling me to run a section 75.v of the Constitution, to get an injunction or a writ of Mandamus from the High court to put these ministers back in their box.
    I believe I have standing, any negotiations with banks are such, that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is the preferred lender but the intention of the government to shut it, the CEFC, down has made me read the documents produced; they appear to be political documents that seem not to match the public utterances of former Treasurer Hockey and Christopher Pyne and would appear designed, to cause fear and confusion in the Industry.
    I am amazed that these guys think they could undo an Act of parliament by ignoring the limits they placed on their revoking the previous Government’s investment mandate .
    I seek your advice on the matter of Senator Cormann and former Treasurer Joe Hockey attempt to close down the Clean Energy finance Corporation, by using the act itself; but ignoring the fact that section 65 of the act, limits and precisely forbids with mandatory language, the very action they propose. The treasurer and now his replacement have run an outrageous bluff on the renewables industry, and the effect of their public utterances means they have almost got away with it;
    They simply cannot change the Act without going back through Parliament. The original Mandate to the Board of the Finance Corporation was made by section 64(1) of the Act was there for Treasurer Wayne Swan, to empower the corporation in the first instance to proceed. Section 64 is not a vehicle for ministers to point the organisation in a direction against the object of the Act or to make or not make a particular investment.
    The object of the Act is to ‘facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector.
    They have demanded a higher investment return from the corporation to minimise exposure risk of taxpayers’ funds. It appears the direction is actually inconsistent with the object of the CEFC Act.The direction does seem to be transferred across from the Future Fund Investment Mandate Directions 2006.

    The key sections of the CEFC Act are set out below.
    It is worthy of note that the Ministers advisors have studiously avoided section 65 of the Act, which limits the ministers attempts to write a contrary investment mandate. Treasurer Swan and Senator Wong have been prescient in putting an ‘Effects test’ in section 65(a) just as Malcolm Turnbull has recently done in his ‘Competition Policy.

    Section 64 Investment Mandate
    (1) The responsible Ministers may, by legislative instrument, give the Board directions about the performance of the Corporation’s investment function, and must give at least one such direction. The directions together constitute the Investment Mandate.
    Note: For variation and revocation, see subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
    (2) In giving a direction, the responsible Ministers must have regard to the object of this Act and any other matters the responsible Ministers consider relevant.
    (3) Without limiting subsection (1), a direction may set out the policies to be pursued by the Corporation in relation to any or all of the following:
    (a) matters of risk and return;
    (b) technologies, projects and businesses that are eligible for investment;
    (c) the allocation of investments between the various classes of clean energy technologies;
    (d) making investments on concessional terms;
    (e) the types of financial instruments in which the Corporation may invest;
    (f) the types of derivatives which the Corporation may acquire;
    (g) the nature of the guarantees the Corporation may give and the circumstances in which they may be given;
    (h) broad operational matters;
    (i) other matters the responsible Ministers consider appropriate to deal with in a direction under subsection (1).
    Section 65 Limits on Investment Mandate
    The responsible Ministers must not give a direction under subsection 64(1):
    (a) that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of directly or indirectly requiring the Board to, or not to, make a particular investment; or
    (b) that is inconsistent with this Act (including the object of this Act).

    As you will be aware the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Abolition Act 2012, was a trigger for a Double Dissolution of the Parliament although there is a certain reluctance to use it to fight an election. The responsible Ministers, now Josh Frydenberg and Minister for Finance Senator Mathias Cormann are attempting to take the key investment mandate, which is of course, the engine that starts and maintains the life of the corporation, to open it up to be a vehicle, a mechanism for the Ministers to have more control of the terms of the board reporting back to them. This is an attempt to change the Act without taking that change back to the Parliament. The Arrogance is breathtaking.
    The correspondence to the Board of the corporation from the Treasurer stated, “the Government’s policy is to abolish the Corporation”. As the responsible Ministers Senator Cormann and the Treasurer were defacto Directors clearly acting against their duty to protect the interests of the corporation under their direction; not to cut it down.
    A reference to ASIC is appropriate?

    The public and verbal instruction to move away from Wind and Roof top Solar, towards emerging technologies was not only against the objects of the Act, it had the effect to cause many in the industry to have greater difficulty in attracting investment or gain financing. the industry collapsed by 88%.
    There are many who could run a class action against the government.

    The role of government is to create an environment in which people can achieve their dreams and ambitions, not to create an environment that government can control. The point is to empower people, not hold power over them. Government, in short, should nurture an environment in which people create and enjoy their own happiness.

  11. Shevill Mathers

    I know how this works from first hand experience. Asked for an expert evaluation of various manufacturers makes of a particular expensive scientific instrument-(purchased in large numbers costing big $$$$’s) with a certain preference clearly expected, but not one in accord with my assessment. I lose either way, one I am surplus to requirements for not toeing the party line, or I compromise my integrity. Not an enviable position to be in.

  12. johnlward010

    The 4Corners program last night Re: Disparaging words.

    In 1600 Queen Elisabeth I chartered the British East India Company to Bring her riches just as her Privateers had successfully done.
    the BEIC flourished and ruthlessly exploited in the name of Royalty until the Americans rebelled and won the American War of Independence. corporations eventually defeated the Americans in 1886 when they bribed judges and used the Law to establish power over states and courts and even created University seats of learning to create corporate law in their own ruthless image.

    Corporations can—and do—get away with buying politicians, changing the outcome of elections and making laws because their legally-protected greater sums of money talk louder than we citizens do.
    Let me give you three examples of how this works:

    Shortly after taking office as governor of Texas, George Bush signed into law the Texas Environmental, Health & Safety Audit Privilege Act which exempts companies from reporting violations of environmental regulations to law enforcement officials or to the public. And if they do choose to report a violation, they cannot be penalised in any way. The same companies who benefited from this law donated $4 million to Bush’s campaign, which is perfectly legal under the First Amendment rights of corporations to “free speech”—you know, the “money talks” entitlement.

    Over the past ten years, some 25 other states have passed similar Audit Privilege laws.
    In 1997, the EPA received an anonymous tip from an employee of Riverdale Mills, a wire-mesh manufacturer located on the Blackstone River near Worcester, Massachusetts. The employee said the mill’s wastewater treatment plant wasn’t working. Agents got a search warrant to investigate and collected evidence that was used by the EPA to indict the company’s owner on two counts of violating the Clean Water Act. However, the judge agreed with the owner’s attorneys and refused to allow the water test results into testimony because the EPA took the samples without informing the owner. The case against the mill was dropped.

    In the early 1990s, Florida Rock Industries applied for a permit to mine limestone from 1,500 acres in the Florida Everglades wetlands. To their credit, the Army Corps of Engineers denied the permit because of the high risks of pollution and destruction of habitat. So the company sued the Army Corps for compensation of future profits;
    the government wound up paying Florida Rock $21 million.

    Today, the charters governing corporations no longer require businesses to benefit the public good; instead, they are required by law to place the wealth and profits of the private shareholders above all other considerations, including local laws and ordinances.

    This legal point is also now—thanks to the United States—enshrined in international law and is the reason why the World Trade Organization consistently rules against the laws and protections of sovereign nations in favor of the rights of corporations to operate independently and above local and civil laws and regulations: So long as they are creating wealth and profits for the shareholders, their practices and operations cannot be impeded in any way.

    Their right to make money takes legal precedence over human rights.
    This right also extends to concepts of ownership that, in effect, turn human beings into indentured servants for corporate profits. In addition to mineral or drilling rights beneath the land you or entire villages thought you owned, corporations now own rights to the seeds that farmers once saved and shared freely, but now have to purchase at exorbitant cost;

    They own rights to entire species of medicinal plants that are integral to indigenous cultures;
    They even, as I mentioned earlier, have begun obtaining legal rights to entire human genetic sequences, including the genetic material of indigenous tribes in remote parts of the world.
    An interesting example of how corporate rights supersede human rights is in the area of free speech.

    Anyone ever hear of non-disparagement agreements?
    These are contracts signed by employees which forbid them from saying mean things about the corporation they work for, and over the past few years, the number of companies using them has doubled.
    Well, this past January [2008], the investment firm Lazard began using a non-disparagement agreement which forbids not only the employee from disparaging the company, but also the employee’s spouse, domestic partner, parents, and any of their lineal descendants.

    And yes, it’s entirely legal under our Australian corporate personhood laws.
    Because Corporations write these laws one way or another.

  13. Anomander

    There was actually a fantastic article in The Monthly from Australia Institute’s Richard Denniss about the power and influence of the mining and gas industry on politics. https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2016/november/1477918800/richard-denniss/feeding-beast

    And this is just one industry – we are under constant attack from the banks, finance, insurance, superannuation, property developers – in fact ALL the major corporations have lobbyists that effectively dictate government policy to benefit themselves, to our detriment.

    Kneel before our new corporate masters.

  14. Aortic

    Anomander, all the more need for publicly funded elections.

  15. Kyran

    It’s not just that they live in an echo chamber that disturbs me. It’s their expectation that we should believe them that troubles me most.
    We had little johnnie telling us that there were ‘core’ and ‘non core’ promises.
    He went to an election saying ‘trust me’.
    We had tiny telling us “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.”
    He went to an election saying ‘you can’t trust me, but trust me anyway’.
    Just today, we have talcum telling us “When asked about his past comments in Federal Parliament questioning why businesses would choose South Australia over other states, Mr Turnbull said: “You know, words are cheap, words are very cheap whether you are in the media or whether you’re in politics [but] we are putting this massive, multi-billion-dollar, $95 billion program into SA”.
    He went to an election saying ‘if you trust me, you will get everything you deserve’.
    All of these fools want us to believe them, when they have no credibility. Less than 12% of the population trust politicians. My guess is that the 12% blindly follow fools.
    The one’s that cherry pick the mandates they have and the mandates they don’t have. Or, maybe, the mandates they want and the mandates they don’t want. Depending on their subscribers.
    There was a qoute ascribed to Thomas Jefferson.
    “When governments fear the people, there is liberty,” reads the quotation. “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
    Thank you Ms Lee, and commenters. Take care

  16. Kaye Lee

    “the mandates they want and the mandates they don’t want”

    That also really aggravates me. They blame Labor for obstructing marriage equality because they can’t possibly have a parliamentary vote because they have a mandate for the plebiscite – like everyone in the election thought I will vote Liberal because I want a plebiscite. But when it comes to taxing wealthy superannuees or the backpackers employed cheaply by Nationals voters, they have “listened to the people” and abandoned the “rock solid” promises they took to the election. They then blame Labor for the 32% tax on backpackers, even though the Coalition introduced it, because they won’t just wave through the Coalition’s latest thought bubble on which they have also done no modelling as to its consequences.

    Do what I say right now or you are weak and obstructionist. Undo what I said right now or you are weak and obstructionist. It’s like watching dodgem cars.

  17. helvityni

    On Q&A in Mlidura last night all guests started their answers to audience questions with: it’s Labor’s fault…

    I found it strange until I found out that it was a safe National seat, even that nice chef of Italian background, who seemed intelligent and aware, blamed Labor for all the area’s problems… I don’t get it. Also the less said of our health minister, the better…

  18. Kyran

    Brilliant.
    “Do what I say right now or you are weak and obstructionist.”
    Tried that with the lad’s once. They told me, quite rightly (in hindsight), to feck off.
    2016 is the centenary of the 1916 uprising.
    We have a unique opportunity. We are, right here, right now, an island continent. No need for walls, because of the moat around us. A new country (relatively), hosted by one of the world’s oldest civilizations.
    1916 was not just about deciding a future. It was an attempt to define a future, and having a say in that future. However glacial the approach may be, the future is their’s for the taking.
    The ‘Australian’ bi-centennial occurred in the same year as Trinity College in Dublin celebrated it’s millennium.
    We need to define our future. As our constitution says, ‘on just terms’.
    Thank you, Ms Lee. Take care

  19. helvityni

    Mildura sounds better and looks better…

  20. totaram

    Kaye Lee: Congratulations on this piece. I am happy to see that you begin by referencing the IPA’s wish-list. So should it always be.
    Best wishes.

  21. totaram

    Johnlward010:

    “The role of government is to create an environment in which people can achieve their dreams and ambitions, not to create an environment that government can control. The point is to empower people, not hold power over them. Government, in short, should nurture an environment in which people create and enjoy their own happiness.”

    Nice ideas, but how do you get them implemented? Otherwise you are just dreaming. Just some idea how to get started will do.

    As to the actual challenge to the govt.’s actions which you claim are not lawful, please raise a petition with change.org and get the support of GetUp! and other organisations like the ACF, Greenpeace, etc.

    That should get things rolling and if nothing else it will prove another thorn in the side of this govt. But then “lawfare” is completely legal until it is declared illegal! Imagine the use of the law, by public interest organisations, as being deemed troublesome! Only a fascist govt. would think that way.

  22. Andreas Bimba

    Really good article again Kaye. I can’t keep up with all these articles.

  23. Ricardo29

    Another killer article Kaye Lee and a lot of really great feedback. If we have expectations of Labor we might be wise to remember that Shorten (reportedly) and Roskam of the IPA are mates!

  24. townsvilleblog

    The IPA’s change things like Gough, Abbott/Turnbull certainly changed things in their 3 years, not for the better either. We now have 1,101,000 unemployed with a further 1,002,000 under-employed who can’t make ends meet, the there are 3 million Aussies living in poverty, thanks to the efforts of the tories. Yes they did make a big difference in just 3 long years, they have progressed the ownership of the global 1% who own 50%+ of the global economy, to closer to 55% and they continue to privatize government services so that they are out of reach of the poor.

    Yes, turn on the lights (if you can afford to) vote Liberal, my arse!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: