Tag Archives: Abbott Government

At least I’m not Jack the Ripper … or Tony Abbott!

March 27, 2015
Written by: Rossleigh
12 Replies

The-next-liberal-gov1 I noticed a certain pattern . . .

OK, I’m a little slow, I know that just about everyone else noticed it a long, long time ago. But it just became obvious to me, because . . . well, I’m not always paying attention. I used to pay attention, but Tony Abbott convinced that it was something like the carbon tax and wasn’t worth paying.

Anyway, I’ve noticed that the Liberal Party have this way of avoiding responsibility for anything they’ve done, or haven’t done with this simple catch phrase:

“At least we’re not the Labor Party!”

OK, they don’t always say it so many words. And sometimes they even use things that aren’t the Labor Party on those rare occasions that it’s appropriate to compare themselves to a foreign dictatorship, rather than the Labor Party.

You know the sort of thing, It’s like when some stops you in the street and tells you that they’re not carrying a weapon but they’d like you to hand over your mobile phone and wallet anyway, because they can punch you really, really hard and hey, isn’t it better that they’re doing this in such a nice way, I mean at least they’re not an armed robber!

But I noticed this pattern with the Liberals the other day, when Tony Abbott said that a ratio of sixty percent debt to GDP would be a good result when compared to what the Labor Party would have done. Or rather, when he didn’t say it. Because he assured us all in Parliament that he never said it. Unfortunately, he was cut off before he could explain who it was, who looked so much like the PM that he managed to fool all those media people who filmed him and reported the story.

Still, I guess that the media are easily fooled, so I’m happy to believe that it wasn’t him. But even if it wasn’t, the point remains: “At least we haven’t/aren’t/didn’t/won’t . . . ” Strike out what’s not applicable and fill in the gaps.

Yes, I know that they’ve been doing it even since Fraser was PM. Like I said, I’m a bit slow sometimes . . .

As Fraser and Howard argued at the time: “We know that unemployment and inflation are both twice what they were when Whitlam left office, but that’s because we’re fixing the Oil Shock that was a direct result of the ALP . . . Oh no wait, that’s nothing to do with what happened in Australia when it happened and everything to do with why things haven’t quite gone as we said they would, but trust us, at least we’re not Labor . . . ”

It worked for a few years in the seventies. Then along came Bob. He had a reputation as a fixer. Sort of like Christopher Pyne, except that other people said it about Bob, whereas the only person I’ve heard called Pyne a fixer is Christopher himself.

Of course, I think it should be mandatory for all journalists to stop the politicians speaking at some point and say that we all know the problem, so can you tell us the solution. If the politician says that electing us will solve the problem, we should have legislation that compels a third party to interrupt the journalist and tell the politician that simply changing government or sticking with the current government has failed to fix the following problems:

Health
Drugs
Indigenous issues such as lower life expectancy and higher incarceration rates.
The Cost of Living (arguable)
Politicians raising money by giving access to people who donate to their party. (Except for Joe Hockey. Joe Hockey never did that.)
Work/life balance.
Other (I’m sure this list could grow longer than you’d have time to read if I kept going, so you can just add the one you think I’ve missed)

At this point, the person interrupting the journalist should be given the power to tell the politician that he or she is required to spell out in detail exactly how their coming to power will actually fix things, and until they do – without using slogans or simply asserting “We have a plan” . . . or simply saying that the other side is useless so you have no option but to elect us – they’ll be banned from all further media interviews.

Look, I know that it sounds a bit fascist, but as someone said to me the other day: “FASCISM RULES, OK!!!”

I didn’t argue.

Well, what can you say when somebody speaks in Capitals.

Particularly Canberra. When somebody speaks in that Capital, you have to listen. Because well, there’s not much else to do in Canberra, what with all the job cuts. It’s got so that not even the PM can stay there more than a couple of nights at a time, because even the Lodge is shut . . .

OK, this may not be the most informative post I’ve ever written. Nor the most interesting . . .

But at least I’m not Andrew Bolt.

The Senate Is “Feral” And Tony Abbott Sure Can Use Words Good!

March 17, 2015
Written by: Rossleigh
24 Replies

Photo: Penguin Books

Feral

adjective

(especially of an animal) in a wild state, especially after escape from captivity or domestication.

I was going to pick on Tony for his St Patrick’s Day message, but I see that the Irish have already done that. However, I can’t let the occasion pass without at least a passing raised eyebrow at his comment that St Patrick’s Day is “the one day of the year when it’s good to be green”! So it’s not good to be green any other time? Well, of course not, it slows down that friend to humanity, COAL. Thankfully Coleslaw doesn’t contain any green veggies.

And speaking of veggies, apparently Abbott told the joint party room meeting (joint party room? another green occasion?) that the Budget would be balanced within five years in spite of the “feral” Senate blocking all these great barnacles, sorry, savings measures.

So, I decided to look up the meaning of the word “feral”, because I know that someone as educated as Tony would have been using it in its correct sense and not in that I-don’t-like-something-so-it’s-feral sort of way that the common swill use it. Unfortunately, the meaning suggests that the Senate has entered a wild state – possibly as a result of all the PUPs growing up to be their own dogs and snarling at the Liberals in ways not orchestrated by Palmer.

But it was upon reading his desire for his party to be salesmen for Australia that had me worried. Where will we go when they’ve sold it all? I wondered. Then, in spite of the Budget crisis, the Intergenerational Report, the slackers, the backers, the unions, The Greens, the Red Tape strangling us, Bill Shorten and the politically correct sipping their lattes through straws as a lifestyle choice like those who live in communities more remote than Canberra and Kirribilli, he had this to say:

“We have to be full of confidence and optimism for our country’s future,”

I’m not sure if he’s planning to pass legislation to this effect, then check our metadata to find out if we’re accessing too many sites which are negative about Australia or just negative full stop, but I’ve listened to Tony’s message and I find it so hard to be positive when Australia is so full of people who aren’t getting behind him.

Still, when it was mentioned yet again about we must stop using the credit card that I had an epiphany. One of my credit cards gives rewards points which can be used to pay off the balance. Given how often Labor used the “credit card” then there must be a large number of rewards points there. Perhaps we could use them to get the Budget back into surplus.

Or does the government credit card that the Liberals always talk about work differently? If so, then they should probably switch. (And possibly get a special rate on a balance transfer… Haven’t they seen the ads?)

Somebody (who clearly knows nothing about economics) tried to tell me that government debt had an even lower interest rate than my home loan something like three percent. But that couldn’t be right. Don’t they put it on the “credit card” at a really, really exorbitant rate of interest. Otherwise, they could borrow an extra few thousand lend it to me to pay off my house and I’d give them an extra fifty basis points and we’d both be ahead!

Nah, they’re putting it on the credit card. You know, buy now, pay later. (Sort of like the “You pay nothing up front for a Uni degree” ads that Liberals, sorry the Government Bureau of Information was running!)

Thank God we’re paying cash for those jets that haven’t been built yet!#

It’s far better to pay now, and receive the goods later…

Which seems to sum up the entire Liberal philosophy when in government. If we have a harsh Budget in our first year, then you’ll receive the goods in the Budget later. Probably just before the next election.

#(Yes, I know before some pedantic wretch points out we have actually paid for jets yet, we’ve just put in an order… This is hyperbole. Sort of like a Joe Hockey economic explanation, the facts shouldn’t get in the way of a good story!)

Liberals’ Ludicrous Logic

March 5, 2015
Written by: Rossleigh
32 Replies

The Intergenerational Report was released today.

It was late. Which, I understand, is illegal. But this is a government that seems to believe that, well, it’s the government so therefore nothing they do is illegal, because, as governments make the laws then there’s no need for them to uphold them because they can just change them if it’s inconvenient.

Or ignore them.

But, I’m not going to write about the failure of the current mob to understand such things as the separation of powers. I’m going to write about their failure to understand two other rather important things.

First, projecting forty days into the future is fraught with difficulty because all predictions make certain assumptions, so predicting forty years into the future is only useful in terms of asking ourselves if it’s where we want to end up and if not, what do we need to do to make sure that it doesn’t happen that way.

Second, when you’re in politics you need to pull the right face at the right time. And I’d like to suggest that when the message you’re trying to sell is that we’re all ruined. You should not have such happy faces so soon after announcing the bad news.

But then, Joe’s never quite understood that last point. Neither has Tony for that matter. Tony always looks very angry, or extremely happy that he’s now PM. Every now and then, he can pose for a photo opportunity and look concerned, but then he’ll break into a beaming grin which suggests that he thinks he’s done very, very well and he can gloat because he’s PM, after all and look at all the losers who never made it that far.

Which brings us to Hockey.

He looked far too pleased to tell us that Labor would have increased the debt by so much. He almost seemed to be enjoying it. Look where Labor would have taken you, he seemed to be saying, so isn’t it great that we’re the government?

Except that brings me back to my first point. It’s ridiculous on any level to say this is where the debt would have gone under Labor. I’m not even going to suggest that this little graph seems to assume that Labor would have been in power for then next 40 years…

Although, given Abbott and Hockey’s performance, I wouldn’t like to entirely rule it out.

I could also point out that – according to the Liberals – Labor are the party of high taxes. They’d tax far, far more than the Liberals, which would suggest to most folks that they’d have more revenue and therefore be better able to pay for their spending. But then I’d get into some convoluted argument about how high taxes – such as the mining tax or the carbon tax or, indeed, asking highly profitable companies like Apple to pay any tax above two percent would mean that they’d close all their stores and only sell their products to people in third world countries – destroy the economy and thanks to the abolition of the carbon tax our economy is STRONG again.

But I’m done with all that.

I’m not playing the game of using logic and reason because it seems to lose out to the Andrew Bolts of this world, so I’m going to accept that the debt is enormously high and Labor would have just let it grow like that. Let’s just say that’s a given. After all they introduce things like Medicare, which forces people to have access to a doctor when it’s be much better to have a “price signal” so a person could decide whether they’d be healthier by visiting a GP or feeding themselves. That’s choice; that’s the Liberal Way. Let’s just accept that Labor are incompetent with money and it’s all their fault that the debt is so unacceptably high. Yes, yes, Joe, so let’s just say that they should never be given the opportunity to govern ever again like many of your front bench seem to argue.

Take away that red bit at the top of the graph. Just imagine that only the blue bit is visible, because after all this is not really a comparative thing. I mean, you wouldn’t say that I convinced you to not to eat at my competitor’s restaurant because he gave you food poisoning, whereas, I just let my dog defecate in the restaurant while you’re eating, and I always clean it up withing five minutes. (Actually, maybe you would!)

Anyway, focus on where the blue bit is headed:

LOOK AT HOW BADLY YOU GUYS ARE DOING.

LOOK AT HOW MUCH THAT DEBT IS GROWING.

YOU NEED TO DO SOMETHING.

I mean, you can’t say that just because you’re not as bad as Labor then it’s all ok. LOOK AT IT…

It’s grown enormously in the forty years since you made this a one party country by seizing the Opposition’s metadata and jailing them because they weren’t on Team Australia.

No, don’t just blame the Senate. Call a Double Dissolution now, before it’s too late. Because if you don’t, we can all see the way things are heading.

Turnbull will be PM before the end of April. And who wants that?

Ok, ok, but don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Abbott’s disaster relief payment cuts are a disaster

March 1, 2015
Written by: Trish Corry
50 Replies

The town I live in and surrounding areas have just endured a cyclone. The damage is heartbreaking. The stories from people and the hardship they are enduring are even more heartbreaking. Through this experience, I no longer believe we live in a lucky country.

The state of the economy and the focus on debt now over-rides the importance of providing people with a hand-up in times of need.

During cyclone Yasi three years ago, the people of Townsville qualified for Federal Government disaster assistance under the Labor Party. This is $1000 per adult and $400 for each child. During the fires in the Blue Mountains last year; Abbott in all his humanitarian wisdom changed the criteria, so only those who have had suffered significant damage to their homes or had injury or death as a result were eligible. So many in desperate need after this cyclone are not eligible for assistance through the Federal Government.

I know this may sound reasonable to those who support the Liberal’s ideology. Especially the ones who are being harsh and judgemental to those who are disadvantaged across social media. The ones who have the privilege of being able to scoot off to another town to live in air conditioned motel accommodation, afford a generator, had no difficulty paying for takeaway food every night and have no problem restocking their fridge; or who have never really experienced first hand a disaster, but can type their elitist annoyance and judgements via a keyboard; or the number of people who vote against their own interests, for reasons too psychologically complex for me to attempt to understand.

The loss of electricity for a week or more for some people has resulted in so many low income families unable to restore sufficient food to their homes to feed themselves and/or their children. In addition, families have lost important medication that required refrigeration and for some, this means paying for a visit to a doctor for script renewal as well as the cost of medication. We have had an army based field hospital here as the local public hospital and doctors cannot cope with the amount of infections and food poisoning that is occurring.

The newly elected state MP for Keppel Brittany Lauga, has tackled this head on and is personally advocating for people who are having difficulty meeting the criteria for the state based grant, which will assist people with immediate need for food. Ms. Lauga is doing this by making a list of urgent assessments and she has progressed these matters to the Premier and relevant Ministers. There have been glitches identified in the system, and subsequent changes and it is now being reported that people who were classified as ineligible on their first attempt have now been paid. People are still reporting issues, but Ms. Lauga is continuing to take up this fight on behalf of each individual. The community is praising Ms. Lauga’s efforts as outstanding all over local social media and deservedly so.

The LNP member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry has taken the opportunity to play politics during this disaster. I will use a very often used Liberal Party term for this behaviour – unconscionable. While the new state MP, Brittany Lauga has been visiting areas and offering first hand personal assistance to so many in need; the LNP member for Capricornia, decided to blame Labor and Ms. Lauga for ineligibility to disaster funding.

Ms. Lauga, Labor State MP, has immediately recognised inequity in the system set by the former Newman LNP Government and has stated her anger on this issue and progressed issues for disaster relief immediately to the Premier, and positive changes have followed. However, the LNP member for Capricornia has not once publicly announced she is appalled at the strict criteria imposed and the changes made by her Government for assistance.

Landry and the LNP’s position to leave it all up to the State Governments and placing full blame on the State Labor Government, who have only been in for a matter of weeks; is the mindset of a small, hands off approach Liberal Government. However, small, hands off approach Governments are never good for communities. This mindset simply oozes “I don’t want to help, I don’t care, I had to do it myself and everyone is equal anyway.” A Liberal Government so focused on debt does not care one iota for quality of life. That is why the costs involved in rebuilding a normal life, such as all the food lost and destroyed, just as one example, simply does not register for them.

Some areas of Rockhampton have a socio economic score of 899.7 (Berserker), 849.3 Rockhampton City & Depot Hill and 797.6 for Mt. Morgan, compared to Brisbane’s 1047.7 rating (SEIFA, 2011).

This punitive approach for the disadvantaged simply has to stop.

Ms. Landry always falls back on the “It’s Labor’s fault” mantra. So let’s have a look at if it is really Labor’s fault.

On October 18, the day after the bush-fires tore through the Blue Mountains, our Prime Minister (who was posing as a hard working volunteer fire fighter, full of compassion and community unity), changed the eligibility criteria. (I’m sure Mr. Abbott is the best friend that disaster victims have ever had, if we ask him).

NSW bushfire victims denied compensation under new rules (SMH 26/10/2013)

“The day after bushfires tore through the area, the federal government tightened the rules for disaster payments leaving hundreds of residents who were forced to evacuate without any financial help.

Eligibility for payments, available in disasters such as the January Tasmanian fires, were changed on October 18, so residents who did not lose their homes but had to relocate for days at a time would not receive assistance.” (Excerpt)

”Mr Keenan (pictured with Michelle Landry, MP above) has heartlessly removed assistance for people who have been cut off from their homes for more than 24 hours, or been without water or electricity for 48 hours,” Mr Dreyfus said. (SMH 21/10/2013)

Bill Shorten and Senator Doug Cameron just some of the very vocal members of Labor constantly pressuring Abbott to change this criteria. As we can see from Cyclone Marcia, to no avail.

Then when the bush-fires tore through South Australia, Tony Abbott clammed up and refused to comment (The Australian 7 January, 2015)

Then, because blaming Labor simply would not work, Tony Abbott resorted to denying the truth (Bill Shorten, MP November, 13, 2013)

In addition, the Abbott Govt has employed the productivity commission to recommend changes to disaster relief system, which includes a recommendation of a drop of Commonwealth funding to help rebuild from the current 75% to 25%.

Doug Cameron summed it up with, “I think the underlying position here is how do you do more cost-cutting? How can you penny-pinch more against people that are in trouble?” he said.

The Liberal National Government contests that this is not about budget cuts, but about encouraging mitigation. Until mitigation is fully implemented in communities, the cuts and changes do nothing but continue to inflict hardship to those in need who have survived a disaster. This is yet another punitive ideological view in its current form. “If you don’t do this, we will not help you.” Unfortunately, the Blue Mountains and the Rockhampton Region have not had time to implement mitigation strategies as required by the Abbott Government prior to their disasters.

Here is a very clear explanation of the changes by the Abbott Government and the timeline:

The Liberal National Federal Government removed the last three criteria which applied under aFederal Labor Government. This should clarify why people who suffered under Cyclone Yasi received the $1000 payment and $400 for each child received the payments. However, many who have suffered through the Bush-fires in the Blue Mountains and Cyclone Marcia in Rockhampton, Yeppoon and surrounds cannot access these payments.

Under the old criteria under Labor, which Michelle Landry, Michael Keenan and Tony Abbott and the rest of the LNP do not support and changed; everyone who had no electricity for 48 hours or more and lost all of their food, would have been eligible for $1000 plus $400 for each child post cyclone Marcia.

My understanding is that the state based criteria was developed by the previous Newman LNP Government and I understand the Labor party have only been in a matter of weeks, but the entire system for the state based disaster relief system also needs an urgent review.

As for the Federal changes, all parties and communities across Australia, need to stand up and fight against these cuts to disaster relief, and have them reversed as passionately as they are fighting against other harsh cuts imposed by the Liberal Government. No community should ever have to go through this again. I am, you are, we are Australian.

Should Michelle Landry, Michael Keenan and Tony Abbott hang their heads in shame? Yes, they should. How many people now across fires and cyclones have now suffered under cuts to disaster relief by the Liberal National Government?

I know a lot of people truly believe that it does not matter who you vote for, but as I always say, your vote counts. Always, always, put Liberal and Nationals Last for a progressive and compassionate Australia.

Originally published on Polyfeministix

Good Government Starts Today … Or Tomorrow, But We’re Definitely Committed To It!

February 14, 2015
Written by: Rossleigh
17 Replies

There’s an old cartoon where the couple in a car are speeding down the highway while there’s hundreds of cars stuck in traffic in a lane beside it. The wife says, “Look at the sign – we’re going the wrong way!” To which the husband replies, “Who cares, we’re making great time.”

Every few days someone in the current Abbott Government makes me remember that cartoon.

Of course, unlike the man in the cartoon, most members of the government seem completely unable to acknowledge that they are going the wrong way, even though that’s what the sign clear says.

“We’ve made great progress on the Budget!”

But the deficit is growing and it’s not predicted to get back to surplus any faster than Labor planned.

“But you’d be a fool to trust what Labor said. They promised to get it back to surplus a couple of years ago and they still haven’t done it!”

But you’re the government now; you’re the ones promising to have it back in surplus, then changing the date.

“Yes, but I’m not a quitter. I’m determined to see this through, as is the PM. He’s a nice bloke, you know. A terrific guy. Family man. Athlete. He pedals really fast. Firefighter. And he’s a fighter. He’ll get back up. Really, I can’t think of someone with more attractive daughters. No, he’s certainly the best person to lead the country. “

Of course, Hockey did acknowledge that having the highest unemployment since John Howard was PM wasn’t great, but attempted to argue that it could be worse. Basically, his point was that if there hadn’t been so many jobs created last year then unemployment would have been over seven per cent, so we were really, really lucky that we’d rid ourselves of that Labor Government who wouldn’t have grown the economy.

He went on to argue that the best possible way to improve the unemployment figures was to get the economy growing faster. Which, to me, is a bit like a mechanic saying that the best possible thing for your car is to get it moving again, because once it’s moving then you won’t have this problem with it stalling. And if it keeps stalling, well, that’s because it’s not moving. At this point, don’t be tempted to ask the mechanic how you’re supposed to get it moving again, because he’ll just tap his nose and tell you that he has a plan, and, though it may not be popular, the best thing you could do is to pay his bill.

In fact, that’s more or less what Hockey said:

“I’m trying to get it to shift and things that have been unpopular but necessary have helped.”

I’m still trying to work out how sacking large numbers of public servants is meant to stimulate the economy and lead to an increase in employment numbers in the short term, even if one accepts the rather dubious argument that it’ll help get the Budget back in surplus and once the Budget is back in surplus, all will be well. (And once the car starts moving, it’ll no longer be stalled. $739, please, for parts and labour!!)

But, of course, the week truly belongs to Tony Abbott. Now I’m not going to mention the war – in particular, I’ll say nothing about the holocaust; neither will I make cheap shots about him not being able to stop Japanese subs from coming to Australia. (Actually they’ve announced that it’s no longer the case that Adelaide can’t build them, and that the they’ll be allowed to put in a thing that nobody seems to know what to call, before the contract is given to the Japanese under the free trade deal that’ll lead to jobs, jobs, jobs in whatever part of the world we’re trading with, and now that we have a free trade deal, well, what benefits them, benefits us, because we’re all just one happy free trading partnership where we’ve managed to break down the borders. Actually, change that to barriers. We want STRONGER borders, but no barriers to the movement of money, trade and anything else you care to name, if your donation is big enough.)

So after we’ve had the barnacle clearing, the learning, back to work Tuesday, more learning, and good government starts today day, we were treated to the government’s attempt to bury a report by waiting six months then releasing it late in the day, only to have Tony attack the Human Rights Commission for all he’s worth (no, actually, probably a bit more than that!) A report that was apparently partisan against his government, yet Mr Abbott suggested only minutes later that he was doing the Labor Party a favour by not following its recommendations, because if he implemented a Royal Commission “… it would condemn them (the former Labor government).” Strange that a report that was so ‘blatantly partisan’ report should also condemn the Labor Government, but, never mind, Abbott’s attack on Gillian Trigg’s managed to create enough attention that the report didn’t go the way of so many reports: We’ve got it, thanks, we’ll read it and get back to you, unless it’s the Gonski Report which Christopher Pyne refused to read because there were no pictures.

But just to cap off the week, we had the sacking of Phil “Smiley” Ruddock. Undertaker Ruddock, the Father of the House (do we know who the mother is?), the third longest serving member ever, Uncle Phil, the Liberal Party Whip was sacked. Make no mistake, Abbott wasn’t going to give him the dignity of resigning to promote generational change, or because he wanted to spend more time nursing a family member’s ingrown toenail, the PM made it clear that the decision was his. (I don’t think that he added and his alone, because that may have necessitated another announcement about how he intended to be more consultative in future, and people tend to grow a little cynical when you announce the same intention to change on a weekly basis, instead of the monthly basis that we’ve grown used to.)

Yep, I’ve heard people argue that the term, “forward progress” is a tautology, because you can’t have “backward progress”. That, of course, was before the Abbott Government.

Cheers,

Rossleigh.

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

When Scott Morrison applies his Immigration Model to Social Services

December 22, 2014
Written by: Rossleigh
158 Replies

Now there’s been a lot of angst about Scott Morrison’s appointment as Minister for Social Services. Probably coming from a few bleeding heart lefties who’ve never worked a day in their lives while earning a living as a “rent-a-crowd” professional protester! (One could see that as a contradiction but only if one thinks about it, so please stop thinking and go with the flow!!)

Personally, I see Morrison’s appointment as a turning point in the history of Australia. Up until now, Australia has always been the sort of country that valued a “fair go” for everyone whether they deserved it or not. Morrison will ensure that the “fair go” is reserved for the genuinely deserving. I picture his first interview with the ABC going something like this:

Interviewer: So, Mr Morrison, how do you see your role as Minister for Social Services?

Morrison: It’s really quite simple. We will decide who gets governmnet support and the way in which they’ll get it.

Interviewer: So what exactly does that mean for, let’s say the unemployed?

Morrison: Well, if you’re talking about the unemployed let’s be quite clear. We don’t want the unemployed just rocking up to Centrelink by whatever means they choose and trying to jump the queue. Only those who arrive by car will dealt with.

Interviewer: What about those who arrive by walking or public transport?

Morrison: Simply, they’ll be detained while we check out what jobs they’ve applied for and whether they’re attending interviews, and if we find that they’re not applying for jobs then we intend to send them to camps where they can join a work-for-the-dole scheme.

Interviewer: But how can they attend interviews if you’re detaining them?

Morrison: They should have thought of that before they began their journey.

Interviewer: So how do you intend to determine whether or not the person came by car?

Morrison: Look, can we stop refering to them as “persons” or “people”, I’ve instructed all Centrelink staff to refer to them as “illegal dole applicants”.

Interviewer: The question remains, how will you determine whether they came by car or not?

Morrison: We’ll have ADF personel scouring the streets and if anyone comes within ten metres of a Centrelink office, they’ll be taken into custody while we check out their credentials. In fact, we’ll pick up anyone who comes within ten metres of the ten metre exclusion zone unless they’re wearing a blue tie.

Interviewer: Doesn’t this breach their human rights?

Morrison: Sorry, I don’t understand the question.

Interviewer: I said, “Doesn’t this breach…”

Morrison: I heard it, but you seem to presuming that illegal dole applicants have human rights. These rights aren’t for everyone, you know.

Interviewer: Moving on to some of your other areas of responsibility, let’s take benefits to families…

Morrison: We haven’t actually decide to take them yet, so you’re jumping the gun there.

Interviewer: I meant, let’s look at benefits to families.

Morrison: Well that’s exactly what the Government is doing. Under the Labor Government we had the ridiculous situation of the government taking money via taxation, only to give it back to families in the form of generous payments when a baby was born or a child began the school year.

Interviewer: What’ll you be doing about that?

Morrison: We’ll be stopping it.

Interviewer: So, you’ll reduce taxes and just let people keep the money and abolish many of the payments.

Morrison: No, we’ll be stopping children starting school. After all, in my previous portfolio I stopped the education of children in detention centres and nobody seemed to mind.

Interviewer: You intend to abolish Education?

Morrison: No, don’t be ridiculous.

Interviewer: That’s a relief.

Morrison: Stopping Education is Christopher Pyne’s job.

Interviewer: I can’t believe what you’re saying!

Morrison: Typical ABC bias. Look, it’s very simple. Gonski has given us a big report which according to those who read it, says that most government schools need a massive injection of funds if they’re to achieve anything worthwhile, and Kevin Donnelly has argued that government schools aren’t really teaching anything worthwhile like our Judeo-Christian heritage and Latin, so there’s really no point to them. When you add the fact that under the Higher Education changes, nobody who doesn’t already go to a secondary school that charges a fortune in fees will bother with university, we can stop all funding and then there’ll be plenty of money for the private schools, who can offer scholarships to the two or three children who are bright enough to educate but whose parents have no money.

Interviewer: How will these scholarships be determined?

Morrison: Sorry, but that’s confidential.

Interviewer: Surely the procedures for awarding a scholarship have to be transparent.

Morrison: I’m sorry but that’s a question for Mr Abbott, but I will say that Frances is a lovely girl and fully deserved…

Interviewer: I meant as a general principle, I wasn’t refering to that particular case.

Morrison: Let’s return to Social Services, we’re really straying outside my portfolio.

Interviewer: Ok then, let’s look at the NDIS.

Morrison: Sorry, the what?

Interviewer: The National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Morrison: Oh, yes. That’s part of my portfolio too, isn’t it? Um, yes… We intend to keep that – at least the name part- but we’ll be undertaking a review of its effectiveness and I’m not able to comment on its future till that review is completed.

Interviewer: All right, then what about Seniors?

Morrison: What about them?

Interviewer: Will there be any changes in policy?

Morrison: Yes, same thing. We’ll be undertaking a review of their effectiveness and I’ll comment further when that review is finished. But I will add that Seniors are some of the most important voters in this country and we do not intend to allow their standard of living to deteriorate as long as they can still vote.

Interviewer: So what changes do you see happening in Social Services?

Morrison: At this stage all that’s proposed is ensuring that the Australian taxpayer gets the best value for money. Any developments will be announced by me at my regular weekly briefings, just like when I was Immigration Minister.

Interviewer: And what will you say at those briefings?

Morrison: No comment.

Interviewer: You want us to wait to the briefing before you announce what you’re doing?

Morrison: No, I’ll be saying “no comment”. Let’s be real here, most of the things in this portfolio relate to people’s circumstances and surely people have a right to keep their personal circumstances private.

Interviewer: But surely the public have a right to know the general policies of the Department!

Morrison: No comment.

Interviewer: I just want to know about the general direction…

Morrison: Listen, I’ve made it quite clear that I won’t be commenting on operational matters.

Interviewer: Just finally, is it true that you’ll be abbreviating Social Services to SS on all your correspondence?

Morrison: No comment.

Interviewer: I’m afraid that’s all we have time for. Merry Christmas, Mr Morrison.

Morrison: I’m not in a position to confirm or deny that.

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

Will Brandis Shirt-Front Morrison? Can Morrison please be the Demtel Man?

November 9, 2014
Written by: Trish Corry
24 Replies

Originally published on Polyfeministix

We often ask each demtel brandis other “If you had a superpower what would it be?” Scott Morrison’s superpower was revealed yesterday. He gets to throw people out of the country. This person was not an Asylum Seeker with brown skin, but a wealthy, white, “female attraction expert” or (Misogynicus Piggius). After a very active social media campaign, Scott Morrison cancelled the visa of Julien Blanc. Scott Morrison kicked Julien Blanc out of the country.

This ‘event’ has raised two questions for me.

If Morrison has this superpower – can he please be the Demtel Man?

Will George Brandis now Shirt-Front Morrison?

I think to put my mind into perspective for others I shall need to explain. Julien Blanc did nothing criminal during his visit, but what he advocates is very harmful to women and if implemented by his male followers would see the physical and sexual harrassment of women in society, escalate. In a nutshell what he advocates is offensive and wrong.

Morrison booted him out the country as Morrison did not agree with Julien Blanc’s freedom of speech nor his freedom of expression.

Although, many advocate for freedom of speech and freedom of expression. This is a very good contemporary example of how freedom of speech and freedom of expression can be harmful to certain groups of people in society.

Freedom of speech was vigorously defended by the LNP who advocated very strongly to Repeal Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. Particularly because as Abbott demonstrates quite clearly here that “There is a great Australian silence – this time about the western canon.” (ie white people)

Tony Abbotts IPA speech

Fortunately, for whatever reason Morrison decided to cancel Blanc’s visa it was done without Morrison raising the emphasis on freedom of speech that the LNP hold so dear to their heart. In this instance, Morrison (hopefully) understood the harm that Blanc does to the image of and treatment of women wherever Blanc and his sad posse unfortunately land. (Maybe LNP can now join the dots to freedom of speech and how it can cause harm to others.)

Will Brandis, who so vigorously defended Freedom of Speech on QandA recently and who infamously stated “People have the right to be bigots” do anything about this? Will he actually Shirt-Front Morrison over his lack of cling-to-ridiculous-ideology-even-if-it-hurts-vulnerable-people-and-disrespects-our-first-people mantra? How will Brandis now defend the pathetic and harmful stance that they should repeal Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act after what Morrison has done this week?

What will Brandis’ excuse be for Morrison, to defend him as part of the LNP? Does this mean that the LNP are now soft on Freedom of Speech? (If you are a Liberal voter and this worries you or you are anxious, pull out your wallet, open it up and breathe in….and out….and in….and out, now….relax. If you don’t have enough money in your wallet for this breathing & relaxation exercise to work, you should not be voting Liberal, you Dummkopf!)

The Demtel Man

Now onto why I want Scott Morrison to be the Demtel Man. Morrison has the power to kick people out of the country. This week he kicked out a vile person and ignored this person’s right to freedom of speech. Sanity and humanity finally prevailed. If only Morrison could be the Demtel man and yell:

“But wait….there’s more!”

Please boot out (because freedom of speech & freedom of expression no longer matter and I find these ‘freedom of speech & freedom of expression’ listed below just as offensive as Julien Blanc’s harmful opinion of women!)

Cory Bernardi, Liberal Senator – For using his freedom of speech to express that it was ok to put women in a headlock and that marriage equality will lead to polygamy and bestiality
(But wait there’s more)

Tony Abbott, Prime Minister of Australia – For using his freedom of speech to say offensive things about women, defense personnel, our Indigenous people and LGBTI to name a few (offensive statements are far too extensive to include here). (But wait there’s more)

Joe Hockey, Federal Treasurer – For using his freedom of speech to express his distaste and immense dislike for middle income and disadvantaged Australians by forcing his unfair, sick budget onto us (But wait there’s more)

Julie Bishop, Foreign Minister – For using her freedom of speech to imply that Julia Gillard was a criminal and gained personally from a Union slush fund 20 years ago (Apology NOW Ms. Bishop!) (But wait there’s more)

Bronwyn Bishop, Speaker of the House – For using her freedom of expression to act upon partisan smirks and nods at Christopher Pyne, For using her freedom of speech to restrict freedom of expression for Islamic women and for using her freedom of speech and freedom of expression to express her hatred of Labor, which is acted out under section 94a umpteen times in the last year. (I also thinks she picks on the Member for Gellibrand more than anyone else – or is that just me?) (But wait there’s more)

Christopher Pyne, Minister for Education – For using his freedom of speech to express his of hatred against anyone who desires a higher education (I often imagine Sturt to be this scary place like hell, where the constituents have been sent to earth to torture us. Sturt people – please stop!) (But wait there’s more)

Kevin Andrews – For using his freedom of speech to express his willingness to harm jobless Australians by forcing them to have no income for six months. For expressing his view that all people on unemployment are on drugs, suggesting they be drug tested. For expressing his view that de-facto couples are not as happy as married couples, and his over-riding mantra that the unemployed are ‘bludgers who need to be motivated. (But wait there’s more)

Mathias Cormann, Minister for Finance – For using his freedom of speech to express that being a girly-man is a bad thing, an insult. Gender is not binary Cormann! For using his freedom of expression by infamously smoking a cigar celebrating turfing the poor into the gutter with the LNP’s unfair, sick budget. (But wait there’s more)

George Brandis, Attorney General – For using his freedom of speech to express that people have a right to be Bigots. (But wait there’s more)

Malcolm Turnbull, Minister for Communications – For using his freedom of speech to express it is ok for rural and regional people to not have decent, reliable, fast internet (Do you think he may be Amish or he has a fascination with the 1930’s?) (But wait there’s more)

Barnarby Joyce, Minister for Agriculture – For thinking it was ok to change his freedom of speech to include things he actually did not say, when he changed Hansard (Maybe Kevin Andrews could enlighten Barnaby that Hansard is for better or for worse, ’til death do us part!) (But wait there’s more).

Nigel Scullion, Minister for Indigenous Affairs – For using his freedom of speech to express that money is more important than indigenous women being able to access safe, respectful, supportive National Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service. (But wait there’s more)

Greg Hunt – Minister for the Environment – For using his freedom of speech to express that he absolutely detests the environment, in everything he does and says (But wait there’s more)

Peter Dutton – Minister for Health, For using his freedom of speech to express that it is OK for the disadvantaged, poor, sick and needy to go without medical treatment because they can’t afford it and that is is OK that cancer may not be detected in many, due to the exorbitant costs through his proposed changes to medicare. (But wait there’s more)

Campbell Newman – Premier of Queensland, For using his freedom of speech to tell lie after lie after lie and using his freedom of expression to pose as a concerned Premier in advertisements instead of a politician spending public money on advertising in an early campaign. (But wait there’s more)

Liberal Voters – For using their freedom of expression to vote for the most incompetent, harmful, hurtful Government, we have had in the history of Australia. (But wait there’s more)

And last but not least – You, Mr. Morrison – Boot yourself out of the Country, for your ongoing freedom of expression and freedom of speech implying that human beings seeking asylum are less than human beings and should be treated as such.

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

Be Alert, Be VERY, VERY Alert! The Person Next You May Have An iPhone.

September 24, 2014
Written by: Rossleigh
77 Replies

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

“A Man For All Seasons” Robert Bolt

* * *

Robert Bolt. Mm, I suspect no relation to Andrew, who does a neat little backflip, with a half-pike just so we don’t notice. When commenting on the recent Q&A, he wrote this:

And that goes to the wider issue: how and why did the ABC get together such a collection of Muslim firebrands savaging Australia? How grossly irresponsible to give viewers the impression that every Muslim in our country was like every Muslim on Q&A – militant, damning of Australia and full of excuses for extremists. How dangerous to give any extremists the idea that their rage against this wicked country was justified.

But it was his neat bit of “framing” his audience to see a conspiracy that most impressed me:

Naturally, host Tony Jones has stacked the panel: two Muslim activists (who do most of the talking), plus one MP each from Labor, the Liberals and Greens.

Stacked the panel. Mm, is he suggesting that they were all lefties apart from the one Liberal? Or is he suggesting that because you have two Muslims to three “Aussies”? (yes, I know there’s no need to comment) Or is it the fact that it’s three men to two women? (Four, if you count Jones). Exactly how was the panel stacked? Because there was nobody from the IPA? Or the Australian Defence League? No Christians?

As for the Muslim activists this is from the bio for one:

Anne-Azza Aly

Dr Anne Aly is a research fellow at Curtin University, Perth, with a focus on radicalisation, counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism.

Anne leads the Countering Online Violent Extremism Research (COVER) Program at the university’s Centre for Culture and Technology. Her research focuses on the use of social media by violent extremists and strategies to interrupt online activities, including understanding of the audience and the role of victims and formers in counter narratives to extremism. She has written over 50 publications on topics ranging from Islamic identity to counter narratives and the policy response to violent extremism. Anne is the author of four books including Terrorism and Global Security: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives– Australia’s first text book on terrorism and security.

The other

Randa Abdel-Fattah

Randa Abdel-Fattah was born in Sydney in 1979. She is a Muslim of Palestinian and Egyptian heritage. She grew up in Melbourne and attended a Catholic primary school and Islamic secondary college where she obtained an International Baccalaureate…

During university and her role at the ICV, Randa was a passionate human rights advocate and stood in the 1996 federal election as a member of the Unity Party – Say No To Hanson. Randa has also been deeply interested in inter-faith dialogue and has been a member of various inter-faith networks. She also volunteered with different human rights and migrant resource organisations including the Australian Arabic Council, the Victorian Migrant Resource Centre, the Islamic Women’s Welfare Council, the Palestine human rights campaign and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre.

Say No To Hanson? We can do without activists like that, thank you very much. Send her back where she came from… Sydney, wherever that is!

* * *

Last night a man was shot by police. A policeman is in hospital with serious wounds. These events are tragic and I’m not making light of them. The man is alleged to have made threats against the Prime Minister (who is currently out of the country). Whether these threats involved a knife or a chaff bag is unclear at this stage.

My “chaff bag” comment is not meant to be flippant. It just strikes me as inconsistent that we can dismiss a threat to one prime minister as just being “a figure of speech”, but another will be used by many people as justification for a range of measures. And yes, it’s true that this has resulted in a violent altercation.

Of course, I have sufficient respect for the law not to speculate too much about something that is still being investigated. It’s just the inconsistency that troubles me.

But then there’s a lot of inconsistencies that trouble me. A few days ago, the terrorist threat was raised to high, but we were told that there was no particular threat.

Then we had the raids. Which we were told had been part of an investigation which had been going on for months. And that an attack would have been carried out within days. No imminent threat?

We’re told that the PM and Parliament are a potential target for threats. (Hasn’t this always been the case? If you say no, look up the meaning of “potential” or ask yourself why John Howard wore the bullet proof vest when speaking to good, old responsible Aussie gun owners.)

Tony Abbott tells us a few days later that all that’s needed for an attack is “a knife, an iPhone and a victim”, but he adds:

“Terrorists want to scare us out of being ourselves and our best response is to insouciantly be fully Australian, to defy the terrorists by going about our normal business,” he told reporters in Sydney.

Abbott went on to tell us that orders to carry out demonstration executions had been sent to the the “small networks” of followers in Australia and other countries.

So, let’s make sure that those “small networks” didn’t miss the orders by broadcasting them on the nightly news. Let’s tell everyone that how easy it is to become a terrorist – all you need is “a knife, an iPhone and a victim” (an iPhone? Did he get paid for product placement? Can’t you be a terrorist with a Samsung?)

Then say that you need to be “fully Australian” (this is code for trust me, I really have renounced my British citizenship) and just say “She’ll be right, mate” and go off to work.

When I added music to a slide show which I posted on the internet a couple of years ago, it was down within minutes. Yet video posted by ISIL stays there and nobody takes it down. Some sort of perverse respect for freedom of speech?

And it concerns me that the Murdoch media can completely ignore hundreds of thousands (world-wide) marching on climate change, but find it worth writing stories about less than a hundred protesting the building of a mosque.

The purpose of March Australia: demanding change for the better

September 9, 2014
Written by: The AIM Network
17 Replies

Why do we march against the Abbott Government? Admittedly marching will not change the government or the government’s ideology, but it will help to raise awareness of important issues and get people thinking, writes Gosford organiser Kym.

I first came across the March in March at the end of last year, but took my time in deciding whether or not I wanted to be involved in an organisational role. One thing lead to another, and . . .

I had never been to a rally in my life, let alone help organise one! I guess that up until then I had never been around the right people or groups to think about becoming more involved; not just about the march itself, but also with the issues we were marching for or against. I had seen the media bias and I had seen the damage this bias had caused; both at a personal level and towards our national psyche. I knew that we could never rely on the media to support our cause. That, however, is a different story.

I know we are a ‘lucky’ country lucky because we do not have war or famine and are free to choose our beliefs. However I know from experience, observation and plenty of research that this beautiful rich country does have some great inequalities and injustices. I know enough to not believe everything the media says and that things aren’t as simple as black/white or lefties and Tories. I found March in March appealing because it was not aligned with any political party, was grassroots and calling for decency, transparency and accountability in government.

I put my hand up to help organise the Gosford march, on the NSW Central Coast. After taking this step and setting up the Gosord Facebook page (now Central Coast), I felt a bit overwhelmed and thought to myself “what have I just done”? I did a call out on the page for volunteers and had a great response. I set up a Facebook group we could liaise in and this grew into countless nights organising the march and and promoting it via the social media.

The Gosford March in March was very successful, with an estimated 1200 people marching, which is amazing for Gosford and probably the largest rally Gosford has ever had. Nationwide we were 100,000 strong. Even though 50,000 marched in Melbourne and we were seemingly hard to ignore, the mainstream media still managed to ignore us.

I also went to March in May in Sydney and was part of the organising team for March in August on the Central Coast. I have to say all three Marches were a positive and inspiring experience. They were well-organised, peaceful, and had great, well-informed speakers. There were a wide range of people represented: young, old, students, professionals, disabled, and people from a range of political back grounds, including a few disgruntled LNP voters.

If you have never been to a rally or don’t know anything about rallies, then it is easy to misunderstand the purpose of the March Australia Marches and dismiss the people marching as just lefties having a whinge or people who want handouts. That way it can be brushed under the carpet instead of acknowledging that most people who marched are hardworking, educated people who have paid taxes their whole life. Many are either personally affected or know someone who is affected by the government’s policies.

Many who aren’t affected are informed enough to know what the impacts of theses policies are on the poor and our environment. It is a strange thing when some of the people, who are most informed, genuinely concerned, and trying to contribute to making change for the better, are the ones labelled as lefties or whingers. I am actually not a member of any political party. Personally, I think we need a third major party and also to make some changes to ‘the system’. I don’t like to talk endlessly about politics or push my beliefs on to people, although I have no problem standing up for social justice, inequality, human rights and the environment. For me it is not about political parties but about humanity, truth and doing what is right.

It is quite easy to get caught up in propaganda without any real knowledge or understanding of the issues, where we have deep-seated political beliefs that aren’t based on any facts or of any use in reality. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all take the time to do a bit of research, use intelligent evaluation and actually have an adult conversation about some of the issues and come together up with some better solutions? It is time to move beyond the sudden deadly silence when anything remotely political is mentioned. Why can’t we promote understanding and education on issues, instead of judgement and fear? It is mind-boggling to have an election based around ‘stop the boats’ and ‘axe the tax’.

Are Australian’s really so concerned about a small amount of asylum seekers that wouldn’t even fill the stadium at Homebush? Especially since most asylum seekers come by plane? Do we ever hear ‘stop the planes’? What about ‘stop the ignorance’ and ‘stop the fear mongering’? Using words like ‘leaners’ and ‘illegals’ does nothing to help people understand the situation. Why not tell people that ‘it is not illegal to seek asylum, whether by boat, plane or any other means necessary’, and that most boat people have proved to be genuine refugees? It even says so on the parliamentary website. Why pander to people’s fear and ignorance? This type of ignorance is being fueled by political ideology and the media. If people were a little more educated then they most probably would have a different view. More understanding does not necessarily mean open borders either. It means we can work together on creating a more humane policy.

Australia has a fairly well-targeted welfare system. It was created as a safety net for those who need it most. Yes there is plenty of room for improvement, but labeling people as ‘leaners’ or wanting handouts does not help at all. This type of attitude and labeling creates unnecessary stigma and actually demoralises people. Most people on welfare payments do not want to be on welfare. Newstart is way below the minimum wage and very difficult to live on. Most want a job and do not want to be in the position they are in. It is unfair to lump everyone together, just because a few take advantage of the system. There will always be people who take advantage of the system, who lie, who steal. There are unfortunately some people like these everywhere, and in every industry. This type of stigma is not fair on pensioners, the single parents, low income families, those who were made redundant, who have not enough jobs in their area, who are disabled, ill . . . the list goes on and on.

What ever happened to the view that those doing it tough were seen as ‘Aussie battlers’? Everyone wants to add their judgements and criticisms. Before passing judgement about certain groups of people, ask yourself: have I ever experienced, met, worked with or found out more information about asylum seekers, homeless people, unemployed or people with a disability? If the answer is no, then why do you have such strong opinions on something you have no experience with and know nothing about? I understand that some people aren’t into politics, especially since watching parliament can be like watching a high school rabble. It is quite easy to see that type of nonsense and decide not give a crap, because whatever I or say do is not going to make much difference any way. I am too busy; I have my own life to live. I have a roof over my head, I have friends, I have beer, and it doesn’t affect me. Why should I care? Why should I go marching around like an idiot for something that doesn’t affect me? Why don’t people just contribute to democracy with their vote at the next election? These are some of the attitudes and comments I have come across. Is it really so silly to take the time to do some research and have some discussion about what is happening in our country and our communities? Are we just supposed to stick our head in the sand like an ostrich and be oblivious to everything until next election rolls around? Does it not matter that the funds have been ripped out of vital community services? My electorate has high youth unemployment rate and the local youth refuge has lost its funding. Maybe these youths should go and get a job. Who cares if there are more unemployed than jobs available, they should all just get a job. Does it not matter that there are homeless families sleeping in cars because there is a lack of services to support the homeless? Maybe these homeless should just chose not to be homeless. Does it not matter that abuse, domestic violence, redundancy and mental health issues are some of the reasons for homelessness? Does it not matter that my electorate has one of the highest rates of domestic violence in Australia, yet funding to one of our local domestic violence support services has been cut? Legal aid has also been cut, so it is harder for women who are victims of domestic violence to ‘leave’. These are just a few of the many Central Coast, NSW issues. I’m sure each electorate has their own issues.

Marching will not change the government or the government’s ideology, but it will help to raise awareness of important issues and get people thinking, talking and contributing new ideas. We can’t all help everyone all the time or change the world on our own. Every person’s input makes a difference and when working together we can make change. We can all make the effort to question things and become a little more informed. This is the whole point of marching; to raise awareness and in unity work together for the common good: Australians. The more people that become aware, the more likely change will happen.

Abbott’s first year: the media narrative

September 6, 2014
Written by: Dr Victoria Fielding
26 Replies

Since political journalists so love to talk about Labor Party narrative, I think it’s time we turned the tables and talked about mainstream media narratives instead. The one I would like to specifically discuss is the media’s recent coverage of the one-year milestone of the Abbott government. From what I have seen and heard so far, these are the mandatory ingredients of the media’s narrative marking this occasion, with the consistency of a wheel in a track. This review of the media narrative also, handily, becomes my critique of Abbott’s first year as Prime Minister. One stone, two dead birds and all that.

Acknowledging the kept promises

Abbott is given a big thumbs up for doing what all Prime Ministers were expected to do until he broke pretty much every promise he made during his first twelve months and Teflon-like changed the expectations that a Prime Minister shouldn’t lie. So on the three occasions that Abbott didn’t lie – promising to get rid of the Carbon Price and Mining Tax and stopping the boats, he gets a round of applause from the mainstream media.

This applause definitely does not include any critique of the effect these decisions will have on the community. Because discussion of policy outcomes is forbidden. All the journos need to know is that Abbott said he was going to get rid of the Carbon Price, the Mining Tax, and stop the boats and he’s done that, so big tick to Abbott! You’ll see no comment on the devastation that the demise of the Carbon Price, with no policy to replace it, will have on our environment, even though a study has already reveals that emissions went up immediately after the repeal. You’ll see no comment on the impact of the death of the Mining Tax on wealth inequality.

And has Abbott really stopped the boats if they’re still leaving Indonesia only to be turned around in secret military-like on-water operations that break international treaties and desperate people are sometimes sent back to the hell-hole they came from? One murdered asylum seeker and one death due to sub-standard third-world medical care and a damaged relationship with Indonesia doesn’t seem to me to be a successful policy. But if it kept a promise, it’s fine apparently.

However, if you cared to judge the Abbott government not on their ability to keep a promise, but on their ability to be humane and to work in the best interests of the community while keeping a promise, they have clearly failed. You won’t hear the media making this point.

Praise for Abbott’s response to Malaysian airlines disasters

It is clearly not hard to put some glasses on and to look sombre while you speak pre-prepared consolatory words about an airline tragedy. And let’s be honest people, if that’s Abbott at his pre-prepared best, then he’s at best a mediocre public speaker who should never have got anywhere near the top job and at worst a George. W. Bush-like moronic bumbling ah-ah-ah-ah embarrassment to this great nation.

So looking past what Abbott said, as he scheduled non-stop press conferences about plane disasters but wouldn’t talk about his failed budget, and focusing more on what he did, what did he actually do? He volunteered millions of dollars in Australian resources and never found Malaysian Airlines flight MH370, despite raising the victim’s family’s hopes unnecessarily and announcing in Parliament that the plane had been found when it hadn’t. He also volunteered Australian resources to help recover the bodies of victims of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 which, sorry to have to point this out, again raised the hopes of the victim’s families and again he failed to complete the mission, whilst also putting Australians in harm’s way.

Praise for Abbott’s Team Australia bullshit

Apparently it’s ‘statesmen like’ to rush to a war on terrorism. Talking about the merits of going to war for at least a few days before committing Australia to what could be an ongoing conflict in a country that still hasn’t recovered from the last time Australia rushed to help America and the UK wage a war, would to me, seem at least foolish, at worst criminal. But Abbott’s Team Australia khaki campaign, in aid of his personal polling, will no doubt be applauded by the press as long as it continues to help Abbott win the poll war. Because that’s how journalists judge the merits of a Prime Minister’s decisions – on their real or possible impact on polls. Didn’t you know?

Downplaying Abbott’s lies as ‘they’re not different from Gillard’s lie’

Even when journalists do bother to remind voters that Abbott’s first budget was based on a barrage of lies and broken promises, they always make sure to compare these lies to Gillard’s Carbon Price ‘lie’. A lie is something you know to be false when you say it. Gillard didn’t know she was going to have to make a deal with the Greens to form minority government when she said she had no intention of implementing a tax on carbon, and instead preferred an ETS. So if you believe Abbott is in the same boat as Gillard in saying no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no cuts to the ABC or SBS numerous times throughout the election campaign, and then immediately back flipping on all these promises because he was forced to by a change of circumstances, then where are the changed circumstances?

Abbott didn’t need to make deals in the lower house to put his budget together (although deals with the Palmer United Party over superannuation cuts in order to kill the mining tax are surely as close as Abbott has got to circumstance like Gillard’s Carbon Price policy). We could go on discussing the blatant differences between Abbott’s huge list of broken promises that culminated in the most unfair and cruel budget this country has ever seen to Gillard’s decision to introduce a Carbon Price.

But the biggest difference I would like to point out, which you never hear a journalist mention is a really simple one and also such a whopping big one that it’s hard to know how journalists can even look at these two situations without seeing the gulf of difference between them. Simply, Abbott’s lies made ordinary Australians worse off. They are bad policies on every single measure you care to measure them by and were ideological assaults based on the lie of a budget emergency. Gillard’s decision to bring in a Carbon Price, followed shortly thereafter by the policy she did say she wanted to bring in – an ETS – is good policy that is good for the environment and an important step in the international challenge to mitigate climate change. But journalists either don’t or can’t seem to see the difference between good policies and bad policies. Are they scared to judge a policy in case they appear partisan? What is the point of political journalism if not to inform the public on the merits of public policy? Seriously, what is the point? It’s a bad budget just because it’s bad. Full stop.

So there you have it. You’ll see this narrative over the next few days. Of course there will be, thankfully, examples of journalistic work that swims against this narrative, and good luck to those brave people. I know that one year into Abbott’s government, the one thing I am most sure about is that if a Labor government had behaved even a little bit like the Abbott government has in their contempt for the voting public, the mainstream media would have drawn and quartered Labor by now. The lack of contempt for the Abbott government from our media is, quite frankly, alarming.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

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

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

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

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

The New SRC with the Groan-ups in Charge!

September 6, 2014
Written by: Rossleigh
11 Replies

Ha, ha, We won and now we’re the new Student Representative Council.

Yes, congratulations.

You know why we won? Because we’re awesome and we’re more mature than you. You’re just babies and you were taking orders from a girl.

Yes, well, it’d be more convincing if Christopher wasn’t sticking out his tongue then hiding behind your back. Besides there’s nothing wrong with taking orders from a girl.

We won because we had someone stronger to be captain and because we’re awesome and you shouldn’t even be allowed to be in the school because you don’t know as much we do.

Shouldn’t we get on with the meeting? What’s the first item of business?

The first item is telling everyone that you lost because you’re not as awesome as we are. And then we’re going to ask our friends to go round the school and tell everyone what a shit job did.

Ok, but you know the things you promised – you know, the free lollies from the canteen, getting rid of the rules about calling people names, and not interfering with the school radio.

The school radio sucks because they said nasty things about us.

Yes, they said nasty things about us too.

Our friend, Rupert, wants everyone to listen to him at lunchtime because he’s got a real radio show.

But Rupert isn’t even a student here anymore. And there’s nothing to stop people listening to him if they want to.

Yeah, but some people listen to the school radio and the nasty things they said like when they said that we were lying.

But you were lying.

We never lie. We’re just awesome. You’re the liars.

All right, let’s just get on with the meeting…

We’re going to tell everyone that we can’t give free lollies because you gave away too many when you were in charge.

So you’re going back on your promise to give extra lollies to girls who bring in a younger sibling?

No, that was an important promise. Not like the free lollies one or the not getting rid of the school radio.

I see.

No you’d don’t. You don’t see anything. You’re just stupid. And I can call you that because we’re going to get rid of the ridiculous rules against name-calling so our friend Andrew doesn’t get into trouble for lying about the aboriginal children.

Yeah, but you haven’t got rid of them yet, so I don’t think Christopher can say what he just said.

He said “grub” and you can’t prove he didn’t.

What are you going to do first?

We’re gong to do everything first! We’re going to charge students $7 every time they go to class, and we’re going to take that money and build something really good with it.

What?

Don’t you worry about that. And we’re going to stop new students if they come by bicycle. And we’re stop the system where we recycle the paper and cans so everything can go in the one bin. And we’re going to introduce a better system than putting people on yard duty if they drop rubbish…. We’re going to give the kids who used to drop rubbish lots of lollies not to do it anymore…And we’re going to tell our friends, Gina and Andrew that they don’t even have use the bins – they can just drop their rubbish anywhere. Coz’ we won and you lost and we’re in charge.

Yes, but we have to have a meeting and vote on all these things.

No, we can just do them. Joe said. He’ll find a way of just doing them, because some of you think that you can vote against them. Well, you can’t because we’re the adults and we get to make ALL the rules now.

No, you don’t. The teachers still have the right of veto.

The teachers? They should respect our authority and just let us do what we want.

But didn’t you keep running to the teachers every time you didn’t like a decision?

Shut up! Shut up, or I’ll get Bronwyn to give you a detention.

I don’t care. Anything would be better than being here.

Have you ever had a Chinese burn? They hurt. And Tony gives really good ones, because he’s a grown-up.

The Abbott Government has been an easy one to predict

August 13, 2014
Written by: Michael Taylor
60 Replies

On the eve of the 2013 election I wrote a piece titled, of all things, The 2016 Election. It was my prediction of who would win the 2016 election and why. Twelve months into Abbott’s (first and only) term the predictions have been spot-on. I don’t claim to have a crystal ball or have the ability to glimpse into the future. Rather, the future can be easy to predict when we are dealing with the predictable.

The Abbott Government have helped because they are just so damn predictable. Here is the article from September 2013:

Let us indulge ourselves and assume that Rupert Murdoch’s shonky Newspolls are correct and the incompetent, gaffe prone Tony Abbott wins the job of leading us after Saturday’s election and look ahead three years: what would happen in the 2016 election?

What would have voters learned after three years under Tony Abbott (and his moguls)?

The first thing they’d have learned would be the obvious: the Tony Abbott Government they voted in will in no way resemble the government they voted for. What they wanted, looks nothing like what they got. But I don’t think this will be the key issue so I will not adress it here. The issue will be about where the country is going, which would be nowhere, rather than how badly Abbott has been guiding it.

His term as leader would have reinforced our perception of him as he was in opposition. Tony Abbott would not have provided one tiny morsel of evidence that he had any plan of moving this country forward, let alone managing it. This was apparent in his term as Opposition leader. The preceding Labor Government focused fairly and squarely on moving forward but it was stalled not just by sorting through the mess left by the Howard Government, but also amid screams of horror from the opposition that the government was doing absolutely nothing. And as the Government’s term progressed during a period when it could have been meeting its commitments to the electorate and moving this country forward, it was further stalled by an obstructionist opposition, again, amid screams of horror from those causing the obstructions. Plus of course a fair amount of chest beating.

And by 2016 we would have learned that chest beating about stopping the boats (which will not be stopped) does not move the country forward. Unplugging the national broadband network does not move the country forward either. Nothing he has offered will.

There will be a different demographic in three years time and they will want to see the country move at a pace that keeps up with the rest of the world. And this new demographic is the key. In the three years leading up to the 2016 election youth will have become a powerful electoral tool. Boxlid, who has been a guest poster here commented that:

Our current youth is far more aware than generations before us, they don’t fall for spin and media proclamations, they know how to access information and share it between everyone else.

Ask the teachers in high school about their level of understanding of the students they are teaching. From what I hear, they have to spend extra time to keep up because they don’t have adequate resources available to them.

Our youth are adults at a younger age and capable of making decisions for themselves regarding their own lives. Difficult to accept isn’t it?

Our younger generation are not dumb and stupid. They are creating our future and from my interaction with them in many ways they are remarkable, skilled, talented and forward looking not just two years, not just five years or ten years: they are looking at fifty years or more and embracing all of the potential opportunities that the future has to offer.

The Abbott Government hasn’t offered this new demographic the possibilities of the future. By 2016 there will be hundreds of thousands of new voters demanding it. Hundreds of thousands of voters unhindered by the influence of a declining media and discontent with the country’s stagnation. They will have a voice.

Tony Abbott would have given no indication that he has any idea of what’s happening in the rest of the world. He would have shown also he has no idea that the mind-set of most people in the Western world has been dragged out of the 1970s. The world is not flat and we now live in a global society.

Furthermore, we are in a new environment of border-less or global economies and markets. One major challenge he faced in this global economy was to think, plan and act globally as well as domestically. He will have failed. He remained entrenched in his 1970s mindset. He failed to develop an international focus amid the diminishing influence of domestic markets in the face of the competitive global economy and global ideas (think technology and climate change). This global village provided an opportunity he overlooked. In 2016 we would have expected that a successful government recognised it as an opportunity and would have initiated changes in response to those opportunities.

Mr Abbott didn’t have a global mindset and he failed to move the country forward. The new demographic will recognise this far more than the rest of us and their vote will be influential. More so than ever before. The older demographic that Tony Abbott has appealed to will have diminished significantly.

What, then, would happen in the 2016 election?

My prediction: possibly Bill Shorten to lead Labor to a win over an out-of-touch Tony Abbott.

I may have erred on the latter. Tony Abbott and his government are living down to all expectations, but I’m not sure that Bill Shorten is living up to those expected of him.

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

Breaking News – Abbott Government asserts that it hasn’t changed; striped leopard seen running from flying pigs!

August 8, 2014
Written by: Rossleigh
4 Replies

In a surprising development, one of Abbott’s senior ministers admitted that he wasn’t an expert on everything. Eric Abetz announced that he wasn’t a medical expert and therefore wouldn’t be commenting on whether there was a link between abortion and breast cancer. While other ministers have asserted that they don’t need any formal qualifications or experience to be experts in such things as climate change, education and how to get a job, Senator Abetz preferred to argue that a lack of medical training meant that he had no comment to make, and that he only commented because he was asked a question and he was cut off before he could point out that he, of course, didn’t agree with the points he was making.

The reason for this controversial change in approach came after his appearance on “The Project”, where Senator Abetz stated: “I think the studies, and I think they date back from the 1950s, assert that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.”

Senator Abetz issued a statement today telling people that he doesn’t listen to studies that assert themselves, because when studies start talking it’s usually a sign that something is wrong.

As further evidence of this new approach by the Abbott Government, Malcolm Turnbull was allowed to explain what the changes to metadata storage actually meant. As he is reported to have said to Brandis, “Why did that clown leading the party ask you to explain metadata when he thinks I invented the Internet?”

To which Brandis allegedly replied: “Ah…um…ah…er…ah… when you say internet…um…I… Look, I think I you’d better do the next um… thingy…”

“Interview?”

“No, no that thing where you go on radio and someone asks you questions.”

“That’s an interview.”

“Ah…umm, when you answer the questions, it’s an interview. Until you do then it’s just a… thing that… where you have a … person… asking.. um,,, questions… So until… you do, it’s just a… program. That’s my understanding and I’m Attorney General, so I know about …words and … ah… things. Besides I’m busy cancelling appearances at free speech conferences.”

And Malcolm was in fine form this morning on the ABC.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Mr Turnbull, it is widely understood there was blow-up in Cabinet. According to one report today, some of your colleagues said you threw a “hissy fit”. What didn’t you like about the data retention laws? Or was it just that you were left out of the deliberations?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, Michael, I think the most important thing to talk about is firstly that data retention has been in the past and will be in the future a very important element in the fight against crime and protecting us against terrorism.

Strangely, while they talked about that “firstly”, they never actually went back to talking about the reasons for his “hissy fit”. Although Turnbull did manage to explain his opposition to Labor’s plans for data retention in 2012 was due to its inability to explain it clearly. You have to admire a man who can keep a straight face when saying something like that.

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

Australia beckons India: more antagonism from the Abbott Government toward China

July 24, 2014
Written by: The AIM Network
4 Replies

Is the Abbott Government playing a major part in inflaming and destabilising the security of the Asia-Pacific Region? Dr Strobe Driver reports.

Prime Minister Abbott’s quest for the attention of right-wing nationalists’ that are seeking to contain China has swung from the United States of America (US), to Japan and is now making its way further West into the Indian Ocean. This time to increase a military attachment to another forgotten ‘ally’: India. This is a circle of madness and it will be to Australia’s detriment that this government has continued the cycle started by the Rudd-Gillard governments with the deployment – and then ongoing rotation – of US marines through the Northern Territory. There is a reason for this ongoing madness which needs to be addressed in light of history in the Asia-Pacific (A-P) region.

With the knowledge that Australia has punched far above its weight in the region since the end of World War Two, consecutive governments have sought to keep this modus operandi alive; and as a continuum in their foreign policy objectives. As a result of this, Australia has regularly invested itself in military collisions either directly in the region or external to the A-P in order to bring about enhanced ‘security’ and ‘stability.’ The eventual aim of these incursions has been, and no doubt will continue to be, that countries which Australia decides to intervene into should convert to the Western liberal-democratic model of government; and governance.

Australia has entered the fray of regional collisions in places such as Central Asia (Afghanistan), the Middle East (the Persian Gulf), Southeast Asia (Vietnam), East Timor/Timor Leste and of course numerous other regional locations that have ‘needed’ Australia’s presence – the Butterworth Air Force Base in Malaysia and Australia’s use of it as a forward-defence locale is an example of involvement without an actual collision of forces taking place. Whether or not Australia’s involvement in the aforementioned has been beneficial to those that have experienced Australia’s direct (read: military) assistance and whether Australia entered these places voluntarily or was coerced by other state actors – the US in particular – are moot points and beyond the scope of this essay, suffice to say Australia has made its presence known and continues to believe that actual force and/or the threat-of-force remain apparatuses that ensure stability.

As with many a country that has experienced the thrill of exercising extramural power due to either location or military transport capabilities, the days of Australia utilizing forward-defence and/or embarking upon actual incursions should be disbanded, as it encourages continual usage of a governance mechanism that is backed by force, and this model generates backlashes. More to the point, the world has changed from the days of Western Eurocentric and European-models of government and governance being passively accepted by other nation-states.

Regardless of the heart-warming feelings the Western/Eurocentric world may have toward the model that has been successfully executed since 1648 through mercantilism, trade, suzerainty, protectorates, colonialism, forced alliances, post-colonialism state-making – Kuwait, Israel, and the dividing up of the spoils of Africa amongst Europe is to mention only several examples of deliberate state-making – with the addendum of brute force, will not alter the coming inevitable and unpalatable truth. The time is fast approaching to acknowledge the overarching and heretofore unquestioned influence of the West is in decline, and hence the rise of China is taking place. The era pax-Sino is the new reality.

Extrapolating on the abovementioned, the new problematics for the West, and for Australia in particular, is that the Abbott government, by actively seeking out these new alliances is also indulging in the suppression of this reality. Raging against the military, economic, geo-political and geo-strategic rise of China signals a fear of disengagement from the superlative-version of Western history which was one of having control of the high seas and (in later years) the airspace above for centuries.

This will not remain the case into the future and holding onto history signals an unwillingness to admit to the reality of the situation-at-hand: the era of pax-Sino is not only the new reality, it is fast-arriving. Therefore, no amount of foreign policy enmity shown to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) through scrambling around trying to find new Asia-Pacific allies will change this and moreover, it is sending a supercilious message to a country that will exercise the most control over the A-P region regardless of whether there are policies of containment directed toward it or not.

Overt messages toward India by the Abbott government is foolhardy and is disavowing China’s place in the region, which in turn will encourage China to ignore Australian input into regional machinations. The dismissal of China’s input into regional ministrations by Australia in recent times has succeeded in infuriating China. This has been reflected in newspaper headlines such as, ‘Australia and India to strengthen military ties’[1] with regard to India, and ‘Defence alliance to anger China’[2] with regard to Japan.

These references are evidence that there is a renewed commitment to the containment of China by Australia in all spheres and is signalling to the Chinese government that the only role that Australia accepts of China is it being a compliant (and growing) trading partner. The pressure the Abbott government is feeling and its desire to not upset America is also dangerous as the Americans are also not happy with Australia. This should encourage the Abbott government to be more respectful of China and not antagonise it further. If China reacts militarily, the possibility that America would come to Australia’s aid becomes even more remote. The veiled threats of ‘president-in-waiting’ Hillary Clinton that Australia should not ‘two-time’[3] America in negotiations should be taken as a clear signal that America will judge any escalation at the time of it happening and it will not necessarily default to its historic alliances.

This as a stand-alone issue should be enough to alert the Abbott government to understanding that any moves to contain China in the region will be to the detriment of Australia. Perhaps the most frightening undertone to Clinton’s statement is that it mimics the George W. Bush mantra of a country being either ‘with us or against us,’[4] or in simpler terms, Australia must choose between America and China. From the aforementioned, and with regard to China, the evidence suggests Australia is actively moving toward the containment of China even though there is no evidence America will support this position; Japan has been newly-befriended and embraced with a military/information exchange deal; and India’s status has been upgraded. This is a combination of events that is fraught with danger for Australia; and is tantamount to an invitation to disaster.

What however, does India have to offer Australia and the region that may dissipate what could be defined as a ‘coming storm.’ Perhaps it will balance the region by the Abbott government adopting a newfound friend and ally? A perspective is needed here. Unfortunately, the answer to the above is the elevation of India will do nothing for stability in the region, as has the exchanges with Japan. These sudden ‘recognitions’ will only inflame Australia-China relations beyond the required modicums of civility that trading partners have to indulge. China will be furious at Australia’s new-found alliances. Moreover, the PRC will observe it as a direct insult and another geo-strategic move which further destabilizes an already fractious region.

The new dynamics that Australia is attempting to set in place, beyond the trading commodities such as iron ore and gold – about 40% of Australia’s exports to India are of gold[5] – are however misguided at best and flagrantly antagonistic to China at worst. If Australia is counting on India to exercise a naval military presence in order to be yet another bulwark to China, Australia is being profoundly imprudent as India simply does not have the military-stretch to extend beyond South Asia. India is also beset with regional political issues such as poisonous border issues with China; ongoing political and geo-strategic issues with Pakistan; and ongoing difficulties with China-Pakistan relations. Domestically, India also has enormous problems.

Chronic poverty being the most overt- India’s Economic Advisory Council deemed 363 million people to be living in poverty in 2014[6] – and according to the Asian Development Bank it also has ‘rampant corruption and [is an] ineffective and corrupt state.’[7] Perhaps the least acknowledged issue however, and one that drains vast amounts of India’s time and energy is ‘a guerrilla war in twenty states covering 40 per cent of the country’s land mass.’[8] The nationalistic fervour shown by the people of India in their electing of Narendra Modi will not change these endemic problems that have (and are) facing India in the short term. Therefore, and regardless of India’s resentment of China’s growing influence, India’s sway in the region therefore, will remain ‘rhetorical and potential rather than actual.’[9]

The inclusion of India as an incremental-increase in the containment of China in an A-P ‘triangle of defence’ is yet another simplistic foreign policy alternative to actually engaging with China on deeper more meaningful geo-political and geo-strategic levels. Australia will come to deeply regret recent moves to elevate India beyond that of a valued trading partner. Furthermore it actually signals Australia – in the current government and in the previous one – is fundamentally incapable of looking beyond trade for its meaningful geo-strategic and political relationships, and is weak-willed when trying to negotiate its way through the regional (and ever-increasing) maize of potential conflict-probabilities – that is, unless the US demands it, and Australia should dispense with this historical cloak which consecutive Australian governments in particular, have been unable to throw off.

The military move toward India when it has in fact been ignored by Australia for decades, the cut backs in Australia’s foreign aid which must impact on India notwithstanding, also signals a panic on behalf of India in its desire to offset China’s influence in the region. This has become a lightning rod with which Australia – as poorly constructed as the foreign policy has been – has been able to capitalize on. The Abbott government is expanding on the Gillard governments’ approach to the A-P belonging to America, and in doing so is seeking to default to the containment of China at the behest of America. A significant part of this driving force and reasoning is because the Abbott Conservative government is unable and/or unwilling to unshackle Australia from its British-colonial ruler-of-Asia mentality. The fusing together of these elements will incrementally and then dramatically increase the chances of an exchange of fire between military forces happening.

The irresponsible attitude and opportunistic intent Australia is exhibiting by embracing Japan and now India, is another stepping-stone into a war breaking out and of Australia having to concede that it played a major part in inflaming and destabilising the region: it may take a decade from 2014, but the signs of war are already on the horizon. Whether the mechanisms of previous Australia’s foreign policy continue to be employed, and if they remain mired in their colonial past in the new ‘age of pax-Sino,’ they will be given, in the first instance short shrift by the PRC; and in the second will heighten the chances of a military response from China.

The well-trodden historical colonialist-path that Australia is attempting to engage with by allying with India directly impacts on the chances of there being peaceful outcomes in the A-P region. If the PRC adopts the British model of rule in the region, that of using force to reinforce their superiority – as Great Britain did throughout the 1800s – a war will come sooner rather than later and India, like Japan and America, will put its interests first and once again, due to the foolhardy military-driven foreign policies being adopted by the Abbott government, Australia will be found wanting. India is simply not capable of being a bulwark against China regardless of the elevated status Australia offers it in the region. Essentially, all the additional recognition is achieving is the inflaming China’s sense of humiliation; and China’s tolerance of this will not be indefinite. A war with China is ever-closer due to the Abbott government’s ill-thought through and shambolic foreign policy.

[1] John Garnaut. ‘Australia and India to strengthen military ties.’ The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media, July 1, 2014.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/australia-and-india-to-strengthen-military-ties-20140701-zss9o.html

[2] Mark Kenny and David Wroe ‘Defence alliance to anger China.’ The Age. Melbourne: The Age Company,July 9, 2014, 7.

[3] Paul McGeough. ‘Hillary Clinton criticises Australia for two-timing America with China.’ The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media, June 27, 2014.

[4] ‘You are either with us or against us.’ CNN.com. November 6, 2001.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

[5] Michael Wesley. ‘The Elephant in the Room. Australia India Relations. The Monthly. February, 2012.

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/february/1328594251/michael-wesley/elephant-room

[6] Manu Joseph. ‘Setting a High Bar for Poverty in India.’ The New York Times. July 9, 2014.

[7] James Lamont and James Fontanell-Khan. ‘India: Writing on the wall.’ Financial Times. March 21, 2011.

[8] Martin Jacques. When China Rules the World. The end of the Western World and the birth of a new global order. England: Penguin Books, 2012, 448.

[9] https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/february/1328594251/michael-wesley/elephant-room

This article was first posted on Geo-Strategic Orbit and has been reproduced with permission.

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

Climate change is irrelevant

July 18, 2014
Written by: The AIM Network
159 Replies

In the argument for investment in renewable energy in Australia, the existence, or non-existence of climate change is irrelevant, writes Warwick O’Neill.

Like most semi-intelligent Australians I accept that all the scientific evidence provides near definitive proof that things aren’t looking real bright for our future generations, unless we invest in renewal energy technologies now. But us semi-intelligent Australians are no longer the ones who need convincing, are we?

Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and the rest of this chamber of horrors masquerading as a Government are the ones who need convincing. But while I think that deep down the majority of them probably do believe the science, they all believe much more in the money flowing into Liberal Party coffers from the likes of Gina, Rupert, and other esteemed members of the IPA. So do we continue doing things the way that we have been ever since these people stole the election, i.e. pleading to their conscience and their desire to leave a clean and sustainable future for our grand kids? Like that’s ever going to work.

As they say, the epitome of stupidity is to continue doing the same thing, in the same way and expecting a different result. We need to stop trying to bash down the front door. We need to stop appealing to their conscience and instead use their enormous egos and greed against them. Let’s stop trying to convince them that climate change is real, and start talking about the only things they care about; economics and legacy.

These people may be able to stick their head in the sand and deny climate change, but there are two unmistakable and unarguable truths which no amount of sand can cover up.

First undeniable truth – our mining resources will run out eventually. Whether it’s in ten years, fifty years or one hundred years, unless their God can miraculously replenish our stocks, we will run out. This will leave Australia with very little to trade and the rest of the world will be quite happy to say “thank you for your contribution to our future” while they wave us goodbye.

Even a government which passes the one collective brain cell around to whoever needs it most can see that this will be an economic disaster. How to avoid it though? By finding another source of income, something else which we can sell to an eager world. It would be hard to argue that Australia, due to its geography, isn’t ideally placed to take advantage of renewable energy production. Heavy investment in this industry could potentially reap enormous financial benefits to Australia. Yes, I know it would buck the trend to have a government in Australia that actually invests in assets rather than selling them off, but humour me.

We all know that solar is a viable source of energy. If solar panels the size of an average house roof can provide sufficient power to run that house, imagine the power output of a 1000 acre solar panel. A few of these strategically positioned and we go a long way towards providing enough power to keep this country ‘rocking and rolling’. Government investment in training could help alleviate the job losses from the mining sector, and these new solar areas could be the future version of today’s “mining towns”.

The Horizontal Waterfalls (source: tripadviser.com.au)

Our other advantage is our fifty odd thousand kilometres of coastline. Each inch of this coastline is subject to the one of the truly dependable and predictable sources of energy on this planet – tides. Tidal energy doesn’t dissipate under an overcast sky or when the wind stops blowing. Some areas, such as the “Horizontal Waterfalls” near Broome, have such huge tidal flows that you could imagine, with the right technology in place, potentially provide enough electricity generation to supply the entire top end. And this happens twice a day, every day. But is going largely untapped due to lack of investment.

If any Government properly invested in the research and development and then implemented these technologies, then solar and tidal power could see Australia in a position to provide clean energy at least to the South East Asian region. Our scientists (should we have any left) could no doubt devise efficient and environmentally friendly ways of harnessing this power. The sale of the electricity produced, combined with the manufacture and export of our intellectual property could bring billions of overseas dollars into our economy, easily paying off the initial investment and then adding pure profit well into the future.

The second undeniable truth is that no matter how strenuously Tony Abbott fights against renewal energy, most of the rest of the world, even China, is already making great strides in establishing their own sustainable energy industries. This can mean only one thing for the Australian coal industry – a decrease in the price of coal. The less demand there is, the less it is worth. Economics 1 0 1. So long before coal resources run out, they’re going to be worthless anyway. Failure to start investing now will only mean that the rest of the world will be so much further in front of us when the time comes and we have no other option.

That takes care of the economic angle of attack; now let’s stroke their egos by dangling the carrot of legacy in front of them. Two things any politician who strives for the top echelons of government have in common is a massive ego and a desire to be remembered as one of the giants in history.

Point out to Tony Abbott that he could go down in the annuls of history as the visionary who set up Australia’s economic position in the world for centuries to come, and his ego is sure to be soothed. Actually scrap that. As the “suppository of knowledge” he’d probably think that he’ll be going down in the annals of history as the intellectual giant who scrapped the ‘carbon tax’. Sharp as a marble, our Tony.

But pitch the legacy idea to whoever will be the leader of the LNP once they rid themselves of Tony, and I’m sure they’ll show some interest. Maybe the thought of a gilded statue out the front of Parliament House, honouring their greatness would be enough to overcome the natural desire of most pollies to only look as far ahead as the next election.

Take the whole climate change debate out of the renewable energy argument, and all they are left arguing against is a stronger future economy and their place in history. We could very well get what we wanted in the first place, which is investment in sustainable energy and a brighter, cleaner future. Any military strategist will tell you, if your initial frontal assault fails, change your plan and take them in the flank, where they least expect it.

Domestic violence disclosure schemes: part of the solution…

When Safety is a Fiction: Passing the UK’s…

The Newsman

Not good enough

University Investments: Divesting from the Military-Industrial Complex

Australian dividend payouts to shareholders rise 6 times…

The Wizard of Aus - a story for…

Anzac and the Pageantry of Deception

Tag Archives: Abbott Government

At least I’m not Jack the Ripper … or Tony Abbott!

The Senate Is “Feral” And Tony Abbott Sure Can Use Words Good!

Liberals’ Ludicrous Logic

Abbott’s disaster relief payment cuts are a disaster

Good Government Starts Today … Or Tomorrow, But We’re Definitely Committed To It!

Will Brandis Shirt-Front Morrison? Can Morrison please be the Demtel Man?

If Morrison has this superpower – can he please be the Demtel Man?

Will George Brandis now Shirt-Front Morrison?

Morrison booted him out the country as Morrison did not agree with Julien Blanc’s freedom of speech nor his freedom of expression.

“But wait….there’s more!”

Be Alert, Be VERY, VERY Alert! The Person Next You May Have An iPhone.

Abbott’s first year: the media narrative

The New SRC with the Groan-ups in Charge!

The Abbott Government has been an easy one to predict

Breaking News – Abbott Government asserts that it hasn’t changed; striped leopard seen running from flying pigs!

Australia beckons India: more antagonism from the Abbott Government toward China

Climate change is irrelevant