The Silent Truth

By Roger Chao The Silent Truth In the tumult of a raging battle, beneath…

Nuclear Energy: A Layperson's Dilemma

In 2013, I wrote a piece titled, "Climate Change: A layperson's Dilemma"…

The Australian Defence Formula: Spend! Spend! Spend!

The skin toasted Australian Minister of Defence, Richard Marles, who resembles, with…

Religious violence

By Bert Hetebry Having worked for many years with a diverse number of…

Can you afford to travel to work?

UNSW Media Release Australia’s rising cost of living is squeezing household budgets, and…

A Ghost in the Machine

By James Moore The only feature not mentioned was drool. On his second day…

Faulty Assurances: The Judicial Torture of Assange Continues

Only this month, the near comatose US President, Joe Biden, made a…

Spiderwoman finally leaving town

By Frances Goold Louise Bourgeois: Has the Day Invaded the Night or Has…

«
»
Facebook

Tag Archives: Coalition

Day to Day Politics: ‘How about a parliamentary plebiscite on marriage equality’

Sunday January 31 January.

1 Hypothetical I know, but what about if next week, when Parliament resumes, Bill Shorten moves a non-binding vote on the subject of marriage equality. Those who agree go to the right of the chair, those who don’t to the left. If the yes vote is carried then have a real vote, pass a bill and the matter is concluded. If the no vote is carried then have a plebiscite and carry out the will of the people.

Conservatives want a plebiscite for two reasons. Firstly to delay in order to propagate more Far Right Evangelical Christian propaganda and secondly to gain access to half of the $150 million to support their cause.

It seems obscenely immoral to me to be spending that amount of money on something that surveys and polls have for a number of years shown overwhelming support for a yes vote.

If politicians are not there to carry out, or reflect the will of the people what are they there for?

Having spent a major part of my life in the Church environment I am fully conversant with the Biblical argument on this and other issues of social justice. They helped form my rejection of regressive religion.

I wrote an argument in support of gay marriage.

Having said that many surveys suggest that people of faith in main stream churches are in favour of marriage equality.

We should not underestimate just how influential Abbott, Andrews, Bernardi and others are in the Coalition parties.

Warren Entsch said: “It makes you wonder why we would spend millions of dollars on a plebiscite if you’re not going to respect the result. I find it rather bizarre.”

The $150 million would be better back in the program against domestic violence where it probably came from.

2 Health is set to become a major issue in the lead up to the election.The Australian Medical Association’s 2016 Annual Report into Public Hospital Funding show that Public Hospitals are in big trouble. AMA president Brian Owler, is quoted as saying that ‘public hospital funding is about to become the biggest single challenge facing state and territory finances’.

3 Quoting Scott (Gunna) Morrison on the Tax Debate: ‘We’ve advanced the debate I think a lot more effectively over the last four or five months than a green paper ever would.’

What absolute drivel. All they are doing is continuously repeating the same lines over and over saying that they are thinking about and talking about the issues.

Doing something seems to be out of the question. There surely will come a point in time when it will occur to a journalist, or someone, to ask just when decisions will be made. I mean for God’s sake what have they been doing for two and a half years.

Malcolm Turnbull’s interview with Neil Mitchell last Friday was laughable. Malcolm just sat there being, well-being Malcolm, smiling, talking being nice, talking, being calm, patient, polite, reassuring and tolerant, repeating himself, blaming Labor for everything. Yes everything’s on the table repeating it’s on the table, and all those other things Malcolm is good at.

Did I mention everything’s on the table. I did, did I say except Climate change, Marriage Equality, the Republic and Asylum Seekers. Well they aren’t. Tony’s still looking after them which of course means they will be incarcerated for life. No we are not thinking of putting any new policy on the table.

He was charming of course. White papers, green papers and toilet paper, even confetti if there’s a gay marriage. Even copy paper if you want an FOI request. OH and I forgot. Using public transport.

But where was the Prime Minister?

An observation.

‘Life is about perception. Not what is but what we perceive it to be.’

4 Thus far it is shaping up to be a historically typical boring election year. There will be all the usual claims and counter claims. The where is the money coming from questions. Politicians will say that they never underestimate the Australian people while at the same time treating us like idiots. In short it will be like every other election. Negative, negative.

Sorry, but Bill Shorten and Labor will not win this election with a traditional run of the mill campaign.

5 This from Tony Abbott’s speech to the Alliance Defending Freedom in New York on Thursday:

‘So I’ve been good on the theory of family but, like so many of my parliamentary colleagues, I’ve ­relied on a supportive spouse to put the heart into the home’.

That to me sounds like the view of a failed father. Or one who never tried.

And this paragraph grabbed my attention.

‘In today’s world, we need less ideology and more common sense; we need less impatience and more respect; we need less shouting at people and more ­engagement with them.’

He never stops giving.

6 Only in America.

This comment from the Guardian about the Trump organised Trump debate:

‘Both as a vaudeville show and a political rally, Trump’s event was lacking. There were no musical numbers nor were there any jugglers, although Trump certainly tap danced around addressing any substantive issues of policy.’

As I said: Only in America.

My thought for the day

When you think you have no more to give and someone cries out to you. Find the strength to help.

 

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!

Donate Button

 

Day to Day Politics. Turnbull’s New Year Turmoil.

 

Monday 18 January 2016

1 No doubt Labor starts the year behind the eight ball. But have you considered what Malcolm Turnbull faces?

He will be anxious to erase from the electorates mind two years of abysmal governance. Not an easy task given that after five months he has hardly made any impact at all.

Conservatives will want the policies of Tony Abbott to continue as they are now. Somehow he has to put his own stamp on the party he leads or be seen as just a smooth talking power grabber. And he will have to do it with Abbott and his supporters snapping at his heels.

It’s a ‘try to keep everybody happy’ scenario that will be hard to balance in an election year complicated by internal dissent.

It may well be the next budget that defines his leadership, his political philosophy and indeed his authority over the party.

Formulating the next budget will have many implications. It will be imbedded with many dangers, with many decisions to be made. All muddled by an economic white paper requiring decisions influencing the election.

Increasing the GST, Superannuation, negative gearing. An out of control NBN, Companies not paying tax, Capital Gains Tax, Subsidies to coal miners, Climate Change, Health, Money for science innovation. Investment in renewable energy and the revenue future.

A rise in the GST would mean further tax reform including cuts to personal income tax and company tax rates, as well as compensation for low-income earners.

However it will be a hard sell. Personally I don’t much see the point in lowering the company tax rate given its hard to get them to pay tax now.

Besides the ‘where is the money coming from’ to address the Climate Change question the one most challenging is the immoral Super tax rorts for high wage earners.

An observation.

Never in the history of this nation have the rich and the privileged been so openly brazen’.

If he retains them at the same cost as pensions he will be seen as pandering to the rich. If he acts against them he will have to cop the wrath of the powerful superannuation industry.

There will come a point in time where Turnbull will have to take ownership of Government policy. The difficulty might be matching the expectations and hopes people have of him with the undoubted difficult decisions that lay ahead.

2 When is it all going to end? Asylum seekers were demonised by Philip Ruddock many years ago purely for political purposes. It has continued to the point where both parties have become so ensconced in the immorality of it that history will record them as unconscionable retards.

What does it take to get a Royal Commission? We have people committing suicide, self-harming. Charities being maligned, growing lengths of detention now averaging 445 days. Millions of taxpayers money wasted. Paying criminals to tow boats back. New Zealand’s offer to resettle people being refused so that more lengthy detentions can be seen as a deterrent.

3 Lenore Taylor writes an excellent piece on Political Donations:

‘Combining stricter disclosure rules for donations and ending political ads dressed up as government information could enhance voters’ faith in the system’.

My thought for the day

‘In the information age, those who control the dissemination of news have more power than government’.

 

Day to Day Politics ‘A hangover of monumental proportion’

Saturday 9 January 2016

A day back on the job and the day-to-day political realities of life are hitting me. I’m still catching up and it has given me a nasty hangover that won’t go away.

Two observations.

Less informed voters unfortunately outnumber the more politically aware. Therefore, conservatives feed them all the bullshit they need. And the menu generally contains a fair portion of untruths

‘People need to wake up to the fact that government affects every part of their life (other than what they do in bed) and should be more interested. But there is a political malaise that is deep-seated

1 The Royal Commission into Trade Unions has released its final report. Surprise, surprise it has found that some Unions are corrupt. They are. It also found that certain companies by colluding with them were also possibly corrupt. The media predictably centres its attention on the Unions.

As a counter balance and if the government was truly interested in corruption why didn’t it also have a Royal Commission into the banks disgraceful conduct over financial advice. It has cost taxpayers far more than any misconduct by Trade Unions.

We might also have a RC into why, with the Governments blessing, large corporations are exempted from paying tax. And why the wealthy privileged are not required to disclose how much tax they pay.

We could also have an inquiry into the immoral 15% tax discount on superannuation given to high income earners.

Independent Senator John Madigan called for the government to go after the banks and financial planners – not just union officials.

“If the government sets up a body that deals with all corruption, I would support it wholeheartedly,” he said.

“Why aren’t they pursuing all corruption with such fervour?”

Good point indeed.

As George Negus tweeted.

@TurnbullMalcolm You weren’t going to insult our intelligence! Unions corrupt and dishonest; business incorrupt and honest? Give me a break.

2 There is a lot of truth in the old adage that Australians go to sleep for the first two months of every year. But there is much more in the fact that politicians take advantage of it.

So during a heat wave when all we are interested in is cooling down they cynically announce a review into the status of some Medicare procedures.

On top of that it looks as though the Coalition will renege on the funding for the final two years of Gonski. They will of course be able to continue to fund Private schools to the tune of almost 2.4 billion.

‘We have continued to fund privilege rather than disadvantage in education, ‘said Mr Cobbold, who is the Save Our Schools (SOS) spokesman.

‘It’s a straight choice. Do you fund wealthy private schools at the expense of disadvantaged schools, or do you turn some of that funding around to support disadvantaged students in the public and private sector?’

Not to mention that the cost of having your child minded while you work might soon be $200 a day. That’s each of course. So if you have a couple of kids that’s $2000 a week. Pampering the rich I suggest.

3 Unlike former PM Abbott I am not into creating fear but do you realise that in a matter of months Barnaby Joyce may very well be Deputy Prime Minister. I kid you not.

4 Fairfax reports that.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has contradicted reports the Hong Kong bar incident that ended Jamie Briggs’ ministerial career was little more than a playful misunderstanding, describing the female diplomat’s complaint against Mr Briggs as a “serious matter’.

The complaint has been given a lot of ‘exposure’ Indecent or otherwise. He then circulates a picture of the offended lady to a small group of friends. It ends up in the media and Jamie throws his hands in the air in the ‘not me’ cowards manner. It’s a case of character assassination. Not hers but his by self-inflicted wounds.

It doesn’t finish there. Journalist Samantha Maiden who branded Mr Briggs’ behaviour while travelling as “dumb as all get out” receives a text from Peter Dutton (intended for Jamie Briggs) calling her a “mad f—— witch”

Delightful smutty types I must say. I think I will have more to say on this. Maiden really didn’t help the cause of the goog ladies of Australia by accepting Dutton’s apology but she might have been reminded about who she works for.

An observation.

Most problems that society faces arise from the fact that men have never really grown up

5 An English knighthood for Australian election strategist Lynton Crosby. Rather reminds me of when, if you left $10,000 in a brown paper bag on his desk, Joe Bjelke Peterson would guarantee you one for services rendered.

Crosby is known for what Boris Johnson describes as ‘the dead cat strategy’ [which involves distracting the public from a politically difficult issue by creating shocking news]. I wonder what the Queen must think with that sword in her hand. ‘God give me strength’, perhaps.

6 2 years 4 months 6 days since the last election. The score for the Abbott/Turnbull government on the ABCs Government promises fact check site is. 15 broken, 117 stalled, 40 in progress, 16 delivered.

7 A couple of comments from the now 86-year-old Bob Hawke caught my attention on the release of the 1990-91 cabinet documents by the National Archives.

‘If you were sitting down today to work out a constitution for this country, you simply wouldn’t have anything that remotely resembled the stupidity – and it is nothing less than the stupidity – of having a division of constitutional powers today based on those meanderings a couple of hundred years ago.’

And.

‘One of the things that gives me the shits more than anything else about the conservative parties is their continuing, concerted attack on the trade union movement,” Hawke says in the briefing, a few weeks before the release of the Royal Commission Report into Trade Unions.’

‘In the period when we were in office, they, as you know, made sacrifices in the greater interest and I think it is ungenerous in the extreme that the conservative political forces in this country don’t recognise the debt we owe to the organised trade union movement. That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t clean its act up.’

8 There is no doubt that the Prime Minister is enjoying enormous popularity. However, after three months of heavily overdosing on syrupy over saccharised sweet talk he still remains in the concept of old politics. He gave promise to a new paradigm but other than style the prototype is still the same.

My thought for the day.

‘Instead of searching within when we are at fault the first human reaction is to apportion blame elsewhere. Why is that so?’

 

Power Rules, Men, Sex and Politics

sex harassJamie Briggs, Minister for Cities and the Built Environment in the Abbott/Turnbull Liberal National Coalition Government resigned from the Ministry on the 29th December, 2015, citing his behaviour was an error of professional judgement. A female public servant has submitted a formal complaint, complaining of Briggs’ sexual behaviour. No one knows the exact nature of the complaint made, as we are not privy to any specific details at this time. Newspaper reports indicate that this complaint relates to unwanted sexual advances and/or sexual harassment.

Sexual Harassment by men is the “Unsolicited, non-reciprocal male behaviour, that asserts a woman’s sex role, over her function as a worker (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1995).

Seeking “The Wife’s Opinion”

A number of articles written in various newspapers seek the opinion of Jamie Briggs’ wife. I will not link these articles, as I will not reinforce this distraction from Briggs’ behaviour. In fact, Jamie Briggs’ wife should be left out of this altogether.

When I read the various articles in newspapers focusing on his wife’s opinion and acceptance or condemnation of Briggs’ behaviour, I cringed. My mind went back to late 90’s and Hilary Clinton immediately. Hilary Clinton is still harassed about her husband’s behaviour today. Hilary Clinton is still expected to take responsibility for her husband’s behaviour and men in politics try their hardest to use this as a source of shame for Hilary Clinton.

No sooner had the ink dried on Briggs’ resignation, the media immediately turned their attention to his wife.

In doing so, this takes the focus off the man’s behaviour. It gives us something else to talk about other than the man who used his power on a woman who did not consent, nor did she welcome such behaviour of a sexual nature. Briggs abused his position of power. His ethical behaviour is also questioned.

Public Hat or Private Hat

Many argue that Bill Clinton had his ‘private ethics’ hat on, in his interactions with Lewinsky. Many argue there is a fine ethical line between a private ethics hat and a public one for politicians. However, in the case of Briggs, his ethics hat at that time was a public hat, as he was representing Australia in all his actions at that time. His reflection that this behaviour was not up to the standard of a Minister is accurate. He has made the correct decision to step down from his position in the Ministry.

Power Rules

In all organisations, including politics, there is a system of power rules in play. These power rules, like most other rules in society, have been developed through the powerful positioning of white men over a long period of time. (Please note, this article is about the sexual harassment of a woman. The Author recognises such power rules can impact on men, women of colour, men of colour, LGBTI people and people with a disability and other marginalised and disadvantaged groups).

Some of the “Power Rules” in play for the case of Briggs are “Legitimate Power” (power given to a person due to their position) and possibly “Coercive Power” (this is power where the holder of this power may have an influence on career choices etc., Coercive power is often used in a negative way, such as threats of demotion or non-recommendations etc.,). This is a little more complex, as it has many dynamics. Even if coercive power is not direct; a woman needs to face the decision if her complaint will be detrimental to her work-life due to the coercive power of those associated with the aggressor. This is intensified when the aggressor displays the perception that they have such power, (perception of power) even if it is not legitimate.

Unwanted sexual advances and sexual harassment of women, intimidates and creates fear at a personal level and has implications at the work level. In cases where unwanted sexual behaviour and the workplace collide, intimidation and fear may also impact the victim’s work-life. Often, this is a source of non-complaint, where women feel reporting an incident of sexual behaviour is not worth the risk. The use of power rules, particularly coercive power in workplaces can have a dramatic impact on a woman’s self efficacy to report unwanted behaviour in the workplace. This should not be delegitimised by shifting the focus of attention to the opinion of the Briggs’ wife.

How women can be used to deligimitise other women’s experiences

Turning the focus to Brigg’s wife takes our attention off the victim. It takes the focus off the victim’s discomfort, powerlessness and distress. The victim should remain the most important person in relation to Briggs’ behaviour, not his wife, mother, aunt or any other women who may be used take the attention off Briggs’ own behaviour.

Also, bringing a third party (wife) into the scenario, this act of abuse of power resulting in humiliation, discomfort and distress, for the victim, diminishes Briggs’ behaviour to the opinion of the third party (wife) and not the opinion of the victim.

Turning the focus to the opinion of the wife, also diminishes the behaviour of the aggressor, when we ask, “What does his wife think about this?”

If Briggs’ was a single man would the media or other male politicians diminish his behaviour by using excuses such as, ‘he was only looking for a soul mate’ ‘She (the victim) must have read him wrong’ etc., etc., as we have seen many times before.

If the behaviour of sexual advance/harassment by men in power cannot be diminished or excused due to ‘bachelorhood’, the next step is normally, to seek to diminish the behaviour through the support of other women in their lives; usually starting with the wife.

As with Bill Clinton, question’s raised in people’s mind’s about Hilary Clinton, “Is it her fault?” “Is she not being ‘good wife'”, “Is the wife ‘not meeting his needs'” etc., etc., All these questions raised in various people’s minds puts the onus on a third party (wife) and lets the male aggressor off the hook.

Referent Power

All politicians and the people who market them desire for them to have ‘Referent Power.’ In a nutshell, referent power is about charisma and using that charisma to influence others and build loyalty (voters). When men are in public life, it is very important for others to try to re-establish referent power for the (fallen) individual male in question as soon as possible. The culture of sexual harassment is still dominated by the needs of the male (ie how complaints about their behaviour will affect their career. What will happen to the man now?). Seeking the opinion of supportive wives, other supportive women and supportive prominent men who may reinforce the ‘goodness and wholesomeness’ of the aggressor, reinforces this culture.

Focusing on male behaviour paves the way for a cultural shift

As a woman, I will not pass judgement on wives of men, where the men have a question of sexual behaviour or any other indiscretion associated with their power above them.

As a woman, I will not pass judgement on wives of men who are in positions of significant power. “Power Rules” exist in the wife’s external environment (political face and an extension of the husband’s work-life) and internal environment (power and control within a relationship). The layers of ‘power rules’ women, as wives of men in power must negotiate, is complex.

For people judging Briggs’ wife’s support for her husband, the illusion of how high her own moral bar is held, simply cannot and should not be judged. She could very well be subject to power rules and her ‘morals or ethics’ could be set at a very different level in private. (In saying, that her moral bar is completely irrelevant). In making any judgements about the wife’s opinion and her morals, we are simply condemning another woman caught in the same power rules as the victim. Power rules created by powerful men. We also remove support from the victim, by shifting our focus away from the unwanted, unsolicited sexual behaviour perpetrated by a man in power.

The only woman I have concern for, and the only woman who should be in our focus is the victim.

It should be continuously acknowledged that Briggs’ behaviour and men who display the same behaviours make women feel uncomfortable in their own spaces, fearful, frightened, powerless and even ashamed.

It should be continuously acknowledged that Briggs’ behaviour and men who display the same behaviours make women fearful, intimidated and distressed about how these unwanted behaviours will impact on their own career progression and work.

It should be continuously acknowledged that Briggs’ behaviour and the men who display the same behaviours view women, not as workers, but as sexual objects. This diminishes a woman’s entire gamut of knowledge, skills, abilities and personal attributes a woman possesses in her workplace. This in turn, diminishes the value of a woman’s labour at work. These men should not be part of public life, particularly where they influence legislation pertaining to women and work, such as Briggs was in the Howard era. (Chief advisor in the Prime Minister’s office on Industrial Relations / Work Choices).

(On an aside note, It brings to question, if Briggs’ Work Choices work, is the motivation for Turnbull promoting an Abbott supporting right wing man.)

Briggs, a man, so hell bent on the idea of Merit as opposed to Quotas, in particular really needs this reinforced over and over and over again, until he ‘gets it.’ Ironically, Jamie Briggs’ own behaviour makes him a shining example of why we do indeed need quotas for women in politics.

The focus in the case of Briggs’ resignation should always be about condemning Briggs’ behaviour and concern and empathy for the victim. Sexual Harassment by men, particularly by men in positions of power needs a cultural shift and that shift should start now.

Originally published on Polyfeministix

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

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

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

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

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

Donate Button

Day to Day Politics. Abbott was not a leader’s bootlace. As for Turnbull well . . .

Thursday 10 December

1 In the recipe of what makes a good leader there are many ingredients. Self-awareness is one. The innate ability to know who you are and what your capabilities and limitations are. The need to have the aptitude to motivate people with your vision.

Often the art of leadership is the ability to bring those otherwise opposed to your view, to accept it. Or compromise when the situation demands it.

It is also about delegation, empathy and understanding. It can also require from time to time the making of unpopular decisions. Decisions like going to war. However, when they consistently imply the leaders own morality and spiritual beliefs they are more akin to autocracy.

Most leaders want to be popular but some will forego it for power. Getting things done for the common good is also a fine trait of an excellent leader. Another important feature of leadership is the ability to be able to change one’s mind when circumstances change. Together with the skill to explain ‘why’ after listening to the views of others.

To break a promise or change one’s mind in order to serve the common good should be viewed as courageous leadership rather than a sign of weakness. Having the grace to say “I was wrong” is another quality rarely seen.

Above all, great leaders know that humility is the basis of all intellectual advancement. But it is truth that enables human progress.

Tony Abbott, in his opinion piece for News Corp ably demonstrated why he failed as a leader.

Abbott is a very divisive force. His leadership was based on the assumption that lies repeated would eventually become truth. That confrontation displayed strength of character and it alone would win an argument. If I shout loud enough I will be heard.

In his piece he seeks to blame a whole religion for the actions of a minority of extremists. It reflects his ‘confrontation solves all’ attitude to life in general. Turnbull fire back with; “The simple fact of the matter is the vast majority of Muslims are as appalled by these acts of extremism as we are“.

There is nothing wrong in suggesting that Islam needs reform, but to do so whilst at the same time his own church condemns homosexuality, (defining it as disordered) doesn’t allow women to control over their own fertility and, as Kristina Keneally reports; “tells divorced people that they have failed as Christians – even if the marriage was abusive or if their spouse was cheating on them – and denies them access to the sacraments“.

A church that for decades has condoned the abuse of children. Only a person who thinks he has some sort of macabre ownership on righteousness could suggest that another religion needs reform.

All it displays is Islamophobia of the worst kind and an incapacity for deep reflection. A hatred for all things other than those ideals derived from an indoctrination by Catholicism.

Indeed, a church led by very old men wearing dresses with no experience of consensual love is also in need of reform.

Sound judgement is also a prerequisite for good leadership. In saying that he would have won the next election, that his first budget was a fair one (when it was judged by all sections of the community as the most unfair ever) and only lasting two years as leader – that he has a legacy to protect – it’s all the Senate’s fault, confirms what little judgement he had.

The notion that he spoke to most Australians is nonsense. What he did was to talk to a very, very small group within the Australian community who have views that aren’t consistent with a pluralist, modern, twenty-first century, multicultural nation. The polls showed this and it’s why he lost the leadership. The conundrum in Australian politics is that the public has one idea of what a leader should be but the conservative parties have another.

Abbott lost his leadership because he had none of the aforementioned leadership characteristics that Australians see as desirable.

As a moderate leader Malcolm Turnbull now finds himself the leader of a party that wants to be very much to the right. As a leader he does have some of the aforementioned qualities, however, they in themselves are not necessarily of a rightest mould. In his interview with Leigh Sales he showed a propensity for self-indulgence. He was not up to scratch with detail, expected Sales to be conciliatory, and wanted to impose his own version of leadership spin without the slogans.

To quote Sean Kelly:

‘The first and most worrying thing from the 7.30 interview is that the PM seemed to have scant detail about his own innovation statement, announced earlier that day. This is supposed to be his bailiwick: a technology announcement by a man who loves technology, support offered to entrepreneurs by the nation’s best-known entrepreneur.’

There are those political leaders who have a sagacious gift for detail. In my experience no one surpassed former Prime Minister Howard. He consumed facts and figures with a childlike appetite for rice bubbles at breakfast. There was not much else I liked about him but his grasp of the finer points of policy were formidable. So too did Hawke, Keating and Beasley who I would rate next to Howard. Brendan Nelson also had an impressive mind for the fine print.

Turnbull in 2012 said:

‘I am not suggesting politicians are innately less accurate or truthful than anyone else. But rather that the system is not constraining, in fact it is all too often rewarding, spin, exaggeration, misstatements … Dumbing down complex issues into sound bites, misrepresenting your or your opponent’s policy does not respect “Struggle Street”, it treats its residents with contempt … Call me idealistic if you like, but we have a greater need than ever for informed and honest debate.’

As a leader he will have to show more than just charm and pleasantness. He will have to show substance.

2 The Newspoll result in yesterday’s Australian which is presumably the last for the year, has the Coalition’s two-party lead unchanged at 53-47, from primary votes of 45% for the Coalition (down one), 33% for Labor (steady) and 12% for the Greens (up one). However, Malcolm Turnbull’s personal ratings have taken a knock, with approval down eight to 52% and disapproval up eight to 30%. Bill Shorten’s ratings plumb new depths with a three-point drop in approval to 23%, while disapproval is up four to 61%. Turnbull’s lead over Shorten as preferred prime minister is down slightly, from 64-15 to 60-14.

The penultimate Essential Research fortnightly average for the year is unchanged at 51-49 to the Coalition, from primary votes of Coalition 44% (steady), Labor 36% (up one) and Greens 11% (steady). Also featured are the monthly leadership ratings, which fail to back up Newspoll’s reported slide for both Malcolm Turnbull, who is at 56% approval (steady) and 23% disapproval (up three), and Bill Shorten, who is unchanged at 27% approval and 47% disapproval. Turnbull’s preferred prime minister lead is at 55-15.

3 Donald Trump is now advocating closing all mosques, deporting all immigrants, abandoning refugees and now censoring the internet. Where will it end?

There is an abundance of psychiatrists in the US. I suggest he seeks one of the best. He appears to be an extremely sick man.

4 Meanwhile in Paris Australia’s inglorious position at the bottom of the developed world’s ranking on climate change policy comes in sharp contrast to the triumphant rhetoric of Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in Paris.

The fact that Australia has been rated third last out of the 58 countries assessed reveals the extent of the Turnbull Government’s climate hypocrisy.

Last week the Prime Minister himself was in Paris championing Australia’s efforts at meeting our climate change targets early. And this week Minister Hunt has gone out of his way to talk up the positive response that Australia’s representatives have received at Paris. “We’re meeting and beating our targets,” he said. Bullshit we are.

5 Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs says Malcolm Turnbull has welcomed her back into the corridors of power. Good to have another voice of reason but the neo cons won’t be happy.

MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

The ideas of today need to be honed with critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of enquiry so that they clearly articulate the currency of tomorrow’.

PS: My thanks to those of you who share my posts on Facebook. You make it all very worthwhile.

 

Day to Day Politics. It’s not a happy party.

Friday 4 December

1 How embarrassing for the Prime Minister. Former Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane is set to defect from the Liberal Party to junior Coalition partners the Nationals. Like Rudd, Turnbull is intently disliked within his party.

The National Party gets roughly the same vote in the Lower House as the Greens yet has 8 members to the Green’s one. Hardly fair you would think, but that’s the way the system works.

Ask me to explain the difference between the Nationals and Liberals. Well I cannot. I can say that at times the Nationals are decidedly unrepresentative of its constituency.

What this does show is a deep-seated hatred of a leader who wants to take his party back to its roots being dragged into line by those who think the party’s future is further to the right. A neo-Conservative party concerned more with those who have rather than those who have not.

Macfarlane’s decision may mean that he will go back to Cabinet giving the Nationals more power than it deserves. After the next election it well may be that he is deputy leader to Barnaby Joyce who in turn will be deputy PM. God help us.

And we are told there might be more defections.

2 Yesterday’s mass shooting in California that killed at least 14 was not the only one. There was another in Georgia that killed four. America is certainly the world’s most technologically advanced country. In terms of social cohesion and life values they certainly are not. On the subject of gun laws their politicians are devoid of the sanctity of human life in so much as they know they could address the problem but they place power and position above it.

I suggest DEFAT issue a travel warning to those contemplating a visit to the US.

3 In case you hadn’t noticed, the Paris Climate talks are still in full swing. Australia is under fire amid concern we are taking advantage of overly flexible rules to claim greenhouse gas emissions are falling when they are actually on the increase.

Australia is relying on its negotiating teams securing a definition of emissions that allows the country to count a reduction in deforestation towards its target.

As I said earlier in the week, we are relying on dodgy accounting rules to include land use in order to massage the figures and do nothing.

4 After declaring Labor’s plan for the NBN disaster many times over it has to be said that Malcolm Turnbull has made a monumental stuff up of this vital technology.

We now find out that repairing and replacing parts of the copper network purchased from Telstra for the Coalition’s National Broadband Network could cost up to $640 million, a leaked NBN document shows.

Labor had declared the copper network redundant three years ago and knew it would have to be replaced. Turnbull has doubled the cost, the time of completion and it will not deliver sufficient speeds for the future.

5 Up to 300 of Australia’s wealthiest private companies will be forced to disclose their annual tax bill for the first time after the Greens cut a compromise deal with Treasurer Scott Morrison on contested tax transparency legislation.

But the deal, which has been branded a “sell out” by the Labor Party, will shield up to 600 more companies that would have been brought under new transparency requirements.

Until the Greens shook hands with Mr Morrison, the crossbench and Labor had the numbers to insist the government’s multinational tax avoidance bill could only pass with an amendment to force all companies with revenues of $100 million or more publishing their tax contribution.

That measure will now be doubled to $200 million – effectively shielding two-thirds of the companies that would have been brought into the light for the first time.

Shame on the Greens

Observations.

A Malcolm Turnbull should divest himself immediately of the impression that he is talking down to people.

B Brough might have been saved by the bell. For the time being at least. Tony Burke has asked the Speaker to refer Mal Brough to the privileges committee. Speaker Smith says he’ll consider it

MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

‘We all have to make important decisions in our lives. None more important than the rejection of those things that tempt us into being somebody we are not’.

 

Day to Day Politics. The heat’s on in Paris.

image

2 December

1 Malcolm Turnbull in his address the Paris Climate Conference said:

‘We do not doubt the implication of the science, or the scale of the challenge’.

I found that a bit rich given that many of his Cabinet and back bench MPs are known deniers.

Added to that, the latest research shows that barely one in four Coalition voters accepts climate change is mostly caused by humans, with more than half of Liberal voters believing changes to global temperatures are natural, according to a CSIRO survey.

However, there are a number of initiatives taking place. Australia has committed to doubling the government’s $100-million-a-year commitment to clean technology research and development as part of a global innovation project spearheaded by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, whom Mr Turnbull met on the sidelines of the event.

Mr Turnbull also said Australia would commit $1 billion over five years to helping developing countries – especially those in the Pacific – to build resilience against climate change and to cut emissions.

And where is all this money coming from? Well the Foreign Aid budget of course. And not a whimper from Julie Bishop.

He said the country would “meet and beat” its 2020 emissions reduction goal – a reduction of 5 per cent compared with 2000 levels.

Now that shouldn’t be so difficult given that Australia was given at the first Kyoto meeting, the ok to raise its emissions by 8%, as an incentive to sign the agreement.

The fact is that our target is too low and at some point, Turnbull will have to convince his party that Australia must lift its climate ambitions if it’s to do its fair share to keep global warming to less than two degrees – a case that will be easier to make if Paris produces a credible pathway to such an outcome.

He also flagged increasing the target when a review is conducted in five years’ time.

But of course the task will be made tougher without a broad-based carbon price, an approach Turnbull himself once championed – and may yet to do so again.

He also flagged increasing the target when a review is conducted in five years’ time.

But Liberal MP Dennis Jensen said the Prime Minister should stick with the position of the party room.

The back bencher said discussion about increasing the target was “a joke”.

“I will certainly be very strong on the fact that we should not change those targets and that we stick with what we agreed [in] the party room and we don’t change,” he said.

“If there’s discussion about it a couple of years’ in the future, don’t change it again.”

It is difficult to believe that Hunt and Turnbull are actually getting away with the flattering, self-ingratiating bullshit they are delivering in Paris. And the compliancy of the mainstreammedia is equally dim-witted and lacks scrutiny. But I suppose it’s what Rupert wants.

They are both slaves to the hard right conservative wing of the Coalition. After all, delivering what he is now doing in Paris, was a condition of his employment.

Finally, Australia refused to sign with 43 other countries an agreement eliminate coal subsidies. In doing so they have now admitted that they do subsidise coal. Even if under another name. (Rebates).

2 Tuesday’s Essential Poll tightens with Labor on 49% and the Coalition on 51%. Bit of a surprise that one.

3 Special Minister of State Mal Brough has made a significant comment in relation to a key admission he made on Channel Nine over his dealings with James Ashby.

‘What was put to air was not the full question’.

Really. I suggest you watch the video.

4 I won’t beg or do an Abbott arse joke but could we please have a national ICAC.

One in six exempt companies exempted from reporting from reporting financial details to Asic are political donors or government contractors.

What was that you said?

5 Tony Abbott accusing Julie Bishop of telling lies. Well I never. Well I never.

MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

“If we do not take action on the environment and there is no disaster the outcome will be due to luck alone, like someone winning tattslotto” Average odds 58 million to one.

‘Day to Day Politics’ with John Lord

Thursday 26 November

1 I have reached the conclusion that we have a Government of talkers, not doers. One might easily call them wafflers. They must be setting an Australian record for papers, enquiries, reports, and meetings both domestically and internationally. However I don’t foresee much doing prior to the next election. Which of course will mean that the Coalition has wasted three years of government.

2 One of the best wafflers of course is Environment \minister Greg Hunt who at yesterday’s National Press Club gave himself a glowing report prior to the Paris talks.

He said we have already reached our 5% target reduction for 2020 levels. He is correct but we have only done so because of drought, the slowdown in the economy, the decline in manufacturing and to a small extent the impact of the renewable energy target and other climate policies such as the emissions reduction fund. And of course some very dodgy, smoke and mirrors accountancy measures. Fact is the 5% was always too low and we were given an 8% increase in emissions at the first Kyoto meeting.

3 I got into a discussion with a conservative friend who insisted that Julia Gillard told the biggest political lie ever. I countered with this and I thought my friend was going to have a stroke.

One of most important moments in the life of Menzies must have been when, on 28 April 1965, he lied to the Australian Parliament and people over an alleged call for assistance from the Saigon Regime of General Nguyễn Văn Thiệu as official head of state and Air Marshall Nguyễn Cao Kỳ as prime minister. The first battalion arrived in Vietnam the following month. After March 1966 National Servicemen were sent to Vietnam to fight in units of the Australian Regular Army. Some 19,000 conscripts were sent in the following four years. 521 lost their life. The number of Australian invalid and otherwise victims of the war is still uncertain.

The document carrying the alleged call was never found.

4 International tensions are very high with the shooting down of a Russian fighter. I know it’s difficult to overcome thousands of years of fighting based on nationalism but wouldn’t it be nice if the leaders of the world opened their minds to internationalism.

To quote a friend:

‘We have entered a very dangerous moment in human history.

These developments put us on the precipice of a conflagration that could have grave consequences for the world.

We must all hope that the fullest exercise of international diplomacy and a show of good faith is made before this worsens’ (Stuart J Whitman).

5 Did you know that 58,000 people die each day from hunger and preventable diseases?

6 The Australian, the official newsletter of the Liberal Party, reports that resentment among ousted conservatives and retribution against Abbott supporters is creating a dangerous political atmosphere.

7 So have the isms of left and right gone past their used by dates? What do you think? Do they suffer from the tiredness of longevity? Is there any possibility that a new politic could emerge from a society deeply entrenched in political negativity and malaise, yet still retain the essential ingredients of a vigorous democracy? One where a wide-ranging common good test would be applied to all policy.

Have left and right so fused into each other that they no longer form a demarcation of ideas? Could the ideologies of the two somehow come together to form this commongoodism? Who would decide the common good? How could one define it? Could capitalism embrace the common good or would it need further regulation? Could conservatism which empathises individual responsibility and opportunity embrace it? What would common good values be?

That’s all a bit like political scrambled eggs I know, but they are the sort of philosophical questions I ask myself on my daily walks. You see that although I still value my leftish views I do really believe that modern political thought and practice needs a makeover. And not just nationally but internationally. But particularly in Australia where politics no longer meets the needs or aspirations of the people and is held in such low esteem that politicians are barely relevant. I have long felt that the political establishment has taken ownership of a system that should serve the people but instead serves itself. It is self-indulgent, shows no respect for the people it serves and lacks transparency.

MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

‘Leadership is a combination of traits that etch the outlines of a life and grow over time. They govern moral choices and demonstrate empathy toward others. It is far better for those with these qualities to lead rather than follow. In fact it is incumbent on them’.

 

Turnbull? Well, Nobody Faustus … (Ah, with puns like that I could work for Murdoch)

For anyone taking a step back, the question is: Has Turnbull sold his soul, or only rented it in the hope of buying it back when the right wing of his party don’t have any capital to use in the auction after the next election?

However, for most people, we’re in the real world and there’s a fair bit of cognitive dissonance going on. Yep, it’s really good that Abbott is no longer PM and his pronouncements just make it seem more and more like we must have all been on drugs and there’s no possibility that a man who’d knight Prince Phil, and declare that coal was good for humanity could ever have been our Prime Minister and that it’s good to have someone who actually can actually use three word slogans which have more than one syllable in the words. IN-O-VAY-SHONE! On the other hand, there’s concern that Malcolm Turnbull is still pursuing some of the worst of Abbott’s policies. But on yet the other hand, there’s concern amongst the very strange – those like Eric Abetz who seem to have three hands – that Turnbull has captured the One True Party and will soon be doing the work of the devil unless we can organise a coup after the next election and restore Abbott, the Anointed One. I think I was about to move on to my fourth hand, but then I grew worried that once I had four hands, I’d be like one of those infinite monkeys typing the works of Shakespeare.

Anyway, I happened to notice today that the Coalition are pushing ahead with their legislation to make “lawfare” illegal.

You remember? Lawfare? You know these “vigilantes” taking the law into their own hands by using the courts when we all know that the courts are meant to belong to the rich and powerful and if poor people start to use them to uphold existing laws then there’s obviously something wrong with the law. Better change it. We don’t want these green groups mounting challenges unless they’re directly affected. And they’re not directly affected unless they own shares in the company trying to do whatever it is that makes money.

Because when mining companies make money it helps us all because they have to pay taxes. Not the mining tax, of course, but other ones, like company tax -in the unlikely event that they ever make a profit. The subsidies that we give them barely cover the cost of the money they give us in political donations.

As for the National Farmers’ Federation being concerned about the “lawfare” legislation taking away their rights, well, we love farmers. The National Party used to be called the Country Party, you know, so Country People will always have a say. After all, didn’t Mr Abbott invite the Nats in to make sure that whole gay marriage thing didn’t get up? Mm, probably just as well they changed their name after re-reading that previous sentence…

Anyway, back to Turnbull…

Yep, that’s what the Liberals said. It’s got so bad we’re prepared to take on board someone who used Godwin Grech’s fake emails, because we’re hoping that he didn’t do that because he was too stupid to have them checked out, we’re hoping that he was unethical enough not to care what the truth was.

I guess time will tell.

 

Against radicalisation

By Barry Hindess

My title might seem to suggest an hostility to radicalisation, that is, to the thing itself – and thus as endorsing the general thrust, if not the actual detail, of Australian public policy towards what is widely seen as the threat of radicalisation. ‘Radicalisation’ is too often presented as something that happens to young people, often turning them into potentially violent extremists. Rather, it should be seen as an ugly figment of the security imagination unfettered, as this imagination so often seems to be, by serious thought. Accordingly, my title reflects an objection to the term ‘radicalisation’ and the ideas it represents.

While it might seem that ‘radicalisation’ could happen to any of us, that whatever views we might presently hold – green, liberal, socialist or conservative, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim or atheist – could become more ‘radical’ or ‘extreme’, when these terms are used without qualification they almost invariably target Islam. This is a problem that Malcolm Turnbull’s inclusive response to the recent Parramatta shooting shares with his predecessor Tony Abbott’s more confrontational stance. In a recent interview with ABC Radio National (PM, October 5 at 18.10), Turnbull insisted on the ‘need to counter radicalisation’ before going on to say that ‘We have to work with the Muslim community in particular very collaboratively … They are our absolutely necessary partners in combating this type of extremist violence.’ Here radicalisation and extremist violence are clearly viewed as issues that arise within the Muslim community, which is why they are ‘our absolutely necessary partners in combating’ them.

However, there are familiar varieties of extremism and of radicalism that are in no sense Islamic. Those of us who watched the recent Bendigo Mosque protests, whether in the flesh or, as in my case, through the security of our television screens, will have observed a truly frightening level of hatred and aggression on the part of some of the protestors. We have yet to see our leaders take a stand against the radicalisation of such people. There are Bhuddist extremists in Myanmar who terrorise the Rohingya Muslim minority. And again, there are militant evangelical Christian extremists in parts of Africa and in North and South America who are not often seen as posing a threat to the Western way of life. There are small groups of these Christian extremists in Australia but, whatever they may do to each other, they generally leave the rest of us in peace.

Leaving religion to one side, we often see radicalism and extremism in political life. At one time, political radicalism was expected of young people – at least, among those of a certain class, a class that allowed its members the luxury of experimenting with political allegiances. The French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau is reputed to have said ‘My son is 22 years old. If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then’. Clemenceau’s comments suggest both an awareness that radicalisation might happen among the young and what now seems a remarkably optimistic response: give it time and it will likely pass.

More immediate examples of political extremism are neo-liberalism and the anti-refugee practices promoted by our two major political parties. The former is a doctrine that promotes radical economic change throughout the world – the privatisation of public assets and deregulation and marketisation of anything that moves. Margaret Thatcher did not come into the world as a neo-liberal extremist but, grew into it in her years as a politician. In other words, she was radicalised. Similarly for the IPA ‘s benighted publicists. Neo-liberal extremism poses a real threat to most people in the West, and to the rest of the world too. It is alive and kicking in the Coalition and, despite Kevin Rudd’s essays in The Monthly, still has disturbing levels of support within the Labor Party.

Australia’s refugee regime is a threat, whose brutality has been well-documented, to the well-being of anyone in its clutches. It is a clear case of irreligious Western extremism, suggesting that both those who run the regime’s camps and those who established them must have been radicalised, perhaps by the thought that being seen to be tough on refugees was a prerequisite of career advancement and/or political success. It is tempting to say something similar about Western military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, ostensibly to counter the threat of terrorism at its source. The manifest failure of these interventions and their counter-productive effects have lead, with the partial exception of Afghanistan, not to serious withdrawal from the interventions themselves but rather to their intensification (or radicalisation).

Another problem is that the term is not well-defined. Both here and in North America where it seems to have originated, it is little more than a reflection of the political concerns of those who use it. It refers to a process identified by its alleged results. Leaving aside the well publicised actions of Western powers in the Middle East, whatever else results in radicalism among Muslims is denounced as radicalisation. As often happens with public policy fads, far too many academics have identified themselves as ‘radicalisation’ specialists, thereby overlooking their responsibility to promote intellectual rigour in public life.

My point is not to deny that talk of radicalisation gestures towards a real problem or problems but it is to suggest that we should examine these problems more carefully before seeking actively to address them. We know that young people and more than a few of their elders, finding themselves alienated from the societies in which they live, sometimes seek support elsewhere and it is hardly surprising that this happens within the Muslim community. The reasons for this alienation and responses to it may be many and various, sometimes including ill-informed talk of ‘radicalism’, ‘extremism’ or ‘fundamentalism’ and the intemperate actions of our governments. The politically-charged notion of radicalisation has little to offer our understanding of these issues.

Barry Hindess
School of Politics and International Relations,
Australian National University, Canberra

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

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

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

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

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

Donate Button

The Governance Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Employment

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

Marriage Equality

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

The Economy

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

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

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

The NBN

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

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

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

Morality of governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

Royal Commissions

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

Women

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

Indigenous Recognition

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

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

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

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

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

Donate Button

My Thoughts on the Week That Was

Saturday July 18

This is not going to go away. The revelation that Bishop wasn’t prepared to pay back the money for her helicopter flight until the Prime Minister intervened is particular damming.

BRONWWN

There is still the question of the $88,000 two week trip to Europe. Even if she can justify it under the existing rules she is still guilty of extravagance that should not be tolerated. If it cannot be justified, her position is untenable.

And of course she still has to explain how she thought the trip was consistent with her duties as Speaker, an office that requires detachment from partisan politics.

Sunday July 19

PHILIP

Prince Philip is back in the headlines with another “gaffe”. This time, he asked a group of East End women: “Who do you sponge off?” People just dismiss it as another regrettable thought from a man of few redeeming features. If fact a man who has sponged of the public purse all his life. A snob in the true meaning of the word. (Look it up).

Bronwyn Bishop sponges of the taxpayer by using a helicopter to attend a fundraiser for her own her own party and thinks she has done nothing wrong. She will repay the money, reluctantly, under the Minchin protocol which is nothing more than a mechanism to get away with cheating and will probably continue to treat Members of the House of Reps as her subservient beings and humiliate as many of them as possible.

George Christenson will address a Reclaim Australia rally proclaiming his racist white superiority whilst being cheered on by the Prime Minister under the guise of free speech.

Although isolated these three instances have one thing in common. They are each born of a deep sense of establishment where the incumbents believe that a certain right of entitlement has been bestowed upon them and that all others are beneath or subservient to those of privilege.

Monday July 20

If as the Prime Minister says the pursuit of Bishop is a beat up. What was his pursuit of Slipper? A beating?

1 As a well-read lover of language and its power to persuade I intently dislike those who prostitute its meaning. Watching Greg Hunt on Insiders yesterday was an agonising exercise in the destruction of the English language. By that I mean this, when lies are used so blatantly to construct the basis of what seems a reasoned truth and sentences mangled to the point where they become deliberately indecipherable I am appalled. Such was the case yesterday. I said to my wife after the interview. “Do you have any idea what he was talking about? She answered “Why? did you?”

ENGLISH

2 And on the same program Gerrard Henderson’s feeble, flippant attempt to dismiss Speaker Bishop’s misdemeanors as uneventful and unworthy of serious discussion were so typical of someone so biased as to not be able to see the wood from the trees.

To quote John Hewson:

“I just think its pretty bad short-term politics and it’ll end in tears for a lot of people.”

And Peter Costello says:

“Bronwyn Bishop’s interpretation of her parliamentary entitlements, arguing the Speaker can claim taxpayer benefits for attending any function where she speaks about parliament is wrong.”

Who said this I wonder:

“I love her but her bias as a Speaker has made Parliament almost unworkable” one backbench MP said.

3 And before anyone accuses me of bias let me say that in my many years of following politics we have never had a worse bunch morons who seemingly don’t want to govern for the common good. Only for themselves. All of them.

4 An example of 3. Tony Abbott thinks Bronwyn is doing a really good job. That proves it.

5 Organisers of the Reclaim Australia event in Brisbane have announced their split from the organisation to join an explicitly anti-Islam group. That’s what they really are so I salute their honesty if nothing else.

reclaim

A Midday thought

I don’t think anyone has ever uttered words like these that better describe everything that is bad and wrong about the governance of our nation. We have a rotten government and a rotten leader in Prime Minister Abbott. Who else would react to a great wrong by a rotten Speaker by saying this?

“She has been a strong Speaker…she has been a strong servant of our country, she has been a good servant of the Coalition and so she does have my confidence but like everyone who has done something like this, inevitably, for a period of time, they are on probation.

Tuesday July 21

PROBATION

The Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia is ON PROBATION. I really struggle to get my head around the implication of that. Has any other Speaker in Australia’s history ever been “ON PROBATION?

Let me repeat this less the ramification of the statement escapes you. The Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Australia is ON PROBATION.

Could the PM tell the public the duration of the PROBATION, its conditions, the consequences of the Speaker breaching any of the conditions of the PROBATION, how any breaches of the PROBATION will be reported to the Australian public and how the status of the PROBATION could be affected by any investigation conducted by the Department of Finance or indeed the Federal Police.

Since Tony Abbott became leader of the Liberal Party and in turn the Prime Minister of Australia he has been responsible for the disintegration of many of the institutions and standards of conduct that used to cement our democracy. He is a disgrace to the very principles that we once thought were necessary for robust, transparent, open and truthful government.

Wednesday 22 July

Posted my short story Confession of an Honest Conservative.

1 This week’s Essential Poll again has Labor in the lead, 52/48.

2 Today in Sydney the PM is having a retreat with the State Premiers to discuss the vexed issue of tax. The premiers will rule out anything that is detrimental to their own state. In the meantime the Federal Government is conducting a tax inquiry but has ruled out any major tax reforms (those that could make any difference) because it might affect its chances of reelection.

Then he says: “We are doing what’s best for all Australians”

Bullshit.

Or to borrow a comment by Stephen Tardrew:

“We are meeting to discuss what we are not going to do just to make it look like we are doing something about nothing. Brilliant act of circular escapism.”

Thursday 23 July

1 Renewable energy: Labor puts forward 50 per cent target by 2030; pledges to introduce emissions trading scheme. This will give the voter a stark contrast from which to choose. It could be described as bold and visionary. The difference is simply that one party is for the future and one the past or that one believes the science and one doesn’t.

2 During the “Copter Crisis” Mrs Bishop said that as Speaker: “I speak to community groups, I’ll speak to Liberal groups, I’ll even speak to Labor groups”.

Well it seems one Labor Branch has taken her at her word and issued an official invitation to speak at a seminar.

“We would like to invite you to be our guest speaker on the topic ‘what role will the Westminster system play in an Australian Republic?”

3 The bye election for Don Randall’s seat will be an interesting test for the Abbott Government particularly as it is in WA. The seat was won by the Liberal Party 52.2 to Labor 47.8. The earliest date it could be held is 29 July. The average swing is 5%.

4 It seems our Speaker has been ripping off the taxpayer for years. Fairfax has disclosed that the taxpayer has even funded her trips to the Opera. I’m guessing she would have seen Call Me Madam, Orpheus in the Underworld, The Beggars Opera, Madam Butterfly, The Cunning Little Vixen, The Taming of the Screw and Carmen of course.

5 Just a reminder to those familiar with the life and work of the person known as Jesus. Yes he was the world’s first socialist.

6 A rarity for me to agree with Janet Albrechtsen but she is correct. “MPs can’t hope to end the age of entitlement and exempt themselves.”

7 “It’s astonishing that the Liberal party can campaign against a carbon tax because it raises the cost of living – and then advocate a tax, the GST, that literally raises the cost of living.”

Friday 24 July

INTERNET

I found myself without any Internet for most of Thursday and it wasn’t reconnected until around midday today. Even in that short space of time I was reminded of just how much the internet had become part of my life. It is somewhat of a shock when the instantaneousness of information (and many other things) is taken away. I recalled the time when of habit I would venture to the front gate to collect the daily newspaper. The Melbourne Age was my source of news. It had sustained me all my life.

Now at 6am every morning I go on line and suck in the news of the day from as many and varied outlets as time allows. Surely the advent of the internet and social media sites has changed the way we communicate and opine our thoughts irreversibly. Take Facebook for example.

Social media of course receives its share of criticism but I have found it rewarding in the sense that it has given me the opportunity to express my thoughts in a forum that is at times robustly disagreeable but always enlightening. It makes you dive into humanity, hear things you do not want to hear, and defend what you have to say .It is for those with opinions or for those without the courage to share them. And fence-sitters of course. It attracts the reasoned the unreasoned the civil and the uncivil. The biased and the unbiased. It is for people with ideas and sadly those without any. It whispers or shouts dissent. But mostly it’s a society of our own creation. It is also a technology that has given licence to the nutters of society or conversely you could say that it has identified and exposed them.

2 We have had the usual post Premier’s self-praise of their retreat and without wishing to sound negative they made what, in a flourishing progressive democracy should be normal and ongoing attention to reform, sound like for the first time in human history, they had discovered the benefits of civil discourse.

Recommend you read Kaye Lee’s article on this subject.

3 Bill Shorten addressed the issue of that most vexed issue of Asylum Seekers at the National Conference.

John Kelly restated the obvious in his piece for The AIMN.

“The Liberal party hit upon a winner with John Howard sensing and playing to the national mood with the Tampa affair back in 2001. It was never in the national interest to refuse to help destitute people seeking asylum. But he did it anyway.”

“The decision he made on the Tampa was very much in the interest of his party winning the next election. That’s why that he acted the way he did. And suddenly we learned that wedging was the new political game in town.”

Then Philip Ruddock started calling them illegals and Tony Abbott disgracefully demonized them in order to wedge Labor. Clever politics but morally sick. But that’s our Prime Minister.

A pox on both your houses.

And this is the week that was.

Oh, and by the way we did find out that Joe had charged the taxpayer $20,000 dollars to visit his farm 13 times. The expenses saga came and went and by the end of the week we were back to normal.

Was our Democracy advanced? No, not one iota.

 

Still being lied to

So it seems that Bill Shorten will be taking a proposal for a 50% renewable target by 2030 to Labor’s national conference in Melbourne this weekend. Accordingly, climate change is shaping up to be a major battleground for the next election – probably much to Abbott’s chagrin. On this argument, the Coalition starts from behind. Tony Abbott would prefer the discussion to be neutralised and as a result the government is stepping up the rhetoric to attack Labor’s history and position on the climate change front. As a result, the laughably-named Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, has been working the airwaves furiously to poison the national consciousness.

Shorten’s laudable goal, as those who have been watching the development of renewable energy and its increasing prevalence in the energy mix of countries and even Australian States will know, is technically not difficult. Labor describes the proposal as “ambitious”, but the main challenge with achieving this is political. The primary difficulty is that the Australian people are skeptical about the ability of renewable energy to be a practical, economical choice for energy generation, and consecutive conservative governments have sought to play up on that uncertainty at the behest of their backers and overlords, the existing fossil fuel oligarchies. The Australian people have been lied to from the outset.

They’re still being lied to now. Greg Hunt has been given saturation coverage on news media outlets, parroting the Government’s official response to the reports of this labor policy proposal. The detail of Hunt’s interviews and discussions has varied slightly from broadcast to broadcast, but the salient points remain the same. Unfortunately but predictably, the Government’s official stance – and thus Hunt’s answers – is a farrago of lies and mistruths that often pass without challenge. The ABC is not immune to this mistreatment: in several ABC news interviews Hunt has made the same baldfaced statements without being challenged. The ABC can’t be blamed for this. In an already fraught environment with the national broadcaster under continual threat, challenge and attack by our government, it is vital for the ABC to retain an appearance of impartiality for its news arm. Rather, the problem is with our laws and systems that contain absolutely no penalty for a Government Minister to lie to a reporter, and to lie to the Australian people, so long as they can get away with it. A Minister can lie with impunity – as long as their lie goes unchallenged.

This is a problem, as we head into an election year in 2016. Standard practice in news reporting is to describe the news item of the day, interview appropriate persons involved with the policy or proposal or scandal, and drill into the detail to as shallow or deep an extent as time allows. Then, in the interest of “balance”, journalism will often seek a response from the other side. In politics, this brings us to a situation where the Coalition, with the benefit of incumbency, can coast with few policy announcements, leaving Labor few opportunities to respond. Labor’s situation is more challenging. Winning back government from opposition is difficult and requires a constant stream of policy announcements. When the last word in a news report comes from a Coalition minister in response, far too often the sound bite the audience will remember is the government’s position. If that position is in error, the voters have been misled.

A news reporter is not in a position to challenge a statement made. That comes down to us – the concerned public. It is incumbent on us to be informed, and to inform others who might otherwise be taken in by the lies.

Because the Coalition adheres to the concept that repeating a lie often enough will convince people to take it as truth, their talking points in response to Labor’s proposed policy are consistent and we will hear them trotted out regularly over the coming weeks. Each one of them is demonstrably untrue and the best response progressives can make is to have ready clear, concise explanations as to why each Coalition argument is based on a falsehood. With that in mind, what follows is a precis of the Coalition’s talking points on Labor’s proposed renewable energy target and ETS.

The centrepiece of the policy will be a new carbon tax.

“Carbon tax – they’ll call it an emissions trading scheme, but it’s the same thing, with the same effect, the same hit on electricity prices…” In a recent interview, asked several times for clarification, Hunt fell back on the government’s agreed attack line: that an ETS is just a carbon tax by another name. This was not true the first time around and it is certainly not true now. The reason why is very simple.

Under a carbon tax, every emitter pays for their emissions. Every tonne of carbon carries a cost. The incentive is obvious for the business to reduce its carbon emissions and pay less tax. All taxes raised go to the government, for use in whatever way it deems appropriate. The government may choose to return some of the taxes to companies in the form of incentives and subsidies, but to do so is to devalue the impact of the tax. Over time, unless you force changes to the tax rates through parliament, the price of carbon remains the same.

In contrast, under an ETS, businesses are permitted to release carbon emissions up to a cap, without any cost to them. If a business holds sufficient carbon permits, it can emit as much carbon as it likes with no financial cost at all. If it emits less carbon than it holds permits for, it can trade the excess permits on the market, allowing other businesses more latitude to emit carbon. This brings you to the question of how the business gets the permits in the first place.

Under the Gillard government’s ETS, initial permits were allocated for free to relevant industries to shield them from the immediate impact. Other organisations were forced to purchase initial permits. Over time, under an ETS, the number of permits available is regulated to decrease, providing incentive to companies to reduce their carbon emissions over time: as time goes on, carbon permits become more expensive, increasing the benefit to the company if it can trade its excess permits on the market, and increasing the cost of permits if it does not.

Due to compromises with the Greens required to get the legislation through a hostile senate, the price of permits was set for an initial three year period and the permits were not eligible to be traded, thus making the scheme’s initital appearance close enough to a “tax” to make it unworth arguing the semantics of “tax” and “ETS”. This led, in short order, to Labor being lambasted as a high-taxing regime (ironic, coming from the party which would soon implement a much more oppressive tax regime) and Julia Gillard as a liar.

Labor has learned its lesson on this front. It is fair to assume its new ETS will not commence with a set price and untradeable permits. For the government to claim that Labor’s new ETS will be “exactly the same” as a carbon tax is misrepresentation of the highest order. The ETS will be a different thing, with a very different effect, working in a very different way.

Greg Hunt knows this very well. This is the same Greg Hunt who won an award for co-authoring a thesis about implementing an ETS in Australia. Until recently some on the left held a grudging respect for Mr Hunt, being forced to toe the party line against his own documented beliefs, and pity, for being one of the few realists in a cabinet laced with flat-earthers. His recent performances have shown that he is a thorough convert to the Coalition’s paradigm that somehow a market-based scheme is far inferior to direct governmental intervention. As a result, his respect has died, leaving him only with pity.

Regardless of his personal beliefs, however, Greg Hunt knows very well that an ETS is not remotely similar to a carbon tax, and to claim that it is is to deliberately mislead Australian voters.

A higher renewable energy target will increase electricity prices

The talking point that a renewable energy puts upwards pressure on power prices seems an article of faith for the Coalition. This also is demonstrably untrue. ETS or carbon tax aside, all experience in Australia to date disproves the idea that renewable energy competition can push the price of electricity up. All models and analysis, including the government’s own modelling, show clearly that renewable energy puts competition and downwards pressure on energy prices. The only group that this hurts is the big energy generators and distributors, who coincidentally are big benefactors of the Coalition.

An ETS did have the expected outcome of pushing up power prices from carbon-heavy power generators. Gillard’s government allowed for this and overcompensated consumers for the expected price increases.

The one thing likely to place significant upwards pressure on energy prices is the effect of Queensland’s previous, liberal government opening its gas markets to export. The result is that gas, one of the major energy sources for much of Australia’s eastern seaboard, will now be traded at the significantly higher international price rather than the domestic one.

The carbon tax “didn’t work”

Perhaps the most egregious lie of all is the continued insistence by the Government and Greg Hunt as their mouthpiece that the carbon tax was ineffective. It has been claimed that during the carbon price, emissions continued to increase. This is true. What is wilfully ignored in that discussion is that, under the influence of the carbon price, emissions rose less than they would have otherwise done. In fact, the carbon price was restricted to a relatively small part of Australia’s economy. In sectors where the carbon price applied, carbon emissions decreased markedly. (And, unsurprisingly, upon the repeal of the carbon price, carbon emissions in these sectors immediately increased again). Hunt has argued that Australia’s carbon emissions were already falling prior to the introduction of the carbon price and that the ETS had little effect. This also is untrue. In short, the government’s overblown claims about the carbon tax are almost universally deliberately misleading or even entirely untrue. The carbon price, even at a high price per tonne and acting like a tax, had little effect on the overall economy, destroyed no country towns, and was being remarkably successful at reducing Australia’s emissions.

A new ETS could do the same again.

Labor is inconsistent

Greg Hunt foamed that the parliament had “…just voted for stability in the renewable energy sector…”, referring to the recent passing through the parliament of a reduced renewable energy target for Australia. This criticism popped its head up but has now subsided; perhaps the Coalition has decided that talking about “the politics” is a little too fraught to be a certain winner. In any case, the fact that Labor reluctantly supported the government’s cut of the renewable energy target to 33,000 GW does not mean that Labor is inconsistent. Labor was able to forge a compromise position for the sake of settling the argument in the short term and giving certainty to the existing renewable energy market, but it was clear that this figure was not Labor’s preference.

Frankly, it seems amazing that Labor was able to secure any kind of a compromise from this government, after more than a year of the government steadfastly refusing to budge from its original position. As this government has shown, any policy agreed to under one government is not sacrosanct to the next.

The truth shall set you free

Armed with the facts, it becomes easier to counter the government’s wilful misinformation. Not easy, of course: there are none so blind as those who will not see, and for many in the Australian public the prevailing narrative being told by the government is emotionally compelling. But there are some who may be persuaded by actual facts and evidence. It is for these people that we must be prepared to call it out when we see the government deliberately distorting history and building straw men on Labor’s commitments. We must be able to point out that they have been lied to, and they are still being lied to.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

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

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

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

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

Donate Button

How do you starve a region of jobs? Just vote LNP!

Most Australians want a good quality of life and a good standard of living. To achieve this, the availability of jobs in any region is essential. The Liberal National Coalition Government always, always claim to be the Party to look up to when it comes to jobs and business.

We see the main stream media support this claim with positive spin after positive spin in favour of the LNP or derogatory headlines and stories about Labor. I often wonder if there is a statue of Tony Abbott in the foyer of The Australian or a statue of Campbell Newman and Joh Bjelke-Petersen in the foyer of The Courier Mail; where journalists begin their day by bowing to these statues and vowing to serve them through the course of their duties. Then there are those in the voting public who believe what the Liberal National Coalition say about how they understand business and are great for jobs and repeat it without question.

If you are creating a wealth of jobs, jobseekers must be just lazy…right?

When the LNP believe that they indeed are the best party for jobs and business, it then leads to a false dichotomy that those on unemployment must simply be lazy and that they simply don’t try enough. Obviously the LNP are in charge, so of course there are plenty of jobs to apply for!

Based on this false dichotomy, the LNP’s approach to assisting the unemployed jobs is to starve community programs of funding and punish the hell out of jobseekers by implementing the worst jobseeker support program in Australia’s history “Job Active.” Commentary on social media welfare sites from program participants, suggests that Job Active agencies are more focused on who they can get to pull out weeds for free under Abbott’s work for the dole program, than any real constructive assistance.

Commentary and anecdotes on social media also point to a system where there is no money to assist jobseekers find real work and assistance for study is not supported (unless it is pointless in-house training). With the Newman Government’s changes to vocational education over the last three years coupled with the Abbott Government’s punitive Job Active program, Jobseekers living well below the poverty line must pay out of their own pocket up front costs or pay the course off, as there is no HECS or HELP deferral scheme for many vocational education courses. Those on welfare need to weigh up their options between being able to afford food and housing or an education. As an Australian, I find this absolutely abhorrent and 100% unacceptable and this destroys this our way of life.

The Palaszczuk Labor Government has just delivered their first budget by Treasurer Curtis Pitt and have invested 34 Million to begin the repair of our vocational sector and TAFE, to provide real training options for jobseekers. I hope that this will be extended to ensure affordable access for everyone who has the right to an education, including those on welfare payments.

Sadly, also on social media you read the stories of many jobseekers who are anxious, depressed, frustrated, upset and at times indirectly or directly discussing suicide or ‘not living anymore’ as an option. This is how they are feeling as jobseekers under the Job Active program. Some of the comments I have read and the stories collected by the Australian Unemployment Union are absolutely heart-breaking.

Nothing like a bit of stigma to get those jobseekers moving…

To degrade the unemployed even further, in some towns like mine you are given a Basic’s card. Welfare recipients are given a cashless card and a small amount of cash. This leaves the jobseeker with very little real money to make purchasing decisions with. The Basics Card also seeks to stigmatise the jobseeker by giving them their own identifier which allows every shop assistant and member of the public at the checkout know that they are on welfare.

Couple this with the rhetoric that comes from the agenda of stigmatisation from the Liberal Government such as backbencher Ewen Jones who said: “look there’s your dole, go home, eat Cheezels, get on the Xbox, kiss you goodbye and we will never see you again’?” Add the sensationalisation of welfare recipients on television and so called ‘current affairs shows’; welfare recipients using a basic card, will be seen automatically by some as no good, lazy, bludging welfare thieves. Terminology used by many avid Liberal supporters which places those on welfare in a criminal category. Welfare recipients are not often seen as human beings who desperately want and actively seek work.

There is absolutely no option for those on welfare to blend in or not stand out as a recipient of welfare. This completely undermines the right to dignity and respect without judgement for so many Australians. Under the LNP their reasoning is to shame you into finding a job every time you stand at the checkout. The other misunderstanding about the Basic’s card, is that it is available everywhere. There are only a small number of shops and services which allow purchase with a basics card. This often forces the jobseeker, living below the poverty line, to spend money at more expensive stores. In some towns, they have no options at all. This places pressure on their already meagre budget.

So lets see… who should really be punished. Is it the jobseeker or the Government? I have completed an analysis of job vacancies in my local area of Central Queensland to find out.

Where have all the jobs gone… Long time passing

The availability of jobs is essential to a productive economy and enables the unemployed to actively apply for employment. Plentiful job vacancies also enable career development for the employed looking for jobs to advance their career. This opens up lower level jobs for others to apply for. In many cases, highly skilled workers are stuck at the lower end of their professions and not moving on as there are no jobs available to apply for. This puts a constraint on jobseekers seeking entry level jobs. It also puts a constraint on highly skilled jobseekers who also find themselves in the employment queue and now find themselves pulling weeds under work for the dole.

The graph below is job vacancy data for Central Queensland from March, 2012 to January 2015 of the Newman LNP Government and the new Labor Government from Feb 2015 to May 2015. This is where the data availability ceases. There is no data available after May, 2015, but I will be providing follow ups as it comes to hand. (you can click the photo to enlarge). I have completed an analysis on Central Queensland for two reasons. One is, it is the area I live in and I am very passionate about Central Queensland and the second is to bring some truth to light about how the Newman Govt affected regional areas. Many believe that due to the Public Service cuts and media around protests, it was mainly Brisbane which had felt the impact. This is not so.

 

job vacancy growth decline blog

Some Interesting Facts that may get the way of a good LNP Yarn.

Interesting Fact Number 1.

An analysis of job vacancy data for the period of the LNP Newman Government shows a dramatic decline of job vacancies for Central Queensland. Data available up until May, 2015 shows that in the first four months of the LNP Newman Government, Central Queensland Job vacancies declined by 378 vacancies. After one year of the Newman Government, there were 1781.7 less job vacancies for Central Queenslanders to apply for. By the end of the Newman Government, there were 2198 less job vacancies advertised in CQ than when the LNP took office.

By comparison, in the first five months of the Palaszczuk Labor Government, Job vacancies have turned around and job vacancies have increased by 218 jobs for the CQ region in this short time.

Interesting Fact Number 2.

The sharpest decline in job vacancies for any month-to-month period was the period of November to December 2012, which saw a 16% decline in one month for Job Vacancies for CQ jobseekers, under the LNP.

In comparison, the Palaszczuk Labor Government has achieved the highest increase of job vacancies for any month-to-month period for the CQ Region, over the last three years. For the period from February to March 2015, Job Vacancies in Central Queensland saw a sharp increase of 16%. This is the highest job vacancy increase for any month-to-month period, since March 2012. In a few short months, the Labor Government has achieved what the Newman Government could not achieve in their entire period in office. That is, “to understand business and create jobs.” This is an absolute positive and speaks volumes of the quality of MPs within the Palaszczuk Government. The graph below shows only job classifications with an increase of 20 job vacancies or more. This is not an exhaustive list.

 

increase Labor feb march

 

Interesting Fact Number 3

During the period of the LNP Campbell Newman Government, job vacancies in Central Queensland declined by 56%. To put this in real terms, that is 2198 job vacancies not open for Central Queenslanders to apply for under the LNP. The graph below demonstrates the top 15 job classifications which experienced a decline in job vacancies over the period of the Newman LNP Government. The only job classification which experienced an increase in job vacancies under the Newman Government were: Farmers and Farm manager (0.9 increase); Carers and Aides (9.2) Education Professionals (12.2 increase) and Medical Practitioners and Nurses (12.8 increase) These figures are raw numbers, not percentages. If we look at the success of the Newman Government for Central Queensland, their achievement is basically an increase of 35 job vacancies across four job classifications, and a decline in all other job vacancies for their entire period in Government.

 

job vacancy decline newman

 

 

Interesting Fact Number 4

In the first four months of the Newman Govt, job vacancies in Central Queensland fell by 10%. In the first four months of the Palaszczuk Govt Jobs vacancies in central QLD increased by 13%

Are Jobseekers as Lazy as the LNP Claim them to be and should they be punished?

The term LNP has been used interchangeably throughout this post, meaning the Liberal National Coalition State and Federal. The LNP use a synthesis of blame and stigma to take the focus off their failings. The LNP repeat the misguided rhetoric that they are ‘good for jobs’ without question and place blame on everyone else, including the unemployed. As the data analysis of Job Vacancies for one area in Queensland show, the Abbott Government’s punitive approach is completely uncalled for. The harsh welfare measures implemented do nothing but feed into the Abbott Government’s agenda of Stigmatisation of those on welfare. Why? Because there are no better votes for the LNP those those created out of hate, disgust and fear.

My Conclusion? If you want to starve a region of jobs. Want to punish the unemployed unnecessarily – Just vote for a Liberal National Government!

Stay tuned for more analysis drilled down on specific classifications and other nerd-filled data excitement!

Originally posted on Polyfeministix

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

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

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

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

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

Donate Button

My Thoughts on the Week That Was

Saturday July 11

1 Kim Carr made a valid point yesterday when he said “we are entering a very dark corner. We are seeing the use of state power to silence political opposition”.

2 The ABC is an independent organisation. The PM has no right to place conditions on it before allowing his ministers to appear on the Q&A program is an absurdity. The people’s right to know should be the major priority.

3 He declared a United Nations report on climate change “got it wrong by almost 100 per cent”, but shock jock Alan Jones was the one who blundered, Australia’s media watchdog has found.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority on Friday found the 2GB host, described on the station’s website as “a phenomenon” and “the nation’s greatest orator and motivational speaker”, breached commercial radio codes in 2013 by making inaccurate comments about the rate of global warming as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Sunday July 12

1 Earlier this year Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull said:

“I have no right, no power, nor should I have, to direct the editorial content of the ABC”

“The responsibility for ensuring that the ABC’s news and information services are balanced and objective and impartial, and accurate, is in section eight of the act, and that responsibility lies with the board of directors.”

As one unnamed Coalition source said: “We can’t legislate for gay marriage and talk about national security at the same time, but we can talk about a TV show for weeks. Why on earth are we prioritising this?”

Well it’s because the Prime Minister thinks the solution to every problem can be resolved with a sledge hammer approach. It is warped sense of what he thinks leadership is about that he actually thinks people are impressed.

bruce

2 Proverbial motor mouth Bruce Billson (pictured above) would have us believe that “If Labor don’t declare political donations then it’s a sling, a bribe, and a conflict of interest”. Tony Abbott declared donations to his electorate of Warringah 5 years later. Hockey 14 years later and only after they got wind of ICACs interest. What more can one say?

But Bruce felt it was fine to attend a Liberal fundraiser when the Mafia was making donations.

Midday thoughts

1 I am convinced, if I wasn’t already, after watching a press conference in which the Prime Minister was asked a seriously genuine question about the Greek and Chinese economic situations that he now believes in his own political infallibility. So much so that he thinks people have factored in the thought that his inane answers to questions are acceptable. His political career is littered with irrational doings and sayings and his lying is legendary. However, this one takes first prize.

In this case a journalist was enquiring about what effect these financial crises might have on our economy.

groceries

His reply to the question was that we need a strong viable Australian grocery trade. In fairness he was launching something to do with that industry but his answer was so ludicrously silly it bore no relationship to the question. He suggested to reporters that his domestic grocery code of conduct would have prevented the various global market uncertainties. He obviously didn’t mean it because what he said was entirely ridiculous. To make matters worse he ignored the fact that we have a grocery duopoly that doesn’t serve us well. But that of course is beside the point.

He is now at a point in his Prime ministership where he has become bizarre, irrational and conversationally incoherent. He seems to have a preoccupation with trivial ideological pursuits such as the ABC.

And to quote Katherine Murphy of The Guardian:

” . . . choosing to micromanage a public broadcaster late on a Friday afternoon wasn’t quite as strange as the grocery code saving Greece but it was pretty darned strange behaviour, monstering the ABC like it’s one of your junior ministers or an arm of the state, digging yourself deeper in a fight which makes no sense and is only sucking up oxygen and hurting you”.

He has always worked on the principle that you say what you want at the time for maximum impact and tidy up the mess, if any, later.

However he is becoming increasingly untenable as a leader. Leadership has been replaced with dictatorship.

Of course Malcolm Fraser warned that he was a dangerous politician. Are we beginning to find out how dangerous?

2 If Bill Shorten’s dealings by some are viewed as suspect then so too must be the decision to award the Royal Commission a $17 million contract to the firm of lawyers with whom Senator Eric Abetz is associated.

The three Royal Commissions into Labor Leadership has now exceeded 100 million dollars.

Monday 13 July

solar

Oh no. It’s just wind turbines.

The Abbott government has opened up another front in its war on renewable energy by pulling the plug on investments in the most common form of alternative energy; rooftop and small-scale solar.

As a storm raged over the government’s directive to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to no longer back wind energy projects, it emerged that it has also put a stop to solar investments other than the largest industrial-scale projects.

What Luddites they really are. They say they believe in the science of Global Warming but their every action is contrary to that belief. It seems the combined advancement in battery and solar technology has escaped them.

An observation:

People often argue from within the limitations of their understanding and when their factual evidence is scant, they revert to an expression of their feelings.

Tuesday 14 July

Yesterday’s Morgan Poll with Labor on 51% and the LNP on 49% proves that Abbott’s decision to force Shorten to front the Royal Commission was a politically correct one. He has insinuated upon us the politics of negativity and the populace has fallen for It.

Midday thoughts

1 Has Australia ever, so blindly, elected a man so negatively characterless? So ignorant of truth and transparency. So insensitive to those who cannot help themselves. So willing to endorse and foster inequality. So illiterate of technology and science. So oblivious to the needs of women. So inept at policy formation and its implementation. So prone to the language of absurdity. So pugnacious, so confrontationist so self-righteous, in his attitude toward others. So dismissive of those who desire equality. And so out of touch with a modern pluralist society. A man so unsophisticated in deep worldly acumen or discernment, yet religiously motivated.

2 Indonesia’s decision to reduce its cattle imports from Australia must be directly linked to our more recent diplomatic differences. It’s simply payback time for Abbott’s awful diplomacy. Having said that, the National Party representing those affected will remain silent, weekly toe the line as people wonder why they are in the Parliament at all. They are grossly overrepresented as a proportion of their vote anyway.

3 Malcolm Turnbull and John Hewson,both voices of moderation on the right last night slammed the Prime Minister for his deliberate campaign to scare the people on National Security.

And on the issue of Ministers appearing on Q&A they both vented their dismay at the Prime Minister’s attitude.

Wednesday 15 July

An observation:

“We exercise our involvement in our democracy every three years by voting. After that the vast majority takes very little interest. Why is it so?”

1 This week’s Essential Poll has Labor on 52 with the Coalition on 48.

2 The Morgan Poll tells us that the government still lags behind Labor with voters between the ages of 18 and 34 comprehensively favoring the opposition, 63.5% of 18-24-year-olds polled saying they would vote Labor.

By contrast, voters over the age of 60 favor the Coalition, 58% to Labor’s 42%.

Does that tell you something?

Posted in “Your Say” in THE AIMN:

q and a boy

Q&A And a Boys Question

He is really Off His Rocker or He’s a nut case.

Thursday 16 July

1 Why does the Prime Minister feel the need to enhance his already well won reputation as Australia’s premier political liar by telling more of them?

bishop2

2 Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has charged taxpayers almost $90,000 for a two-week European trip partly aimed at securing her a plum new job. Mrs Bishop was entitled to take two staff members on the trip. And she charged taxpayers more than $5000 to charter a flight from Melbourne to Geelong in November. Her office has repeatedly failed to explain why Mrs Bishop needed to charter a plane for a trip that would have taken her about an hour in her much cheaper chauffer-driven commonwealth car.

Apparently she made a spectacular entrance at a golf club for a Liberal Party fund raiser.

Of course this is not unusual. Remember Tony Abbott’s claiming expenses of $9,400 from the taxpayer while on a promotion tour to launch his book?

And when he was opposition leader his office needed twice the budget of the Prime Ministers to function.

The age of entitlement is still with us. Right, Joe. When you have both the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House ripping off the system with impunity then you know your democracy is in trouble.

There was a time when parliamentarians with integrity resigned over such matters.

3 A group of Federal MPs say they doubt Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce’s reliability after his decision to oppose a Chinese-backed coal mine.

The fact that he was right in doing so seems to have escaped them. I don’t usually agree with him but on this occasion I admire him for standing on his dig. My God they are a feral lot.

4 Abbott’s response to Labor’s leaked discussion paper on Climate Change drew his usual response but this time there was a touch of desperation. He sounded shrill and over the top. So too were the media.

A Midday Thought

How is it possible that one Speaker of The House of Representatives can be hounded out of office, his life virtually destroyed by an Opposition with no moral compass other than hate and revenge over $900 worth of cab charges, yet another in Bronwyn Bishop get of scott free over a $5000 helicopter flight for a Liberal Party fund raiser? As I said yesterday, there was a time when parliamentarians would resign over such matters. She will probably be given the opportunity to repay the money and that will be the end of the matter. Slipper was never availed of that opportunity.

The question of Parliamentary expenses will never be resolved by politicians. It needs an independent inquiry otherwise corrupt practices will just continue and people like Bishop will continue to drink from the trough at the taxpayers’ expense.

Posted Morrie’s Letter to the Editor.

Friday 16 July

Continuing on from yesterday’s “Bronnies Expense Gate” I repeat again: She should resign. As the principal office holder in the House of Representatives, Bishop has an obligation not only to uphold the highest standards, but to set an example to all MPs. In the absence of a compelling explanation, she has failed on both counts.

One of the more humorous aspects of taking a daily interest in politics is watching politicians defend the indefensible. But more serious is seeing them get away with it.

The issue of claiming unjustifiable expenses has been going on for decades. In recent times we have had the Slipper affair (mentioned yesterday) that cost him his job, his health, and his reputation.

The Prime Minister, a lifelong habitual expense claimer, not so long ago claimed taxpayer expenses for the launch of his own book. Later he arranged a morning visit to a hospital so that he could claim overnight living expenses. The Speaker and the PM ripping off the taxpayer. “Unbelievable”, I hear you say. Reputably he is the highest paid politician in the world and she earns $370,000 a year.

To think that she can tick up $90,000 on a European trip partly aimed at securing a plum new job abroad is a scandal that we should not turn a blind eye too.

Even Treasurer Joe Hockey has called on Bishop to explain why she spent $5000 on short helicopter ride to a Liberal fundraiser, agreeing it doesn’t pass the “sniff test”. Mr Hockey admitted Mrs Bishop’s expenses were “not a good look” for the government, after he had personally declared the “age of entitlement” was over. He declined to say whether she should resign.

Unfortunately the public have become so used to this sort of behavior from our politicians that they just let it go through to the keeper without complaint.

I don’t wish to get into the area of who sniffs and where but this has the smell, the stench, of born to rule privilege written all over it.

Pigs with snouts in the trough of the public purse need to be identified, castigated and ridiculed in any way possible. I’m doing my bit. Are you? The PM, if he has any guts, should ask her to step down.

Midday Thoughts

1 Interesting take on Bishop’s helicopter flight by Murdoch’s The Australian. Their view is that her mistake was in not taking a cheaper price on offer. Really? On that measure Slipper would not have been in trouble had he used Uber instead of Silver Top? How is that for journalistic excellence?

reclaim

2 So George Christensen, the rabid right wing Islamophobic MP is to be a feature speaker at a Reclaim Australia rally. A group of swastika tattooed racist feral types who are anti anything that isn’t white.

One has to wonder why our Prime Minister would allow his MPs to speak at these race hate rallies but not allow others to appear on Q&A.

And the week ends with the Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives likely to be investigated by the Federal Police for allegedly misusing Parliamentary entitlements.

Shame, shame, shame.

This is the week that was. I leave you with this thought:

Good democracies can only deliver good government and outcomes if the electorate demands it”.