Lord Abbotmort’s Horcruxes

In the Harry Potter series, Lord Valdemort is the anti-hero. In his quest is to conquer two worlds: the Wizarding one, and eliminate any muggle heritage in the wizard world; and the muggle world. The Harry Potter series has multiple storylines, with multiple themes around good-evil; growing up; relationships; friendships.

Lord Voldemort, also known as “the Dark Lord” has 7 horcruxes: dark, magical objects that hold a portion of a soul. Harry Potter is believed to have the power to kill him for good. The horcruxes retain parts of a soul, and provide life-force for Voldemort.

In Australian politics, Tony Abbott is Leader of the Opposition. He desperately wants to be Prime Minister, and is reported to have told Independent MP’s after the last election that he would “do anything” to be Prime Minister.

To that end, he has set about an endless “election campaign”, most recently centred on his opposition to the introduction of an interim carbon tax, designed to reduce Australia’s greenhouse carbon emissions, before it progresses to an Emissions trading Scheme. Like Lord Voldemort, ‘Lord Abbotmort’ has assembled a number of political horcruxes, to help him in his quest for all-consuming political power.


Horcrux 1: News Ltd Media. They not only give him favourable coverage, but actively try to manipulate public opinion in favour of Tony Abbott. For its part, News Ltd will have helped secure a right-wing government, for the favour of Rupert Murdoch, and his family. It also shows all the maleficence towards public opinion as the Hound of the Baskervilles. (yes, I know that's a different story, but it it is an apt description)
Horcrux 2: Radio Shock jocks - they breathe with the spirit of the right wing of the Liberal Party
Horcrux 3: WorkChoices. While he tries to hide this one, and says it is dead, WorkChoices, or Industrial Relations power for employers, is deeply ingrained in every Federal Liberal & National Party MP and Senator. With it, Lord Abbormort has secured the backing of the right wing of the Liberal Party for his own position of power.
Horcrux 4: Simple mantras, which are appealing, but when examined are found to be hollow, and devoid of policy. News Ltd and radio shock-jocks are active in repeating the mantras, extolling their virtues, while never examining their shallowness.
Horcrux 5: Immigration, which is wrapped up as ‘security’, but which plays upon, and encourages xenophobia, even racism, among otherwise normal voters.
Horcrux 6: Greed, so often appealed to by the former Liberal-National Government with its personal income taxes, and redistribution of wealth to those with more.
Horcrux 7: The last, and unintentional horcrux, is the Australian Labor Party, and in particular the NSW Branch. It has just lost government in NSW, and its internal power-broking, machinations with developers, and partial privatisation of hitherto state-owned electricity assets made the Labor Party poisonous to voters in NSW.

Many adults have read the Harry Potter books. I hope they, too, can recognise the villains in Australian politics.

It is good, and right, to subject to scrutiny the Government's carbon tax policy, and treasury modelling. But we voters must be very mindful of Mr Abbott's assertions, and the personal greed, and political agendas of those who oppose the government's plan,  including those of business and the media itself.
John

Politicians And The Media

Tony Abbott’s higher standing in the polls is a reflection of a number of things.

1. The messages are simplistic slogans, repeated often. When he allows his Shadow Ministers to be interviewed, they are given simple answers to questions, and, almost regardless of the question, trot out the answer robotically.
2. If asked an uncomfortable question, he will stop the journalist, and pick a more “friendly” journalist; or he avoids as much as possible the more probing current affairs programs, opting for the cream-puff shows that ask only soft questions. A straw poll of appearances, taken and reported  by Bruce Hawker in both the Courier-Mail¹ and The National Times²  shows how Tony Abbott has avoided the inquisitorial current affairs shows, and headed for the conservative shock-jocks.  It also shows how Julia Gillard has largely avoided the conservative shock-jocks. (it should be noted that Bruce Hawker is a campaign adviser the Labor Party). The figures show the differences for a range of media up to May 2011:

	Julia Gillard	Tony Abbott
Inquisitorial Current Affairs	12	3
Conservative Shock Jocks	8	42

While these figures are not definitive, they are probably indicative.

Radio Shock-Jocks:
Alan Jones is a Liberal Party supporter, and 3-time candidate at NSW and Federal elections for the Liberal Party. 3 
Other conservative shock-jocks used by Tony Abbott include Ray Hadley, Andrew Bolt, Howard Sattler, Steve Price.

Television:
“Current Affairs” shows generally fall into 2 categories: populist, shallow pulp; and inquisitorial. My own classification of some of them is below. The list is not comprehensive.

Shallow Pulp

Inquisitorial

Name	Channel	Name	Channel
A Current Affair 60 Minutes Today Tonight	Ch9 Ch9 Ch7	The 7:30 Report Agenda Q and A Meet the Press	ABC Sky ABC Ch10

Media Donations:
Lawrence Bull, writing for New Matilda, trawled through the Australian Electoral Commission, and wrote on 1-February this year ⁴

“Six-figure donations (from media companies) are common, and the relationships don’t end there - Labor has several major investments in media companies and the close relationship between former Fairfax CEO Ron Walker and the Liberals is well known.”

A Summary of his findings is below:

Donations 2000 - 2007

Media Group / Significant Person	Donations to  Liberal	Donations to Labor
News Corp (Murdoch)	$88,500	$15,000
Dame Elizabeth Murdoch	$120,000	-
Fairfax Media	$90,000	$20,000
PBL Entities (Packer)	$800,000	$700,000
TEN Network	$650,000	$400,000
Austereo	$100,000 (2007 Election, as advertising)	$100,000 (2007 Election, as advertising)
Paul Ramsey Holdings (Prime TV & Private Hospitals)	$250,000	-
Prime	$75,000	$58,000
Seven Network	$35,000	$35,000

With the exception of Austereo and the Seven Network, the other media have significantly favoured the Liberal Party. I would expect a rigorous investigation to show that the funding bias reflects their editorial policies.

Summary and  Conclusion:
In short, there would appear to be a financial & editorial bias from many media organisations towards the Liberal Party. Furthermore, Tony Abbott’s use of soft, populist media, and supportive shock-jocks, is effective use of the media from a politician reported to to have said to the Independent MP’s that he’d “do anything” to be Prime Minister. He remains, however, evasive of more discerning questions, especially about his lack of policy detail.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s poor polling results reflect her lack of attendance on the shallow, populist current affairs shows, and the aggressive pro-Liberal stance taken by popular shock-jocks. She is lighter on simplistic slogans, being more inclined to rational explanations.

In preparing this post, I looked at:

1. http://www.thecourier.com.au/blogs/national-comment/abbott-avoids-the-tough-questions/2176910.aspx
2. http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/abbott-cherrypicks-easy-interviews-to-avoid-tough-questions-20110526-1f692.html 
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Jones_(radio_broadcaster)
4. http://newmatilda.com/2011/02/01/hold-front-page
5. http://www.aec.gov.au/ 

John

Reith Lets Genie Out

Last weekend Alan Stockdale was re-elected as President of the Liberal Party of Australia, despite the 4 vice Presidents supporting Peter Reith.
Tony Abbott is reported, by Peter Reith, to have encouraged Peter Reith to run for the Presidency, but then voted against him, publicly showing his voting card to both Alan Stockdale & his Deputy, Julie Bishop. It precipitated something of a public dummy-spit by Peter Reith, who has hit the media, including radio shock-jocks with his message on IR. The message is: IR is in the Liberal Party’s DNA. He, other members of the Liberal Party executive, Tony Abbott, and Liberal MP’s all want a return to WorkChoices-style IR laws. That is: a deregulated labour market, removal of any ‘safety net’, a return to individual contracts dictated by employers.

Jeff Lawrence, Secretary of the ACTU, writing in The Australian, said:

“(The Liberal Party) remains fixated with removing unfair dismissal protection, undermining collective bargaining and handing employers power to dictate pay and conditions.
It isn't just the presence of former Howard government IR headkicker Peter Reith, or the continuing role on the front bench of the chief Work Choices salesman, Joe Hockey. An entire new generation of Liberal MP's sees nothing wrong with taking away basic workplace rights.” (see link 4, below)

Among Mr Reith’s suggestions for the Liberal Party is a “review” by The Institute of Public Affairs, with his people on the review panel, including Hugh Morgan, and Michael Chaney. Both are Liberal Party members, both supported WorkChoices.

Person	Membership	IR Position	More Information
Hugh Morgan	Liberal Party (Vic) Business Council	Pro WorkChoices	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Morgan_(businessman)
Michael Chaney	Liberal Party Business Council	Pro WorkChoices	His bother, Fred, was a Federal Liberal MP
Institute of Public Affairs		Pro WorkChoices	Liberal Party “think tank”, and one off the founders of the Liberal Party (see Link 5 below)

Given the above information, it will come as no future surprise that the enquiry will recommend a return to WorkChoices-style IR. Peter Reith has acted as a classical politician: you can have an inquiry when you have a pre-determined result.

But the IR genie, that Tony Abbott so desperately tried to keep hidden from public view, is now out of the bottle.

Ordinary working Australians will be right to “be afraid, be very afraid”.

John

In preparing this article I also looked at:
1) http://www.smh.com.au/national/reith-plans-think-tank-to-challenge-labour-laws-20110629-1gr1q.html
2) http://www.smh.com.au/national/newsmaker-peter-reith-20110624-1gjiw.html
3) http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-bows-to-reith-on-ir-20110628-1gpf1.html
4) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-libs-just-dont-get-it/story-e6frg6zo-1226084430812
5) http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=33&m=8734&ps=50&dm=1&pd=3

Abbott: “Tax Cuts are in our DNA”

Yesterday, Saturday 25-July, Ton Abbott gave his speech to the 55th Federal Council of the Liberal Party of Australia. In it he criticised the current Labor government’s lack of achievements under PM Julia Gillard in the last 12 months, & in the seven and a half months since the last election.
In proposing tax cuts, Mr Abbott said:

“Tax cuts are in our DNA...”

So, What else in in the Liberal Party's DNA? Tony Abbott made 6 references to the Howard government and its policies. Deep in the Liberal Party’s DNA, as implemented by John Howard’s government, of which Tony Abbott was a member, are the following:

• Industrial Relations:
  • Guards & attack dogs on the wharves to attack a union, under the guidance of John Howard and Peter Reith. Reform was needed, but many question whether it needed guards drawn from military commandos and paratroopers, in black uniforms, wearing balaclavas, and with attack dogs. Peter Reith has just failed in his attempt to take over as President of the Liberal Party of Australia.
  • In NSW the (liberal-National) O’Farrell Government has introduced IR legislation to attack public service unions, and their members’ pay and conditions.
  • WorkChoices. Tony Abbott said ‘the term WorkChoices is dead’, but IR is still firmly on the agenda to further the cause of, mostly, big business, and the ideology of reducing workers pay to benefit business is prominent.
• Tax:
  • introduction of the ‘never, ever’ GST. Yes, it replaced a mish-mash of other taxes, but the effect was to increase the amount of tax collected.
  • the use of tax cuts, and the 30% Health Insurance rebate, which were of most benefit to middle and higher income earners. That is, it was a redistribution of wealth from poorer to richer people.
• Welfare:
  • increases in middle-class welfare, and reductions / harsher penalties for those less fortunate. Proposals for business welfare were made at the last election, as a means to be seen to do something about climate change, to the benefit of businesses and farmers.
• Lies, mistruths and integrity:
  • the ‘never, ever’ GST was introduced months after voters were told it would not happen, and every Liberal member supported the new tax. Tony Abbott would have called it a “great big new tax on everything”, except his party did it, and it was, indeed a new tax on (almost) everything.
  • the children overboard mistruths, later shown to be lies, during the 2001 Federal election campaign
  • In its first term of government, the Howard Government introduced a Code of Conduct for Ministers, which included having to be truthful to Parliament, and to divest themselves of shares related to their portfolio. Between March 1996 and September 2007, 7 Ministers had to resign: Jim Short, Brian Gibson, Bob Woods, Geoff Prosser, John Sharpe, David Jull & Peter McGauran resigned because of breaches of the Code of Conduct.
  • The Code of Conduct was amended in 1999 to allow Ministers to retain shares that relate to their portfolio. So much for ethics and honesty.
• Breach of International Law & obligations under UN Conventions:
  • the Tampa Affair, where Australia breached its obligations under international maritime law to a ship which had rescued people on the high seas.
  • “the Pacific Solution” for refugees was heavily criticised by the UNHCR. It was similar to the current Labor Government’s proposal for its “Malaysian Solution”, which also is not supported by the UN.
• Reduction in Government Spending. Cuts were made to:
  • The Public Service, and resultant drop in government services to & for people.
  • Universities, to the point where they are now dependent on foreign, full-fee-paying students. It has caused ethical problems about student grades and marks at a number of universities, where people believed there was pressure to pass such students because the universities needed the money. HECS debts can be enormous for new graduates.
  • Funding to states for public education, at the same time redistributing more public money to private schools. Without wishing to enter into the debate about public vs. private education, there was a real redistribution by the Liberal Party of public money from public education to private entities. 
  • Welfare: (see 'Welfare' above)

• Privatisation of Public Assets:
•  Telstra: it is widely acknowledged among economists that the infrastructure should have been hived off before sale. ie only the retail arm of Telstra should have been privatised. It caused years of conflict among Telstra, other telcos which wanted access to the infrastructure the ACCC, the government, and the public.
• Commonwealth Employment Service: remember that?? It was essentially privatised by disbandment, and its job-finding functions sold off to private entities who wanted not only the cost of the service, but profit as well. It was never done at 'cost-recovery' amounts.
• The attempt to sell Medicare Private. It was stalled by political unpopularity, but Howard had a strong history of desiring, and pursuing, privatisation. See: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressrel/FBYI6/upload_binary/fbyi65.pdf;fileType%3Dapplication%2Fpdf

As much as Tony Abbott wants us to wary of the current Federal Labor Government, we voters should be very mindful of that part of the Liberal DNA he is selectively NOT telling us, and which he wants to keep from public scrutiny.

John

Minchin–Party Over The People

In an article published by the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, 28-May-11, Senator Nick Minchin outlines some serious flaws in our party-dominated system. The first clause in the first sentence is:

“As I prepare to retire from 32 years of full-time service to the Liberal Party, …” (18 of those years was as Senator)

Nick Minchin:
worked for the party

It could be said by a retiring Parliamentarian from any major party. Nick Minchin was elected as a Senator to represent the Constitutional interests of South Australia on 1-July-1993. He has been a Senator for 18 years. From 1977 to 1993, he worked for the Liberal Party's Federal Secretariat; he was Deputy Federal Director of the Liberal Party in 1983 and held senior positions in the South Australian Liberal Party. In his public life, and his 18 years in the Senate, Nick Minchin has always worked for the interests of the Liberal Party.
Senator Minchin goes on:

(Party) “success really lies in getting the balance right between Principle and Pragmatism -between the pursuit of good policy and the need to retain popular support”

This is undoubtedly true, and Principle alone rarely leads to good policy. Even when policy is not good, Party Parliamentarians will still vote for the party, because it is in the Party’s interests. This is true of members from all major parties: Labor, Liberal, National; and minor parties like  the Greens. Consider the following:

• the policy to deliberately breach International Law (the Tampa Affair) – Liberal Party
• the Pacific Solution – using Nauru to hold asylum seekers, and to leave 1 person alone in detention for more than 2 years, and subject to UN criticism. Nauru is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees – Liberal Party
• the (proposed) Malaysian Solution – using Malaysia to take 800 asylum seekers, in exchange for 4000 UN-determined refugees. Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees – Labor Party
• WorkChoices, a fundamentalist attack on the wages and working conditions on some of the very people the Liberal Party relied on to retain power - Liberal Party
• Mining tax, which was poorly considered, and effectively gelded by a big-business-funded populism campaign – Labor Party

In each case the party members did vote, or would have voted, for the policy, based solely on their party membership.

This is where Independent Parliamentarians have a significant role to play. As much as the Liberal Party has tried to demonise Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, their role as Independent, non-party-political MP’s in a Federal Parliament with a minority government is invaluable. It makes the government, and to a lesser extent the Opposition, consider a position or compromise that will prevent or ameliorate fundamentalism and extremism. That is something members of the major parties rarely do on their own initiative.

John

Political Expediency Pollutes CPRS

Kevin Rudd's CPRS - Carbon Pollution reduction Scheme - was to be one of his great environmental stamps. It was to involve a carbon cap-and-trade system; higher electricity prices, which would encourage more consumers to use renewable energy; some compensation for high energy use industries; and an environmental halo for Mr Rudd.

It was beset by difficulties:

1. The Greens thought it didn't set sufficient targets for the reduction in carbon pollution
2. The Copenhagen Conference on climate change achieved little, as many predicted, and countries have not committed to any reduction in carbon emissions
3. The Coalition - Liberal and National Parties - are running a policy of denying climate change, protecting the short-term interests of big business. They, and the Greens, defeated teh CPRS Bill in the Senate, biut for the different reasons outlined above.

The NSW, and other states, electricity price regulator, approved large price rises for electricity. In NSW there were 2 reasons for this: preparation for the carbon trading scheme, and the desire of the NSW Labor government to privatise electricity generation and sale, for its own short-term political reasons.

Voter backlash against the price rises, and manipulation of that anger by teh Coalition parties before this year's election have led to Prime Minister Rudd shelving the CPRS until at least 2012.

The shelving has nothing to do with the merits, or otherwise, of the CPRS. It has everything to do with political expediency.

John

Political Images

Image, Image Everywhere, an' Not a Policy to See. (with apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge; ... and the Ancient Mariner)

This week we have had 3 political 'debates': 2 in Australia, and one in the USA. One involved (Labor) Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition (Liberal) Leader Tony Abbott. They debated Health reform in Australia, with particular emphasis on improving our hospital system. Both were dressed well, wore significant makeup, and presented the political image they and their minders planned. By all reports, Kevin Rudd won the popularity contest, and the debate. He actually has a policy he wants to implement; the Opposition is still deciding if it has one, or wants one.

In NSW, The (Labor) Premier, Kristina Keneally and Opposition (Liberal) Leader, Barry O'Farrell, debated how good/bad/indifferent is the state, and why each of them should be elected as Premier in March 2011. By all reports, Barry O'Farrell won that debate. He will probably win the NSW election in 2011.

These two debates were really all about image, style, and scoring political points in a setting other than Parliament. After all, televised Question Time does the image of politicians no good at all. I have previously written about the disgrace that it is. Not for nothing is the NSW Parliament called "the bear pit"!

The third debate occurred in the US Congress and Senate, which ultimately passed a Medicaid Bill. Reports indicate it will assist up to an extra 3 million people gain the health care they need. As an Australian, I was astounded when, during Obama's Presidential campaign, there was at least 1 free health clinic organised in rural America - for farmers and their families who could not afford health insurance, but who desperately needed health care. The then US government had abandoned them. Republicans (mostly) are those who opposed the legislation - their view is that one must have money, or an employer, to pay for health care. Everyone else, it seems to the Republicans, can go hang! What a sad indictment on a political party.

Australia, of course, is not immune to poor health policy. We desperately need good policies for Indigenous health, dental care for many, improved aged care, better funding for hospitals, ... (the list goes on)

Politicians everywhere must forget image; they should instead go for the substance of good policy. And WE must tell them so.

John

Cleanup Question Time

This week's Question Time in Federal Parliament had only one difference from many others. The Opposition asked for a series of public. televised, debates on Health Policy. Prime Minister Rudd accepted.

It all came about because the Government used Question Time to bait, and deride, Tony Abbott's record as Federal Health Minister in John Howard's Government.

Question Time usually contains a few "Dorothy Dixer"s - questions from Government backbenchers that allow a Minister/Prime Minister to bag members of the Opposition. They usually shout back insults and the whole process degenerates into a slanging match of insults. So much for MP's concept of Parliamentary accountability and responsibility. It's all about cheap point-scoring and has nothing to do with acountability, responsibility, or establishing good policy. And so it has been for more than 20 years under Governments led by Keating, Hawke, Howard, and now Rudd. "You FRAUD", "You FAKE", "You LIAR", "You LOWLIFE" are what has passed for Parliamentary "robust debate" for far too long.

However, you can be sure that Messrs Rudd and Abbott will be on their best behaviour for the televised debates. They do not want the public seeing the the way they "debate" in Question Time. Yes, I know that's televised live, too; but the ratings? What ratings?

It is time that Parliamentary debates, and Question Time, are properly attended, and properly debated, without resort that by community standards is is both unparliamentary, and unacceptable.

You can write to the Prime Minister, and Leader of the Opposition at the following:

Prime Minster Rudd: http://www.pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/Email_your_PM
Tony Abbott: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

John

It's NOT a Tax! - Libs

In a week when Oppositin Leader Tony abbott has had a great big idea, the Liberals are now denying it involves a tax.

Tony Abbott's policy-on-the-run for 6 months fully paid maternity leave, with actual income up to $150,000/year (ie up to $75,000, but highly variable, and inconsistent) left many Liberal Party members in shock. He had not consulted them, not had the policy approved by Shadow Cabinet, let alone a party meeting, And, he said it would be funded by a levy on big business. (those with incomes more than $5 million) They haven't addressed the concept that different women would be paid different amounts of maternity pay, just because they're richer, or poorer.

It would certainly provide, and require, more money than Kevin Rudd's (Labor) proposed legislation for 6-months paid maternity leave at minimum wage rates.

Tony Abbott used the word 'levy', rather than 'tax', because he's been accusing the Government's Emission Trading Scheme of being "a great big new tax". Following attacks in Parliament about his own 'great big new tax' on business, the Libs have rallied. In a number of interviews, Sharman Stone, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and the Status of Women, said they are not calling it a tax, they are calling it "an investment in human capital".

Big business called it a tax, and don't want it. Taxpayers recognise it as a tax; media interviewers recognise it as a tax. If it looks like a tax, smells like a tax, and is paid like a tax ... The Liberals deny it's a tax. Moreover, if I were a woman, I would not want to be referred to as "human capital" for the use of business as they see fit. Businesses view capital as something from which they want a return. Capital is something to be used. It's impersonal.

We should be debating whether or not the policy is "good policy" not playing with words, and not hiding the details, and flow-on effects of a new tax on business.

The Liberal Party should be straight with people, and say "Yes, it's a tax. IF Australia is to adopt our paid maternity scheme, we need new taxes. Big business will pass on the cost to taxpaying consumers, who will ultimately pay" There, I've said it for them.

John

Howard Tilts At Rudd

John Howard has given an interview to The Sunday Herald Sun, former Liberal Party PM John Howard has criticised (Labor) Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, while attempting to apply gloss to his own history.

Current PM Rudd is criticised for:

• "spend(ing) the bank balance that Costello and I left behind"
• "symbolic" only gestures such as the apology to the stolen generation
• signing the Kyoto Protocol, which he also called symbolic. Certainly there was an element of symbolism, but it also signified Australia's change of attitude towards climate change, a matter on which John Howard dithered and obfuscated. He went on to say that what Kevin Rudd has done/is doing is almost the same as what he took to teh election he lost: he was 'gunna' do it too. Never mind that he had more than a decade to do it, but did nothing about climate change!
• considering a time frame for withdrawal from Afghanistan, a matter which he says "would be seen as a huge defeat for the West and an enormous morale boost for Islamic terrorism." Here, Mr Howard is greatly overplaying the significance and proportion of Australia's contribution. Yes, the work done by Australian military personnel is important, and one of which we should be proud. But Mr Howard is deliberately overplaying the significance of Australia's involvement, partly to enhance the public's memory of his own self-importance. Australia ranks about 97th of approximately 164 countries in the number of active troops per 1000 head of population. (in 1996, when Howard was still PM). Source :Wikipedia The work we do has a higher level of importance than some others, but John Howard's assessment of our contribution is overstated.
• his response to increased numbers of 'boat people'. He only says that he "stopped the boats". He didn't, boats still came. However, as with financial advice "past performance is no guarantee of future returns" by Howard.

John Howard said he would not have provided $900 cheques (tax rebates) from his surplus, nor does he indicate if he would have spent ANY money to alleviate the effects of the global financial crisis on the Australian economy, and "ordinary Australians"! He might have spent none, to protect his beloved surplus, and used Paul Keating's line about a "recession we had to have" (under Howard & Costello)!?

If John Howard, or any other current or former politician of any persuasion, wants to criticise a successor, they need to "speak up, and put up". Mere political criticism & glossing self-image is self-indulgent, and contributes nothing that would help develop good public policy.

John

Pollies, Bl**dy Pollies!

What is it with politicians? Yes, I know they like to micromanage everything, and are especially vulnerable to the merest whiff of changes in polls. And their minders like to manage everything from the clothes they wear to the assertions they make, to the questions journalists can ask them.

However, all this "management" means they forget about their whole raison d'etre: to develop and implement good public policy for the betterment of our society. Instead, they indulge in unfounded assertions; cheap, political point-scoring; invalid arguments and unfounded assertions; and "talk tough" bluster.

Consider the following:

• Kevin Rudd's "tough talk" on unlawful migrants/refugees. Many Australians had tired of the Liberal Party's, and John Howard's, inhumane treatment of such people. John Howard, and his Government (all of the current Opposition, and them some) were criticised by the UNHCR for their inhumane policies. What does Kevin Rudd do: almost exactly the same. Why? He's afraid the polls (voters) might not like a more humane set of policies.
• Kevin Rudd indulged in more gratuitous political jibes in Parliament over Malcolm Turnbull's leadership, or lack of control, of his Liberal Party members. Specifically, loose canon Wilson Tuckey, and later Sen. Nick Minchin.
• Malcolm Turnbull still cannot stop his Liberal Party cohorts from speaking out of turn; or lead them to wards a sensible, public-interest-based Climate Change policy. The policy many of them want is subsidies for big polluters.
• Malcolm Turnbull, in a media interview, argues that, if reports that Sri Lankans still aboard a Custome vessel off Indonesia had been processed by the UNHCR in Indonesia are true, then Kevin Rudd's argument that external push factors are creating more boatloads of asylum seekers in all wrong. What he should be arguing is that, if true, these people should be returned to Indonesia, to follow proper assessments by teh UNHCR. However, he denies outside influences: the humanitarian disaster befalling Tamils in Sri Lanka at the hands of their (Sinhalese) Government, and increased movement of refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq. Turnbull's argument is wrong, he knows it, the journalists interviewing him know it.

Sadly, few, if any, journalists working for commercial media question the arguments from any politician. The possible exceptions work for the ABC current affairs shows. Kerry O'Brien springs to mind. The commercial press has largely become complicit in the political hoodwinking of voters, by politicians. That's how the politicians, and their minders, want it. We need to change it. Journalists should ask difficult questions, and politicians should feel discomfort if their arguments are invalid, and their policies inhumane, or not in the public interest.

John

Rudd Uses A Howard Solution

Prime MInister Kevin Rudd this week showed that, under pressure, he resorts to fairly standard political behaviour. The pressure on dealing with boat-people came from the electorate (well, the poll surveys) and the media.

His response, particularly during media interviews was to "talk tough", trying to make the electorate warm to his handling of the issue, use lots of repetition of the "tough talk". Under pressure during an interview with the ABC's Kerry O'Brien, Kevin Rudd retreated into bureaucratese: that language which sounds overly complex, uses confusing language, and is sanctuary under pressure. Even the bumbling, Turnbull-led Liberal-National Opposition managed a few hits; at least until Wilson Tuckey opened his mouth, and let the Prime Minister and other Government members deflect attention.

Today's announcement of $50 million in extra aid to Indonesia to help intercept boatloads of unlawful migrants/refugees has quickly been dubbed "the Indonesian solution", much like John Howard's use of Nauru became "the Pacific solution". I wonder whether the UNHCR will report on Australia's current policies, and practices!

John

Libs Struggle As Kevin Struts The Stage

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is undoubtedly enjoying strutting the world's stage. Having had breakfast with former US President Bill Clinton on his (Mr Rudd's) birthday, he has bathed in the compliments of both Clinton and current US President Barak Obama, while being a co-host of the plenary meeting with world leaders. They will meet in Copenhagen in December where it is hoped that leaders will commit to some action on climate change.

Meanwhile Liberal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has been relegated to speaking to conservative organisations, where he has been preaching to the converted about how the Labor Government's stimulus packages are not the reason Australia has done remarkably well in the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). This flies in the face of the opinions of Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry; Reserve Bank Governor, Glenn Stevens; myriad respected economists and business commentators; and voters. It was, according to Mr Turnbull, the (former) Liberal-National Government's "four pillars policy" about no mergers between the big 4 banks. He forgot to mention that this had been a "6 pillars" policy - 4 big banks, and Life Insurance companies AMP and National Mutual - instituted by then Labor PM Paul Keating, but unilaterally downgraded to just the 4 big banks by then Treasurer Peter Costello in 1997.

Mr Turnbull, and his Liberal Party, are also under pressure on Labor's proposed bill on Climate Change. The party is riven with disagreements, and has been challenged by Labor to come up with workable amendments by the end of October, before Parliament resumes for a short time in November. Kevin Rudd, and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, know that the Liberals will not be able to achieve this. If they vote down the bill, Kevin Rudd will have a reason to call a double dissolution election.

Such an election, if held in the first 6 months of 2010, could see The Greens, and Labor, improve their numbers in the Senate, with the Greens possibly holding the balance of power. The Liberal and National Coalition parties, and their conservative independent supporters, could be reduced to Senate also-rans. This is a real dilemma for the Liberals: risk losing Senate seats and Senate power and relevance, or vote for a climate change bill which is divides their party. Oh, what a feeling - not!

John

Libs Remain Confused

Federal Liberal Party members remain confused. Last week Malcolm Turnbull refused to rule in or rule out a return to WorkChoices. His fence-sitting was driven by two opposing forces: his innate recognition of the injustice that drove the WorkChoices policy of reducing the wages of ordinary Australians, while executives reaped double-digit rises in their salary packages; and the more extreme right wing of the party that still beats the WorkChoices drum, and whose support he needs. His leadership is simply not sufficiently strong to properly bury WorkChoices, or any other euphemistic name that the party cares to use.

Brendan Nelson gave his valedictory speech to Parliament this week. In it he again voiced his opposition to an emissions trading scheme (ETS). Malcolm Turnbull, his successor as Liberal Party leader, could not get to the backbenches quickly enough to shake hands and finalise Dr Nelson's departure. Imagine, then, the Libs' surprise the following day to see Brendan Nelson being appointed as Australia's ambassador to the EU and NATO. He becomes the latest example of former Liberal Party MP's and Senators to be appointed to Labor Government positions. His ambassadorial role will see him argue Australia's case for an ETS! No sign of an appointment for ex-Prime Minister John Howard, though.

Internally, the Liberal Party remains divided on WorkChoices, an Emissions Trading Scheme, leadership, the need for and size of an economic stimulus for Australia. In short, they remain a rabble, led by a man who cannot improve his electoral approval, where all but one of the women have been pushed into the background, and which cannot seem to agree on many policy matters with their Coalition "partner".

Malcolm Turnbull has not shown sufficient leadership to draw together the different elements in the Liberal Party. He seems to be there under sufferance, in which case he will likely be replaced when those elements congeal after the next Federal election in 2010, whereupon he will be replaced, possibly by Joe Hockey.

John

Nuclear Barnaby

Following is an extract of a speech given by Queensland Liberal-National Party Senator, Barnaby Joyce, on 24 August 2009 to the National Party Federal Council.

"... One of the agendas we must start looking at is nuclear power. We must
be serious about it. ... We export this product all around the world, we obviously think it is philosophically correct to export it to everybody but we don’t believe we should use it ourselves.
Then you have the query that everyone will put up well do you want one in your backyard? That’s the ultimate payback, but do you want one in your backyard? Well I bet we can devise a plan so that I do. You give me my power at half price I’ll take one. I’ll take one tomorrow and if gave every council in Australia the right to have a referendum to ask if you want one we’ll give you your power at half price, that is your choice. And then just let the Australian people make the decision. That would be a nice way to go about doing business. Let the Australian people make the decision about whether they want to do it."
http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/Newsroom/Speeches/PublicSpeeches/tabid/73/
articleType/ArticleView/articleId/949/Senator-Barnaby-Joyce-Transcript-of-Speech-Nationals-Fed-Council-2009.aspx

I'm not sure that, as an accountant, he has done his sums properly, nor the politics & practicalities of nuclear electricty management. His solution is simplistic - if we offer cheap electricity, people will approve a nuclear power station in their locality, or a location near other Australians. He hasn't addressed the costs of construction, operation & maintenance, waste disposal, decommissioning and disaster planning. His solution is: "offer cheap, and they'll let you build". But his implied assertion that nuclear-generated electricity will be half the cost of that produced by coal ought to be treated with much cynicism. The 'hip-pocket nerve' of many Australians might look for a cheap way out, as they have done with cars, and they might look to reduce their costs by reducing their use of electricity. An ETS, so opposed by Barnaby, is not so much a tax, but a mechanism of social engineering to change the electricity consumption habits of (all lights ON, ALL night) businesses and individuals.

If Barnaby Joyce wants to debate the merits of nuclear power for Australia, he has hindered his cause by not doing his (accountancy) homework and by simply shooting his mouth off.

John

Some references:
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9248&page=2
http://news.anu.edu.au/?p=1340
http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/nuclearpower/01.htm

Govt To Amend RET Bill

Kevin Rudd has agreed to amend the Renewable Energy Target (RET) Bill, after making an agreement with the Opposition. The Bill will force electricity suppliers to source 20% of the ir energy from "renewable" energy sources. Users will pay a higher price for electricity, but it will help reduce the amount, or the exponential growth in the amount, of greenhouse gases by us Australians.

Some of the changes include:

• the Bill will be introduced on its own. It was initially coupled with the Emissions Trading Scheme Bill (ETS), which was voted down by the Opposition, and small-party/independent climate-change 'sceptics'.
• the use of 'waste' methane from coal mines to generate electricity will be counted as 'renewable'! While the term is debatable, it is better to use the methane this way (and generate CO2 ) than allow the methane to simply escape into the atmosphere. Methane is much worse as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
• more compensation for large energy polluters, such as the aluminium industry. Householders will pay more to offset the higher compensation.

Opposition spokesman on the Environment, Greg Hunt, called the described the changes (including the need for householders to pay more) "a victory for common sense". That fits with the Coalition's manifesto that business, particularly big businesses, come before householders.

Not included, but on Barnaby Joyce's (National Party leader in the Senate) wish list are nuclear power stations. Presumably he knows they need lots of cooling water, and will be happy to have them 'liberally' located along Queensland's coast. Queensland is his home state and the state whose constitutional interests he is supposed to represent. I just wonder if his National Party voters want them in their backyard. I wonder if any Queenslanders want nuclear power stations in their backyard.

John

Musings on Emissions Trading

Federal Liberal Party & Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, has kept his job. But he likes to test the waters. He released the new, updated Liberal-National Parties' policy on an Emissions Trading Scheme before the party discussed it. Yes, former PM John Howard used to do that, but no-one was game to criticise him. Turnbull could do it because he knows there is no-one else who could be leader. No-one: they are all tainted with the decisions of John Howard, Turnbull among them, but none of the others has the leadership ability, or public charisma of Turnbull: and HIS rating sits lower than a limbo bar!

The new Coalition Emissions Trading Policy, devised by Frontier Economics with a tight brief on what to protect has the following main features:

• agriculture is excluded. Yes, there is no cost for those who wish to clear-fell trees. It is after all, an "agricultural" activity.
• emissions-intensive industries get 100% free permits. (& perhaps a free lunch with the current Opposition Leader?)
• electricity producers, those who burn huge amounts of coal & generate huge CO2 emissions, would get a baseline & credit system. Free permits up to a baseline, then they have to pay. The problem is that the baseline will be so high, it will be largely meaningless.
• the coal industry (miners) gets more help
• electricity price rises have been kept to a minimum (so that consumers & industry don't need to change their usage habits, thus keeping profits up)
• claims of a 10% reduction in greenhouse gases hinge on the goodwill of polluters to buy carbon credits off-shore. Like the Government's "up to 25%" this is not a fixed target, only a "best - possible - outcome -if - the - gods - are - kind" figure.

Malcolm Turnbull hopes this will be politically popular - that's why he's done it - but voters should never confuse popularity with good policy, and already questions are being asked about the policy, and the Government has launched a PR attack, in, and out of, Parliament.

We'd really rather they argued rationally, but politics is all marketing these days, isn't it? Bloody marketers!

John

Turnbull Bunkers In

Following the release this week of the Auditor-General's Report on the "utegate" affair, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has largely retreated to teh bunker. He gave brief media interviews defending himself. He did not defend former Treasury official Godwin Grech, who provided the fake email to him. Indeed, he did not even mention his name. It was left to teh media to remind people that Mr Grech is now in psychiatric care. No-one form the Liberal Party, let alone Mr Turnbull or his advisers, has visited Mr Grech. They were quite prepared to use him, and he is alleged to have approached them. Former Liberal Party Deputy Peter Costello didn't help with his media interviews saying that Mr Turnbull did not apply any "due diligence" on the now-known-to-fake email.

Now, some in the Parliamentary Liberal Party are proposing Andrew Robb as a possible Leader. He was one of John Howard's more right-wing Ministers. It is also likely that the more extreme right of the NSW Liberal Party are working to gain preselection for safe Liberal seats in NSW, for both the next Federal election (2010) and the NSW State election in 2011. That bodes badly for Malcolm Turnbull, whose views are more centrist.

The week's economic news hasn't been that good for the Liberal/National Coalition either. Unemployment has remained at 5.8%, rather than rising to 6%, and more jobs have been created, although most are part-time jobs. But they have made nothing ... nothing ... of the rises in underemployment. This is an issue both the past Liberal National government and the current Labor Government don't want to discuss. They are the hidden unemployed - those with jobs, working les than 35 hrs/week, and who want to work longer.

Emissions Trading Scheme legislation is also due to be debated this month, and the Liberal/Natinal Coalition still can't decide what's best for the country - vested interests or an emissions trading scheme to help lower greenhouse gases, which contribute to drier, less productive farmland; and which will threaten the coastal homes of many people. MMM ... vested interests, or people. It's such a hard decision!

The bottom line is, we need politicians to act in the interests of the people. The Liberal Party is too busy playing politics, including internally, to be useful to anyone.

John