Category: Julie Bishop

Abbott, Julie Bishop, Polls, Spill

Murdoch prepares Bishop for Libspill

JulieBishop

Abbott must be having a horrible Christmas break. He can’t have missed that his old buddy, his mentor Rupert has completely dropped him and in doing so, has given permission for his newspapers to admit that PM Abbott is a dud. They’re still not yet ready to admit he’s always been a dud and that they were stupid to support him in the first place (as if they’ll ever be ready for this sort of atonement), but they’re willing to go as far as actually reporting his poll numbers, which speak for themselves, and saying that if only he could get his ‘message’ right, their neoliberal Tea-Party agenda would be gratefully accepted by the electorate instead of wholeheartedly rejected. It’s fascinating to watch an entire news organisation finally coming round to the fact that the public knows better than they do whether someone is a good PM or not. I thought the whole definition of ‘news’ was telling us all something we didn’t know, and being first to the story? Abbott’s incompetence is old news, and News Ltd coming to this realisation last is really the only thing you need to know about the incompetence of News Ltd. ‘Oh Abbott’s polls are bad!’ they all cry in unison! ‘We totally didn’t see that coming!’.

So what are News Ltd going to do now that their favourite son has spectacularly failed? If you’ve been paying attention to the number of puff pieces being written at News Ltd about their chosen successor, Julie Bishop, you will see that a Libspill is clearly being planned.

As soon as I realised that Julie Bishop was being put forward as the most likely replacement for Abbott, I realised just how screwed the Abbott government is. Because if Bishop is deemed as the ‘best performer’, it shows just how badly the rest of them have performed. Think about it for a second. What exactly has Bishop done which is so high performing? Perhaps if the definition of high performing is ‘not stuffing up as badly as the rest of the Abbott ministry and being protected by News Ltd so even if you did stuff up the public never heard about it’, then Bishop has been high performing. But all I’ve seen is very basic no-more-competent-than-you’d-expect-of-an-average-politician-statements from her in response to international tragedies, such as disease, terrorism and plane crashes, and of course I’ve seen her slashing the Foreign Aid budget, making Australia the stingiest rich country in the world, bar none. I can see that News Ltd are clearly happy about this, but as I’ve said previously, News Ltd’s opinion and the general public’s opinion do not match and are increasingly at complete odds so News Ltd being happy about something more than likely works against Bishop in the long term.

But even more interesting than the claim that Bishop is ‘high performing’, is News Ltd’s strategy of backing a female Prime Minister, after systematically mauling our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, with a sexist, low-life, scum-filled campaign of hateful lies and misinformation. Just to remind you all, Julia Gillard was the most successful Prime Minister this country has ever had. You won’t ever see any such analysis done in News Ltd papers, but this Guardian article has run the figures showing Gillard as the winner. So keeping this in mind, and keeping News Ltd’s vile anti-Gilllard campaign in mind, how are News Ltd going to position Bishop, a female, unmarried, childless ex-South Australian lawyer as PM material, when they so blatantly positioned Gillard as unfit, whilst appealing to the scum who read their newspapers, who were only too happy to agree? They built the anti-female-leader narrative, so how are they going to tear it down in support for Bishop?

So far, I have seen three strategies at work.

The first is to dress Julie Bishop up in her favourite ridiculously expensive clothes, to do a bit of airbrushing and to photograph her looking relaxed and feminine as if she doesn’t have a care in the world (or an office, or a desk, or, for that matter, a job. Notice how male politicians are never photographed posing as if they’re in a fashion magazine?). It’s also worth noting at this point that when Gillard posed for a Women’s Weekly photo shoot in 2007, Bishop was reported as saying:

“I don’t think it’s necessary to get dressed up in designer clothing and borrow clothing and make-up to grace the cover of magazines… You’re not a celebrity, you’re an elected representative, you’re a member of parliament. You’re not Hollywood and I think that when people overstep that line they miss the whole point of that public role.”

Clearly Bishop thinks she is Hollywood and is a celebrity and that’s the end of that.

The second strategy to ready Bishop for the position as Australia’s second female Prime Minister is for her to paint herself as not a feminist, and not as having benefited from feminism to get where she is. It was all her, apparently. And women who think they need feminism to get ahead need to stop complaining and get on with it, apparently. I feel that Bishop claiming she’s got where she is without the help of the feminist movement is akin to the captain of a football team being presented with the Grand Final cup and saying ‘thanks so much for all the applause. Clearly I played really well and that’s why the team won. I don’t know what all those other guys on my team were doing, but without my individual effort, the Grand Final cup would not be mine today’. Feminists have every right to be offended by Bishop’s suggestion that their hard fought battles are just a campaign of whinging. And of course they have every reason to laugh at Bishop, who is one of two women in Abbott’s cabinet, after being the only one for the first year, presumably because all the other Liberal women of merit were too busy complaining instead of being merit selected in a cabinet that is full of un-merit-worthy men. You’ve got to laugh so you don’t cry!

Finally, the last strategy to prepare Bishop for a leadership challenge is for News Ltd to claim that she is nothing like Gillard, and so should never be compared. Please look away now if you don’t feel like being angry for at least the next month over the following statement that was made in this Courier Mail Julie Bishop-fan-mail-puff-piece. Or do what I do and try to turn your anger into productive rage:

‘Dignified yet determined, Ms Bishop has succeeded where Julia Gillard failed, by showing that women can perform at the highest levels of political office without either hiding behind their gender or sacrificing their femininity. A passionate advocate of women, Ms Bishop believes in merit-based promotion, and her own hard work is now reaping rewards, both on the international stage and in domestic polls. And the damage done by Ms Gillard to the public perception of women in leadership roles is slowly being healed as voters regain confidence that a female politician can deliver’.

So this is the campaign and it’s well underway. There’s no sign yet as to how News Ltd will deal with Bishop’s embarrassing past of plagiarism, or her seedy career as a lawyer fighting against asbestos victims, and apparently once asking ‘why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying’. But we will watch and see as News Ltd comes up with new techniques of dishonesty to repel any criticism of their new-found-favourite candidate. And of course, it will be fascinating to see how such a leadership spill could possibly be orchestrated without use of the words ‘blood’ and ‘stab’ littered throughout the reportage. No doubt that’s the last piece of the puzzle that needs to be worked out before we wake up to find Abbott gone, and PM anti-feminist-pro-Armani-asbestos-Julie in his place.

Twitt
criticism, Gillard, hypocrisy, Julie Bishop

Harpy’s bizarre

who magazine

In 2007, Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop accused Deputy Opposition Leader Julia Gillard of behaving like a “fashion model or TV star” rather than a politician.

“I don’t think it’s necessary to get dressed up in designer clothing and borrow clothing and make-up to grace the cover of magazines,” Ms Bishop told The Sunday Times.

“You’re not a celebrity, you’re an elected representative, you’re a member of parliament. You’re not Hollywood and I think that when people overstep that line they miss the whole point of that public role.”

Ms Bishop said The Australian Weekend Magazine shoot, in which Ms Gillard posed in designer clothes and pearls, was “her Cheryl Kernot moment”.

“Why would you go along and do a fashion shoot as Julia Gillard did the other day, with clothes by Carla Zampatti, jewellery by . . . hair by . . .?” Ms Bishop said. “That’s not what it’s all about.”

Ms Bishop said posing for magazine covers was “not my style”.

“Of course, people want to know more about you, but I don’t think you should be courting that celebrity status as if you’re a fashion model or a TV star, because you’re not,” she said.

In response to Julie Bishop’s criticism, Julia Gillard pointed out that The Australian interview was quintessentially about politics.

She said Ms Bishop’s comments were “inaccurate in the impression she’s trying to give of what I’ve done, and inane in that it’s not the sort of thing that matters to Australian voters”.

“They want to know what’s happening with their education system, with their health system, with their industrial relations system. They’re the sort of things that matter to them, not this sort of distraction.”

harpers bazaarSo imagine my surprise when I see Julie Bishop featuring in fashion magazine Harper’s Bazaar this month.

And how does she use this opportunity?

She reiterates she is not a feminist and tells women they should “stop whingeing and just get on with it.”

“Please do not let it get to you and do not become a victim, because it’s only a downward spiral once you’ve cast yourself as a victim,” Bishop told the fashion magazine.

Right then.

Domestic violence would all go away if we just got a job that pays hundreds of thousands and covers all our costs, and read Harper’s Bazaar for advice.

And there she is again in Who magazine where she “talks fashion, running, and style”.

“FOREIGN Minister Julie Bishop has topped the list of most intriguing people of 2014.   Bishop said she was living the dream in her interview for Who’s Best and Worst 2014 issue.  Others on the intriguing list include Lara Bingle, The Bachelor Blake Garvey, Jesinta Campbell and Buddy Franklin, Rosie Batty and Ian Thorpe.”

Julia….I miss you

climate Terrorism, Julie Bishop, Paris, Seek and destroy

Abbott government accused of trying to set up climate change talks for failure

Julie Bishop on the world stage

Australia’s insistence on legally binding emissions targets an ‘impossible requirement’ that would drive away the US and China, experts say

The Abbott government has been accused of setting impossible requirements for Australia’s participation in any global climate change agreement clinched in Paris next year by insisting it must include legally binding emissions targets.

Experts say the Paris agreement could require countries to enshrine their new post-2020 greenhouse emission reduction targets in domestic law but that any attempt to include those targets in the legally binding international treaty itself would drive away the world’s two biggest emitters – the US and China – and ensure that the process failed.

The foreign minister, Julie Bishop – who has revealed Tony Abbott knocked back her first request to attend the current preparatory meeting in Lima, Peru, and who is now to be “chaperoned” at that meeting by the trade minister, Andrew Robb – has said a Paris agreement must include binding targets. If it did not it would “amount to nothing more than aspirations”, she said.

“It seems like they are trying to set impossible conditions so that they can portray a successful Paris agreement as a failure,” said Frank Jotzo, associate professor at the Australian National University’s Crawford School.

“Legally binding instruments can build confidence that countries will act on the commitments they make internationally. However, the legal form of an international agreement does not determine its effectiveness. The most binding treaty will do little to address climate change if some major emitters like the US and China do not participate.”

The former Labor government’s expert adviser on climate policy, Professor Ross Garnaut, said the government should “forget about” the idea of a legally binding treaty if it really wanted an effective climate outcome from Paris.

“A comprehensive legally binding agreement is not possible because that is not what the US does,” he said. “It is rare for the US to bind itself on anything. Woodrow Wilson was unable to get the US Senate to support membership of the League of Nations that was the creation of the United States.
Advertisement

“President Obama has made it clear that he will not support US participation in a legally binding agreement, and that instead the US has made a serious domestic commitment to implementing the ambitious objectives embodied in the Xi-Obama Agreement. China will not enter a legally binding agreement if the US does not. So forget about it.

“A legally binding agreement is of no value anyway, as, while it may be legally binding, such an agreement is not enforceable. Look at Canada’s walking away from its legally binding Kyoto commitments … and there is no evidence that countries are more likely to deliver on notionally legally binding than on domestic political commitments.

“Kyoto” refers to the Kyoto protocol which included countries’ greenhouse reduction commitments up to 2012.

The government’s own independent advisory body, the Climate Change Authority, said in a report: “One thing the Paris meeting will not deliver is a universal, prescriptive, enforcement-oriented legal agreement, similar in form to the existing Kyoto protocol. For one thing, such an outcome is not achievable in the short term.

“Insisting on it would likely be counterproductive and lead to more modest global action. The value of the Paris outcome will be its effect on emissions and efforts over time, not its particular legal form.”

The government has unsuccessfully sought to abolish the Climate Change Authority.

The deputy director of the Climate Institute thinktank, Erwin Jackson, said Australia’s insistence on legally binding targets was setting the process up for failure.

“Any agreement signed in Paris will be binding but the individual national targets almost certainly won’t be,” he said. “It may be that countries are required to enshrine their targets in domestic laws, but to suggest the targets need to be part of an internationally binding commitment is to set up an impossible requirement because it would ensure that the United States, China and probably India would not be able to participate.

“The test of a country’s commitment is whether it is prepared to pass domestic regulations to curb its own emissions. The United States and China have done that.

“Australia is going in the opposite direction. Its Direct Action policy contains no binding limits on emissions. This discussion about the need for legally binding international commitments is just a distraction and would be the worst possible thing for a successful global climate agreement.”

The government is also under fire for refusing to make any contributions to the Green Climate Fund, to which President Barack Obama pledged $3bn during his trip to Brisbane for the G20 summit. The government says it already pays for climate adaptation and mitigation through its foreign aid budget. It has not provided figures for that contribution and the budget document on the aid program contains passing references to a program in Tuvalu.

Australia sent no minister to last year’s international climate talks in Warsaw, Poland. It is believed that Robb’s job is to make sure Bishop does not go too far in committing Australia to climate action, and that Bishop is very unhappy at being accompanied.

Australia has said it will unveil a post-2020 emissions reduction target before the Paris talks, but most observers believe the Direct Action policy would struggle to deliver deeper cuts than the 5% reduction promised by 2020.

Under the former Labor government Australia provided about $200m a year to the so-called “fast start” program for climate change assistance to developing countries but that spending has been cut.

Julie Bishop, Kevin Andrews

Should Julie Bishop be afraid? The turd polisher cometh.

peta

Rumour has it that Kevin Andrews will not contest the next election and Peta Credlin will be gifted the safe seat of Menzies, and there are good reasons why this might prove to be true.

Both are big players in Abbott’s Star Chamber as is Credlin’s husband, Brian Loughnane.  They certainly have the power to make this happen.

”As for a Cabinet re-shuffle, “it’s really Tony and Peta’s decision, there’s no point pretending otherwise”, the MP said, referring to the Prime Minister and his chief of staff Peta Credlin, who has been criticised for a perceived excess of power within the government.”

At first I thought Andrews unlikely to give up his position but on further reflection there could be some contributing factors.

Like the realisation that he is never going to become Prime Minister.  A couple of weeks before Tony Abbott rolled Malcolm Turnbull, Kevin Andrews made an unsuccessful bid for the leadership.  While he seems to wield more power behind the scenes that Tony Abbott, he doesn’t get to do the handshaking.  Perhaps he feels he can do better elsewhere.

He may return to his marriage counselling business since there is plenty of government money on offer there.  His publications could become required reading as Andrews is an Adjunct Lecturer in Politics and in Marriage Education in the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne – an institution that has also just benefited from newly offered government funding.

Andrews has been able to reward his backers.  How else could one describe his repealing of gambling reform laws?

He has been able to impose his ideology in everything from school chaplains to the categorisation as “leaners” of anyone who uses his department’s services.

He has been able to oppose stem cell research, voluntary euthanasia, RU-486, and marriage equality.

As Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Andrews set the tone for Scott Morrison when he revoked on character grounds the visa of Dr Mohamed Haneef, who had been granted bail on charges of aiding terrorists. After the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped all charges against Haneef, Andrews refused calls to reinstate Haneef’s visa, stating that his personal evidence was still valid. Andrews’ justification of his decision, on the basis that he had a reasonable suspicion that Haneef had associated with suspected terrorists and therefore failed the test of good character that a person must pass to keep a visa, was rejected in the Federal Court, and the revocation of Haneef’s visa was overturned.

We have just voted to remove these safeguards.

Andrews is also a climate change sceptic so he can feel successful in dismantling any action on that too.

All in all, Kevin probably thinks job well done.

If, like me, you have wondered why Peta Credlin takes a seat at the table in all meetings with foreign leaders, why she gets to host soirees for Murdoch hacks and radio shock jocks at Kirribilli House, why she gets to decide who gets what job and who may speak to the media and what they may say, it may be now a bit clearer.

It seems obvious that Tony will have to be dumped sooner or later.  Could Peta be a double agent?  After all, she is the person advising him and look how abysmally he is doing.

My prediction?  Peta wants to be Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on her way to the top job.

Look out Julie, the turd polisher is making a run.

Twitt
Julie Bishop, Slush Fund, Stoljar

Labor MP Andrew Leigh calls on Julie Bishop to apologise to Julia Gillard for slush fund claims. Our demented government.

Julia Gillard fronts the trade union royal commission

A Federal Labor frontbencher has called on Foreign Minister Julie Bishop to apologise for accusing former prime minister Julia Gillard of breaking the law.

The counsel assisting the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Jeremy Stoljar SC, has recommended the former Labor leader be cleared of any crime over her involvement in the setting up of an Australian Workers Union (AWU) slush fund in the 1990s.

However, the summary of submissions to the commission released yesterday said AWU officials Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt ran a “sham” slush fund, of which the sole purpose was to receive money fraudulently from the Perth construction company Thiess Contractors.

Mr Wilson fronted the commission in September and admitted that his “association” sent false invoices to Thiess for a whole year in 1992.

Although it found Ms Gillard’s professional conduct to be “questionable”, the document said the former prime minister did not commit any crime and was not aware of any criminality on the part of other union officials.

It was noted by Mr Stoljar that had Ms Gillard taken a more rigorous approach, it might have been more difficult for the pair to have behaved as they did.

The interim report of the commission has not been released, but the recommendation has come from a summary of evidence so far.

Ms Bishop had previously suggested that the former prime minister had benefited from siphoned-off funds.

Labor frontbencher Andrew Leigh said members of the Coalition who accused Ms Gillard of wrongdoing in the media and in parliament should now say sorry.

“I think it might be appropriate for someone like Julie Bishop, who had accused Julia Gillard of criminality, now to issue a formal apology,” Dr Leigh said.

Coalition frontbencher Josh Frydenberg stressed that the released report is only preliminary.

“I’ve never thought this royal commission was about Julia Gillard, it’s a much more systemic problem within the union movement,” Mr Frydenberg said.

Ms Gillard, who has always denied any wrongdoing, this morning released a brief statement acknowledging the recommendation.

“Ms Gillard notes that the submission made by counsel assisting the Royal Commission into Trade Union [Governance and] Corruption states that she did not commit any crime and she was not aware of any criminality by any other person,” the statement said.

“In relation to the other matters detailed in the submission relevant to Ms Gillard, her counsel will make submissions at the appropriate point.”

New South Wales Opposition Leader John Robertson said the lack of any adverse finding about Ms Gillard is a demonstration that the royal commission is a witch hunt.

“Lawyers often have questions raised about their behaviour, and I would suggest that there are processes within the legal fraternity that should easily deal with those matters,” Mr Robertson said.

“The former prime minister was treated appallingly in the way she was pursed on this matter.

“She has been cleared, I think that’s a good thing for her and I’d like to think that she will be able to get on with her life.”

ADF, Julie Bishop

Deal made to deploy Australian troops to Iraq. Commercial War “a deal was done” but we won’t ever know. They also hammered out a 1.5% deal with the ADF. Screwed them.

Mideast Iraq Australia

FOREIGN minister Julie Bishop has reached a deal with Baghdad for the deployment of about 200 special forces to assist Iraqi troops in their fight against jihadists.

Ms Bishop told reporters in Baghdad on Sunday that she had hammered out a deal allowing Australian commandos who have been waiting in the United Arab Emirates, to deploy to Iraq.

Ms Bishop also reiterated that Australian forces would be deployed in an advisory capacity and that Canberra had no plans to send ground troops to fight alongside Iraqi forces.

Where is $500M going to be spent? Not on 8 aircraft and 200 advisers that’s for sure and not if we are charging the Iraqi government for the job.

ISIS, Julie Bishop, Syria/iraq, Tony Abbott

Our PM Tony Abbott has just been flapping his lips for a month yet again and Bishop has been clearing away the bullshit. Iraq doen’t want us there

Australia won’t send ground troops to fight Islamic State in Iraq, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says

Updated about 8 hours agoSun 19 Oct 2014, 11:22am

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Iraqi foreign minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari Photo: Julie Bishop has met with Iraqi officials in Baghdad to discuss Australia’s role in the fight against IS. (AFP: Sabah Arar)
Related Story: Iraqi pilots training IS militants to fly captured jets
Related Story: Special forces could move into Iraq within days: Abbott
Related Story: Australian Super Hornet drops two bombs on IS targets
Map: Iraq

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop says Australia will not be sending ground troops to fight against Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq.

Ms Bishop has met with Iraqi officials to discuss Australia’s role in the US-led coalition against IS militants.

Speaking at a news conference alongside her Iraqi counterpart Ibrahim al-Jaafari in Baghdad, she said Australia is working with Iraq to see how best to provide further assistance in the region.

“We’ve not been asked and we’ve not offered to [send troops to Iraq]. So I do not envisage that being part of our arrangements with Iraq,” she said.

“We will only provide assistance at the invitation of and with the consent of the Iraqi government.”

Mr Jafaari reaffirmed Ms Bishop’s words and said Iraq considered sending in ground forces as “a red line”.

Last week, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said Australia’s special forces had not yet been able to enter Iraq because the Baghdad government had not provided the necessary legal guarantees.

Mr Abbott wants the 200 Australian special operations troops to be offered indemnity from prosecution under Iraqi law, such as that offered to US soldiers.

ISIS, Julie Bishop, Media, Syria/iraq, Tony Abbott

Something seems extremely fishy. Abbott 3 weeks ago was running ahead of the pack sabre rattling bringing a fatwa down on us. The pack is now in front??

Islamic State: Australian refuelling, surveillance planes join campaign against militant group in Iraq

Updated 6 minutes agoWed 1 Oct 2014, 10:06pm

E-7A Wedgetail aircraft Photo: An RAAF E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft will support international forces. (Australian Defence Force)
Related Story: Meeting on Iraq involvement expected within days: Bishop
Related Story: Kurds backed by air strikes reclaim territory from IS
Map: Australia

Australian refuelling and surveillance planes will today start flying over Iraq in support of the international coalition battling Islamic State (IS) militants, Prime Minister Tony Abbott says.

But Mr Abbott has told Parliament there is yet to be a decision made on when to commit Australian combat aircraft to the fight against what he says is an “apocalyptic death cult”.

Australia last month sent 600 military personnel and eight F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter jets to the United Arab Emirates in preparation for joining the attack on IS targets in Iraq.

“We have not yet made a final decision to commit our forces to combat but Australian aircraft from today will start flying over Iraq in support of allied operations,” Mr Abbott told Question Time this afternoon.

“Ours are support operations, not strike missions.

 

 

 

ABC, China, Julie Bishop, Media

Julie Bishop fails to mention that the $40mill Trade for Aid delivered to Cambodia has come from the pockets of the ABC abandoning our Pacific neighbours

Australia Network

Australia Network set to go off the air in the Asia and Pacific region after 40 years

All yours China

 

Posted 41 minutes agoSun 28 Sep 2014, 7:12pm

  Photo: Australia Network had a potential audience of 144 million people, the ABC said. (ABC News)
Related Story: Australia Network loss ‘disappointing’
Related Story: ABC, SBS funding cut, Australia Network axed
Map: Asia

The Australia Network goes off the air from today after the Federal Government withdrew funding for the broadcaster earlier this year.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade cut Australia’s international television service, which had broadcast content to 46 countries in the Asia and Pacific region including Solomon Islands, India, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, in the May budget.

The ABC was one year in to a ten-year contract to provide the service, which had a potential audience of 144 million people.

Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop told ABC’s Insiders this morning that the Government cut funding to the broadcaster because it did not believe it was meeting its contractual obligations.

However, an ABC spokesman said the number of viewers in the region had grown over the past 12 months.

“Australia Network met all of its contractual obligations and key performance indicators as set out in its contract with DFAT,” he said in a statement.

“During the first twelve months of the contract the network grew to with a potential an audience of 144 million in the Asia and Pacific region.

Australia Plus will also ensure big events from Australia including the Melbourne Cup, Sydney’s New Year’s Eve Fireworks and the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race air in the region.

ABC could continue to deliver Australia Network: Bishop

Ms Bishop said the ABC’s failure to meet its obligations and the “corrupted tender process” which delivered the national broadcaster the contract had convinced the Government there were “much more creative” ways to promote Australia abroad.

$40 million to Cambodia on the condition they take our unwanted refugees is Bishop’s sub text for “much more creative” ways.

“So I’m looking at other alternatives where I think we can do it in a much more creative and positive way.”

“My question is whether under a soft power diplomacy contract… is that the best use of taxpayers money to project a positive image into the region?” she said.

What she failed to disclose that that the ABC delivered local news for the past 40 years to the small Pacific Nations it’s withdrawl due to the cuts has handed broadcasting to the Chinese. So much for the pivot of Asia and the delivery of “soft power diplomacy”

The Government will also save $43.5 million over four years from cuts to the base funding of the ABC and SBS.

 

Julie Bishop, Propaganda, Security, Tony Abbott

“Regrettably, for some time to come, Australians will have to endure more security than we’re used to, and more inconvenience than we would like,” he said.

“There may be more restrictions on some, so that there can be more protection for others.

“The potential is there for a journalist or a blogger who writes about a special intelligence operation to go to jail for 10 years,”

From the Iraq war to terrorism laws, politicians are using the idea of an irrefutable “national interest” to avoid community debate and parliamentary scrutiny, writes Danielle Chubb.

Before you do that, you must tell me what the national interest is.

Who gets to decide the national interest?

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop seems unwilling to entertain the idea that the national interest might be open for debate.  “We would only act in our national interest.” Whatever the government decides, it will be “in the national interest”.

The idea that foreign policy is an elite decision-making arena, beyond the ken of the average Australian, and should not be submitted to the vagaries of Parliament, is one that serves governments well. Labor in opposition knows it too will benefit from such a formulation when in power. It is in the Opposition’s interest to continue the myth.

Why should complex legislation regarding carbon trading regulations be considered by Parliament and not questions of national security? The argument that intelligence briefings provide the clarity required to inform such decision-making is a smokescreen. We learned this back in 2003, after we had been told that reliable and sensitive intelligence pointed to the possession of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Today John Howard is saying sorry but….

When we submit to these arguments, we sacrifice exactly the democratic values we profess to defend. A functioning and responsive parliament is at the core of this

The Australian public deserves to be part of the conversation. Once troops are committed, it is difficult for politicians to properly represent the views of their constituents, for fear of appearing to denigrate the work of those Australians putting their lives on the line. It is imperative that we allow such opinions to be aired – through the democratic mechanisms we are so fortunate to have at our disposal – before we embark on military adventures.

 

Climate, Coal, Julie Bishop

Julie Bishop rejects UN request to strengthen Australian climate targets

Lisa Cox

Lisa Cox

EXCLUSIVEPushing direct action: Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will attend a UN climate change summit next week.

Australia is refusing to take a plan for deeper cuts to greenhouse gas emissions to a special world leaders’ climate summit in New York next week.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is not attending, despite planning to be in New York a day later for special UN talks on the escalating military situation in Iraq. Ms Bishop said she would reaffirm Australia’s commitment to reduce emissions by 5 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020.

The government will also use the New York meeting to drum up support for an Asia-Pacific rainforest summit in Sydney in November and to join a global declaration to phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons, so-called “super greenhouse gases” used for refrigeration and air conditioning.

Ms Bishop said the proposal was “an opportunity for governments, business and NGOs to commit to protective steps” for rainforests and preserve their environmental, economic and social benefits.

Earlier this week Mr Ban said he expected Tuesday’s summit to lay the framework for putting a price on carbon.The Abbott government became the first country in the world in July to abolish a carbon price and its alternative direct action policy is in limbo without support in the Senate.

But the Foreign Minister said she would not lay down plans for targets beyond 2020.

“We’re looking at what other countries are doing.”But there is growing urgency from environmental groups for the government to define what its post-2020 target will be and how that will contribute to international efforts to keep global warming below two degrees, which scientists say would avoid the worst effects of climate change.

“The real tragedy in Australia is we’re focusing on 2020 and not on 2050, which is where international negotiations are headed 125 nation states will be attending.

Protecting  the interests of capital is far more important to this government than being a global citizen. Besides Murdoch is a climate skeptic and we still have a lot of dirty coal to sell the promises were made before the election.

Julie Bishop, Tony Abbott, UN

TONY ABBOTT AND JULIE BISHOP THOUGHT A SEAT ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL WAS A WASTE OF TIME

ABBOTT & BISHOP ” A UN SECURITY COUNCIL SEAT NOT IN OUR INTEREST”

Posted on July 23, 2014 by


File:United Nations Human Rights Council Logo.svg
When the Labour government made moves to be elected to the United Nations Security Council the coalition derided them for their efforts Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop describing it as ‘extravagant’ and distracting ‘from core foreign policy interests’. Critics  produced a range of arguments, which were wheeled out by the Opposition in Parliament. Australian national interest is not confined but interrelated — defence, human rights and trade all intersect globally. Transnational issues such as people movement and refugee settlement cannot be managed effectively without global coordination and discussion. So the ‘Australia within its region’ mindset is both limiting and outdated.It was the Gillard government that had to argue that a seat at the UN Security Council would allow the Australian community via the Australian Government to speak out more clearly on issues of moment, and it would allow Australian diplomats to keep their fingers on the pulse of important discussions affecting global diplomatic norms and Australia’s regional security.What’s more, it would provide Australians with the motivation to think through more clearly and consistently the kinds of values we wish as a nation to inform our engagement on the world stage.
Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop should be grateful now for the position  the  immense tradjedy of MH17′s downing has placed them in. Slap bang in the center of world affairs. A position that has changed the face of Australia’s media and taken the attention away from the realities of their governments current  shit political position.
Abbott hates the UN’s interference in our national interest neocons argue it’s a dead weight around the necks of governments and their regions. World Heritage is a load of crap the Great Barrier Reef belongs to us as does the Old Growth Tasmanian Forrest. The UN are just interfering do-gooders. ‘Human Rights’ Scott Morrisson is the Minister in charge of Immigration and No Information  and the UN can take a running jump as far as asylum seekers are concerned we have it in hand we promise. Close down the the UN it’s almost bankrupt, it’s cost ineffective and interfering in national progress and our mates’ interests
It’s this organization, the UN and Australia’s current position on the Security Council that is allowing Abbott & Bishop to roar & Putin to at least listen . While it is for good cause and needs saying when the noise calms down let’s not forget that  Abbott anthe coalition would not have spent the money to be at the table. They would prefer to be non members lurking in the shadows with less attention.

Australia, Julie Bishop, Tony Abbot, UN

ABBOTT HATES THE FORUM IN WHICH HE HAS BEEN GIVEN LIGHT

 

When the Labour government made moves to be elected to the United Nations Security Council the coalition derided them for their efforts. Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop describing it as ‘extravagant’ and distracting ‘from core foreign policy interests’. Critics  produced a range of arguments, which were wheeled out by the Opposition in Parliament.
Australian national interest is not confined but interrelated — defence, human rights and trade all intersect globally. Transnational issues such as people movement and refugee settlement cannot be managed effectively without global coordination and discussion. So the ‘Australia within it’s region’ mindset is both limiting and outdated.It was the Gillard government  argued that a seat at the UN Security Council would allow the Australian community via the Australian Government to speak out more clearly on issues of moment, and it would allow Australian diplomats to keep their fingers on the pulse of important discussions affecting global diplomatic norms and also Australia’s regional security.What’s more, it would provide Australians with the motivation to think through more clearly and consistently the kinds of values we wish as a nation to inform our engagement on the world stage.
Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop should be grateful now for the position  the current  immense tradjedy of MH17’s downing has placed them in. Slap bang in the center of world affairs. A position that has changed the face of Australia’s media and taken the attention away from the realities of their governments current  shit political policies. They are now the beacons the represenatives of world values.
Abbott hates the UN interference in our national interest neocons argue it’s a dead weight around the necks of governments and their regions. World Heritage is a load of crap the Great Barrier Reef belongs to us as does the Old Growth Tasmanian Forrest. The UN are just interfering do-gooders. Shit Human Rights Scott Morrisson is the Minister in charge and the UN can take a running jump as far as asylum seekers are concerned. Close down the the UN it’s almost bankrupt, ineffective and interfering in national progress and internal decisions.
It’s this the organization, the UN and Australia’s position on the Security Council that is allowing Abbott to bellow. Be it all for a good cause but after the noise calms down let’s not forget that Hockey and Abbott would not have spent the money to be at the table and would prefer to be non members lurking in the shadows.

Real Media, Alt News, Politics, Critical Thought, War, Global events, Australia, Headlines,
Blog at WordPress.com.