Tony Abbott’s tenure as Prime Minister is all but over. The division within the Liberal Party’s parliamentary ranks is clear, with 39 of its MPs yesterday voting in favour of a leadership spill. It is true that 61 voted against, but at least 32 and as many as 41 of those votes were ministers, parliamentary secretaries and party whips who Mr Abbott says were bound by the party’s convention to close ranks behind the leader.
In short form, the numbers indicate that about 60 per cent of Liberal backbenchers have no confidence in Mr Abbott’s ability to lead their party or this nation. That is a dire result. It will foster internal disruption and general uncertainty about the government’s direction, none of which is desirable at the best of times, let alone in the midst of preparations for a crucial budget.
Speculation about the leadership will persist as long as Mr Abbott remains, and that will enfeeble decision-making within the government and prove detrimental to business confidence. With Australia’s economic outlook weakening, and the government still unable to pass some of its budget measures from last year, the last thing the Coalition needed was more of the same.
Indeed, the last thing Australia needs is another 18 months, potentially, of the kind of dispiriting, inconsistent leadership that Mr Abbott has exhibited. His effort to recast the office of the Prime Minister as an elevated, independent branch of Parliament is arrogant and misguided. It is evident in the way he has made unilateral decisions about government policy without bothering to consult senior ministers, and it is evident in his twisted interpretation of the voting system. “We think,” he said yesterday (using the royal “we”), “that when you elect a government, when you elect a prime minister, you deserve to keep that government and that prime minister until you have a chance to change your mind.”
No, Mr Abbott, the people of Australia do not and never have voted directly for a prime minister. Australia does not have a presidential style of government. Leadership is vested by the party. You are in the Prime Minister’s office only by grace of your colleagues, a great many of whom, it is clear, are far from happy. Their discontent reflects that of their constituents; the polls indicate that if an election were held now the Coalition would be trounced.
Mr Abbott reportedly was shocked by the threat to his leadership, which only underscores how cocooned he has become. He apparently does not believe that he has a problem with the electorate. He is blithely carrying on with tired pleadings for unity among his MPs, and with empty expressions to voters that “we are not the Labor Party”. Yet, by casting the Liberals in terms of something it is not, Mr Abbott only underscores how hollow is his party’s policy platform. This is what The Age warned about in September 2013 just before the election; the Coalition’s “plan” for the nation was never fully formed, it was framed around three-word slogans and lacked substance.
Almost halfway through the term, and the Coalition’s narrative is still deficient. The position is redeemable, but only with a change of leader. Mr Abbott has squandered the trust of voters and many of his Coalition colleagues. His decision to pull the party room meeting forward by a day might have been intended to demonstrate unity before Parliament began sitting this week, but it looked panicked.
Worse was Mr Abbott’s political ploy in offering a South Australian senator the assurance that, contrary to what Treasurer Joe Hockey said late last year, Australian companies would get a chance to bid for a multibillion-dollar contract to build submarines.
There is deep-seated disappointment with this government. Mr Abbott has fumbled too many chances. His leadership is unsustainable and it is inevitable that Liberal MPs will need to resolve this by dumping him.
MPs yesterday continued to leak against the Prime Minister despite a staunch defence of his leadership to the National Press Club in Canberra on Monday.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull are believed to be the front runners in the leadership race.
“Cabinet ministers have been ringing me and telling me things are just untenable,” one MP told News Corp.
“Julie Bishop and Tony Abbott now have a Gillard-Rudd like relationship. It can’t go on like this,” another said.
But Mr Abbott remains firm, telling ABC 7.30 host Leigh Sales, “we’ve done a lot. If you look at the last 16 months, the carbon tax is gone, the boats have stopped, the roads are building … a lot’s been done, but we’re not resting on our laurels.
“We were elected because people were sick of chaos and what I’m determined to do is give Australia back the certainty and stability people crave.
“We’re not here to talk about the past, I’m here to talk about the future.”
The first MP to break ranks, Liberal backbencher Dennis Jensen, told the Prime Minister he wanted him removed from the nation’s top job on January 23 via text message.
Dr Jensen was the first MP to display such brazen dismay in Mr Abbott’s leadership.
Dr Jensen texted Mr Abbott and the pair had a “lengthy” exchange about why he should be removed.
Speaking out … Liberal backbencher Dr Dennis Jensen has publicly broken ranks to say he no longer supports Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. Source: News Corp Australia
Mr Abbott asked Dr Jensen: “Well who would be better to lead the party?”, to which he replied it was not about the “who” but the “what”.
Dr Jensen told News Corp Australia: “I told him that he no longer has my support.”
The disgruntled MP also said Mr Abbott didn’t have the right vision for the nation, particularly on politics.
“We can’t continue with Mr Abbott as leader,” he said.
Dr Jensen is from the WA electorate of Tangney. He was involved in calling the first of the Liberal spills in 2009 with Wilson Tuckey that ultimately saw Mr Abbott installed as the party’s leader.
Speaking on 7.30 tonight, Dr Jensen said he informed Mr Abbott on January 23 — three days before the disastrous Australia Day knighting of Prince Phillip — that he no longer supported the Prime Minister.
Deposed … Dr Jensen was instrumental in the 2009 Liberal Party leadership spill, which saw Malcolm Turnbull replaced with Tony Abbott. Picture: Adam Taylor Source: News Corp Australia
“I always believe in being upfront and honest,” he said.
Dr Jensen said that while Mr Abbott was an “absolutely fantastic” Opposition leader, he was still “operating on that wartime footing.”
“He was a great wartime leader, [but] now we need a great peacetime leader.”
Despite being instrumental in installing Mr Abbott as Opposition leader in 2009- and now being the first backbencher to publicly speak out against him — Dr Jensen said he did not want to be seen as “just a hitman”.
“I don’t want to be seen as the person who in effect is just pulling the trigger … I think I’m certainly expediting the discussion that we need to have.”
When asked if Mr Abbott could still save himself, Mr Jensen replied: “I don’t believe so”.
“I don’t think fundamentally he understands what the problem is, and therein lies the problem,” he said.
Not just a hitman … Federal Liberal MP Dennis Jensen said he wants to be known for more than just “pulling the trigger” in leadership spills. Picture: News Limited Source: News Limited
But Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Peter Dutton quickly came to the Prime Minister’s defence, saying Mr Abbott needed to be given an “opportunity to exercise what he said”.
“He’s made mistakes, we’ve all made mistakes, and we’re listening to colleagues, and, most importantly, to Australians,” Mr Dutton said in an interview following Dr Jensen’s, also on ABC’s 7.30.
“He’s made it very clear he’s not going to stand down … I want the prime minister elected only 16 months ago to have a fair go.”
Mr Dutton said the Cabinet was unanimously in support of Mr Abbott, and that without a challenger, there was no point.
“He’s made it very clear he’s not going to stand down — why would he, if he’s 16 months into his first term?”
“When there is no challenger, to me that [a leadership spill] makes no sense,” he said.
According to ABC reports, Warren Entsch will be looking to get the leadership issue resolved at their partyroom meeting next Tuesday, and he’s a strong supporter of Mal Brough.
Resolution … Federal MP Warren Entsch, a supporter of Mal Brough, reportedly said he wants to resolve the leadership issue at the next partyroom meeting. Picture: Wesley Monts Source: Supplied
The news comes after cabinet ministers have privately been lamenting that the relationship between Tony Abbott and his deputy Julie Bishop is now “untenable” as leadership speculation continues in Canberra.
But Ms Bishop has remained firm that she would not challenge the Prime Minister, telling Sky News that she was not counting her numbers.
“I’m not ringing the backbench for support, I’m not counting numbers,” she said.
“I will not challenge the leader.”
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister responded to Bishop speculation, describing the leadership team as “friends” and “colleagues” who “support each other”.
Social Services Minister Scott Morrison also publicly denied mounting a challenge against the Prime Minister, despite being touted as a possible leadership candidate.
Speaking on 7.30 yesterday, Mr Morrison said Tony Abbott could count on his support.
“The prime minister has my support and I’ve outlined that in any number of ways,” Mr Morrison said.
Not challenging … Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, has ruled out challenging Mr Abbott for the prime ministership. Picture: Getty Images Source: Getty Images
Meanwhile, disgruntled Queensland MP Mal Brough has not ruled out potentially bringing forward a motion of no confidence in Tony Abbott in the party room if he is still Prime Minister when Parliament resumes next week.
Loyal MP … Scott Morrison has also pledged his commitment to the Prime Minister. Source: News Corp Australia
Mr Brough told Sky News he had no intention to challenge Mr Abbott for the leadership, but had concerns about issues affecting the government, including the GP co-payment and the cuts to the wages of the defence force.
He said he would be having more discussions with Mr Abbott about these issues, but did not say a leadership spill was the way the party should go.
One of the possible options being discussed by MPs unhappy with Mr Abbott’s leadership is that Mr Brough will act as a suicide bomber to bring the leadership issue to a head.
Last week Mainstream Media (MSM) political commentators were united in their condemnation and their mockery of PM Tony Abbott following his bizarre announcement that HRH Prince Phillip would become an Australian Knight.
They also seemed equally united in their condemnation of Abbott’s overall performance and the prospect of an imminent leadership challenge following the Queensland election. Better late than never, I suppose.
In fact, the media’s unity on these two issues is similar to their united front on Labor’s economic prowess, particularly between 2010 and 2013. At the time, they gave Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey unquestioning prominence while the two amigos recklessly hacked away at Labor’s economic record.
The only difference is that they were dead wrong about the two amigos and also about Labor’s grasp of the issues.
When Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister in 2007 he inherited a gross ‘debt’ of $58 billion; quite trivial by today’s standards. At the time, he and Labor were treated lightly by the media until the GFC exploded and suddenly, the big question was: what would they do about it?
But up until this time, the media had been asleep at the wheel unaware of what really had been going on. For the ten years or so prior to 2007 they had been happy to drink the wine of what they perceived as good fiscal management by Peter Costello who had been delivering surplus budgets year in, year out.
But they should have known that in a national economy, the three principal sectors of management, i.e. government, private and external, the respective balances of each will always play against each other, while their aggregate total must balance when combined. If two are in surplus, one must be in deficit. If two are in deficit one must be in surplus and the net result must always equal zero.
A simple formula expresses this as follows:
(I – S) + (G – T) + (X – M) = 0
where I is Investment, S is Savings, G is Govt. Spending, T is Taxes, X is Exports and M is Imports.
During Costello’s time no one ever queried that up until 2007, while he bathed in the glory of government surpluses, external income was in deficit, and private debt, particularly household debt was skyrocketing.
Costello’s surpluses were made possible because of the availability of easy credit, e.g. home equity based loans, banks offering credit cards to anyone breathing, and even some who had stopped breathing. Costello took advantage of the ignorance of the MSM and the people with his surpluses and actually gained their admiration in the process.
As we all remember, soon after the GFC struck, the Rudd government announced a stimulus program, one much criticised by the then LNP opposition, which put the budget into deficit. This created excess reserves in the banking system necessitating the issuing of bonds to ensure the central bank could control the overnight cash rate.
This necessary monetary process was misconstrued and presented as borrowing to finance the government’s spending when it was nothing of the sort. It quite falsely became the “debt and deficit myth” the LNP used so effectively to discredit Labor.
Following that stimulus, the external sector (trade) remained in deficit but the private sector (business) stopped borrowing and began paying down debt.
Fast forward to today and we find that household debt has remained at its historic high. Meanwhile, the business sector have been using accumulated profits to reduce debt and buffer themselves from deflationary forces in the absence of attractive investment opportunities.
At the same time, successive years of deficit budgets caused by China’s economic slowdown coupled with an over-valued Australian dollar has had the effect of limiting further deterioration in unemployment.
That’s the good news. Now for the bad news. Joe Hockey’s austerity budget threatens a seismic shift in these balances.
The move to austerity will actually force the private sector towards higher indebtedness (deficit) by running down savings because there won’t be the flow of money to enable current levels of saving.
If the household part of the private sector starts saving and/or begins to pay down household debt (credit card and mortgages), the economy generally will begin to contract, business will slow, unemployment will grow and the deficit will also grow from further reduced revenues. The December 2014 inflation rate announced last week confirms this trend.
This means that the private sector will bear the burden of balancing the economy on a scale that will drive the country into a horrible and prolonged recession.
This is exactly what is happening at the moment in Europe.
This is why the European Central Bank has decided to issue $1 trillion euros of fiat currency to be deposited into the reserves of the member banks. This is why austerity doesn’t work, at least in these circumstances.
The question arises therefore, why is it that the Australian MSM economic experts are not pointing out this fact? Are they once more asleep at the wheel? Or, is it just too hard for them to acknowledge Labor’s better understanding of the way the economy works?
It is my opinion that neither they, Joe Hockey nor Mattias Cormann understand any of this.
By political editor Chris Uhlmann
The rout of the Liberal National Party in the Queensland election is being described as “catastrophic” by federal Coalition MPs, with some claiming the Prime Minister is now terminally wounded.
“All we are talking about now is the timing and method of execution,” one Queensland MP said.
“This is catastrophic, unimaginable,” said another.
Labor looks set to pull off a stunning victory in a cliffhanger election, after securing a double-digit swing that has ended the political career of Premier Campbell Newman.
Labor is on track to claim 45 or 46 of the 89 seats in the state’s parliament, after going into the poll holding only nine seats.
“My political career is over,” Mr Newman told LNP supporters as he conceded defeat in his seat.
A senior federal Coalition source said the next move was Tony Abbott’s.
“So far the chatter has been among privates and corporals,” he said.
“It’s a time for generals now. And a time for the general: Tony Abbott. He has to decide what’s in the best interest of the party.”
The ABC spoke to Coalition MPs and senators across the country, as all watched the most remarkable turnaround in Australian electoral history with growing disbelief and horror.
Liberal MP Jane Prentice said the party “can’t continue as we are” and that Tony Abbott was “not taking the people with us”.
Ms Prentice, the federal member for Ryan in the south-western suburbs of Brisbane, made the comments while appearing on ABC TV’s Queensland election panel.
“Tony has said he has listened and learned. He is making a keynote speech on Monday at the Press Club, but we can’t continue as we are,” she said.
“I think that’s the lesson from today.”
A Coalition minister said all eyes would now be on federal and state LNP MPs, who he feared would unload on the weakened Prime Minister in the wake of the Queensland poll.
A number have suggested former Howard government minister Mal Brough is the one most likely to break ranks and take aim at Mr Abbott.
Fairfax Media reported Mr Brough was being urged to challenge Mr Abbott, to bring the leadership chatter to a head.
Other MPs said he would simply make a statement that laid part of the blame for the loss at the federal leader’s feet, adding to the momentum building against him.
Mr Brough did not respond when contacted by the ABC.
Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce said the Queensland election was a “terrible result” but cautioned restive federal Coalition MPs against repeating the mistakes of the past.
“If you behave like the Labor Party at the last election, you will be treated like the Labor Party at the last election, and you will be annihilated,” Mr Joyce said.
“You don’t usurp the right of the Australian people. They don’t like it.”
Another MP said that the party’s only choice was to make a change or risk the same fate that befell the Coalition governments of Queensland and Victoria.
There would only be three credible candidates to replace Mr Abbott as leader: Foreign Minister Julie Bishop; Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull; and Social Services Minister Scott Morrison.
None of these contenders has been agitating for change, or courting numbers.
Although Ms Bishop has been touted as the most likely to take over, there is an emerging consensus Mr Turnbull has the best chance of recovering the Coalition’s position; because he has the most fully formed public image.
It has been suggested the Prime Minister is safe because there are three contenders, because it is assumed they will fight among themselves for the top job.
However, the three are quite close and it is possible they could come to a consensus on who should lead.
The strong suggestion in the wake of the Queensland vote is that none of them would launch a challenge, as the preferred option is for Mr Abbott to stand down.
“I think the first response has to come from him,” one senior Coalition MP said.
“He has to, in his mind, resolve what is in the best interest of the party and the country.”
But if that decision was to stay on as leader, then the party would have to respond to it, he said, which suggests the Prime Minister’s future is no longer his decision alone.
The National Party MPs and senators do not get a vote in a Liberal leadership ballot and one said the party would not countenance anything that smelled of chaos.
If there was a messy leadership spill it might threaten the Coalition, he said.
The Prime Minister is preparing for a major speech on Monday, which is supposed to set out the Government’s agenda for the year.
Now it looms as another exercise in damage control.
News Limited papers reported Mr Abbott was preparing to dump his signature paid parental leave scheme as a sign he was willing to listen and make compromise.
Asked about the policy, Mr Abbott said: “Look, I said before Christmas, we’d be scaling it back … I’ll have a bit more to say on PPL in the next day or so”.
One MP said if Mr Abbott did not dump the policy in his speech on Monday, he would be carried out of the Press Club “in a box
We are an apathetic bunch who would rather watch sport than talk politics. We would rather have a barbie than a bi-election. We would rather go to the beach than the polling booth. But push us too far and bear the consequences, as Campbell Newman found out this evening and as Dennis Napthine found out a few weeks ago.
I am 57 years old (same as Tony) and I have always had a passing interest in politics but, until Tony Abbott became LOTO, I was never passionate about it. He changed all that. Tony made me realise that I had to get off my bum and do something to help protect my country from the pillage and plunder that he is proposing.
I am just a middle aged woman in jammies but I cannot sit back and watch my country sold off to the highest bidder. In fact it isn’t even the highest bidder who necessarily gets the nod.
Tony Abbott views our assets as his to distribute to his mates as he pleases. He gives jobs to friends like Christmas presents like offering his close personal friend, The Australian newspaper’s Greg Sheridan, the plum posting of high commissioner to Singapore after the 2013 election despite him having no qualifications or experience to recommend him for the job.
And that same attitude was shown by Campbell Newman who so incensed the people of Queensland that they reversed the biggest election win in the history of the country to say piss off….enough is enough.
It is now up to every one of us to stand up to protect the country we love, to protect our children’s future, to protect the way of life our parents fought hard to provide for us. We can no longer trust politicians (if we ever could) to do what is in our best interests. We have to tell them no, you may not do this. Our common wealth is not yours to dispose of as you please.
To the people of Victoria, and even more so, to you amazing Queenslanders who delivered a result no-one expected, I say thank you. You have stood up in the first line of defence to stop the corporatization of our nation. You have slapped down those who think wealth and power gives them the right to dictate to us, to wring whatever profit they can from us with no thought to the consequences of their greed. I can only hope that the people of NSW show the same courage and determination to stop Mike Baird from destroying our farmland and water and gifting our public land to developers.
And to Tony Abbott, I look forward to your address to the National Press Gallery on Monday with gleeful anticipation.
Late last year, I wrote about the Liberals’ criticism of the ANU’s decision to divest itself of shares in fossil fuel companies. As I pointed out, while this was considered “outrageous” by various senior Liberals, the shares being sold had actually been losing value, and apart from anything ethical considerations, it was possibly sound financial sense to sell.
When I’m wrong, I’m happy to admit it. Unfortunately, for those Liberals who I intend to mock mercilessly, this isn’t one of those times. Santos shares have continued to dive and I just noticed this little gem:
Santos shares “worthless” say Credit Suisse.
Now, just last October, Christopher Pyne labelled the ANU’s decision to sell “bizarre” and Jamie Briggs says that he wrote to the Vice-Chancellor demanding an explanation. Well, I can give Mr Briggs an explanation – the shares are now almost half what they were when they were sold.
Perhaps, that should be one of the Labor Party’s questions in Parliament. Are the Government ministers still critical of the move, or do they now concede that sometimes people in universities might actually know something, even if Andrew Bolt is better placed to lecture us all on climate change. Yes, I know that Bronwyn Bishop would rule it out of order, but it’d be fun to watch.
Just like it was fun to listen to Jamie Briggs tell an ABC interviewer this morning that her question was out of line because, of course Tony Abbott was concerned about the SA bushfires, why he’d commented in response to a question just yesterday, and Mr Briggs believed that he had spoken to the Premier offering whatever help they needed. The Premier’s Office seemed unaware of any such call – perhaps Mr Abbott should have told them who he was.
Here we have the question and response:
Question: And just finally, on the SA bushfires, will there be any assistance package for the people affected?
Abbott:
The standard national disaster relief and recovery arrangements are already in place. We will shortly have a little bit more to say on the Centrelink payments which are often made in circumstances like these. I have been talking regularly to the relevant minister, Michael Keenan, to Minister Jamie Briggs who has the electorate which has been most impacted by these fires.Obviously, Australian summers are prone to fire and flood. It is tragic that we’ve seen, yet again, the ferocity of Mother Nature, but the thing about Australians is that the worst in nature tends to bring out the best in us and that’s what we always see when our emergency services rush to help people in trouble and when communities rally around those people who have lost a very great deal.
Mm, can’t see why people who’ve lost their homes would feel that Tony’s response lacked empathy!
. . or Public Apathy and 75 Ideas to Make You Shudder.
The Institute of Public Affairs is a free market right-wing think tank that is funded by some of Australia’s major companies and is closely aligned to the Liberal Party.
In April 2013 it held its 70th Birthday Bash with Rupert Murdoch as its keynote speaker. Andrew Bolt was the Master of Ceremonies. Special guests included Gina Rinehart, Cardinal George Pell and many other conservative luminaries. A special address by then opposition leader Tony Abbott was a highlight.
The IPA put forward 75 proposals for a future Abbott government to consider. They were accompanied by an article titled Be like Gough: 75 radical ideas to transform Australia and attributed to John Roskam, Chris Berg and James Paterson.
Here is a short extract:
“If he wins government, Abbott faces a clear choice. He could simply overturn one or two symbolic Gillard-era policies like the carbon tax, and govern moderately. He would not offend any interest groups. In doing so, he’d probably secure a couple of terms in office for himself and the Liberal Party. But would this be a successful government? We don’t believe so. The remorseless drift to bigger government and less freedom would not halt, and it would resume with vigor when the Coalition eventually loses office. We hope he grasps the opportunity to fundamentally reshape the political culture and stem the assault on individual liberty.”
In his speech Abbott acknowledged the Institutes input into LNP policy and took the opportunity to commit to a whole raft of big promises to radically change the culture and political landscape of Australia.
“I want to assure you,” he said, “that the Coalition will indeed repeal the carbon tax, abolish the department of climate change, and abolish the Clean Energy Fund. We will repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, at least in its current form. We will abolish new health and environmental bureaucracies. We will deliver $1 billion in red-tape savings every year. We will develop northern Australia. We will repeal the mining tax. We will create a one-stop shop for environmental approvals. We will privatise Medibank Private. We will trim the public service and we will stop throwing good money after bad on the NBN.”
True to his word he is making a decent hole in the list. He has stopped subsidies to the car industry, eliminated (partly) Family Tax Benefits, destroyed the ABCs Australia network, abandoned poker machine reform, introduced a fee competition for Australian universities, and negotiated free trade deals with Japan, South Korea, China and India. Albeit without much detail. The NBN is now nothing like what was originally intended or needed.
It doesn’t end there. He might not have abolished the Human Rights Commission, but has cut $1.65 million from its budget. It refused to renew the position of its disability commissioner and without due process appointed one of the IPAs own in Tim Wilson as a commissioner. Attorney-General George Brandis has flagged an intention to “further reform” the HRC.
The Australian National Preventive Health Agency also went and the Food, alcohol and tobacco companies fell over with gratitude.
The IPA not content with its list of 75 has added a further 25 items for the governments consideration. They may not get them all but the big fish is the institutes desire to have all media ownership laws eliminated, for example, along with the relevant regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, and requirements put in place that radio and TV broadcasts be “balanced”.
The communications minister Malcolm Turnbull is apparently considering it with the likely outcome: more concentration in Australia’s media, already the most concentrated and least diverse in the developed world. More influence for the IPA and Rupert Murdoch.
It makes you wonder just who is governing. The government or the IPA. Or it at the very least brings into question the influence lobby groups have over governments. Particularly extreme right think tanks like the IPA who seem only to exist for the benefit of big business, the rich and the privileged.
In a lifetime of following politics in this country I have never known the electorate to be in such a political malaise. A non-caring, non-knowing apathy seems to have gripped the nation. The polls tell us that a large portion of the population supports a government that is performing incompetently with a leader equally doing so.
John Howard recently said that people these days care little for ideology. He is correct. The undecided 10% that once decided elections has expanded to 20%. People just want good policy that represents the common good.
People need to remember that the isms, be it Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, Conservatism, Liberalism or Communism are only THEORIES! They are nothing more than words written on paper. They are not active and they do nothing. Each theory is neither good nor bad. Each theory is ultimately what the people make of them. Democracy is nothing more than a theory. Our constitution is nothing more or nothing less than what we make of it. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights have no authority . . . they are nothing more than what the American people make of them. When, because of our apathy we choose to ignore and neglect our government it is easily influenced by self-interest groups like the IPA – to serve their own purposes and there is nothing that says that those who come to manage the government must be ethical, moral, or responsible to the people.
When good people neglect their government they are then governed by lesser people. We then end up with the government we deserve.
In an article I wrote just prior to Abbott’s election I said this:
“I am in fact absolutely frightened, no petrified by the prospect that he might win and the devastation he might create with his inane personality, his reliance on lobbyists and right-wing think tanks to form policy. Also on his Catholicism and the mediocre minds of his shadow cabinet cohort”.
The 75 IPA Ideas to send a shiver down your spine. You might also consider this list from Tracking Abbott’s Wreckage.
I had intended to comment on some of the individual proposals but on reflection thought it best to allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusions and comment if they so desire. The best advice I can give is to be seated while reading. A shot of whiskey might also help.
This of course is not to say that some don’t have merit.
1 Repeal the carbon tax, and don’t replace it. It will be one thing to remove the burden of the carbon tax from the Australian economy. But if it is just replaced by another costly scheme, most of the benefits will be undone.
2 Abolish the Department of Climate Change
3 Abolish the Clean Energy Fund
4 Repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act
5 Abandon Australia’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council
6 Repeal the renewable energy target
7 Return income taxing powers to the states
8 Abolish the Commonwealth Grants Commission
9 Abolish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
10 Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol
11 Introduce fee competition to Australian universities
12 Repeal the National Curriculum
13 Introduce competing private secondary school curriculums
14 Abolish the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
15 Eliminate laws that require radio and television broadcasters to be ‘balanced’
16 Abolish television spectrum licensing and devolve spectrum management to the common law
17 End local content requirements for Australian television stations
18 Eliminate family tax benefits
19 Abandon the paid parental leave scheme
20 Means-test Medicare
21 End all corporate welfare and subsidies by closing the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
22 Introduce voluntary voting
23 End mandatory disclosures on political donations
24 End media blackout in final days of election campaigns
25 End public funding to political parties
26 Remove anti-dumping laws
27 Eliminate media ownership restrictions
28 Abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board
29 Eliminate the National Preventative Health Agency
30 Cease subsidising the car industry
31 Formalise a one-in, one-out approach to regulatory reduction
32 Rule out federal funding for 2018 Commonwealth Games
33 Deregulate the parallel importation of books
34 End preferences for Industry Super Funds in workplace relations laws
35 Legislate a cap on government spending and tax as a percentage of GDP
36 Legislate a balanced budget amendment which strictly limits the size of budget deficits and the period the federal government can be in deficit
37 Force government agencies to put all of their spending online in a searchable database
38 Repeal plain packaging for cigarettes and rule it out for all other products, including alcohol and fast food
39 Reintroduce voluntary student unionism at universities
40 Introduce a voucher scheme for secondary schools
41 Repeal the alcopops tax
42 Introduce a special economic zone in the north of Australia including:
a) Lower personal income tax for residents
b) Significantly expanded 457 Visa programs for workers
c) Encourage the construction of dams
43 Repeal the mining tax
44 Devolve environmental approvals for major projects to the states
45 Introduce a single rate of income tax with a generous tax-free threshold
46 Cut company tax to an internationally competitive rate of 25 per cent
47 Cease funding the Australia Network
48 Privatise Australia Post
49 Privatise Medibank
50 Break up the ABC and put out to tender each individual function
51 Privatise SBS
52 Reduce the size of the public service from current levels of more than 260,000 to at least the 2001 low of 212,784
53 Repeal the Fair Work Act
54 Allow individuals and employers to negotiate directly terms of employment that suit them
55 Encourage independent contracting by overturning new regulations designed to punish contractors
56 Abolish the Baby Bonus
57 Abolish the First Home Owners’ Grant
58 Allow the Northern Territory to become a state
59 Halve the size of the Coalition front bench from 32 to 16
60 Remove all remaining tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade
61 Slash top public servant salaries to much lower international standards, like in the United States
62 End all public subsidies to sport and the arts
63 Privatise the Australian Institute of Sport
64 End all hidden protectionist measures, such as preferences for local manufacturers in government tendering
65 Abolish the Office for Film and Literature Classification
66 Rule out any government-supported or mandated internet censorship
67 Means test tertiary student loans
68 Allow people to opt out of superannuation in exchange for promising to forgo any government income support in retirement
69 Immediately halt construction of the National Broadband Network and privatise any sections that have already been built
70 End all government funded Nanny State advertising
71 Reject proposals for compulsory food and alcohol labelling
72 Privatise the CSIRO
73 Defund Harmony Day
74 Close the Office for Youth
75 Privatise the Snowy-Hydro Scheme
Really they must be in need of mental therapy. I can suggest a good practitioner.
Small Government and Cheap Labour #notfittogovern
“Small Government” is the central defining right-wing slogan. And yes, it’s all about “Cheap Labour”. Using this ideology, the Cheap-Labour ideologue paints himself as a defender of “freedom” against “Big Government Tyranny”.
But the Cheap-Labour Conservative isn’t really interested in “freedom”. What he wants is the “Privatised Tyranny” of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is – you guessed it – “Cheap-Labour”.
Is the pattern becoming clearer? These Cheap-Labour Liberals have no problem at all opening the public purse for corporate interests. It’s “Social Spending” on people who actually need assistance that they just “can’t tolerate”.
And now you know why. Destitute people work Cheaper, while a harsh police state keeps them suitably terrorised.
Included within the slogan “Small Government” is the whole Conservative set of assumptions about the nature of the “Free Market” and government’s role in that market. In fact, the whole “Public sector/Private sector” distinction is an invention of the Cheap-Labour Liberals. They say that the Private sector exists outside and independently of the Public sector. The Public sector, according to Cheap-Labour ideology, can only interfere with the Private sector, and that such interference is inefficient and unprincipled.
In fact, the whole idea that the Private sector is independent of the Public sector is totally bogus. In fact, “the market” is created by public laws, public institutions and public infrastructure.
For proof, you need only look at exactly what constitutes “Big Government Tyranny” and what doesn’t. It turns out that Cheap-Labour Liberals are BIG supporters of the most oppressive and heavy handed actions the government takes.
Sounds to me like the Cheap-Labour Liberals have a peculiar definition of “Freedom”.
What do these guys consider to be “tyranny”? That’s easy. Take a look:
• Cheap-Labour Liberals must always have a “Surplus” – Sell off every “Public” owned asset until they achieve their “Surplus” – or until there is NOTHING left to sell.
• “Social Spending”, otherwise known as Redistribution, is classed as “Age of Entitlement”. While they don’t mind tax dollars being used for killing people in wars for oil, using their taxes to feed people is “stealing”.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals have fought against every piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, including the eight hour day, annual leave, sick leave, OHS regulations, and even Child Labour laws.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals are hell bent on destroying Labour Unions, who “extort” employers by collectively bargaining.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals cut Federal support and diminish Federal standards for public education.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals completely ignore or bypass Environmental regulations and the EPA.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals mock Civil rights legislation. There are still Cheap-Labour Liberals today, who are staunch defenders of the “White Australia Policy”. Apparently, Federal laws ending Segregation and Racial Discrimination were “tyranny”, but segregation itself was not.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals are petrified of the Truth – Unlike Commercial Broadcasting, Public Broadcasting deals in the truth– The ABC and SBS, which are virtually the only source for Real News, High class Documentaries, Music and Theatre, are a threat to their Propaganda. This from the people constantly braying about the decay of “The Culture”.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals support every Right-Wing Authoritarian Hoodlum in the third world.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals support foreign assassinations, covert intervention in foreign countries, and every other “Black Bag” and “False Flag” operation they can dream up, even against constitutional governments, elected by the people of those countries.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals want all the military force we can stand to pay for and never saw a weapons system they didn’t like.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals – you know, the ones who believe in “Freedom” – say our crime problem is because – get this – we’re too “Permissive”. How exactly do you set up a “Free” society that isn’t “Permissive”?
• Cheap-Labour Liberals complain about the “handcuffing the police” and giving “rights to criminals”. It never occurs to them, that our criminal justice system is set up to protect innocent citizens from abuses or just plain mistakes by government officials – you know, the ones who can’t do anything right
• Cheap-Labour Liberals support the “get tough” and “lock ’em up” approach to virtually every social problem in the spectrum. In fact, it’s the only approach they support. As for the ever increasing gaol population – they say our justice system is “too lenient”.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals support “domestic surveillance” against “subversives” – where “subversive” means “everybody but them”.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals, the big believers in “freedom”, think it’s the government’s business if you smoke a joint or sleep with somebody of your own gender.
• Cheap-Labour Liberals support our new offshore “Concentration Camps”. They also support these “secret tribunals” and “secret evidence” and draft new inhumane legislation to inflict even more pain and suffering on human beings fleeing persecution from their governments. Then label Labor and The Greens as “Stalinists” for demanding the release of children from these hell holes.
• And let’s not forget this perennial item on the agenda. Cheap-Labour Liberals want to “Protect our National Symbol” from “Desecration”. Of course, it is they who desecrate the flag every time they wave it to support their Cheap-Labour Liberals. [Ouch! That was one of those “hits” you can hear up in the “nosebleed” seats
See the pattern? Cheap-Labour Liberals support every coercive and oppressive function of government, but call it “tyranny” if government does something for you – using their money, for Christ sake.
Australia, don’t become America.
December 23, 2014A few months before the 2013 Election, I posted what (I hope) is the main image for this post. It was called Liberal Excuses Bingo, and while it could be debated that the card is full, we certainly have enough of them in row to shout “Bingo”!
Not that this a good thing.
But I notice that one of the first acts of the new SS Minister, Mr Morrison, is to cut funding to homeless groups. But we should be fair here. Obviously this has been in the pipeline for some time and it’s merely been announced now because – three days before Christmas – this is the appropriate time. After all, the Christmas narrative does involve a man, a pregnant woman and an ass who found there was no room at the inn and if it was good enough for Jesus to be homeless surely it should be good enough for you!
Mr Morrison declared his Christian beliefs with his maiden speech to Parliament and I suspect he’s trying to make many of us more of like Jesus. Or else he thinks we’re more like the ass. Whichever, he’s an “extremely decent man”, Mr Abbott assured us. After all, he “has two children”, which is a sure sign of decency. Although Mr Abbott also said that Mr Morrison knew what it was like to struggle with a mortgage, which suggests to me that a certain lack of financial acumen. After all, we all need to live between our means and not go “putting things on the credit card”, and the word “struggle” suggests that he may have borrowed more than he should have. (While some may argue that a mortgage isn’t the same thing as putting things on the credit card, they’re probably the same ones who argue that when governments borrow money at 3% that’s not the same as putting something on the credit card.)
Whatever, the Cabinet re-shuffle is a work of genius! I know this because I read it in the paper somewhere. By changing a handful of positions, the government should function much better.
As someone else said, 2014 was Abbott’s year of a horrible anus – or something like that. It began to go badly sometime around the time that the Liberals started to realise that they were, in fact, governing the country and that they’d have to start making some decisions.
The first decision was to remind us that only some promises could be kept because, well, you can’t do everything. And, although some people had tried to scaremonger before the election by pointing out that you couldn’t get rid of the Carbon Tax(?)/Price Signal(?), while keeping the tax breaks and compensation, this scaremongering did have a grain of truth to it, so they might as well get down to business and declare that they would boldly go where Labor didn’t: The Liberals had three main promises and we were to judge them on these:
Whatever, I’m content in the knowlege that when they said “no cuts”, what they claerly meant was “no cuts” before they were elected, and that they’re a party who doesn’t make promises that they won’t be able to keep, and that one day they’ll have the Budget back in the black because that was one of the major promises. You know, one of the ones that counted.
By the way, in the Liberal Christmas pantomime, who gets to play the ass?
Just in case it’s missing. (Click on image to enlarge)
Bob Day and David Leyonhjelm – Are they our very first American styled ‘Busines-Elect’ Senators?
Notwithstanding all this government has done towards implementing its agenda, the IPA is still not satisfied. There are more items on its lists of aims and, as Roskam says, they’re continuing to “hold Abbott’s feet to the fire”.
Front organisations –
The other way the IPA gets its message out is through front organisations, such as the Australian Environment Foundation. It was publicly launched on World Environment Day, June 5, 2005, as a “membership-based environmental organisation having no political affiliation”. One which would take an “evidence-based”, “practical” approach to green issues.
In fact, two of its directors were IPA staff, including executive director Mike Nahan, now the treasurer in Western Australia’s Liberal government. For its first two years, the AEF shared the IPA’s postal address.
It was actually an anti-environment group. It opposed new marine parks and plans to increase environmental water flows in the Murray-Darling Basin, and supported Tasmanian woodchipping, genetically modified foods. Above all, it promoted the work of climate change deniers.
Currently the AEF is engaged in lobbying the World Heritage Committee in support of the Abbott government’s plan to de-list parts of the Tasmanian forests.
These days, the IPA denies any formal ongoing relationship, but IPA members regularly speak at AEF events and the AEF’s head, Max Rheese, remains an IPA stalwart.
There are other examples, such as the Owner Drivers’ Association, which purports to represent the interests of independent contractors in the transport industry. In reality, says Tony Sheldon, National Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, the ODA has consistently campaigned against laws improving working conditions and safety for drivers.
A driving force behind the ODA was Bob Day, an alumnus of both the IPA and another right-wing think tank, the Centre for Independent Studies. He is particularly interesting for he is now a senator. Not for the Liberals, but for the Family First Party.
Day and David Leyonhjelm, who was elected as a Liberal Democrat, are both “long-term IPA members” who Roskam expects to be “a breath of fresh air” in the parliament.
Which is to say, they represent the right-wing, libertarian views of the institute even more faithfully than the Liberal Party itself.
Not only have the IPA’s front organisations now penetrated the federal parliament, they will be crucial to the passage of the Abbott government’s legislation through the senate.
Notwithstanding all this government has done towards implementing its agenda, the IPA is still not satisfied. There are more items on its lists of aims and, as Roskam says, they’re continuing to “hold Abbott’s feet to the fire”.
For the IPA, the concern is that this government is not tough enough.
#BlockSupply #DoubleDissolution #NotFitToGovern #TheWilkieWay
The Real News Channel Australian Labor Party The Australian Greens The Saturday Paper
olddogthoughts 
You must be logged in to post a comment.