Monday 31 March 2014

Why have a royal tour in the middle of a 'budget emergency'?

Why have a royal tour in the middle of a 'budget emergency'?



Why have a royal tour in the middle of a 'budget emergency'?

Barry Everingham 1 April 2014, 9:00am 
0
Delicious Add


(Image by John Graham / johngraham.alphalink.com.au)


We're broke, says nominal Australian republican Joe
Hockey – in a "budget emergency" – so why did we decide to have an
expensive royal tour, asks senior correspondent Barry Everingham.




There is no doubt that the upcoming Federal Budget will contain some
surprises and we are being warned for the worst. Joe Hockey wants us to
tighten our belts — all of us.




So, dare we ask where  the millions of dollars will be coming from
our ardently anglophile Prime Minister will be spending when Wills and
Kate, and baby boy George, and their enormous retinue, arrive here in about a weeks’ time.




Disclaimer now.



Readers will know I have been covering Britain’s royal family for
over four decades and, in that time, I have met many of them and even
got to know a few of them. I have had a few conversations with the Queen
and, on a good day, she can be witty and even interested in what’s
being said to her. I have never met William or Kate but, I am happy and
honoured to say, I knew William’s mother quite well and, although she
was a troubled woman, she had a heart as big as all outdoors.




Now, before David Flint and his boy offsider – the pompous Jai Martinkovits
– get all upset, let me tell them when an accredited reporter covers a
royal tour, the royal concerned has a media reception at the start of
the tour and, David and Jai – I hate to upset you boys – but I have even
met the Queen privately in a few private homes.




So there!



I have never met William and Kate – or little boy George, for that
matter – but I know people who know them well and they have nothing but
good to say about them.




So, on with the motley now — the royal tour.



Obviously, Abbott is obsessed with the royals and that insane obsession carries over to anything British.





His really gooney un-Australian unilateral decision to reinstate knighthoods and damehoods in the 21st
century beggars belief. If I thought I would get a reply, I’d phone his
press office and ask when the curtsey will be made mandatory.




Even that wily old monarchist John Howard laughed at the restoration of 19th century titles but the  two-faced old bastard had no compunction in taking an OM from the Queen as pay back for stuffing up the Republic referendum.



Readers  may be interested to know precisely what this tour will cost and indeed why is taking place?



Firstly, the cost of planes, cars, accommodation for the 90 or so  staff and hangers on who will accompany them will be staggering but most of it covered up in fiscal manipulation.



Second — and this is really disgusting.



Tradition has it that the royals coming here – not only William and
Kate, but any other official royal visit – are asked what they would
like as reminder of their visit.




They  tell us what they intend giving us for having them (as any
guest usually does) and then – wait for it – we pay for that gift they
give to us!




Ridiculous? Absurd?





Of course. But no more absurdly ridiculous than asking them to make the tour in the first place.



It is hard to believe that William, or even little George, will ever
be kings of Australia and there is a possibility that England might be a
republic before us. There is evidence  that many Poms have had a gutful of keeping  that family afloat.




William will need to wait for Charles to die before he is crowned and
George will be in line after William. Longevity is the keynote of the
German genes, which course through their veins and the Queen Mother’s
Scottish gin-soaked blood is there as well to keep things going.




So we can only guess what was going on in what passes for Abbott’s mind. 



The treatment  he metes  out to asylum seekers would make most fair
minded people sick — including even, I would think, the Queen herself,
who is known for her compassion for the underdog.




Thousands of Australians will cheer and wave to the couple why they
stampede around the country as, indeed, they would for a pair of young
good looking celebrities which, at the end of the day, is all they are —
celebrities, who happen to be royal.




So again, at whose expense will this tour come?



Whose public services will be cut in Joe Hockey's confected "budget emergency" to ensure this charade takes place?





TPP a ‘high quality’ agreement — for multinationals

TPP a ‘high quality’ agreement — for multinationals



TPP a ‘high quality’ agreement — for multinationals



Why so secret? (Image via 350.org)


DFAT held a public consultation about the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership last week, but didn’t reveal much apart from saying it would be good for business. Dr Matt Mitchell reports.



AT THE Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT) in Melbourne last week, a stakeholder meeting was held concerning the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).



On the opening slide, attendees were informed that the TPP will be a “high quality” trade agreement. However, it appears that what DFAT means is “high quality” for corporations, not the community.



When asked by what measure would the TPP be “high quality”, attendees were told:



“… because it reduces tariffs.”




Well, reducing tariffs may or may not be a good thing, depending on
what you want to achieve. But it seems that the question of what is best
for Australia has disappeared from the thinking of the department.




Simply ticking off outcomes from long-standing corporate wish lists
is sufficient both as an aim and a justification for any decision. No
need to bother questioning these objectives or prerogatives in light of
the lessons of previous agreements involving investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), such as the current Phillip-Morris case against Australia.




In this case, Phillip Morris is using the ISDS provisions of
different trade agreement to challenge the Australian Government's
ability to legislate health laws — despite the Australian High Court
having already ruled on this. 




If, in fact, the outcome is in any way high quality for the community, then it will be by accident rather than design.



In 2010, the Productivity Commission investigated high quality processes for trade agreements, and such processes invariably involve transparency and openness.



Transparency is entirely lacking in the TPP process. This is
especially concerning when the leaked documents reveal that the TPP is granting special rights to corporations.




DFAT seems to be expected a high quality outcome from a fifth-rate process.



In fact, the DFAT negotiators who ran the meeting seemed to dedicate
their answers to defending the process and the TPP in general. More to
the point, one got the impression that they had somehow been seconded
into the service of the multinational corporations behind the TPP.




Corporations are reportedly co-authoring the TPP text [here is a list of the 605 corporations who can see the text]
whilst the Australian community is shut-out — their voices and concerns
met by bland and evasive corporate legalese spouted by the DFAT
negotiators.




It appears that there is absolutely no chance of any of the community's concerns being considered.



For example, when asked about nasty elements of the leaked environment chapter, the negotiators response was, in essence:



“We will not talk about leaked text, which may or may not be in the TPP.”




Before the change of government, the negotiators' position was easier
— they could confidently say ISDS was not on the table for Australia.
Now, however, it is a “bargaining chip”.




When asked what sort of things ISDS might be traded for, the negotiators would not say.



In effect, this amounts to a complete shut-out of the community in
relation to an issue that will affect future Australian sovereignty,
possibly for generations. How can you possible call such a meeting a “stakeholder consultation” when the most important issues cannot be discussed at even the most basic and abstract levels?




Nevertheless, the negotiators defended DFAT's position by claiming
that over 700 consultation meetings had been held to date. The number
may have well been 70,000 — it would make make no difference; the
quantity is not important when there is no substantive engagement
offered nor available.




So how have we ended up in this situation? One where public servants,
drawing on the public purse, and expected to act in Australia's best
interest are instead defending the positions of corporations in relation
to trade? They are defending a corporate-designed process intended to
hoodwink and bamboozle the public — not just in Australia, but all the
TPP partner nations.






This undemocratic and corrupt process is also being aided and abetted
by our elected representatives (or supposedly representative).




That we could have arrived at this point and have public servants and
politicians actively deceiving the Australian people as part of
excluding Australians from meaningful debate about important national
issues just beggars belief. It proves how corrupted by corporate power
and money our entire political system and public service has become.




As a result, Australians cannot act to reduce carbon emissions; we cannot save the Barrier Reef; we struggle to protect our land from coal seam gas fracking; we are exposed to dangerously high levels of concentrated ownership in industries ranging from media, to finance, to food manufacture and retail [read about our supermarket duopoly here].



Massive companies and multinational organisations dominate all these
areas and more, eliminating small-players and silencing or drowning out
small and critical voices.




At the same time, rafts of experts from the UN to the IPCC
are warning that we must move towards decentralisation and more natural
systems in relation to the most important industry of all — food
production.




The UK Department for International Development recently produced a report that states:



‘Trade liberalisation will not bring the expected development
benefits when agricultural markets do not function competitively. An
associated risk is a polarisation of agribusiness and small-scale
farming systems.’





This is consistent with the Australian Productivity Commission's 2010 warnings about the benefits of trade agreements being overstated and based on poor modelling.



Extreme as it may seem, perhaps the only way now to save our democracy, our natural environment and, given the imminent food crisis, our own skins, is to break-up the multinationals. 





I am not the first to propose this.



Respected political U.S. commentator Thom Hartmann suggested this in March last year.



Hartmann argues that corporations should never have been let get so big in the first place, then adds:



“It's time to break up the big companies, from banks to retail
chains to telecom groups, bring mom and pop shops back to Main Street
USA, and kick competition killing duopolies and oligarchies out of the
American marketplace.”





Forced corporate break-ups are not new, they have happened before.
Rockefeller's Standard Oil was considered too big and was broken up
under the United States' Sherman Act — an anti-trust (anti-monopoly) law.




I am suggesting that Australia, and ideally other nations, should act to break up the multinationals.



I am no corporate lawyer, but in Australia, perhaps it could work
something like this: any company above a certain market capitalisation
must break up and sell off its Australian operations, and in such a way
that the parent company, or the parent's major shareholders, cannot own
shares in its former parts. The new, smaller companies can still produce
and sell Ford motor cars, or Nestlé products, but under licence from
the parent, not as a wholly or partly owned subsidiary. 




I can see no other way to free our society and our lives from the
blight of large corporations, which have corrupted our political system,
are privatising all our public assets and services and are reshaping
Australia and our lives in their own lifeless and inhuman image.




Postscript



On March 5th, the Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson introduced the Trade and Foreign Investment (Protecting the Public Interest) Act 2014 into the Senate.



The purpose of the Bill is to protect Australian laws by banning
provisions that enable foreign investors to sue governments if domestic
laws ‘harm’ their investment — known as ISDS.




AFTINET (Australian Fair
Trade and Investment Network) has been asked to supply some points and
references for people and organisations who want to make submissions.






Sunday 30 March 2014

If you want my vote

If you want my vote

If you want my vote

Image courtesy of facebook.com
Image courtesy of facebook.com
In this guest post contriteshadow tells us why
she participated in the March in March. More than just being one of the
tens of thousands who marched simply to express a dislike of the Abbott
Government, she marched because of the the social and community issues
that concern her. They are issues worth voting for.



I am an Australian voter.


Other than that, I don’t think there is anything extraordinary about
me. I didn’t finish college. I am not rich, by this country’s standards,
and do not seek fame. I have an ordinary job, and been with the same
employer since 1989. I’ve (with my husband) raised two kids to adults
that I’m proud to claim as part of my loving family. I’ve been married,
for almost thirty years, to the only man I’ve ever been in love with;
the best man I know. I’m not suffering. I have, of course, but that was
so long ago it’s no longer even a painful memory. I’m not religious, but
don’t have a problem if you are, so long as you offer me the same
courtesy. Though I always vote, I’m not affiliated with any party, and
would be shocked to hear the word “political” used to describe me…mostly
“nice”, I suspect. I have a good life; economically, emotionally,
physically, spiritually. Seriously, I have no complaints. I’m happy. And
the last time I publicly protested anything, I was a minor.



So, if I’m not suffering and have spent a lifetime avoiding the
spotlight, why did I “MarchInMarch”? My reasons are, in no particular
order:



EDUCATION: Though I haven’t bothered to achieve a tertiary education,
I want every single child in this country to have that chance; not just
the ones who have money to spare or live near a major city. If children
(some of them made their own protest placards) can work out that
decent, affordable education is a necessity that should be a right in
this country, surely the rest of us can, too?



ASYLUM SEEKERS: Though I will never, I sincerely hope, know the horror of war, famine or violent persecution, I would never
refuse to help someone who has. Yes, quarantine asylum seekers while
their needs and refugee status are assessed, but do so with compassion,
not cruelty. And, in the name of common decency, do so for a finite
period of time. You know things are bad when China (globally infamous
for human rights violations) has criticized this country, my “lucky”
country, for their treatment of refugees. Just do it better; that’s all
I’m asking. Oh, if you approved of “Stop the boats”, look into how much
extra it’s costing to have them processed overseas; you’re paying for
it.



HOMELESS: Though I’ve never been homeless, I know that fellow
countrymen—yes; women and children, too—endure such hardship, because I
occasionally see them living near my house. If you stop to chat with
them, you might meet me; I’m the one bringing them food, clothing and
bedding. Not because a god is compelling me, or a government paying me,
but because I cannot do otherwise. None of the few displaced people I’ve
met have chosen that life (as our Prime Minister once suggested), and
they gratefully accept the first opportunity to get out of that
desperate situation.



MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Though I’m not gay, I am furious and mystified by
the fact that, in this century, homosexuals (and the relevant initials) still
do not have the same rights as other voters; refused (by law)
permission to marry or adopt. And, no matter how else they’ve conducted
themselves throughout their lives, being gay is enough that, in the
twilight of their years, they might (again, legally) be refused aged
care. This one is particularly painful for me, because one of my
brothers is gay and just about the sweetest guy you could ever meet.
Yes, he marched; for “equal rights”. Look at those words. Does it seem
like a lot to ask?



CLIMATE CHANGE: Though I am not a scientist, I can read. So, when I learn that an overwhelming
majority of the entire world’s scientists believe climate change is the
biggest problem facing this planet, and that humans can reduce the
severity of it, I paid attention. Apparently, our elected leader doesn’t
agree. That doesn’t bother you? You don’t have children, who might have
children, who will almost (a little skepticism is a good thing)
certainly inherit the disastrous consequences of our reckless actions?
It scares the shit out of me, and I’m not often afraid.



INDIGENOUS RIGHTS: (My sincere apologies, that I neglected to add
this to my placard. The fact that you’re used to being ignored does not
excuse my oversight.) Though most of my ancestors are buried in a
different country, I respect and admire our indigenous population; not
all of them, obviously. That would be folly. But many of them set an
example I’m proud to emulate, and I’m glad they received an official
apology from our elected representative. I’m just ashamed that they continue
to suffer; marginalized in their own homeland. Yes; shame. That’s what I
feel about his subject. I’m not used to that feeling, but perhaps I should get used to it.



MILITARY FAMILIES: Though I have not fought in a war, and never
intend to, I am proud of our armed forces; competently doing what they
can to protect me, my country and the idea of democratic freedom. They
deserve our respect and, as a small token of that respect, they deserve
money from our pockets. Here’s that shame feeling again when I remember
that children of fallen soldiers are now getting less compensation for
that staggering loss, for which there can be no real compensating.
Moving on, before I weep . . .



NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK (NBN): Though I have fast, affordable
internet, not every Australian does. It’s 2014, right? Yet in a first
(?) world country like Australia, access to fast, affordable internet is
at least partly determined by geography. In remote areas (of course,
most of this country), the only option for many is the foreign owned
Foxtel. Would you want your access to information determined by those
who don’t even live here? I sure as hell wouldn’t, and I don’t expect
anyone else to have to put up with it, either.



HEALTHCARE: Though I am healthy—rarely even visiting my GP—I know
that some voters struggle with illness or injury for extended periods of
time; some their entire life. Of course money is going to determine
your level of health care; not an easy fact to face, but a fact
nonetheless. And I’m realistic enough to accept that. But, at the very
least, every single Australian—impoverished and wealthy—should…no, must have access to adequate care. No cuts to healthcare, as promised; that’s all I’m asking.



AUSTRALIAN MINING, AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (ABC),
AUSTRALIA POST, TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP (TPP): I know; a lot of
titles, and I did some serious pruning to limit it to these few. And
they basically boils down to one concern; how much of Australian’s
businesses are now, or will become, foreign owned and/or influenced. I,
personally, don’t have a problem with the incredibly wealthy. I’m doing
quite well, thank you, and don’t fear becoming poor. I’ve been there and
it wasn’t so bad. And I’m all for diversity and global trade; genuinely
believe we’d be worse off without it. However, I have a big problem
with someone sitting in another country having a say in what happens
here. You think they don’t? Then you haven’t been paying attention.
There are other concerns within this one, about the dangers of
privatizing businesses that, by their very nature, need to serve the
average Australian. But, given how things are going, I’m not sure the
average Australian cares.



FOREIGN AFFAIRS: I was quiet while the current government (either
deliberately or obliviously; both are sins when you run a country)
damaged relations with our nearest (geographically speaking) neighbours.
But it was a young friend of mine in Canada who made me realize how bad
things have become, via a throwaway comment about Australia becoming a
worldwide joke. With, at the time what I thought was justified national
pride, I retaliated . . . also with gentleness and humor; see above,
“nice”. But she’s right, and things have deteriorated since then.
Perhaps my concern for asylum seekers will soon become redundant; if we
upset enough foreign leaders, maybe no one will bother trying to seek
refuge here.



ANIMAL WELFARE: Though I don’t expect any fellow human to put the
welfare of other (yes, we’re animals, too) animals above that of men,
women and children, I ask only that you not treat the creatures you eat
with barbaric cruelty while they’re alive. If we must have live animal
export (and I still don’t understand why), please do so with compassion.
In case you’re wondering, I’m a vegetarian, partly on compassionate
grounds, but don’t expect or even ask anyone to follow my example. I’ll
even cook you a lamb roast if you visit. Improvements have been made on
this issue. But, as my brother often reminds me, just because things
could be worse, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be better.



WOMEN: I’m not ostentatiously feminine or feminist. When I was
ordered, at the age of ten, to never play footy with my (male)
classmates again, I—though mystified—calmly accepted that decision.
After all, I was a child, and one raised to believe that an adult’s word
is law . . . though I’m not sure it was, even then. When I was declared
ineligible to join my small (very small) town’s cricket team, on the
grounds that one of the men might get hit in the groin and be
embarrassed if a young woman was on the field, I smiled and took on the
challenge of tallying the score for them instead. Every time a colleague
is overtly sexist, I quietly and politely (perhaps a mistake) call them
on it, and they apologise; it’s been working pretty well for me. But
when the elected leader of our country says—actually says—that women are
inherently incapable of achieving the same as a man, that “withholding
sex” is a right that needs to be moderated, visibly and actively
supports a blatantly sexist campaign against an opponent, and is now in
charge of whether or not I get an abortion, it becomes an issue worthy
of space on a protest placard. Again, in case you’re wondering on this
polarizing issue, I cannot imagine a scenario in which I’d choose an
abortion, but I would brave the barricades with you if you made that
choice.



ENVIRONMENT: You’re curious what that one other protest was against?
The Franklin Dam project in Tasmania. I know, even though I was not yet
old enough to vote at the time, some will read that and think “another
left-wing radical”. But I’m just as likely to vote right-wing, if their
campaign sways me…though I liked the old Liberal Party more than this
Coalition Party, but I understand why they did that. Anyway, my
simplified point on this issue is that, if we don’t think before
destroying vast swathes of old growth forest, this wide, brown land will
get browner. I almost went with “I can’t believe we’re still protesting
this shit” as my placard, but there are fresh issues exclusive to our
current government that urgently need addressing . . . even so, I can’t
believe we’re still protesting this shit. Just like with most of these
issues, there’s heaps more to be said on this subject, but a couple of
minutes and a browser window will find people better qualified to do so.



MEDIA BIAS: This one is a new concern of mine; since I marched, in
fact. Of course I’ve heard this cry for—to be completely honest—decades.
But, until I marched with tens of thousands of other voters, didn’t
know that this particular “whinge” was justified. And the frustrating
thing is, now that I know about it, what can I do with that information?
If you were at the marches, you’d already know what I’m talking about.
And, if you weren’t, and miraculously heard about them anyway, there’s
no way you’d believe me . . . I didn’t, until I saw it with my own eyes.
Has it always been this bad, though; journalists using colleagues’
coverage as their only apparent source of information? They’re in the
business, so they must know that a report is rarely the whole truth. I’m
not ashamed about this, I’m embarrassed; of them and for them. Anyway,
enough on that; we no longer need them.



So now you know some of the domestic issues that concern this
ordinary Australian. I cannot give you one issue I care about the most,
because I care about them all. And I am (as accused by several
dissenters) asking for a handout, but not for myself, just for those who
need it. And I acknowledge (as did my extremely polite placard, which
never made it into any news report) that not all of our many problems
can be laid at the feet of our current government; they’re just not
helping, and (I believe) actually making things worse . . . and don’t
they seem in a bloody big hurry to do so? That’s why I joined my second ever
protest march, only months into this current government’s reign;
they’re clearly trying very hard to quickly achieve an agenda that was
kept from us at the last election.



And I’m not suggesting that you vote for the only other real option
in a two party political system . . . research that term, if you haven’t
already. I’m just asking you, begging you, to remember that the only
real power we have is at the polling booth. Think, read, ask (“How?” and
“Why?” are excellent places to start) and, above all, insist that your
(because it’s no one else’s choice) candidate is worthy of your vote.
And don’t stop doing so, even if it seems like you’re not making a
difference. This is a democracy; only you can make a difference.



This articled was first published on contriteshadow’s  blog as “Why did I MarchinMarch?”

What's there to crow about?

What's there to crow about?



What’s there to crow about?

TonyTony
Abbott is gleefully crowing about “100+ days without a boat”. What Mr
Abbott seems oblivious to is that he has closed yet another door on
people fleeing persecution and human rights abuses in places like Myanmar and Sri Lanka.
The Taliban just fired rockets at the Electoral Office in Afghanistan
so the upcoming election doesn’t look like it will make everything
tickety poo over there either. Things don’t seem to be getting any
better in Syria though the government haven’t done any mass gassings
lately, not in the open anyway.



And it isn’t as if we have increased our humanitarian intake or
processed any of the people already being illegally held in detention.
This has cost us a fortune, subjected our navy to allegations of abuse,
seen us internationally condemned, caused enormous mental and physical
harm to vulnerable people, and Australian guards are now implicated in
the death of a man who was under their protection. Yet this is supposed
to be a success?



Tony’s team are also pushing very hard for the repeal of the carbon
tax but it is becoming harder and harder to drown out the chorus of
condemnation for such an act from world leaders, the UN, climate change
bodies, scientists, economists and the citizens of the world. He accused
the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change, Christiana Figueres, of “talking through her hat”, and said he
doesn’t want to “clutter up” the G20 agenda with talk about climate
change. Can you imagine how that was received?



Blatantly sacking scientists and advisory bodies to appoint climate
change deniers to every position might allow you to fool people in
Australia in the very short term. It will not change the science. This
headless chicken (Prince Charles) flat earth (Barak Obama) denial is
wasting precious time and shows us globally as unwilling to do our bit –
something Australians have always been respected for in the past.



The Senate inquiry into the Direct Action Plan has released its
findings and they are damning. If this process is to have any
credibility, the Coalition must drop this idea and agree to move to an
ETS with higher targets for emission reduction and renewable energy. It
is what every expert recommends, especially the economists.



Greg Hunt must be the only Minister for the Environment who would be
bragging about approving billions of dollars of new coal mining and port
expansion which will unquestionably lead to the degradation of one of
the world’s greatest natural wonders. He has also advocated the removal
of marine park legislation to allow for commercial fishing, removal of
world heritage listing to allow for logging, and the building of dams in
our ecologically sensitive pristine North. With an Environment Minister
like that, who needs natural disasters?



And then there is the mining tax. On the 7:30 report, Abbott claimed
that the mining and carbon taxes were partly to blame for BHP Billiton’s
decision to delay the expansion of its huge Olympic Dam mine despite
the fact that Marius Kloppers said it had nothing to do with the mining
tax which doesn’t even apply to the copper, uranium or gold extracted
from the site.



Mining profits worldwide have slumped by half since 2011 as the
mining boom comes off its highs according to a report by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers which says that higher costs, more writedowns and
fluctuating commodity prices have hit the fortunes of the top 40 mining
companies including BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto.



PwC Australia’s head of energy and mining, Jock O’Callaghan, says the possible repeal of the mining tax in Australia is unlikely to have much impact on Australia’s appeal to investors. Not surprisingly, the government has failed to take note of this advice.


Mr O’Callaghan says he expects more mines to close, including in
Australia. “Certainly if we see a further downturn in commodity prices
that is going to put more pressure on marginal mines,” he said. “There
is no denying that and again that is not just an Australian phenomena.”



As Ross Gittins explains,


“For the income earned by an industry to generate jobs in
Australia, it has to be spent in Australia. And our mining industry is
about 80 per cent foreign-owned. For our economy and our workers to
benefit adequately from the exploitation of our natural endowment by
mainly foreign companies, our government has to ensure it gets a fair
whack of the economic rents those foreigners generate.



Because Labor so foolishly allowed the big three foreign miners to
redesign the tax, they chose to get all their deductions up-front. Once
those deductions are used up, the tax will become a big earner. Long
before then, however, Tony Abbott will have rewarded the Liberal Party’s
foreign donors by abolishing the tax.



This will be an act of major fiscal vandalism, of little or no benefit to the economy and at great cost to job creation.”

Mining currently employs about 2.4% of our workforce but this is set
to drop as they move into the less labour-intensive production phase. As
we saw during the GFC, they are not altruistic benefactors and have
little loyalty to their employees. According to Richard Denniss



“When commodity prices fell during the global financial
crisis the first thing the mining industry did was sack thousands of
their workers. Indeed, according to Treasury, if all industries had been
as quick to punt their employees as the mining industry the
unemployment rate would have hit 19 per cent rather than its peak of 5.9
per cent.”

Penny Wong described Abbott’s rhetoric regarding the mining tax as
“one of the most dishonest, self-interested fear campaigns that we have
seen in Australian politics” and I can only agree.



After saying there was no difference between Liberal and Labor on
education, we have seen billions cut with a backing away from the bulk
of the Gonski funding, the abolition of trades training centres, and
cuts to the before and after school care program despite childcare being
identified as far more important in improving productivity and
workforce participation than paid parental leave.



We have also seen the Coalition attempt to repeal Section 18c of the
Racial Discrimination Act in a bizarre attempt to “protect the rights of
bigots”. Countless journalists have said they have not felt constrained
in any way by this section of the act and do not see the need for its
repeal. This is purely and simply a pander to Andrew Bolt and Rupert
Murdoch. Promoting hatred under the name of free speech is a truly
cynical exercise which has left many Australians feeling very uneasy
about what is happening to our country.



According to the Coalition, our debt and deficit are a real problem
and spending must be reined in. While listening to a relentless barrage
softening us up for the cuts that are to come, we watch Tony Abbott
spend money hand over fist on his Paid Parental Leave scheme, orange
life rafts, unmanned drones, planes both for the Air Force and himself,
grants to polluters, gambling on the foreign exchange market, tax
concessions for the wealthy, subsidies to profitable mining companies,
marriage guidance counselling vouchers, and gifts to pollie pedal
sponsors.



With the rollout of the NBN in limbo, Malcolm Turnbull has admitted
that he cannot keep his pre-election promises. His inferior offering
will take much longer and cost much more than he led us to believe and
will be outdated before it is even completed.



Abbott’s rush to sign free trade agreements which include ISDS
clauses with all and sundry (No. 87 on the IPA’s wish list), has put our
nation at sovereign risk where we will risk being sued if we introduce
laws to protect our health and environment. It will almost certainly
lead to a huge increase in the cost of medicine as pharmaceutical
companies block the release of generic medicines, and a host of other
repercussions that we can only anticipate with dread.



We have the Social Services Minister, Kevin Andrews, winding back
gambling reforms and disbanding the oversight of charitable bodies. We
have the Environment Minister disbanding climate change advisory bodies
and removing environmental protection laws. We have the Health Minister
disbanding bodies like the Australian National Preventative Health
Agency, the Advisory Panel on Positive Ageing, the Alcohol and Other
Drugs Council of Australia, and attacking Medicare with offices closed
on Saturdays and co-payments likely. We have the Assistant Health
Minister blocking a healthy eating website and the Assistant Education
Minister asking childcare workers to give back their pay rise. In fact, I
cannot think of one act or one piece of proposed legislation that has
been in the best interest of the people of Australia.



With cuts to foreign aid, indigenous affairs, charities, and asylum
seeker advocacy groups, it is increasingly obvious that the vulnerable
can expect no protection or assistance from this government. They have
made their agenda patently clear. Buy a ticket on the Good Ship Rinehart
and lift with the rising tide, or be left to drown as the wealthy stand
on the shoulders of the poor to board the corporate gravy train.



Read Sally McManus’ list and weep.

The revival of imperial honours — Abbott’s Machiavellian wedge

The revival of imperial honours — Abbott’s Machiavellian wedge





The revival of imperial honours — Abbott’s Machiavellian wedge

Clint Howitt 26 March 2014, 8:00am  








Tony Abbott's abrupt decision to bring back imperial
honours has driven a wedge through the body politic from the vice-regal
office holders, through the rank and file members of all political
parties and through the voting public, writes
Clint Howitt.
YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AT YARRALUMLA, Tony Abbott had even more reason than usual for his trademark smirk.

His offer to the outgoing Governor General, Quentin Bryce, and to the
incoming Peter Cosgrove, of an obsolete title in Australia’s system of
honours is one of the most cynical moves we’ve seen from this
increasingly arrogant and reactionary government.


It is arrogant, because Abbott had categorically ruled out a return to Imperial Honours as late as December last year. He has now triumphantly and brazenly reinstated them.

After years of denouncing Julia Gillard for lying about the so-called
"carbon tax" (actually a carbon price) and making it the centrepiece of
his campaign against her, he has now successfully established himself
as a serial liar.


It is arrogant because it was another autocratic ‘leader’s call.’  It
came without warning, without public consultation. As such, it was an
affront to our democratic tradition.


It is arrogant because a British Honours system is irrelevant to the
increasing numbers of Australians who have no British heritage.


Likewise, it is reactionary because it puts Australia back 40 years.

It subverts the purely Australian system of honours instigated by Labor PM Gough Whitlam in 1975. The old system was eventually phased out at both federal and state level in the 80’s.

Now Abbott has reimposed an obsolete system of foreign honours over and above our distinctively Australian system.

While traditional honours may be part of the historical tradition of
European nations like Britain and France, they have no longer have any
place in Australia’s historical tradition.


The return to Imperial Honours, by definition, resurrects the
cringing sycophancy of a colonial mentality. It reverses the long march
towards the political independence of Australia’s political system from
our British ‘betters’ and colonial ‘masters.’


Presumably these honours will be awarded at a ceremony in Buckingham Palace.

Consider the symbolism of that event.

The world would see two Australian-born heads of state having archaic
and alien titles conferred on them by a monarch of another country. The
investiture would take place on foreign soil.


The person conferring the honours would have less power in her country than a Governor-General does in Australia, because of the Reserve Powers in our Constitution.

The world would see images of the person perceived as the de facto Australian head of state at the feet of a foreign ruler.

What does that say about the status of our highest office?

It re-establishes the umbilical ties of colonialism severed by Whitlam and returns us to an era of deferential forelock tugging.

Ultimately, it transports Australia back to the Dark Ages when
European feudal monarchs bestowed a tiered system of titles on their
henchmen as a reward for their subservience and loyalty.


You can’t get much more reactionary than that.

Abbott’s smirk was also the mark of a man mightily impressed by his
own political brilliance. It has been deliberately, but unnecessarily,
disruptive and divisive.


The Machiavellian nature of this move has driven a wedge through the
body politic from the vice-regal office holders, through the rank and
file members of all political parties and through the voting public.


It politicises the office of Governor-General. It has put both the
outgoing and incoming Governors-General in invidious positions. The role
of Governor-General is expected to be a uniting, apolitical role.


By accepting these obsolete honours, they are a making a political
statement, aligning themselves with the most conservative elements of a
right wing government.


If they did not accept them, they would be courting controversy. The
media would perceive them as having  taken a hostile political stance
against the elected government.


It is a particularly fraught dilemma for outgoing Governor-General Quentin Bryce. This offer was sprung on her without warning. She has already made her republican leanings clear.

Royal honours are anathema to republicans. By accepting the title of ‘Dame’ she now appears hypocritical.

If she hadn’t accepted, she would be snubbing the Prime Minister and a
new government on the very day that government is celebrating the
success of her tenure.


As the Queen’s representative, to turn down an offer endorsed by the
country’s head of state would cast her as ungracious and ungrateful.


It is a potential wedge through the Opposition Leader’s family.
Because Quentin Bryce is Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s mother in law,
what happens when it comes to her investiture?


Does he attend out of respect for her relationship to him? Would attending undermine his leadership of a pro-republican party?

Or does he remain true to his principles and conspicuously absent
himself, diminishing her moment of public acknowledgement? What if his
wife attends and he doesn’t?


Within political parties, even the Coalition, it polarises members,
setting up confrontations between republicans and monarchists.


It pits Australian against Australian, reigniting tensions within our
multicultural society. Anglo Australians against those with non-Anglo
backgrounds.


Of course, this move on Abbott’s part also acts as a diversion from
other current hot potato political issues such as the integrity and
competence of Arthur Sinodinos, the amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act, the dismantling of ‘red tape’ regulations that protected Australian citizens from rorting and corruption and the thwarting of the government’s moves to abolish the Mining Tax and the Carbon Tax.


It is hard to dismiss the thought that even the amoral royalist Niccolo Machiavelli would be embarrassed at the brazen cynicism of this bombshell from Abbott.

Read also Sydney bureau chief Ross Jones' with Back to the Future with Tony Abbott.

Friday 28 March 2014

PM makes us nation without honour

PM makes us nation without honour





PM makes us nation without honour



'Respect does not come with titles - respect is earned. That belief, as much as any, defines me as an Australian.'
'Respect does not come with titles - respect is earned. That belief, as much as any, defines me as an Australian.' Photo: Andrew Meares







Who is Tony Abbott? Do we know him? I would not ask these
questions, for example, of John Howard. His family was very much
fashioned by World War I – both his father and grandfather enlisting
(one incredible story has them meeting up, on the battlefield, a few
hours before the lethal hostilities resumed). John Winston Howard, born
in 1939, got his middle name from Winston Churchill. John Howard is what
was once known as an Australian Briton.




Born in England, Abbott is a Catholic monarchist – a curious
combination. One of his close friends, the late Christopher Pearson,
used to hear the Mass in Latin. For a time, I likened Abbott to Guy
Crouchback, a character from the pen of the English Catholic novelist
Evelyn Waugh, a man with a reactionary and religious bent – hence
Abbott's spell in the seminary as a young man.





But how do you square Catholic theology with wealthy
Australia offloading its asylum-seeker problem to impoverished countries
such as Papua New Guinea and Nauru? Cambodia? I'm sure one Catholic who
wouldn't buy it is Pope Francis.




I always thought Abbott shared, with Julia Gillard, an
awkwardness with Australian culture that was expressed, in Gillard's
case, through her exaggerated accent, and, in Abbott's case, through
the countless interviews he gave as opposition leader in his budgie
smugglers.





When Rupert Murdoch tweeted his endorsement of Abbott before
the last federal election, he described him as a conviction politician.
Is he? By his own account, Abbott nearly joined the Labor Party and,
prior to him becoming Prime Minister, I always understood him to be a
DLP type. Not any more.




The DLP has always been clear about what it deems to be moral
issues – for example, West Papua. Last year, Abbott described the
actions of three West Papuans who climbed the wall into the Australian
embassy in Bali to protest about the plight of their people as
grandstanding. He then declared that conditions in West Papua were
improving. DLP senator John Madigan flatly told him he was wrong.




In 2011, journalist John Van Tiggelen wrote an extended
profile on Andrew Bolt after the case in which Bolt was found guilty
under the Racial Discrimination Act. I saw that case up close through
the eyes of a friend, Anita Heiss. Irrespective of the argument about
that particular legislation, Bolt's treatment of Heiss was
journalistically indefensible and caused deep and repeated hurt. I saw
that as clearly as I've seen injuries on the football field.




In the aftermath of the case, Bolt was apparently thinking of
stepping away from the media when a "very influential person" (Bolt's
words) arrived at his house and urged him to keep going. Van Tiggelen
established the very influential visitor was Abbott.




Abbott's government is now seeking to alter the Racial
Discrimination Act. As has been observed elsewhere, the government's
original proposal would have meant that indigenous AFL star Adam Goodes
could be called an ape everywhere in Australia but on the football
field. Then, this week, Abbott reintroduced knights and dames and, like
Henry VIII, the decision was his alone.




The Anzac legend becomes more distorted and hyperbolic every
year, but there are elements of the story that are important to me. One
is that Australian soldiers wouldn't salute the English officers. Why
should they? Respect does not come with titles – respect is earned.
That belief, as much as any, defines me as an Australian.




Now Tony Abbott has reinstated a vain and empty honours
system from another time and place. The country, which is outsourcing
its asylum-seeker problem to its poorer neighbours, has just
reinstituted an order of knights and dames in its society. Where is our
self-respect?




Downton Abbott: PM's vision for Australia

Downton Abbott: PM's vision for Australia



Downton Abbott: PM's vision for Australia

Date




<i>Illustration: Simon Letch</i>
Illustration: Simon Letch


If John Howard, Australia’s great conservative elder, thinks
you’re being a tad old-fashioned, it is a sure sign you are pulling some
truly mediaeval moves.




When Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced on Tuesday he would
reintroduce knights and dames to the Order of Australia honours system,
as an ‘‘important grace note in our national life’’, he was mocked in
predictable quarters. His critics suggested he  had binge-watched too
many episodes of Downton Abbey, a happy historical fantasy where lords
and ladies stroll across silently tended lawns, and noblesse oblige
defines the moral order.




But the implicit rejection of the announcement by Abbott’s
political father, the man who trounced the republican movement and
defined a generation of Australian conservatism, a man who might
conceivably be anointed as a knight himself, was a surprise.




The former prime minister told  The Australian Financial
Review his views on knights and dames remained unchanged – that is, that
he believes any move to restore them would be ‘‘somewhat
anachronistic’’.





Howard’s famous political nous remains sharp, it seems, but
how much of it has Abbott absorbed? While some saw the surprise
announcement as a bizarre distraction that sent a bad message about the
priorities of the government, others interpreted it as intentional
political messaging.




Having resoundingly won the last election, the conservatives
are in charge – the nation is theirs to form. The knights and dames
announcement ‘‘upsets all the right people’’, as one minister put it.
During the Tuesday press conference when he announced the new honours to
a stunned press gallery, Abbott looked as though he was having a
thoroughly good time, as he did the next day in question time when he
referred to Bill Shorten as ‘‘the honourable leader of Her Majesty’s
opposition’’.




As a staunch monarchist and Anglophile, it was one fight the
Prime Minister was very happy to pick. The fact that the announcement
came the day before Abbott’s 20th anniversary as a parliamentarian was a
happy coincidence.




Despite the pre-budget work of the economic review committee
going on behind the scenes, and important announcements like the
confirmed sale of Medibank Private, the knights-’n-dames surprise
dominated the political week, together with Attorney-General George
Brandis’s controversial statement that ‘‘people ... have a right to be
bigots’’, made in defence of his reforms to section 18C of the Racial
Discrimination Act, for which an exposure draft was also released this
week.




Bubbling away in the political background was the backdown of
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann over reforms to the regulation of the
financial advice sector, (reforms he took carriage of after Senator
Arthur Sinodinos stepped aside as assistant treasurer due to his
involvement in an Independent Commission Against Corruption hearing);
the introduction of the government's ''red tape bonfire'' legislation
and the government's promise to siphon billions of dollars from the sale
of Medibank Private into roads and other infrastructure, while
rebuffing calls to pour the money into healthcare.




All of these moves tell us something about the kind of
government Abbott wants to lead - one which doesn't ''police'' what its
citizens say or think, one which allows business to build
infrastructure, and one which seeks to ''get out of the way'' of the
relationship between business and its clientele.




It felt like the week the Abbott government lifted the veil on its vision for Australia.



For the 45 per cent of Australians whose primary vote was for
the Coalition at the last election, this is a welcome picture. For
others, such as the Abbott-haters who participated in the March in March
protests, it was the week the government turned into everything they
always feared it was.




But what did it represent to those in between? Those who
voted for Abbott but have reservations about his political style? Those
who voted against the dysfunctionality of the previous Labor government
rather than in favour of the alternative Abbott offered? Those who
wanted grown-up government but didn't sign on for ideological frolics
like the reintroduction of knighthoods? Or the ethnic voters in marginal
western Sydney seats who are conservative by inclination but wonder
about a government that rolls back anti-hate-speech provisions?




It is the middle-dwellers who decide elections, and while
there is no federal poll for the government to fret about, the Liberals
are vulnerable in the Western Australian Senate byelection, where they
are by no means guaranteed to keep the three seats they won in the
now-voided 2013 election result.




Also, the fact Labor managed to cling to power in South
Australia has spooked many Victorian Liberals, who face a state election
next year, and the prospect that Denis Napthine's government might end
up being a one-term one.




''What the Abbott government would like to do is get down to
matters of policy,'' says Dr Nick Economou, senior lecturer in politics
at Monash University.




''But it cannot get any policies of substance - the
[abolition of] the carbon tax and the mining tax, its deregulation
policy - through the Senate until after July 1. There is a vacuum, so
they can't do anything substantial yet. Into the vacuum have come all
these trivial issues.''




The Coalition MPs and ministers contacted by Fairfax for this
piece were unfazed by the Prime Minister's honours announcement, saying
it was only the Twitterati getting in a tizz over it, and pointing out
that the New Zealand government also reintroduced knighthoods (although,
in an interview with News Ltd last year Abbott ruled out following the
New Zealand example). Communications Minister and republican Malcolm
Turnbull lightly mocked the announcement, and Liberal senator Sue Boyce,
also a republican, said it was disappointing Abbott hadn't taken the
decision to cabinet.




In an interview with journalist Michelle Grattan, Abbott said the matter was between him and the Queen.



Abbott's turn-around, and the timing of the announcement -
late on Tuesday afternoon, not long before the all-important nightly
news went to air - has raised eyebrows, as has the fact that he bypassed
cabinet.




It may have been long-planned, but it looked like the sort of
cobbled-together announcement the previous Gillard/Rudd government used
to churn out to feed the daily news cycle. The kind of thing Abbott,
who promised calm, methodical government with ''no surprises'', was
supposed to stand against. As one Liberal elder put it:





''This is classic Tony. He has had this idea in his mind for ages. He was always going to do it, so he just went and did it.''



The reaction against the announcement was particularly strong
on social media - a form of voter engagement often disdained by the
conservative side of politics, but one which can provide a fast insight
into the zeitgeist.




Unlike other anti-Abbott complaints over asylum seeker policy
or possible changes to Medicare, this time the government was being
ridiculed, a theme which was picked up in question time by the
opposition, who were so loose in their merriment they were chastised by
Speaker Brownyn Bishop for laughing too much.




''Humour can be so devastating,'' says Economou. ''When
people get angry and splutter, like in the asylum seekers debate,
Australian people are not interested. But if you can hold people up to
ridicule … suddenly now his critics have got something to lampoon him
with.''




While Abbott's government has a firm majority of seats, Labor
strategists believe support for Abbott himself is shallow, with his
disapproval rating hovering around 50 per cent. These strategists within
the opposition's party machine say that voter perception of Abbott as a
person is hugely negative, with people distrusting his agenda.




''People have underestimated what a terrible drag Julia
Gillard was on the Labor vote. The conservatives are realising it's not
going to be as easy as it was during the three years of opposition,''
Economou says.




John Warhurst, a professor of political science at the
Australian National University, believes the knighthoods announcement
''does reveal an appetite for cultural wars within the government … They
are taking a punt though on community attitudes towards it.




''All of this is part of a freedom conservatives are feeling.
They can get away with this stuff. Whether or not the public is behind
them, they feel emboldened by political success,'' Warhurst says




But there are signs some government MPs are nervous over this
muscular display of conservatism, particularly when it comes to the
debate over changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Under the proposed reforms, released by Attorney-General George Brandis
this week, it would no longer be unlawful to offend, insult or humiliate
someone on the basis of their race. It would be unlawful to vilify or
to intimidate on the basis of race, but not if you are doing so in the
course of public debate - an exemption critics say is far too wide.




According to a cabinet leak published by this newspaper on
Thursday, Senator Brandis was forced to soften his original proposal,
resulting in the exposure draft being released, as opposed to the
legislation in its final state.




This wriggle-room means the government's position can remain
''fluid''. Ethnic groups have united in their opposition to the changes
and the Prime Minister's indigenous advisor, Warren Mundine, was this
week vocal in his criticism.




Abbott was unable to name a single ethnic group that
supported the changes, and Mundine pointed out that the optics of the
issue were very bad.




''I just find it funny that … on one side you've got all the
Jewish community, you've got the Aboriginal community, you've got the
Chinese community, you've got Muslims … and then on the other side
you've got [Freedom Commissioner] Tim Wilson … you've got the
Attorney-General … and you've got Abbott,'' he said.




''To me, that's a clear visual thing about this whole debate.''



Abbott, it would appear, is lined up against popular opinion
on this issue.Liberal backbenchers, particularly those in marginal
western Sydney seats with large ethnic populations, are reportedly
nervous about an electoral backlash.




The week may have provided an insight into Abbott's
Australia, but it was merely a curtain-lifter before the main act: the
budget.




A government's first budget is its most powerful statement on
the kind of administration it will be, and the kind of Australia it
envisages.




As one minister put it this week: ''It is the main game. It is what will set the course.''