Saturday 31 May 2014

The government needs to put aside its superiority complex and get the tin ear fixed

The government needs to put aside its superiority complex and get the tin ear fixed









The government needs to put aside its superiority complex and get the tin ear fixed

By Michelle Grattan 





Attorney-General
George Brandis is preoccupied with alleged threats to free speech that
have mostly eluded the gaze of average people.

AAP/Alan Porritt



One could be forgiven for overlooking a key feature of this
government. Several of its most senior and influential ministers used to
be leading “moderates”.




Joe Hockey, Christopher Pyne and George Brandis were voices on the
Liberals' left. Yet now they are among the most hardline members of a
highly ideological government.




Tony Abbott seems to have fallen into the same trap as Paul Keating
in 1993. Keating refused to accept that John Hewson had handed him that
win; he insisted on believing it was an endorsement of him and his
philosophy.




Like Keating, Abbott triumphed on negatives. But now he and his
colleagues think they have a mandate to transform dramatically the
society and its culture, going far beyond what people expected.




There’s little sign, however, that the government has the political
skills to match its ambition, or that the community shares its often
uncompromising, black-and-white view of the world.




The senior one-time moderates have become the true believers, marching under standards on all sorts of battlegrounds.



Treasurer Joe Hockey’s tight fistedness is not just the necessary
effort to get the budget into good long-term shape but a mission wrapped
in rhetoric to crush the “entitlement” mentality.




Attorney-General George Brandis is preoccupied with alleged threats
to free speech that have mostly eluded the gaze of Mr and Mrs Average.




Christopher Pyne has found the Education portfolio a modern forum for a warrior from student politics.



But there are a couple of problems in the government’s approach. One
is that to get measures operating requires dealing with a Senate that
will be, after July 1, as idiosyncratic as they come.




The minor players have flagged they’ll tear strips off the budget.
Abbott’s pragmatic side will have to re-emerge if he is to have any hope
of getting satisfactory legislative outcomes – and not just on the
budget.




The second problem is that the Australian people, aka the voters, are not as extreme as the government is turning out to be.



Allowing the ideologues so much scope is likely to alienate the community.



We have seen people’s reaction to what they regard as the unfairness
of the budget. The government hits back with the case of a single mother
getting some $55,000 from the taxpayer.




When you want to promote change, the consensus approach can be much
more effective than confrontation and demonisation. That was recognised
by Bob Hawke, probably the best PM in recent Australian history, who
presided over extensive and difficult economic reform.




But reaching out is not something that appeals to this bunkered down, them-and-us government.



It has a strong majority and is more than two years from an election but always feels it has to give Labor another kick.



The minor players are vital to it but Senate leader Eric Abetz this
week called Christine Milne “two faced”, saying he was being polite, and
Hockey put down “professor Palmer” in question time.




It has a parliament where the Speaker is encouraged to be barracker rather than referee.



In little things it is mean spirited. Immigration Minister Scott
Morrison somehow missed cutting some funding to the Refugee Council of
Australia in the budget; now he’s gone back to hack it. The dollars were
small – why would you bother?




The government needs to put aside its superiority complex. If it
doesn’t quickly learn some humility, acquire a touch of self-doubt, and
have a political otolaryngologist repair its tin ear, it might end up
transforming almost nothing, rather than changing virtually everything.



Friday 30 May 2014

Bendigo girl, 10, takes PM to task | Bendigo Advertiser

Bendigo girl, 10, takes PM to task | Bendigo Advertiser

Bendigo girl, 10, takes PM to task

A BENDIGO 10-year-old is challenging the Prime Minister on the Federal Budget.
Grade
four Camp Hill Primary School student Rachael Hamilton has written a
letter to Tony Abbott urging him to reconsider proposed GP co-payments
and his asylum seeker policy.
Rachael said she didn’t like what she heard on Federal Budget night or in the news.
“I knew Tony Abbott was making bad choices and I got really annoyed about it,” she said.
“Joe Hockey is making people pay more for doctors when they can’t afford it.
“I had the idea to write a letter.”
Rachael's letter reads:
''To Mr Tony Abbott,
''We are absolutely shocked at your actions. We think that you are being so unfair and a disgrace.
''Why
do you make rules at include not letting refugees into the country? How
would you like it if you travelled to a country  like Vietnam and they
wouldn’t let you on their land?
''Joe Hockey said that all Australians are kind and friendly. So where are you from?
''We already pay enough money for doctors and the chemist.
''Please don’t think this note is unimportant because it came from a student.''
Rachael said she learnt about the plight of asylum seekers from children’s book Refuge by Jackie French.
She said Mr Abbott was being unfair to refugees.
“I think the government should let them in and give them what they need,” she said.
Rachael hopes to hear back from the Prime Minister.
“I was thinking he would write back to me saying he’ll think about making better choices,” she said.
Rachael has a younger brother, Aeden, 8. Her parents are Bernadette Ward and Martin Hamilton.
Ms Ward said her daughter’s letter was “totally off her own bat”.
“We
sat down and watched the budget and we talked about what the budget is
and how the government works and some of things the treasurer was
saying,” she said.
“We don’t tell the kids
what to think or say but it’s getting them to think about what the
government is doing and decide what they think about it.
“It’s about having children who are engaged with what’s happening in the Australian community.”
Ms Ward said Rachael and Aeden learnt about politics at school but no one pushed a particular position on them.
“We’re not a household that sits down and talks about this all the time,” she said.
“We just talk about what they’ve learnt at school and how that applies to the broader community.
“We want them to think and be engaged in discussion on all sorts of issues.”
Ms Ward sent the letter to Mr Abbott this week.
“We’re looking forward to hearing back,” she said.

MH370: Scientists Attack Australian PM Tony Abbott for 'Playing Politics' Over Ping Reports

MH370: Scientists Attack Australian PM Tony Abbott for 'Playing Politics' Over Ping Reports

MH370: Scientists Attack Australian PM Tony Abbott for 'Playing Politics' Over Ping Reports




Australia Abbott Indonesia Spy
The Australian prime minister has been criticised for prematurely stating the signals detected were from MH370Reuters

Underwater scientists have accused Australian prime minister Tony
Abbott of playing politics by prematurely announcing that "ping" signals
came from the missing Malaysian plane's black boxes.



Speaking anonymously, the acoustic experts told News.com.au said the
four signals picked up by US technology were not from flight MH370's
flight data recorders, but were likely from a different, man-made
source.



The scientists also criticised the Joint Agency Coordination Centre,
which is leading the search, for not completing a critical and detailed
analysis of the signals before Mr Abbott went public in China on 11
April.



According to the group, the signals were in the wrong frequency and
detected too far apart to be from the aircraft. The 33.3 kilohertz
frequency of the signals transmitted differed from the 37.5 kilohertz
frequency generated by underwater acoustic beacons. The signals were
also detected four days and around 30km apart.



"As soon as I saw the frequency and the distance between the pings I
knew it couldn't be the aircraft pinger," one scientist told News Corp
Australia.



Earlier in the search, a Royal Australian Air Force jet detected
another mystery signal, which revealed other signals were being
transmitted from the search area.



"It is clear there were other man made signals out there," one of the scientists added.


In response to questions from News Corp Australia, the JACC said the
signals were believed to be consistent with MH370's flight data
recorder.



The JACC has not yet released recordings of the signals for
independent analysis and has kept the exact location and depth of the
signals under wraps.



Angus Houston, who is co-ordinating the search, said the signals were
still being analysed. "The data and technique used by Inmarsat has been
independently peer reviewed by a number of organisations outside of
Inmarsat, in both the UK and USA," he said.



The scientists said their conclusion is supported by the lack of
success in the underwater search being conducted by the submerged US
drone Bluefin-21.



The autonomous mini-submarine, which is currently scouring the sea
bed for debris, has resumed its search in the remote area of the
southern Indian Ocean, where several signal transmissions were detected.



The equipment is currently in its last week and will return to Perth
at the weekend, where it will be replaced by a commercial deep water
search vehicle.



"The autonomous underwater vehicle Bluefin-21 was deployed from the
vessel around 2:00 am this morning. It remains underwater on its search
mission," the JACC said.


Thursday 29 May 2014

Call to Arms « The Australian Independent Media Network

Call to Arms « The Australian Independent Media Network

Call to Arms



coat of armsMake no mistake, we are under attack.  The very fabric of our wonderful society is being torn apart to satisfy the ambition of a man who once said


“We are all promoted to our own level of incompetence.  So sooner or later mine will be reached.”


We now have a government who thinks unfettered mining is desirable
and that environmental protections are an impediment.  They are willing
to sacrifice the reef and old growth forests for profit.



We have a government who thinks a 9th investigation into the Home Insulation Program is more important that the Royal Commission into systemic child sexual abuse.


We have a government who thinks jet fighter planes are more important
than education, excessive paid parental leave is more important than
pensions, and profits are more important than health.



University will become unaffordable to most, and techs and trade training centres are being closed.


Science and the Arts are irrelevant and research is a waste of money, unless it’s done by pollie pedal sponsoring big pharma.


We have a government who thinks the internet is for playing games, watching porn, and downloading movies.


School chaplaincy programs and marriage counselling vouchers are more important than welfare and advocacy groups.


CCTVs are supposedly more effective than the many early intervention crime prevention programs that have been axed.


Thousands of kilometres of asphalt will be laid with unknown benefit whilst public transport is ignored.


Instead of closing tax loopholes to address falling revenue, we give
amnesties to tax cheats, increase the amount that can be put into
superannuation at a reduced tax rate, and lower company tax, even though
it has been shown time and time again that companies and wealthy
individuals are legally rorting the system and paying very little if
anything.



We hear that young unemployed will be thrown to the wolves for 6
months of the year whilst their grandparents will work till they are 70,
presumably building Tony’s roads as that is the only plan they have for
creating jobs.



We have a government who is pinning the country’s future on fossil
fuels while the rest of the world moves to renewable energy.  This
aversion to renewable energy has cost us countless millions in lost
investment.



We have a Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs who has slashed
millions of dollars in funding to hundreds of programmes that were
working to close the gap.  Charities and support groups have been
decimated.



We have a government who wants to throw away tens of billions in
revenue from the carbon and mining taxes for no reason other than the
previous government introduced them.



We have a government that creates a job for Tim Wilson to be the
Human Rights Commissioner for Bigots while we sack the Human Rights
Commissioner for the Disabled.



We have a government who would prefer to see private debt spiral out of control rather than run a deficit.


We have a government that sees no responsibility to be a global
citizen.  We are a wealthy nation who is refusing to meet our Foreign
Aid commitments, our commitments to global action on climate change, and
our commitment to provide safe haven for asylum seekers.  Far from
being safe here, we send refugees into danger, locking them up
indefinitely without hope, persecuting them even though they have
committed no crime other than to ask for our help.



We have a government that condones torture and human rights abuses
and who actively assists regimes guilty of atrocities against their own
people.



We have a government who is showing indecent haste to sell off the
assets that belong to all of us, assuming that because they won an
election they have a right to do as they please.  Private companies run
for profit – they don’t care about equal opportunity and access for all
to essential services.  If it doesn’t make a profit then the service
will disappear.



One of my great uncles is buried in the fields of France, killed
during WW1.  My father fought in WW2 and, like so many of those who were
‘lucky’ enough to survive, the experience had a profound effect on him
and no doubt haunted him for the rest of his life.



Are the sacrifices that so many have made before us to be for
nothing?  Were the battles fought, that have made this such a wonderful
country, won in vain, to be surrendered as we raise a white flag to
corporate greed?



This attack on our country must be repulsed.  It is up to every one of us to stand together and defend our way of life.


TONY ABBOTT HAS TO GO!

Wednesday 28 May 2014

Tony Abbott a quick study in poll pain - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Tony Abbott a quick study in poll pain - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Tony Abbott a quick study in poll pain



Posted
Wed 28 May 2014, 12:43pm AEST



Tony Abbott has taken a battering in the
personal polls in record time, and this could spell trouble when it
comes to selling his agenda, write Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods.
Perhaps
Tony Abbott is just a fast learner. It took John Howard five years in
government to earn "mean, tricky and out of touch" status, according to
the infamous memo from then Liberal Party President Shane Stone.


Abbott has got there in just 10 months, with voters judging his leadership harshly in the wake of his first federal budget.

This week's Essential Report shows voter dissatisfaction with the budget attaching firmly to Abbott's personal standing.

Since
mid-April when we last tested leader attributes, Essential has recorded
sharp spikes in voter perceptions Abbott is out of touch with ordinary
voters and untrustworthy.


And that's not all. Capable leader: down
nine points. Good in a crisis: down 10. Intolerant: up eight. We're
also less likely to see Abbott as hard-working as we were a month ago,
and more likely to see him as erratic and superficial.


Q. Which of the following describe your opinion of the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott?

 15-Apr27-MayChange
Out of touch with ordinary people56%67%+11
Arrogant58%63%+5
Narrow-minded56%61%+5
Hard working66%57%-9
Superficial50%57%+7
Intolerant47%55%+8
Intelligent59%52%-7
Aggressive 45%52%+7
Erratic43%51%+8
Understands the problems facing Australia48%42%-5
A capable leader50%41%-9
Good in a crisis45%35%-10
Visionary34%31%-3
More honest than most politicians37%30%-7
Trustworthy40%29%-11
For voters, this budget isn't just about balancing the national accounts. It's personal.

Whether
Abbott can recover voters' confidence remains to be seen. But he would
understand the dire implications of the loss of trust.


In
opposition, Abbott single-mindedly pursued the demolition of the
minority Labor government, in the perpetual hope it could topple over if
put under enough pressure. Central to his task was undermining Julia
Gillard's personal standing by linking her inextricably to the carbon
tax "lie", fuelling "Juliar" fever.


Now, when he should be
enjoying the fruits of his long political game, Abbott finds himself in
the same political quicksand he was so eager to see swallow his then
opponent.


Voters' punishing post-budget assessment leaves Abbott
with personal attribute ratings on many measures equal to or worse than
Gillard's at the end of her prime ministership.




 Abbott - May 2014Gillard - June 2013Difference
Out of touch with ordinary people67%57%+10
Arrogant63%48%+15
Narrow-minded61%46%+15
Intolerant55%39%+16
Aggressive 52%45%+7
Erratic51%47%+4
Superficial57%49%+8
Visionary31%32%-1
More honest than most politicians30%27%+3
Good in a crisis35%41%-6
Trustworthy29%30%-1
Hard-working57%71%-14
Understands the problems facing Australia42%42%-
A capable leader41%44%-3
Intelligent52%69%-17
On the key issue of trustworthiness, Abbott has already managed to outdo Gillard's rating of just 30 per cent.

Where
she arrived after a relentless internal destabilisation and a sustained
attack on her credibility over a couple of years, Abbott has turned up
on the occasion of his first budget.


And while they're neck and
neck on trust deficiency, Abbott is well behind where Gillard was before
her final political execution on a number of other measures. He is
considered more out of touch with ordinary people; more intolerant, less
intelligent, and much more arrogant.


Does it really matter what
people think about their leaders? Outside the increasingly presidential
election cycles should a leader care if the majority of voters think
they are a myopic, lying manipulator? They are all bastards anyway.


The
problem for Abbott is the same one that Gillard faced as her leadership
imploded. Embedded in these perceptions of a leader's personality is
the asset broadly described as "political capital".


A leader seen
to have integrity and the nation's better interests at heart uses this
goodwill to convince the masses their policies are in the national
interest; they are the context of the public conversation.


When
politicians bemoan they need to "sell the message" of an unpopular
policy better, they are really talking about the messenger. If you start
from a position of goodwill, a leader has the chance to confront
unpopular issues: think Hawke, think Howard. If the public don't trust
you and don't like you there is little you can do to advocate your
agenda: think Gillard, think Abbott.


Normally the slide in
personal attributes is a result of these difficult conversations over a
number of years. The warning for Abbott is the slide has occurred before
he has really got started.


Peter Lewis is a director of Essential Media Communications. View his full profile here. Jackie Woods is a communications consultant at Essential Media Communications. View her full profile here.


Tuesday 27 May 2014

132011 Department of InHumane Services



THE INCREDIBLE ARROGANCE OF THE ABBOTT GOVERNMENT

Maths is a marvellous thing « The Australian Independent Media Network

Maths is a marvellous thing « The Australian Independent Media Network

Maths is a marvellous thing



lie-w-stats


Like climbing mountains, maths is a marvellous thing.  It is objective rather than a matter of opinion.  It can’t be argued with.  A fact is a fact.


But like many other powerful tools, maths can be used for evil in the hands of the unscrupulous.


Take our present government – please.


On a Liberal Party page called “The Prime Minister – securing Australia’s economic future” our fearless leader makes certain claims.


“When the Coalitions (sic) last left office, Australia
had a $20 billion surplus and $50 billion in the bank but over six
years, Labor squandered this and ran up five record deficits and a
further $123 billion in projected deficits and gross debt headed towards
$667 billion.”

Firstly, how many Coalitions do we have?  There is the one with
various forms of the National/Country party – are there other agreements
I should know about?



Now, how about those numbers.


From the 06-07 Budget papers:


“Net debt, which reached zero in 2005-06, improved by $25.4 billion over the financial year to -$30.8 billion.”


From the 07-08 Budget papers


“Over 2007‑08, the level of Australian Government net debt improved to reach ‑$42.9 billion by 30 June 2008.”


Labor won the election on November 24, 2007,  so the Coalition left a
net debt somewhere between -$30.8 and -$42.9 billion – not the $50
billion claimed by Mr Abbott.



In 2006-07, the Australian Government general government sector
recorded an underlying cash surplus of $17.2 billion, not quite the $20
billion claimed but that could have been the case by the time of the
election.



When Mr Abbott said we had $50 billion in the bank when these
“Coalitions” left office he was speaking about net debt, albeit somewhat
inaccurately.  Gross debt is another matter.  The Howard government
never eliminated gross government, and never once since Federation has
any government eliminated gross government debt. Nor should it and no
government ever will.  As at 30 June 2007, our gross debt was $58.284 billion.



In the first decade of the century, Australia struck it lucky. A
voracious global appetite for commodities meant that we could sell
unimaginable quantities of our mineral resources at unimaginable prices.
The result was a windfall to our public coffers of at least $180
billion over and above long-term GDP growth trend over the six years
from 2002 to 2008.



In 2001-02, a ton of exported thermal coal sold for around US$27.  A
ton of iron ore went for US$13. By 2008-09, these prices had reached
US$131 and US$106, increases of fivefold  and eight-fold respectively.



In 2001-02, we exported 90 million tons (mt) of thermal coal and 165
mt of iron ore. By 2008-09, these figures  were 115 mt and 363 mt. Eight
years into the decade, growth in exports of these two commodities alone
were  delivering an extra $49 billion in national income to Australia
each year. The gold price increased by 600% from 2001 to 2011, while the
value of our liquid natural gas exports almost doubled over the same
period to $11.1 billion.



What Tony also fails to mention is that $61 billion of the reduction in net debt came from the sale of Publicly Traded Enterprises (PTEs) between 1993 and 2006.


Telstra    $45.6 billion


Commonwealth Bank of Australia    $6.8 billion


Airports    $8.3 billion


Qantas   $2.1 billion


Having a look at the profits of these companies (ok maybe not
Qantas), one wonders whether we should have shown less haste in selling
off our assets to reduce a debt that could have been paid off from the
profits these companies make.  We would also be able to afford a real
NBN because we wouldn’t be paying Telstra billions for the privilege.



And it’s not like the Howard government stopped borrowing money. 
Even though they were raking money in from the mining boom and the sale
of assets, including most of our gold reserve at rock bottom prices, the Howard government went to capital markets on no fewer than 400 occasions to borrow money.



Between March 1996 and November 2007, there were 135 lines of bonds
that were taken to market in various bond tenders which were issued with
a face value of $51 billion, while there were over 280 T-Note tenders
with a face value of over $220 billion.



Indeed, in the three months before the November 2007 election, the
Howard government went to the bond market on 8 separate occasions to
borrow money with a series of bond tenders. Even during the election
campaign, just 11 days from polling day, it borrowed an additional $300
million in bond tender number 236. In the final term of the Howard
government, from October 2004 to November 2007, there were 43 bond
tenders or times the government borrowed money.  If we had tens of
billions in the bank, why was he still borrowing right up until the
death?



In its last five years, the Howard government spent $250 billion,
including $133 billion in new spending and $117 billion in tax cuts. 
Australians could be sitting on a $300 billion sovereign wealth fund to
rival the oil-rich nation of Kuwait if we had banked the budget windfall
of the now deflating mining boom.



Compared with gross debt, net debt is a better measure of a
government’s overall indebtedness as it also captures the amount of debt
owed to the government.  Which begs the question as to why Hockey and
Abbott use net debt when referring to Howard and gross debt (projected
in ten years’ time no less) when referring to Labor?



For some historical perspective, gross Australian Government debt
increased from around 40 per cent of GDP in 1939 to around 120 per cent
of GDP in 1945.  By 1974, it had declined to around 8 per cent of GDP.



Net debt reached 10.4 per cent of GDP in 1985-86. It took only three
years (from 1986-87 to 1989-90) to reduce net debt by around 6
percentage points of GDP.



Ignoring the war years, net debt peaked at 18.1% of GDP in 1995-96.  According to Mr Hockey’s own budget, in 2014-15, net debt for the Australian government is estimated to be $226 billion (13.9 percent of GDP) as opposed to the $667 billion bullshit.


Tony tells us that Labor ran up 5 record deficits.  Whilst this may
be true if you look at scary numbers with lots of zeroes after them, it
is completely false if we talk percentages of GDP.  For example, the
deficit in 83-84 was 4.2% of GDP, as was the peak deficit in 2010 at the
height of the stimulus spending.  Since 2010 the deficit has been
decreasing and was 1.2% of GDP in 2013.



Then there is Tony’s claim that Labor left “a further $123 billion in
projected deficits and gross debt headed towards $667 billion.”



This claim is based on MYEFO which can only be described as a
Coalition propaganda sheet rather than any sort of realistic fiscal
outlook so I will treat that document with the ignore which it deserves
and go back to PEFO which was an independent assessment of our fiscal
outlook just before the change of government, based on Labor policies.



According to PEFO, the cumulative underlying cash balance (total
deficit) over the forward estimates was $54.6 billion with a surplus in
2016-17.  Mr Hockey’s budget shows a cumulative deficit over the same
period of $107.4 billion – a deterioration of $53 billion in 9 months, with no surplus predicted over the forward estimates.



Mr Abbott then goes on to say


“Our plan will strengthen the economy, create jobs and
reduce Labor’s debt by almost $300 billion.   We need to take action now
or an even greater burden will fall on our kids’ generation.  Now, the
Labor Party is desperately trying to scare people by spreading untruths
about the Budget.  For example, they won’t tell you that funding for
schools and hospitals increases each and every year under our Budget.
 And that the rate of the pension will continue to go up twice a year,
every year.”

By Mr Hockey’s own words, the debt is projected to rise to $226
billion in the next financial year – reduce Labor’s debt by $300
billion?  I don’t think so.



And speaking of our kids, how about the danger you are placing them
in, both physical and fiscal, by taking no action on climate change.



And what the Coalition won’t tell you is about the myriad of cuts to
health and education and pensions.  Yes, there will be increases on
current funding each year but they will be much smaller than previously
agreed to and many programs and concessions have been cut.  They also do
not take into account population increase which necessitates yearly
increases in funding regardless of any reforms.



Joe Hockey said “Of the 17 top surveyed IMF countries, Labor left us
with the fastest growth in spending of anyone in the world… and they
left us with the third highest growth in debt of anyone in the top 17.” 
This is true if you look at percentage increases but if you spent $10
last week and then $20 this week, that represents a 100% increase, so
these figures mean nothing without context.



Saul Eslake,
chief economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, says Mr Hockey’s
comments “represent only a partial summary of what the IMF actually says
in this section of it its report”. He says Mr Hockey omits one
important conclusion, “namely that Australia would still have the
second-lowest general government net debt as a per cent of GDP among the
countries shown by 2018″.



In its generally upbeat assessment of Australia’s economic position,
the IMF says “gross debt is expected to peak at around 32 percent of GDP
in 2015 and is among the lowest in advanced nations”.



Elsewhere, in the fund’s recommendations for Australia’s fiscal
policy, it says “Australia’s modest public debt gives the authorities
scope to delay their planned return to surpluses in the event of a sharp
deterioration in the economic outlook”.

There is only one side of politics trying to scare people by spreading untruths.  Maths doesn’t lie.

Is Abbott a Christian or just a Catholic? « The Australian Independent Media Network

Is Abbott a Christian or just a Catholic? « The Australian Independent Media Network

Is Abbott a Christian or just a Catholic?



photo 1The article
on the AIMN by Sean Stinson, May 25th entitled, “CATHOLIC SCHOOLBOYS
RULE” was so well presented, I thought it deserved a follow up article
to further articulate its message. Twistie 1, who was one of several who joined in the discussion captured the mood best for me when he wrote, “I
have little doubt that Abbott is a psychopath who is incapable of
empathy. He uses religion as a facade against his inherent wickedness.
He is not the first, and will undoubtedly not be the last, to do so.”



As one who endured the cruelty of Catholic Church teaching in the
1950/60s, it doesn’t surprise me that so many like me still carry the
psychological baggage Catholic teaching generated about Hell and
Purgatory. It wasn’t until my late forties that I began to see through
the facade of Catholic teaching and its inherent evil. I think I am one
of the lucky ones who through education, logic and reasoning was able to
extract myself from its tentacles. There are many people I know who,
although they see the flaws in church teaching, are so entrapped by the
fear of everlasting hellfire that even reason and logic won’t displace
it.



Then there are people like Tony Abbott.


If Abbott actually believes in the teachings of the Church, as
opposed to simply using them as a tool to further his political agenda, I
would be surprised. I am similarly unimpressed by his mentor, George
Pell. I suspect Abbott, like Pell, is so seduced by the power that such
teachings offer to men in high places that it becomes a defining feature
of their character. I suspect Abbott saw the priesthood as an avenue to
that power but later realised there was still greater power in
politics. I suspect he realised that in politics he could combine the
notion of spiritual power, which he has cleverly crafted, with secular
power, which he now has; using one to help achieve the other makes
psychopaths very dangerous. Having a cabinet dominated by men who feel
the same way makes such a government even more dangerous. Malcolm Fraser
has tried to warn us of the danger he recognises in Abbott. Men who
lust after power have no respect for democracy but will use it to
advance their personal agenda.



photo 2My
experience in the Catholic Church leads me to believe that it has no
respect for democracy either and Abbott and many of his cabinet are a
product of that environment. I think they are less interested in the
parliament than they are in power. They are guided by the politics of
opportunism. They seize upon moments of confusion and uncertainty to
capture the hearts and minds of the weak-minded, the easily lead. This
is how they were able to so skilfully convince that 4-6% of the
electorate who changed their vote last September.



It may be that Abbott is more Catholic than Christian. His attitude
to the poor, the downtrodden, the weak, the vulnerable, the dispossessed
and the unemployed suggests so. The Princes of the Church have always
pretended to champion these, the least of their brethren, while living
the high life, strutting about the world preaching one message while
practising another. I would like to know how many of the Catholic
contingent of the current cabinet are also members of Opus Dei. As
stated on the Opus Dei website, “The
aim of Opus Dei is to contribute to that evangelising mission of the
Church, by promoting among Christians of all social classes a life fully
consistent with their faith, in the middle of the ordinary
circumstances of their lives and especially through the sanctification
of their work.”
If one reads between the lines it is not hard
to identify a sinister fundamentalist agenda in that statement. Opus Dei
is a strong defender of the Catholic position on matters of social
morality particularly in the realm of marriage, abortion and euthanasia
and its members are expected to influence government policies in these
areas. While professing the importance of faith in their agenda, their
aim is overwhelmingly to further Catholic teaching. Faith is the
smokescreen.



photo 5But
it is in the field of science that the Catholic Church is the most
vulnerable and it is no surprise to me that climate change, one of the
most divisive issues we currently face, is where we find our present
Catholic government resisting so vehemently. Without a minister for
Science, what does that say about its true intent? The Catholic Church
teaches Christianity but it does not practice it. Most of its priests,
brothers and lay workers devote their lives to the Christian message but
they are ruled by a bureaucracy that conveniently ignores it in favour
of furthering its own wealth and influence. That bureaucracy rules under
the principle, ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’ Do Abbott and his cabinet
belong to this bureaucracy? We don’t know. We can only speculate. But we
can make a considered judgement by their actions. Not in what they say,
but in what they do. Their appalling betrayal of our trust with the
recent federal budget is a good guide as to their intentions.



So where does that leave we, the people, whose trust has been so
ruthlessly violated? As it was so eloquently articulated by a member of
the audience on Q&A this week, when politicians promise something so
deliberately before an election only to reverse their position within
months of winning, there should be some mechanism where the people can
call for a referendum on whether they want that government to continue
its term in office. When company board members deliberately mislead
shareholders there is a mechanism to have them removed. We the citizens
of Australia are far more important than shareholders in a corporation
yet, as matters stand, we are powerless to call our elected leaders to
account other than every three years.



When one feels so deceived, so cheated by those who abuse our trust,
there should be some form of redress to set right what is wrong.


Saturday 24 May 2014

Tony Abbott, Australias Worst PM



TONY ABBOTT IS A FRAUD AS A HUMAN BEING AND PRIME MINISTER

See, See…TVs « The Australian Independent Media Network

See, See…TVs « The Australian Independent Media Network

See, See…TVs



CRIME-preventionTony
Abbott has decided that filming people committing crimes is preferable
to wasting money on early intervention crime prevention so he has
stripped funding from hundreds of community and charity programs.  If
you live in Western Sydney you will get some cameras…eventually….when we
are finished announcing them… again and again and again.  Unfortunately
for those of you in leftie South Australia…you get nothing!



23 May 2014


You always know politicians are desperate when they start talking
about CCTV cameras on street corners. It usually happens towards the end
of election campaigns, but on Friday Tony Abbott reached for this most
micro of populist issues at the end of a week that left his macro budget
sales pitch in tatters.



23 May 2014


Making a law-and-order pitch, Abbott visited Campbelltown to
highlight the allocation of $20m over the next 12 months to install new
CCTV cameras and fund other safety projects around Australia.



He said the program – funded by seized proceeds of crime – was “an important element in our budget”.


20 May 2014


Experts and welfare groups have argued, correctly, I fear, that the
changes to the youth welfare system could lead to a spike in the crime
rate. Young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are already 28
times more likely to be in youth detention than other Australians. And
when the cuts to Aboriginal Legal Services are added to this mix, the
multiplier effect means this crisis risks becoming a catastrophe.




The
Government has outlined more than $500 million in cuts to Indigenous
programs, including health, but it’s not yet clear exactly where those
cuts will fall.

Indigenous
legal and health services are concerned that direct budget cuts will
affect frontline services and there’s uncertainty over the future of 28
Indigenous children and family centres across the country.

14 May 2014


Giving young unemployed people access to the dole for only six months
of the year could lead to an increase in crime and poorer working
conditions, welfare groups have warned.



4 April 2014


The undeniable data-based fact is that early intervention social
programs deliver better bang-for-buck than just about any other form of
public spending.



We know that well-run NGO programs for at-risk youth drive down rates
of criminal behaviour, incarceration, mental illness, social
dislocation, and future unemployment.



And we know these social ills, if allowed to fester and bloom, end up costing us all billions upon billions of dollars.


The Household Organisational Management Expenses (HOME) Advice
program, which has existed as a pilot since 2002, costs only around
$3,000 on average to prevent a family falling into homelessness. This
compares to an average of $43,000 the taxpayer has to stump up if a
family becomes homeless. By not expanding a successful program from its
eight pilot locations, the Commonwealth Government has actually lost
millions in tax revenue.



For about $100 million per year,  the Australian government could
have funded the HOME Advice program to work with 33,000 families.



So if the economic case is so black-and-white, why then are
governments not tripping over themselves to fund programs like
Functional Family Therapy in every prison in Australia?



Mostly because the economic benefit of social policy takes a long
time to be seen. Half of the benefit of Functional Family Therapy, for
example, is seen 10 years after the program is funded. Modern
politicians, locked into an electoral cycle perspective, find it tough
to embrace a program that will slowly start to reveal its results in a
decade’s time.



18 February 2014


Attorney General John Rau has called upon Prime Minister Tony Abbott
to reinstate more than $2million in crime prevention funding for South
Australian local communities.



The cuts also mean that a $490,000 rollout of CCTV, plus better
lighting and signage around the Adelaide Oval and Riverbank Precinct
will not proceed.



22 January 2014


The leader of an early intervention program for vulnerable youths is
seeking legal advice to save the project from closing down, after the
Abbott government backed away from distributing crucial grant money
promised by the former Labor government.



More than 2000 teenagers have come through Operation Newstart since
it was established in 1997 for children aged 14 to 16 who routinely skip
school or who have trouble with the law, drugs and alcohol, and who are
often victims of abuse.



A spokesperson for the Minister for Justice said ”Under this plan,
$50 million will be provided to communities to allow them to deliver
effective local solutions to crime and antisocial behaviour by
installing measures such as CCTV and better lighting.”



13 October 2013


The Abbott government has backed away from distributing millions of
dollars in grants promised to dozens of charities, community groups and
local councils under Labor’s national crime prevention program.



Father Riley hit out at the Coalition’s decision, pointing out that
national crime prevention grants were funded through the proceeds of
crime rather than general revenue and were not election promises.



”I don’t understand this, the proceeds of crime is not taxpayer money,” Father Riley said.


The biggest loser is the Police Citizens Youth Club, which has been
warned the $7 million it was promised is ”on hold and unlikely to be
delivered”, according to an insider.



The money was earmarked to provide youth mentoring programs in
disadvantaged areas, including the ”Making Men” and ”Girl’s Choice”
projects to steer young people away from a life of crime.



One group that was warned not to spend on the assumption that
agreements were valid is the Women in Prison Advocacy Network, which was
promised $297,000 to start a youth mentoring program in inner-city
Sydney and the La Perouse and Maroubra areas



The National Aboriginal Sporting Chance Academy had secured a total
of $600,000 for programs for indigenous youth in Sydney and Dubbo but
was warned the money was under review.



Mission Australia, which had been promised nearly $500,000, said it ”remains optimistic”.


28 August 2013


CRIME prevention in Parramatta is the focus of both Labor and Coalition sides in the lead-up to the September 7 election.


Liberal candidate Martin Zaiter announced last week that a Coalition
government would give $1 million for Parramatta Council to install CCTV
cameras in the CBD and the suburbs.



The Liberal announcement follows on from Labor MP Julie Owens’ similar commitment last week.


The Labor promise was for a $1 million package comprising CCTV cameras and various youth crime prevention programs.


Ms Owens said that money “would be there” regardless of the election outcome.


Mr Keenan said a Coalition government would work on the basis of its $1 million commitment.


21 August 2013


Coachmans Park at St Marys was the backdrop for the Coalition’s plans for crime prevention equipment.


Opposition spokesman for communications Malcolm Turnbull, Opposition
spokesman for indigenous development Senator Marise Payne, Penrith
Council mayor Mark Davies and Liberal Lindsay candidate Fiona Scott were
involved in the announcement.



A total of $300,000 in funding for CCTV cameras has been promised by
the Coalition if elected, to be installed at Queen St and in High St and
Station St, Penrith.



20 August 2013


Tony Abbott visits the Liverpool CBD to promise $300,000 for CCTV cameras.


3 March 2013


AN ABBOTT government would reinstate a Howard government program that funded CCTV cameras in crime hotspots around the country.


Announcing the $50 million policy at Leumeah train station on
Saturday, the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said the program would
give local governments the tools they need to tackle street crime.



”We will restore the $50 million-plus that’s been cut … that was
going to crime prevention programs. That money will be available for
councils to apply so they can get better lighting and things like CCTV,”
he said.



 8 October 2012


Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says a Coalition government
will spend $50 million over four years installing CCTV cameras if it
wins office.






Ok we get it.  Enough with the cameras already!  What this boils down
to is the government have decided that their bottom line should benefit
from the proceeds of crime rather than investing the money in
preventing future crime because let’s face it, the way Tony’s going, it
won’t be his problem.  Are we all just collateral damage?  How many are
to be sacrificed for “the economy”?  Will we have no planning for the
future beyond “let’s fiddle the numbers to make us look like we are
reducing the deficit”?