Wednesday 30 July 2014

My 40th job application

My 40th job application


My 40th job application


Written by





Rate this item

To: Mr Eric Abetz
Minister for EmploymentBolgia 8, Malebolge, 8th CircleCanberra



Dear Minister,


I wish to apply for the role of statistician, which I presume to be currently vacant in your office.


I’m applying for this role because, in addition to being the 40th job
application I will have filed this month in order to get my dole
payment, your stated reliance on “anecdotal data” leads me to believe
the statistician role in your office would only be part time.



In fact, part time would be perfect, because I am a single mother who
can’t afford childcare thanks to your government dismissing the
Productivity Commission’s suggestion to divert Paid Parental Leave
funding into the under resourced child care system.



With keen time management skills honed from “seek(ing) a job of a
morning and of an afternoon”, I am confident my ability to pad work out
with meaningless tasks will be fully synergistic with a government that
has only been able to pass 6 legislative bills since coming to power 10
months ago.



I don’t believe my complete lack of experience as a statistician will
be a drawback, thanks to your preference for “anecdotal evidence” over
actual data.



I do, however, have wonderful experience as a lifter (but not as a
leaner). You should see how many reports stating Work for the Dole
schemes are counterproductive for welfare recipients and employers I can
lift and put in the bin. I won’t recycle them though. Only leaners rely
on paper previously used by honest taxpayers. That’s not me, Betzy. We
should totally have a team building session where we lift trees from the
Tasmanian forest (you know, the one we tried to “unlock”) and take them
back to Canberra to make more paper for things like “Real Solutions”.



Additionally, I have no formal qualifications as a statistician. I
trust this won’t be an issue because no one can actually afford
education anymore. I do know Latin, however, so feel free to have me
stand as your proxy in any meetings with Christopher Pyne. Most of my
Latin knowledge is based on prayers but I’m sure it won’t change the
outcome of our conversations.



In addition to Latin, I have great communication skills and can
answer most questions with a stock “there is no doubt that all the
social data tells us...” without referencing any of the data or studies
or even listening to the question. This skill really comes in handy and
also allows me to keep meetings to a minimum by saying “no”, “Howard
Government” or “LA LA LAAAA I can’t hear you” repeatedly.



With regards to salary, I’m used to living below the poverty line on
Newstart’s $245 per week, though I hear there is an extra $20
potentially available to people on the Work for the Dole scheme - just
the thing to help me afford the cost of living in Canberra where
starting rent for a 1 bedroom unit is $220 per week. That would leave me
with $40 a week to live on. Or should I just squat in that rental
Abbott doesn’t live in and cost $3000 per week?



Yes, of course, I would move for this job, Minister - I’m no “job
snob”. It doesn’t matter that I live in Melbourne - I know you believe
in moving for work because “where there are jobs available, you should
seek that employment, even if it is not necessarily the employment of
first choice”. Trust me, working for you would be my last choice.



I look forward to discussing this exciting opportunity with you further.


Yours sincerely,


Amy Gray





Monday 28 July 2014

Honesty...what's that? - » The Australian Independent Media Network

Honesty...what's that? - » The Australian Independent Media Network



Honesty…what’s that?














When the Charter of Budget Honesty
was introduced by the Howard/Costello government in 1998 it was
intended to provide a framework for the conduct of Government fiscal
policy.



“The purpose of the Charter is to improve fiscal policy outcomes. The
Charter provides for this by requiring fiscal strategy to be based on
principles of sound fiscal management and by facilitating public
scrutiny of fiscal policy and performance.”



Broadly speaking, the Charter requires that budgets must be in
balance over the course of the economic cycle, which means the
government can run a deficit in bad times as long as there’s a surplus
in good times. But, as Alan Kohler points out, the problem was it didn’t say how big these should be.



Stephen Anthony of Macroeconomics wrote in a report he did for the Minerals Council of Australia last year:


“Essentially, the fiscal strategy objective (of the Charter) provided
the wrong diagnostic tool as a benchmark for success over the business
and commodity cycle. As a result, governments spent up big in the boom
and got caught on the down side of the cycle. Windfall tax receipts were
frittered away.”



According to Macroeconomics, commodity boom windfall revenues
contributed around $160 billion to the Commonwealth budget bottom-line
up to 2011-12. Yet all that the fiscal strategy required was for the
government to run a surplus – of any size.



Because the resources boom led to unexpected returns, there was no
danger of being in deficit.  Add to this the sale of many assets and
there was a motza to play with.  The Charter was still adhered to
despite a huge spending spree.



The last five budgets of the Howard government contained net
discretionary spending of $133 billion and net tax cuts of $117
billion.  The structural deficit was set up by John Howard and Peter
Costello and not corrected by Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan.



Prior to the 2010 election, Chris Berg of the IPA (and ABC) wrote an article bemoaning the leaking of the then Opposition policy costings.


The Charter allows the opposition to give Treasury its election
promises to check the policy costs are correct.  If they don’t, the
government clobbers them for avoiding scrutiny.  Hockey’s figures were
subsequently found to have an $11 billion black hole, and the auditors
found guilty of professional misconduct.  No wonder they didn’t want
them released early.



Berg suggested that this part of the charter overwhelmingly favours incumbent governments because they:


“have had three years to consult with Treasury’s nearly 1000 staff
about future policies, test policy assumptions, and get Treasury’s
recommendations. Much government policy is formulated by Treasury in the
first place.  By comparison, an opposition is just a few people in a
room thinking up ideas.”



From what we have seen of the Abbott government so far, they haven’t
expanded their consultative capacity regardless of how many expert
public servants are at their disposal and they will sack or ignore
anyone who offers advice they don’t want to hear.



In 2004, Ross Gittins wrote ”The government is largely feeding back
to the bureaucrats their own costings, whereas the opposition runs a
high risk of slipping up somehow and being monstered by the Treasurer.”



To address this problem, in 2012 Labor established the Parliamentary Budget Office.


“The role of the PBO is to inform the Parliament by providing
independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy
and the financial implications of proposals.



As set out in the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has the following functions:


•Outside the caretaker period for a general election – to prepare
policy costings on request by Senators and Members of the House of
Representative, with the requests and the PBO’s responses to be kept
confidential if so requested by the requestor.



•During the caretaker period for a general election – to prepare
costings of publicly announced polices on request by authorised members
of Parliamentary parties or independent members.



•To prepare responses (other than policy costings) to requests
relating to the budget by Senators or Members of the House of
Representatives.



•To prepare submissions to inquiries of Parliamentary committees on request by such committees.


•To conduct research and analysis of the budget and fiscal policy settings.”


One would have thought that the Charter and the PBO would have helped
towards keeping the bastards honest but no, both sides still play silly
buggers.  They are under no compulsion to release costings by a set
date and we have been subjected to the debacle of giving interested
voters only a day or two to digest the material on many crucial
policies.  Others, like the NBN or Direct Action, are unable to be
costed either due to lack of technical expertise or lack of policy
detail.  The PPL was based on rubbery assumptions which made the
confidence level very low.



And then we have the manipulative approach to reporting that Joe
Hockey sells to naïve voters.  He pulled some pre-election stunts by
using accrual rather than the accepted cash basis.



“Mr Hockey today admitted to using the accrual rather than cash
bottom line for their numbers – which makes any figures Mr Hockey
produces look much rosier than they actually are.  The difference
between cash and accrual bottom lines across the forward estimates is
$16.6 billion.  Were Federal Labor to use an accrual bottom line, it
would be in surplus a year earlier, in 2015-16.  What this means is that
Australians will never truly know the state of the budget under an
Coalition Government.”



And now, rather than using the independent PEFO as the true state of
the inherited debt and forecast for the future, Hockey is using his
propaganda sheet MYEFO, which included his revenue and discretionary
spending decisions, as the starting point for comparison of how the
government is performing fiscally.  MYEFO is effectively saying that,
under Coalition policies and spending commitments as they stood in
December 2013, the gross debt in ten years’ time would be $667 billion. 
He then somehow sells that as Labor’s fault.  I would love to see the
same analysis done to the Howard government – what the debt would have
been in ten years if his spending continued unabated.  Using actual net
debt when referring to the Coalition and projected gross debt when
talking about Labor is blatantly designed to misinform.



It was interesting to read in the recent Commission of Audit that
they recommend the transparency and rules about fiscal statements need
to be tightened up.



“Budget transparency allows for a more informed public policy debate,
fosters credibility and helps the community better understand fiscal
policy. Improved fiscal transparency can assist in highlighting current
and emerging fiscal risks, and in driving the necessary change in the
community’s expectations of government.



Improved budget reporting requirements would improve transparency and
accountability and assist the government in achieving its medium‑term
fiscal strategy.”



They also take a veiled shot at Hockey’s forecasts and express their confidence in Treasury figures.


“Recent budget documents have reported large downward revisions to
the economic and revenue forecasts. Against this backdrop, a number of
concerns have been raised about the transparency of current forecasting
arrangements.



The Review of Treasury Macroeconomic and Revenue Forecasting
(Australian Government, 2012) found that ‘Treasury’s forecasts are
comparable with, or better than, those of official agencies overseas’.”



The report goes on to recommend some changes.


“One option for Treasury to improve the transparency of budget
forecasts would be to require a further formal consultation with a panel
of experts before budget forecasts are finalised.



Another option which improves transparency about how the Budget
forecasts compare with the views of other forecasters could be achieved
by requiring comparisons to be published between key economic forecasts
and relevant consensus forecasts.



Confidence intervals could also be published for key forecasts.”


All I can say is good luck with that!


I am expecting General Jim Molan (retired) to be brought out of
mothballs (if anyone can find him since he was given $1 million to be
our ‘Special Envoy’ smashing the people smuggling business) and given
Martin Parkinson’s job at Treasury.  Launch Operation Bamboozle where,
in the national interest, they will no longer be giving the financial
bandits a regular update on fiscal matters.



“The repair job started from day one obviously with the election of
the new government but it accelerates from today given that we will see
the full extent of Labor’s debt and deficit disaster.” – Tony Abbott December 2013



MATHIAS CORMANN:
“Labor left behind a debt and deficit disaster after completely
mismanaging public money over six years in government. We are taking
responsibility to fixing up the mess they left behind.”  July 16 2014



Joe Hockey:  “There’s no crisis at all in the Australian economy,”  July 26 2014


Honesty….what’s that?





Saturday 26 July 2014

Tell me what I want to hear - » The Australian Independent Media Network

Tell me what I want to hear - » The Australian Independent Media Network



Tell me what I want to hear














As it becomes increasingly apparent that households will not be
$550 a year better off without the carbon tax we hear the rhetoric
change.  Andrew Laming said



“It will be $550 lower than it otherwise would be, but if other
elements have made prices go up then you won’t see a $550 fall on any
bill.  But you’ll be $550 better off than you otherwise would have been,
and that’s a very important caveat.”



So if I understand him correctly, because prices are going up at a
slower rate that is a cut.  How come the same does not apply to funding
for health, education, and pensions?



Despite cutting $80 billion from State funding for health and
education, Abbott assures us that this is not a cut because funding goes
up each year, albeit by less than promised.  Likewise, Tony repeats
over and over that pensions will go up twice a year.  The fact that they
will be going up by less (CPI rather than AMWE), thus expanding the
relative gap in standard of living, is not to be considered a cut.



Having abandoned carbon pricing, and facing criticism of, and
opposition to, its Direct Action Plan, the government, at the behest of
its masters, has now set its sights on the Renewable Energy Target.



Jennifer Westacott, Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, recently wrote


“We might be able to farewell the carbon tax, but it is just one of a
long line of green energy policies which federal and state governments
have layered on top of one another that are driving up the cost of
electricity.



It is the cumulative impact of these policies that is pushing up the
cost of electricity and making our businesses less competitive.



Repeal of the carbon tax therefore must be the beginning of removing
shortsighted schemes and programs, and the start of a process to design
an integrated approach to climate change and energy policy that supports
rather than weighs down our economic competitiveness and jobs.”



Tony Shepherd,
the man chosen to lead the “audit” of government expenditure, was also
chair of the Business Council of Australia, which threw its weight
behind the government’s move to repeal the carbon price.  As a previous
chairman of Transfield Services, he has long-established ties to the
Liberal Party and ex-NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell, and was an outspoken
critic of the Gillard government.  He criticised the carbon tax
legislation and warned of the dangers of Australia leading the world on
climate change, stating “tails do not wag dogs”.



Shepherd wants nuclear power to be in the energy policy mix, not “excluded on ideological grounds”, which, as Crikey
points out, seems to forget that for Australia nuclear power is
excluded on simple maths — it’s hideously expensive, compared even with
renewables.



In January 2012, Maurice Newman, head of Tony Abbott’s Business Advisory Council, wrote in the Spectator


“Even before they threatened my property, I was opposed to wind
farms. They fail on all counts. They are grossly inefficient, extremely
expensive, socially inequitable, a danger to human health,
environmentally harmful, divisive for communities, a blot on the
landscape, and don’t even achieve the purpose for which they were
designed, namely the reliable generation of electricity and the
reduction of CO2 emissions.”



In an interview on Lateline, Newman said


“I just look at the evidence. There is no evidence. If people can
show there is a correlation between increasing CO2 and global
temperature, well then of course that’s something which we would pay
attention to. But when you look at the last 17.5 years where we’ve had a
multitude of climate models, and this was the basis on which this whole
so-called science rests, it’s on models, computer models. And those
models have been shown to be 98 per cent inaccurate.  CO2 is not a
pollutant.”



Newman is calling for the RET to be scrapped  saying


“Whether the Coalition will change their policy on the RET is up to
them … I believe it should be removed because the basis upon which we
accepted in good faith that we needed it is no longer there.  When we
look at the experience of Germany, they have not been successful in
reducing emissions; when we look at the science it no longer supports
the global warming theory and when we look at the health and economic
effects of windfarms and the obscene wealth transfer from poor to rich
we have to ask: why are we persisting with them? I think it is a crime
against the people.”



David Murray, a former CEO of the Commonwealth bank of Australia,
former head of the $90 billion Future Fund, and the man chosen by  Tony
Abbott to lead the review of the $5 trillion Australian financial
services industry, has also dismissed the threat of climate change, and
suggested climate scientists had no integrity.



In an interview on ABC TV’s Lateline Program, Murray said the climate problem is “severely overstated.”


Asked what it would take to change his mind about the climate
science, particularly in light of the recent IPCC 5th assessment report,
Murray replied: “When I see some evidence of integrity amongst the
scientists themselves,” – an interesting comment considering what has
come out about shonky practices at the Commonwealth Bank that he led.



He said if he were in a leadership role, he would “set up some
scientific approach to get a community consensus here about what is the
truth on this matter.” Rather than listening to every major scientific
institution around the world, and the overwhelming scientific consensus,
he wants “community consensus”?



Murray’s appointment to head the first full scale review of the
financial system in 17 years is problematic given his stance on climate
change. The financial services industry is probably the most exposed to
risk created by a changing climate, changing policy, and the likelihood
of stranded assets as the world accelerates towards a low carbon
economy.



A growing number of actuaries, advisors and investor groups are
raising concerns that banks and funds managers are “flying blind” on
climate risk because they are effectively ignoring the issue.



They argue that systemic reviews, be they in finance or resources of
manufacturing, need rigorous attention to how the world is changing.
Denying climate change is the wrong way to start.



In 2011, Dick Warburton became the executive chairman of the
newly-formed lobby group Manufacturing Australia, whose members included
big players like Amcor, BlueScope Steel and Boral and small-to-medium
business.  Their aim was to urge for a delay to carbon tax legislation.



When Warburton, a self-professed sceptic, was interviewed on the ABC, the following exchange took place:


TICKY FULLERTON: You said earlier today that why should we be doing
this when the rest of world is actually pulling out of carbon taxes and
the ETS? I’m just wondering what countries you’re thinking about there?



DICK WARBURTON: Canada has announced that they’re not going to go
ahead with any carbon tax, so has Korea, so has Japan. They’ve made
those announcements they’re not going ahead. And no country has gone
ahead with a carbon tax or an ETS since Copenhagen.



TICKY FULLERTON: Can I take you up on that?  Because my understanding
is that they are – Japan is still going to be putting a carbon tax in
place; in Canada the carbon taxes are being put in – going to be
scheduled in through different states. And indeed, in Korea, they used
their stimulus money into new green initiatives. And so these are very
strong moves. They may be shifted back a bit, but everybody’s moving in
that direction, aren’t they?



DICK WARBURTON: No, they might be doing moves like Korea – you’re
talking about is the moves of mitigation or moves of change. That’s
good. I’m very much in favour of that. But they announced that they
would not be introducing an ETS (inaudible). Canada announced it
straight after the election. They announced that. Japan, I can’t recall
when they made the statement, but Canada and Korea definitely have.



Mr Warburton may like to change his sources of information.


South Korea’s
only securities exchange, the Korea Exchange, is reported to have won a
contract to operate world’s second largest Emissions Trading Scheme
(ETS) from the start of 2015.



Two Japanese regions have operational mandatory ETSs in place: Tokyo
and Saitama. Similar schemes, although likely voluntary, are being or
have been considered for the Osaka-Kansai Prefecture and the Chiba
Prefecture.



In March 2010, the Japanese government introduced the “Basic Act on
Global Warming Countermeasures.”  An initial feature of the Act was a
nation-wide emissions trading system (ETS) that would have begun in
April 2013.



While this nation-wide ETS was removed from the Act in December 2010,
other cap-and-trade measures, such as the Japanese Voluntary ETS (which
began in 2005 and became part of the Experimental ETS in 2008), the
Tokyo ETS, and the Experimental ETS (the trial period was for 2008-2012,
and the government continues to encourage firms to participate), have
been active in the country.



According to Japan’s former National Strategy Minister,
Koichiro Gemba, the primary reason that the Japanese ETS was deferred
was because fellow nations (particularly the United States and
Australia) struggled to develop their own robust climate policies.



With the Government’s recent coal-fired electricity regulations, Canada became the first major coal user to ban the construction of traditional coal-fired electricity generation units.


”Our approach will foster a permanent transition towards lower or
non-emitting types of generation such as high-efficiency natural gas and
renewable energy.”



The Province of Alberta passed its Specified Gas Emitters Regulation in 2007 establishing an emissions intensity trading scheme.


To achieve its emissions reduction goal, the Quebec government has
enacted regulations for an ETS. As with the Californian scheme, it began
in 2013.



Warburton said on repeated occasions that climate science was not
settled. “On the cause there’s huge debate about whether carbon dioxide
is the main cause.”



Last year, Tony Abbott said “We have to accept that in the changed
circumstances of today, the renewable energy target is causing pretty
significant price pressure in the system and we ought to be an
affordable energy superpower … cheap energy ought to be one of our
comparative advantages,”



Earlier, the Climate Change Authority’s review of Labor’s renewable
energy scheme had concluded that the current targets should be kept.
Although it had the statutory obligation to undertake the next review,
the government moved quickly to appoint its own inquiry and what better
man to appoint to head the RET review panel than Dick Warburton?   The
other members of the panel are Matt Zema, the CEO of the Australian
Energy Market Operator, Shirley In’t Veld, the former head of WA
government owned generation company Verve Energy, and Brian Fisher, the
former long-term head of ABARE who gained notoriety for his positions on
climate policies and is a noted free-market hardliner.



Environmentalists’ fears that this inquiry was set up to reach a
predetermined conclusion were strengthened by the government’s rapid
moves to cut funding in this area. The budget recommended the abolition
of the $3.1 billion Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA, an
institution formed to help bring new technologies into production and
deployment, and to fund Australia’s world-leading solar research. While
it retained funding to meet its existing contracts, it had almost no
funds to enter into any new agreements.



But what can we expect when we have the Prime Minister
who said in a radio interview he understood why people were anxious
about windfarms that were “sprouting like mushrooms all over the fields
of our country”.



“If you drive down the Federal Highway from Goulburn to Canberra and
you look at Lake George, yes there’s an absolute forest of these things
on the other side of the lake near Bungendore,” he said.



It must be on the daily song sheet as we heard the Treasurer make similar comments.


“If I can be a little indulgent please, I drive to Canberra to go to
Parliament, I drive myself and I must say I find those wind turbines
around Lake George to be utterly offensive.  I think they’re just a
blight on the landscape.”



The government is under pressure from the coal lobby, incumbent
utilities, network operators and state governments to either dump, or
sharply reduce the renewable energy target.



As Ross Garnaut said


“Whether or not Abbott really does believe in anthropogenic climate
change, it is extraordinary that the four business leaders the
government has appointed to senior advisory roles – Dick Warburton on
the inquiry into renewable energy, David Murray on the financial system
inquiry, Maurice Newman to chair the PM’s Business Advisory Council, and
Tony Shepherd to head the Commission of Audit – all share a strong view
that the science on climate change is wrong.”



ian macfarlaneSeeing
Senator Cory Bernardi heading the Senate Committee into Direct Action –
”I do not think human activity causes climate change and I haven’t seen
anything that changes my view. I remain very sceptical about the
alarmists’ claims.” – and Senator Ian Macdonald wearing a high vis
“Australians for Coal” vest in the Senate at the behest of the Minerals
Council, just underlines what we are dealing with – a bunch of
hand-picked flat earthers who get their climate advice from Christopher
Monckton and Andrew Bolt.






abbott-destroys-renewables





Thursday 24 July 2014

Heartless Abbott snubs Pararoos and disabled 12-year-old girl

Heartless Abbott snubs Pararoos and disabled 12-year-old girl

Heartless Abbott snubs Pararoos and disabled 12-year-old girl









Tony Abbott exhibits callous disregard and gross disrespect to a young partially blind soccer player's plea. Barry Everingham reports.



WE REALLY HAVE TO hand it to Tony Abbott — the Prime Minister who just doesn’t get it.



The man who holds the nation’s highest political office is our most
unpopular leader ever — and it is no wonder why. Simply recounting the
story of 12-year-old Claire Falls and her letter to Abbott is enough to
explain why he is so despised.




Clair is a vision impaired soccer player and is passionate about her
sport. Consequently, she is upset  the Abbott Government taken away the
entire government contribution to the Australia's Paralympic Football
Team — a measly $175,000.




I say taken away, but stolen might be a better description.



Because Abbott was able to find $1,000,000 for the Australian Ballet to enable them to buy a Melbourne mansion a residence for their ballet students. (Of course, the co-chair of Australian Ballet is Sarah Murdoch, wife of Lachlan Murdoch and daughter-in-law of Rupert Murdoch, and the Pararoos don't have a Murdoch on their board.)





He was able to find a few million to fund the recent tour of Australia by William and Kate, and another $150,000 for a two night tour by the playboy prince who likes dressing up in Nazi uniforms, and romping around Vegas in the nude. Harry's holiday in Australia last year appears to have been arranged to allow Abbott’s daughters to spend some quality time with him.



But $175,000 for an eminently good cause got the chop.



So, young Clair wrote to Abbott, describing her own plight and that of the poor Pararoos:





Claire's letter to the Tony Abbott



I love playing football and am playing my fourth season this
year. I was diagnosed with low vision last year when I was playing with
my junior league team. Having low vision for me means that I don’t have
any 3 dimensional vision or depth perception. This obviously makes
playing the game I love very, very hard.




Yesterday I read the article about the Pararoo’s funding going from $175,000 a year to nothing I couldn’t believe it!



I know that is not a lot of money to go around when it comes to
supporting sports. I can see that because professional women in sport
still have to work to make ends meet, and I know that there is even less
for athletes with a disability. I even know that there is only a very
small amount dedicated to blind sports.




Yesterday when I read about the Pararoo’s funding being cut off
completely I couldn’t help but be angry and sad and disappointed.




Claire Falls proudly shows one of her soccer trophies (Image via @eyesofadream)
I
was upset to listen to the video on the Australian Sports Commission
Website about how funding gets divided up, and I it makes me feel angry
to think that football should ever be about winning medals or to read
that funding was cut off because of the Pararoo’s ranking.




The Socceroo’s world ranking is at 62nd the Matilda’s are 9th,
are they going to have there funding axed too? Of course they aren’t
there would be a huge outcry!




Since when is sport meant to be about how many medals a team
wins? What would happen if every Mum or Dad said to their kid ‘I’m not
going to pay your football fees unless you win’?




Now that I have had time to adjust to my low vision it its not so
bad but I still have to work ten times as hard as my new teammates to
get the same results. For me there is no other option in football that
suits my needs other than to play in a mainstream league, But the thing
is their are some kids out there that have much bigger limitations than
me.




If the Football Federation and the Australian Sports Commission
are taking away the money for our countries only Paralympics football
team that allows athletes with a disability to play, what hope is there
for us kids? What do we have to aim for? What happens to our hero’s? How
is that promoting encouragement, respect or inclusion?




My question and challenge for you is, if I can get 175,000
supporters to pledge and provide $1 each will you match it dollar for
dollar?




From,



Claire Falls




She received a reply that simply boggles the mind.



God only knows who the fool was is in his office who wrote the reply
for him, but Abbott signed the letter personally, so it had his full
seal of approval.




Tony Abbott's letter to Claire





Dear Claire,



Thank you for taking the time to write to me.



One of the most enjoyable things about being Prime Minister is hearing from young people like yourself.



I congratulate you on taking an interest in our system of government.



We are a great country and a great people.



One day it will be the responsibility of you and your generation to lead our country.



It says something positive about you that you were willing to
take the time to write and share with me your thoughts about the issues
that face our country.




Our democracy truly rests on the idea that every individual
counts and everyone can have his or her say on the issues that matter
most to them.




Thank you for your correspondence and I send you my best wishes.



Yours sincerely,



Tony Abbott




Day by day this Prime Minister stuffs up. He has spent countless
hours wringing all he can politically out of what he clearly hopes will
be his Tampa moment – the MH17 tragedy – and has taken his eyes off the
concerns of everyday people.




Abbott should realise discrimination against disabled athletes is
unacceptable and, indeed, 80,000 concerned Australians have already
signed a petition decrying his arrogance and heartlessness, and demanding the money be reinstated.





His reply to young Claire underscores what kind of man we are dealing with — and that's looking even sicker as the days roll on.



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License







Tuesday 22 July 2014

Abbott's Indigenous funding cuts all about assimilation

Abbott's Indigenous funding cuts all about assimilation

Abbott's Indigenous funding cuts all about assimilation







Tony Abbott frequently seems to forget the pre-existence of a 60,000+ year-old civilization in Australia.


PM Abbott's Indigenous cuts are designed to diminish Indigenous culture and promote assimilation, says Natalie Cromb, who provides a tribute to the recently deceased Indigenous trailblazer Gavin Jones.



THE ABBOTT GOVERNMENT has appointed an Indigenous Adviser
and, together, they have announced that they are creating efficiencies
by cutting $600 million from the Indigenous Affairs portfolio to ‘eliminate waste.’




I recently commented on cuts to legal funding for Indigenous Australians, but one of the most recent cuts to be uncovered is the funding for Deadly Vibe, an initiative started by recently deceased Indigenous trailblazer Gavin Jones.
Deadly Vibe was created to empower Indigenous people, it was a platform
to celebrate the culture, the achievements of Indigenous people and
overcome stereotypes.




Gavin understood Indigenous people; he recognised that there was a
disparity between mainstream media and what the Indigenous community
needed. He recognised that Indigenous people needed an outlet to feel
pride as opposed to isolation and he set out to provide that outlet.




The Indigenous community is in mourning for Gavin, so it is a double
blow for Indigenous Australians to not only lose Gavin but to
effectively lose his legacy.




Gavin was one of the first to stand up and create a forum for
recognition for the wonderful achievements of Indigenous Australians and
aptly entitled it, the  ‘Deadly Awards’. The word ‘deadly’ for Indigenous people is synonymous with greatness, strength, courage and respect. To call someone ‘deadly’ is high praise.






To receive a Deadly Award was an extraordinary honour and the awards
were so popular and such an amazing platform of empowerment that seventy per cent of the Indigenous population would tune in to watch them on television.




As a result of the funding cuts to Deadly Vibe, or Vibe Australia, an announcement was made that confirmed the reason for the funding cuts was that the funding was to be



‘... directed to the Government’s programs that deliver front line services from 1 July 2014.’




I query what the Government considers to be frontline services, thus
far it appears employment is the primary concern, which fits in with the
policy key point of individual Indigenous wealth accumulation.




The Abbott Government, and his hand-picked advisor and friend, Warren Mundine,
are completely disconnected from the Indigenous community and appear to
be systematically cutting policies and programs that benefit the
Indigenous people and pushing forward an agenda of assimilation —
specifically, to get jobs, make money and accumulate wealth.




The Abbott Government, in the official Policy for Indigenous Affairs, highlights individual empowerment as a key point, along with ‘support for empowered communities.’ What does this mean exactly?





Here is a quick summary of the cuts we know about so far:



Now, here is what the Government is actually doing:



  • Building more police stations in Aboriginal communities;
  • Initiating the following ‘programs’:
    • jobs, land and the economy;
    • children and schooling;
    • safety and wellbeing;
    • culture and capability; and
    • remote Australia strategies
What these programs actually entail, nobody knows. This is a government of rhetoric and very little substance — if any at all.





So, the Government will provide more police to target Indigenous people — but not the legal funding in order to ensure that Indigenous people receive natural justice.



The Government has a ‘policy’ to empower Indigenous people — but what
could be more empowering than a national Indigenous awards and media
program?




The Government has a policy of ‘empowering communities’ — but have
cut funding to the national representative body that speaks for
Indigenous people, ensures their rights are understood, and fights for
their equality and self-determination.




The Government has a policy to close the gap — yet they are cutting funding to Indigenous health.



And, just to twist the knife, they cut funding towards keeping Indigenous languages alive.



Whilst there is no Indigenous representative body to stand up and
fight for Indigenous Australians, we are meant to count ourselves lucky
we have a ‘leader’ in the form of Warren Mundine looking out for our best interests.




So committed to Indigenous Australia is Warren Mundine that he not
only endorses the swingeing cuts made by the government, but he says the
cuts don't  don't go far enough and recommends more.






The Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs has activated policies that
widen the gap, disempower Indigenous Australians and illustrate
contempt for communities seeking to retain any sense of their cultural
practices. This Government, and its adviser Mundine, not only let down
the Indigenous people but are blatant in their policies of assimilation.




On the surface, the employment and training programs are a great way
in which Indigenous people can become more highly skilled and
employable. However, employment training and recruitment are important
and valid programs — but they should not be the only programs.




When considered on a deeper level – in the context of cuts to health,
education, legal services, cultural linguistics and worst of all, cuts
to the national representative body that would provide a compelling
voice to First Australians – it becomes clear that the employment
programs are an attempt to assimilate the Indigenous people into the
Liberal agenda of individual wealth accumulation and tax paying. For us
to forget our culture and fade into the wider community. It is the
outrageous, racist policy championed by Liberal Party elder Peter Coleman recently on ABC Q&A.






Despite the Government’s obvious attempt to undermine the Indigenous
people, we will not forget the legacies of our ancestors. We will not
neglect the true courage they have shown to bring Indigenous people
closer together and strengthen our resolve to stand against oppression,
injustice and inequality.




So I would like to take this opportunity to say: thank you Gavin.



Thank you for the love and compassion you had for your people.



Thank you for your courage to stand up for the Indigenous people and
form such an influential organisation that empowered our people.




Thank you for your leadership, thank you for your vision.



Thank you for illustrating what a true leader is.



Rest in peace, you will be sorely missed by your people.



Those who are against the cut of the funding to Gavin’s legacy, please sign this petition and support this cause.





You can follow Natalie on Twitter @NatalieCromb.



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License







Saturday 19 July 2014

Prime Minister, Why haven't you called Putin? - » The Australian Independent Media Network

Prime Minister, Why haven't you called Putin? - » The Australian Independent Media Network



Prime Minister, Why haven’t you called Putin?













Putin 2Tony Abbott you are weak.
When interviewed by Fran Kelly on ‘Insiders’ this morning you were
asked if you had called Vladimir Putin. You said you hadn’t called the
Russian President over the murder of at least 28 Australians. You gave
no indication that you intended to. Why not? Are you too frightened? You
say you have spoken to the Russian Trade Minister. Really? What a
pathetic reply to a genuine opportunity to show the world that you view
the deaths of innocent Australians sufficiently important enough to get
on the phone and demand answers. You are clearly not up to the job you
have been elected to do.



You haven’t even spoken to any of the families of the victims. You
are waiting for them to ask you to call. You are pathetic. You appear so
out of your league in the face of a world tragedy. You are further from
a national leader than we have ever seen. Certain elements of the media
are giving you credit for your unambiguous condemnation of this act of
terrorism and your criticism of the Russian government. How easy is it
to mouth-off from a safe distance? Leadership is being pro-active. If
any of your advisers were worth their salt, they would have advised you
to get on the phone. Did they? If they did, why haven’t you?



All this talk about not inviting Putin to the G20 in November is
nothing more than sabre-rattling and a convenient deflection from the
proper response of face to face or voice to voice contact.



AbbottYou owe the relatives of the victims a proper response to our nation’s outrage.


For Christ’s sake show some leadership!





Wednesday 16 July 2014

Tony Abbott - Steamboat Tony



ABOUT OUR CLAYTON PRIME DUM DUM PM AND HIS DUM DUM CLAYTON GOVERNMENT

Abbott's Tea Party and Australia’s true political spectrum

Abbott's Tea Party and Australia’s true political spectrum

Abbott's Tea Party and Australia’s true political spectrum



Cathy McQueen 16 July 2014, 10:30am 129





The Mad King and his
fool: Rupert Murdoch's publishing empire has been instrumental in
promoting the rise of the Tea Party in the U.S. as well as in installing
hard right religious extremist Tony Abbott into power.


Tony  Abbott leads the world's first Tea Party Government
— something that simply does not fit into Australia's usual political
spectrum, writes Cathy McQueen.




When Opposition Leader Bill Shorten likened the Coalition Government to "Tea Party Republicans" in his May Budget Reply, he neatly encapsulated the Abbott machine.



Because Prime Minister Tony Abbott has foisted something alien and
foreign onto the Australian people — an American style lunar far right
party, actively working to undermine the Australian way of life, to
create greater inequality and an impoverished underclass.




In America, the Tea Party movement was the inevitable consequence of 30 years of politics moving gradually to the right.



The move came in increments.



It started with Ronald Reagan, who nurtured and encouraged the religious right; continued to a degree with Bill Clinton, whose domestic policies like deregulating the media were quite right of centre, and resulted in Fox News and people like Rush Limbaugh; and was completed by George W Bush, whose Presidency gifted us The War on Terror and the second Iraq War.



The election of Barack Obama was the tipping point for the far right
in the USA. They could not countenance the election of even a half-white
African American and the Tea Party was born, funded by the shady fossil
fuel billionaire climate denial funding Koch brothers.




We have had no such incremental evolution in Australia.



The far right in the form of Abbott’s Government came with few warnings, now leaving people are in shock, reeling at the assault on the Australian way of life its Budget and policies represent.



Abbott lied to get elected, of course, because if he had told the truth he would have been unelectable — Australians would have run a mile.





Aided and abetted by the right wing media, largely News Ltd and the
shock jocks, this extreme rightwing Government has been foisted upon us.




Sure Australia has a few billionaires who have an interest in
maintaining inequality for their own economic purposes, for cheap
labour, like Gina Rinehart,
and sure there is a certain percentage of fundamentalist Christians in
our population, but it is a small percentage — not like in the USA where
virtually the entire South-East and much of the Mid-West is the Bible Belt.




Australians are different.



We have always enshrined the "fair go"
as part of our social and political aspirations and we are, by and
large, a secular lot. Only about 13 per cent of us go to church
regularly for example and at the last census 22 per cent declared "no religion".




We are not naturally a far right country and so having a Government
of this persuasion does not sit comfortably with the vast majority of
Australians — even the apathetic, non-politically engaged ones, who care
more about sport than politics.




In other words, the Abbott Government is, in many ways, to borrow from former conservative PM John Howard, essentially un-Australian. That is why people are angry and demonstrating in the streets in ways we haven’t seen since the first Iraq war.



So what is Australia's natural political spectrum?



Here is my theory.



I believe it can be found if you sit the Australian Labor Party and
the Greens next to each other. The LNP has become so extreme it can no
longer be considered representative of any more than, I would guess,
around five per cent of our population.






The dominant right of the ALP is fundamentally conservative and, in
my estimation, about as far right as most Australians want to go. Its
members are conservative economically, and also in the realms of health,
education, and social welfare and social justice.




The Liberal Party no longer has a left flank or “wets” — or if it
does they are completely gagged by the newly emerged far right, who have
been given free reign under Abbott. Such as Cory Bernardi, who thinks gay marriage will lead to bestiality and who has had many study trips to the USA to meet Tea Party types; and libertarian activists the Institute of Public Affairs, with its links to shadowy U.S. think tanks and which has also had a huge influence on Abbott’s Coalition.




The politics of most Australians, in my view, would sit on the right
and centre of the ALP, you would have a sizeable percentage, say about
25-30 per cent on the left, and then about 10-15 per cent would be
ideologically comfortable with the Greens.




That is our true political spectrum because the ALP right is, in
truth, right of centre. As a Party, Labor still sits slightly left of
centre, but taken on its own the right faction is really quite
conservative and, as shown by the election of the Right's Bill Shorten
against the vote of the membership, dominant in terms policy formulation and party direction.




Former Labor Foreign Minister Bob Carr was on ABC Lateline last Thursday talking about it being a good idea for Labor to consider copying the Abbott Government’s boat turn back policy.





I couldn’t believe it when I heard it, but then I remembered Bob Carr is a member of the ALP Right. Interestingly, Bob Carr even attempted to enlist Tony Abbott for the ALP in 1970s.



There is an active group from the Labor Left, Labor For Refugees,
that want to soften and humanise the ALP's harsh refugee policy and
make it more compassionate. The Greens, of course, already have a very
compassionate asylum seeker policy.




See what I mean by encompassing the spectrum of political views in
Australian society? Australia's natural political spectrum is
comfortably covered by the ALP and Greens.




We are not a radical rightwing country, nor have we have ever been in
our entire history; the likes of Sir Robert Menzies would be turning
over in his grave at the antics of Abbott and his extremist rightwing
Government.




Abbott and his cohort makes even John Howard look left of centre.



And that could well be why, at the next Federal election, whenever
that may be, we may see something new in Australian politics — a massive
ALP landslide or, possibly, the emergence of our first formal
ALP-Greens Coalition Government.




That is if Tony Abbott’s lunar rightwing Government lasts.



With the challenges of ALP, Greens and PUP in the Senate, as well as
various other cross bench senators, who knows what may happen next.




We live in interesting times.



Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License