Saturday 22 November 2014

Joe Hockey & Tony Abbott Hypocrisy And Lies



Published on 29 May 2014
The mathematics of Tony Abbott's dishonesty
Telling people they can't have government money. Harder for Joe Hockey when he's going ahead with PPL
One Term Governments are rare but the spring in the opposition step might be justified

Tuesday 18 November 2014

Chinese corporations allowed to sue Australian government under free trade agreement

Chinese corporations allowed to sue Australian government under free trade agreement

Chinese corporations allowed to sue Australian government under free trade agreement










"Could future changes to the renewable energy target or carbon farming schemes give rise to liabilities under this dispute mechanism?": Penny Wong.
"Could future changes to the renewable energy target
or carbon farming schemes give rise to liabilities under this dispute
mechanism?": Penny Wong. Photo: Andrew Meares



Academics, Labor and Greens senators have warned about a
controversial and little-understood clause in the new China-Australia
free trade agreement that will allow Chinese corporations to sue the
Australian government.




The deal struck between China and Australia on Monday will
contain a so-called Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism
that will allow Chinese corporations to sue Australia's government if a
change in Australian law can be claimed to have harmed their investments
in Australia.




Labor and Greens senators warned on Tuesday there will be
unintended consequences from the deal and the government ought to
explain why it was included in the FTA.





Labor senator Penny Wong and Greens senator Peter
Whish-Wilson both asked the Abbott government on Tuesday if the ISDS
mechanism would allow Chinese investors, including state-owned
enterprises, to "take action" against the Australian government if their
profits were harmed.




"Could future changes to the renewable energy target or
carbon farming schemes give rise to liabilities under this dispute
mechanism?" Ms Wong asked.




But Liberal senator Eric Abetz said the ISDS mechanism was in
20 similar international trade agreements, including ones the former
Labor government had negotiated.




"This is the sort of immature and very un-Australian approach
that Senator Wong is taking to these free trade agreements," Mr Abetz
said in the senate on Tuesday.




"The Labor Party are very sensitive to be reminded that these
ISDS provisions are common in these agreements - agreements to which
the Australian Labor Party themselves signed up the Australian nation.
We agreed with that approach. Now that we do it, the Labor Party cannot
reciprocate," he said.




But Dr Kyla Tienhaara, from the Regulatory Institutions
Network at the Australian National University, told Fairfax Media that
such mechanisms had been used by corporations in the past to challenge
legitimate public policy measures – such as Australia's tobacco plain
packaging laws – and there was no reason why the mechanism in the
China-Australia FTA could not be used for similar reasons.




Ms Tienhaara said Australia would now also have to revisit
its trade agreement with Japan because that deal stipulated that if an
ISDS mechanism was included in an FTA with China then it would like to
have one in its FTA with Australia too.




"Corporations can challenge pretty much anything under these agreements," Ms Tienhaara said.



"Investor state dispute settlements are not the appropriate
forum for companies to sue governments. These things should happen under
the existing democratic processes and court systems that we have."




Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Trade Minister Andrew Robb
knocked back criticism of the ISDS mechanism on Tuesday, saying the
mechanism was benign and would allow Australians to invest in China
"with greater confidence."




"The ISDS provisions contain strong safeguards to protect the
Australian Government's ability to regulate in the public interest and
pursue legitimate welfare objectives in areas such as health, safety and
the environment," Mr Abbott and Mr Robb said in a joint statement.




But Dr Patricia Ranald, the Coordinator of the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET), said on Monday that the text of the agreement remained secret and the details could therefor not be scrutinised.



Ms Ranald said the full text of the agreement ought to be
released for public and parliamentary scrutiny before it was signed next
year.




"We could face a scenario where Chinese investors could sue
local, state or federal governments for damages over a change in
environmental or other regulation," Dr Ranald said.




"We have also opposed this provision in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement with the US, Japan and nine other Pacific Rim
countries, because ISDS is clearly against the national interest."




Craig Emerson said the mechanism would give superior legal
rights to multinational corporations to sue the Australian government.




"The detail has not been provided to show what are the
protections or carve-outs for the Australian government [from foreign
corporations]," he said.




"It means, effectively, that the Abbott government will have
to include an ISDS mechanism in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement
with the US," he said. 






















Sunday 16 November 2014

Punching with your eyes shut

Punching with your eyes shut



24



(Image screenshot guardian.co.uk)


Australia’s likely dual citizen prime minister is leading Australia down a path of destruction and ruin, says Sydney bureau chief Ross Jones — who desperately hopes the Liberals have a plan B.



IT IS TIME, ladies and gentlemen, to resist. We have a traitorous government hell-bent on destroying us. This is not a drill.



Australia’s car making industry is closing down. Worse, we can no longer refine fuel. We need to import it.



Australia has only a few weeks supply of diesel. Our sea lanes’ security is so important we are going to buy Japanese submarines, which might be okay if they are WRX STIs, but not so if they are 120Ys.



Should the sea lanes be cut, we are stuffed. No diesel, no trucks, no food. Anarchy, breakdown.



If the images of a Soviet battlefleet hanging off the coast did not send shivers up your spine then you have not been paying attention.



Vladimir Putin is without doubt the most powerful man in the world, Obama and Warren Buffett pale into a Banksy background. The guy runs a fascist state armed to the teeth and ready to go.



We’ve helped the English out in a few wars before but, to paraphrase Noel Pearson and Monty Python, what have the English ever done for us?



So when Englishmen Abbott and Cameron decide to re-live the glory days of Balaclava, you can bet your bottom dollar there’s nothing in it for Australians.





China, in all its long history, has ‒ arguably
‒ never invaded another state. At least by force. It has a weird idea
of cultural hegemony and shoots dissidents and resisters, but it’s never
sallied forth with an imperial fleet and invaded, let’s say, Japan.




We are already subsumed in China, part of its sphere. Touch any
object within reach, odds are it was made in China. Look at your socks.




So, our foreign policy under Harpers Bazaar chick of the year,
Julie Bishop, is to prod Putin with sticks and cold-shoulder China in
favour of Japan, a country simmering with militarism under Abe.




As the Italians say, Via Figure.



In his days fighting for Oxford, Abbott knew how to hit but had no
idea how to finesse. There are shots of him throwing punches with his
eyes shut.




Andy McClintock wrote about Abbott’s boxing style in The Guardian last year:



But as an Oxford boxing Blue, Abbott was an entirely different kind of fighter. "He was crude, with very little technique," said Nicholas Stafford-Deitsch, Abbott's sparring partner.



Stafford-Deitsch claimed that Abbott wasn't a huge puncher, but
his knockout ratio suggests otherwise. A bigger area of concern is his
footwork. In the above photo you can see that Abbott has switched out of
the southpaw stance and is leading with his left foot while throwing a
right hand, which goes against a boxer's most basic training. Don't even
get me started on the position of his left hand, which should be up at
his jaw "holding the phone".





This is not the description of a man you’d follow into a fight. This
is the description of a man who would make entertaining ringside
viewing, but not, by any stretch, a contender.






There is photographic proof the guy punches with his eyes shut, which his former Oxford sparring partner Nicholas Stafford-Deitsch said,



“… meant he was scared.”




And right now, on our behalf, he is squaring up to Vlad, who has a much nicer dressing gown and probably better trainers.



Over what? The allegation a Soviet BUK bought down MH17.
He saw it as his Howard/Bali/unify the country moment, but he blew it.
Unlike Bali, there has never been any hard evidence — fog of war.




Supposed photographs from a low orbit satellite, which might themselves be photo-shopped, purport to show a Ukrainian MIG firing on and bringing down the jetliner. (daily mail)



The images of the Cameron Abbott love-fest at G20 are enough to make Cecil Rhodes orgasm in his grave. Mad dogs and Englishmen.



In none of the media reports of the Russian nuclear fleet pacing
menacingly off the coast was there any mention of a U.S. or British
seaborne force.




So let’s hope the LNP have Plan B.



Punching with your eyes shut is no way to fight.



Ross Jones will be speaking at the IA function at the Summer Hill Hotel on Friday. If you'd like to attend please get in quickly as there are only a few places left.





Creative Commons Licence

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



Saturday 15 November 2014

Thursday 13 November 2014

Emissions deal: Abbott looks like a shag on a rock

Emissions deal: Abbott looks like a shag on a rock

Emissions deal: Abbott looks like a shag on a rock




















The G Two Oh

As BrisVegas opens its arms to the
world's leaders,Tony and Vlad will work their chemistry and no-one will
talk about shirt-front diplomacy or global warming. By Rocco Fazzari
and Denis Carnahan, with apologies to The Beach Boys and Bob Dylan.



The Australian prime minister knew APEC was not going to be
an easy meeting. Tony Abbott was expecting it to be tense when he
"shirt-fronted" Russian President Vladimir Putin. But he wasn't
expecting it would be the leaders of the United States and China who
would leave him like a shag on a rock on climate change.




This is Abbott's most glaring ideological blind spot.




Just a day after he held one-on-one talks with US President
Barack Obama, emerging with the President to field questions while
looking increasingly at ease in the role, the American showed leadership
on a grander scale again.






US President Barack Obama meets with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Beijing.
US President Barack Obama meets with Prime Minister Tony Abbott in Beijing. Photo: Reuters






The US and China have agreed to new co-ordinated action
described even in the conservative press as "a historic pact to reduce
carbon pollution levels on the eve of the G20".





The timing was no accident.



Abbott had first attended the White House in June, making it
clear in both word and gesture before the meeting that Australia would
not be joining the gathering global bandwagon wanting  tougher
co-ordinated action on climate change. And he went further, directly
repudiating White House and other international requests to have it
listed on the G20 agenda. At Abbott's insistence it listed only as
energy security. Imagine how that will look in a few years?





Tense: Tony Abbott and Vladimir Putin gather for the APEC forum "family" photo in Beijing.
Tense: Tony Abbott and Vladimir Putin gather for the APEC forum "family" photo in Beijing. Photo: Andrew Meares






His advisers continue to insist it is a non-issue, that there
is no friction between Abbott and Obama on climate, citing as evidence
that there was no mention of it at the first White House meeting. Yet
Obama has made clear at every opportunity that he wants to drive the
agenda forward, together with the other big polluters. He called a
special UN summit which Abbott and his pal, Canada's Stephen Harper,
deliberately brushed – in  Abbott's case with surgical precision
– arriving in New York just hours after it was over.




The government dismisses the risk of Australia being seen as a
laggard, but the US-China climate pact has made its position look
absurd.




Almost as absurd as his strangely emotive declaration that he
would use Putin's attendance at the G20 to "shirt-front" the strongman
over his country's involvement in the shooting down of MH17.




As he lined up for the "family" photo with other world
leaders at the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in
Beijing,  Abbott was more than a little on edge.




The pressure was on to secure his much-hyped one-on-one
meeting with Russia's notoriously icy president, Vladimir Putin. And
that pressure had come largely from Abbott himself. 




Since sparking the firestorm, Abbott had been experiencing
second thoughts. At risk, he reasoned, was the national and personal
political kudos for hosting of the world's premier economic forum. A
prurient focus on his man-clash with Putin threatened to become a
sideshow, obscuring his highest moment of statesmanship.




Hence the decision to bring the meeting forward to APEC, if
possible. The Russians seemed amenable. Perhaps they, too, wanted it
dealt with before the G20 circus hit Brisbane.




A few words between the pair at the photo and subsequent
dinner on Monday evening confirmed they would grant the meeting the
following day. But it was to be a low-key "pull-aside" as they say in
the business, meaning it would not have formal bilateral status.
Abbott's nervous entourage warned no actual time had been set and the
meeting could just as easily fall through if, as is common at such
multilateral talkfests, the main event runs long.




It was not going to be pretty.



But just as Abbott would have been marked down for not
delivering on his promise, he must be given credit for the fact that he
went through with it.




Notwithstanding infantile commentary which had taken his
promise literally, Abbott had, in diplomatic terms, shirt-fronted Putin.




He had told him directly of intelligence showing that the
missile launcher used by Russian-backed Ukrainian rebels to ground MH17,
with the loss of 38 Australians among 298 passengers and crew, was
Russian, had come from Russia and had since returned to Russia. He told
him of a precedent where America had paid restitution to victim-families
of the 290 killed in 1988 when the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down
an Iranian Airbus 300 en route from Tehran to Dubai. And, he told him
that Australia expected Russia to observe absolutely UN Security Council
Resolution 2166 requiring all governments to co-operate fully with the
independent investigation into the atrocity. Russia he said, should fess
up, pay up and apologise.




Does Abbott regret the use of the term shirt-front? No he
does not. Rather, he believes it "dramatised" the situation, forcing
Russian complicity in the mass murder, and subsequent shilly-shallying,
into the open – into the cold light which diplomatic politeness normally
avoids. More importantly, he believes the US-Iranian airliner precedent
he put forward did actually cut some ice with the Russian President.
Time will tell. Maybe a lot of it, in fact, because the bit Abbott
glossed over was the bit where the US took something like eight  years
to pay up, and never really apologised.




Abbott's plain-speaking style has continued to pay dividends
in the international sphere. When he said in April that he wanted the
nine-year Australia-China free-trade agreement signed this year, critics
tut-tutted, muttering that he had just surrendered his bargaining
position and that China would now just stonewall, knowing their
Australian interlocutor was working to a deadline. We are yet to see how
much has been conceded but the signs are the FTA, worth billions in new
exports in coming years, will be signed on Monday when President Xi
Jinping addresses the parliament.




It will cap off a major trade push by Abbott, who's stitched
up deals with Japan, Korea, and China all in the same year, and given
new impetus to the neglected trade relationship with India too –
currently just a 10th of the value of the $150 billion China-Australian
two-way trade relationship.




Mark Kenny is Fairfax Media's chief political correspondent.



Wednesday 12 November 2014

A gem or a dual? Tony Abbott's Lying-ingate

A gem or a dual? Tony Abbott's Lying-ingate



73



There is no controversy
about Tony Abbott's birth certificate or place of birth; Abbott was born
at the Lying-in-Hospital, Lambeth, UK, making him a British citizen by
birth. It is when he renounced his British citizenship ‒ or even if he
did at all ‒ that is in question. (Note: To prevent people with split
loyalties becoming MPs, the Australian Constitution prohibits dual
citizens sitting in the Federal Parliament. Image is an excerpt from
Tony Abbott's actual British birth certificate application.)


As Tony Abbott’s wimps out on his threat to shirtfront
Vladamir Putin, more evidence emerges to suggest he has never renounced
his British citizenship. Sydney bureau chief Ross Jones reports.




ON 28 OCTOBER 2014, a woman stood in the public gallery of Parliament
House and shouted something at Tony Abbott that saw her summarily
ejected by security.




It is still unclear what actually happened.



The only report of the event was by made AAP and the only outing that report got was in a couple of News Ltd websites.



AAP have the woman shouting at Abbott:



“… and we’re coming after you!”




That’s not much to shout before security gets you.



If it was indeed all she shouted, she must have been standing
directly next to a security guard who managed to muzzle her outburst
while dragging her from the gallery. While there is heightened security
in Parliament House since the Coalition gained control and started
poking ISIS and the Soviets with pointy sticks, a response time like
that would still be greased lightning.




So, the woman probably had time to mention some other stuff as well —
stuff not mentioned by AAP, possibly continuing to shout even as her
heels dragged across the floor towards the exit. I’m pretty sure it
would be against OH&S for an un-gloved meaty security paw to be
placed over an uncovered shouting mouth.




If a person goes to the public gallery with the intention of
screaming at Tony Abbott they don’t give up that easily. She probably
screamed the scandal that, for fear of ridicule, dare not speak its
name.






AAP reported:



She told AAP her threat was centred on Tony Abbott and related to
documents she was denied under Freedom of Information about his birth
certificate and legitimacy as prime minister.





AAP has misreported the birth certificate detail. IA has
received information from Jan Olson and none of it related to Abbott’s
birth certificate — for the simple reason that there is no controversy
about that at all. Tony Abbott’s circumstance and place of birth ‒
London ‒ is a matter of public record and not contested by anyone, as
far as we are aware.




You can see the full birth certificate application below:







The event that precipitated Jan Olson’s outburst was, in fact,
receiving a letter a few weeks earlier (dated 8 October 2014) from
Robert McMahon, Assistant Secretary, Parliamentary and Government Branch
of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.




In it, McMahon confirmed the subject of his letter was a response to
an application by Ms Olson under the FOI Act for an official copy of the
Official confirmation of Abbott’s renunciation of British citizenship.




So, nothing to do with a birth certificate, but rather a request to
see evidence Abbott had given up his British citizenship — something
required by the Australian Constitution because the founding fathers did
not want representatives with loyalties to foreign powers. The 1999
High Court decision in Sue vs Hill confirms dual UK/Australian citizens are ineligible to sit in Federal Parliament.




Ironically, Abbott, only became an Australian citizen in his 20s so
he could accept a Rhodes Scholarship to study, back at Oxford
University, England.




Back to the FOI request response to Jan Olson's request for evidence of Tony Abbott's renunciation of British citizenship:







Robert McMahon confirmed he was an ‘authorised decision-maker’ under the FOI Act.



He then went on to say the Department had searched the Department’s
file management system, its current and former ministerial
correspondence database, the computer drives of its relevant departments
and the email accounts of current officers in relevant branches and [IA emphasis]:




‘As a result of these searches, no relevant documents were found in the Department.’








It was the fact the Department has confirmed that Abbott has never
provided proof of his renunciation ‒ the Form RN for British citizens
(not a birth certificate) that had so angered Jan and convinced her of
Abbott’s likely deception.




If Abbott had, in fact, renounced his citizenship — surely this
documentation would have been provided to Abbott's own Department.




And Jan is not alone. Now Putin is getting in on the act as well.



The frostbite between Vlad the shirt-fronted and Our Tony at APEC is palpable. They won’t look at each other. They won’t even shake hands for the camera.



But he’s cunning bastard, Putin. Not for nothing did he run the KGB.



He is also, from the old days, quite good friends with the chaps at Pravda. Which is probably why Pravda is going to run a little piece on Tony’s credentials in its English website; a sort of follow-up to the popular one it did in October after Abbott’s infamous shirtfronting statement.







It will be running it at 22.42 Moscow time on 14 November 2014. That
is, 5.42am Brisbane time, on 15 November 2014 — or in other words, Day 1
of the G20.




Russia no longer has the KGB — now it has the SVR (in English, the Foreign Intelligence Service), who are also quite good at finding stuff out. The Pravda article might just be boring stuff and not tell us anything new, but then again, you never know.



Postscript



While remaining steadfastly light on detail, the AAP/News Limited story managed to get in the following sly dig:



US president Barack Obama faced the same birth conspiracies with
rumours circulating during his presidency campaign that he was not a US
citizen.




Theories allege that Obama’s published birth certificate is a
forgery and that his actual birthplace is not Hawaii but Kenya according
to
Wikipedia.
Other theories allege that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia in
childhood, thereby losing his US citizenship. Others allege that Obama
is not a natural-born U.S. citizen because he was born a dual citizen
(British and American).




However many have called these theories racist and Obama has never succumbed to pressure to show his birth certificate.




This is obfuscation writ large and has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. It’s the equivalent of rounding out a story on Peta Credlin with a reference to Margaret Aitken’s kindergarten years (Mrs Abbott to you).



The Australian media are, for some reason, desperate to protect
Australia’s split loyalty PM — even to the extent of conflating
completely unrelated issues and bizarrely introducing the topic of
“racism”.








Clearly, the issue needs a new gate.



As Anthony John Abbott was born in 1957 at the ‘Lying-In’ hospice in Lambeth, Lying-Ingate has a certain ring to it.



If he want to kill this topic, all he needs to do is prove he has
renounced his British citizenship. Or maybe big bad Vlad will come up
with the proof ‒ one way or the other ‒ in Pravda on Friday.




Nyet nyet, y’all.



You may access Jan Olson's FOI response here in full.





And you can meet Ross Jones ‒ whose first article on the Abbott eligibility issue has, incidentally, become IA’s most popular ever story  in person at an IA function at the Summer Hill Hotel on November 21, where he will be speaking about his forthcoming Ashbygate book.





Creative Commons Licence

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



Tuesday 11 November 2014

A Negative Fool Named Abbott - The AIM Network

A Negative Fool Named Abbott - The AIM Network



A Negative Fool Named Abbott














I have just read the prologue of the book by Nick Bryant ‘’The
Rise and Fall of Australia’’ – How a Great Nation Lost its Way. It is
exquisitely written, summarising post war Australia, its growth its
prosperity, its sport, its culture, its ingrained positivity and its
politics.



Having been born in 1941 it is a period in time that I easily
identify with. A time when as a boy poverty was a word experienced, if
not understood. Where the loss of ration coupons on the way to the dairy
invited a belting and living four to a room with a single gas burner
was commonplace.



My political philosophy was born of Irish stubbiness on my mother’s
side. Of unashamed idealism concerned about equality and the common
good, with a strong sense of social justice, the value of things, and an
appreciation of what a true democracy should be.



As a youth my home, Australia, was indeed ‘’a land downunder’’ Of
little importance to the rest of the world. But along the way, almost in
spite of ourselves, we have grown up, well almost. Certainly in spite
of leaders like arch conservatives Menzies. Howard and now Abbott.



The three have one thing in common. They all embraced the American
century but at the same time each had an instinctive yearning to re
attach the umbilical cord with mother England.



As Bryant puts it ‘’in the national conversation, the idea of proximity had not yet dislodged the longstanding sense of isolation’’


We have overcome our isolation but we are still caught in two worlds,
Europe and Asia. Events have transpired that have fed into changes that
create their own momentum. Technology have brought us closer to the
rest of the world and there is nothing any amount of conservative
opposition can do to stop it. The tyranny of distance has been resolved.



When one looks back on these post war years there is much to like.
Australians by nature are optimistic and forward-looking. It has been
that optimism that has propelled us forward. Our immigration programme
was hugely successful. ‘’She’ll be right’’ became the catchcry of the
Snowy Mountain Scheme’’ meaning we could overcome any adversity. It was a
Labor idea carried out by Menzies but either way it commenced our
expansion as a nation.



We are now the world’s 12th largest economy with a GDP larger than
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Spain, and Indonesia. In the 2008 GFC we were the
only western nation to avoid a recession. We have experienced 23 years
of economic growth. The only country to do so and people under the age
of 30 have never experienced a recession.



So why the political negativity?


Our cities continually win ‘’The Best Place to Live’’ awards and the
OEDCs better life index of national happiness. We are top of the world’s
tourist destinations edging out the Maldives, Hawaii and France. Our
science restaurants, design, creativity and our business acumen enjoy a
world reputation.



We have a multi-cultural population of 22.5 million of which one
million are at any given time traveling the world. Our education system
has produced international managers of McDonalds, Ford, Pizza Hut,
British Airways and the World Bank. The Times of London even urged our
ex pats not to return home because they were considered so valuable to
the English economy.



So why the political negativity?


Despite a downturn in prices we still have the world’s largest supply
of minerals and next year we may well become the world’s largest
exporter of natural gas. We are still huge exporters of wheat and
agricultural products. In fact the overall opportunities for export
growth are enormous.

Westfield is the biggest shopping mall owner in the world.



Our international and diplomatic reputation has never been higher. We
are privy to the ear of any nation. We have, for many years enjoyed a
succession of foreign ministers, on both sides of politics who have
served us well.



The Prime Minister of the day walks easily at the side of Presidents.
Such is our world standing. Bob Hawke was instrumental in the formation
of APEC, while Paul Keating elevated it into a leader’s forum. Peter
Costello was the chief architect of the G20. We are now one of only ten
non- permanent members of the UN Security Council.



So why the negativity?


In the arts we have overcome our cultural cringe. Hollywood is alive
with Australian actors. Our authors are amongst the worlds most popular.
Our popular music is constantly in demand. The Australian ballet tours
continuously. Aboriginal art, dance and culture is recognised. Consider
the success of Tropfest which from humble beginnings has become the
world’s biggest short film festival. Our culture is now exported and in
demand without the need for validation. People like Clive James, Robert
Hughes and Germaine Greer who had to leave the country to find
recognition were trail blazers. Nowadays they can live anywhere and
retain our public esteem. Our intellectuals are no longer ostracised or
shunned. Our prosperity, our achievements and future possibilities are
reported in the world’s great publications. In short we are better known
internationally now, than we have ever been.



Lastly, in sport our reputation, despite a 10th in the London
Olympics remains untarnished. Whatever the sport you will more than
likely find an Australian on the leader board.



So why the political negativity?


Other than becoming a republic Australia in my lifetime has come of
age. There are many factors outside of politics that have contributed to
a bigger and better Australia. We have never had it better.



Prior to Whitlam we were an international backwater. His optimism
opened our eyes to a brave new world full of opportunity. There was
simply a before Whitlam and an after Whitlam. No amount of conservative
negativity about his legacy will change that fact. Hawke, Keating,
Gillard and Rudd sought to enhance his legacy and for a time positivity
trumped all. Fraser and Howard despite their longevity of office
achieved little in lasting major reforms except for Howards GST. If you
count that as a positive.



Then came along the greatest relentlessly negative conservative
spoiler, with a sad history of combative political behavior this country
has ever seen. A man who walks and talks negativity. I suspect a man
negative by nature all his life who came to power with it, only to find
that leadership requires a degree of charisma and substance?



At a time when our nation needed a leader of foresight, of the
Whitlam ilk, we elected a dud. When we needed a leader of character,
with the moral fibre to face the growing threat of climate change,
inequality in wealth and equality of opportunity in education we choose
the most negative lying politician we have ever had. A Prime Minister
whose words and actions bring into question the very essence of the word
truth. Or he has at least devalued it to the point of obsolescence.



Remarkably, even after the unfair 2014 budget, and a litany of broken
promises he has maintained with shameless effrontery that keeping
promises is a priority for his government. It’s intriguing that he would
be so cavalier with his credibility.



He is man who has spread negativity like rust through the community
not only as Opposition Leader, but by habit as Prime Minister.

A man devoid of ideas with a dour cabinet depressingly in sync. A man
with a past so incredibly negative that he now finds it impossible to be
positive about anything. And it rubs off onto those around him.



The attempt at transforming Abbott from ultra-negative Opposition
Leader to positive Prime Minister has been an unmitigated disaster. He
is out of touch with today’s young who have adapted to technological
change and the benefits it brings. Women in general see him as a
palpably grubby individual not to be trusted. A man of the past who
lacks any passion for fairness and the underprivileged.



We need a leader who can take on the gauntlet of Whitlam’s legacy and
build on it with fresh ideas. One who has the sagacity to see the
advantages of a new economy built around renewable energy. Someone who
can put aside the politic and dare to dream of a future with policies
conceived for the common good. Creative policies augmented with sound
economic rational. In short a man with a vision for our future and a
narrative to explain it.



One who can put our democracy back in order where debate is not of
necessity about winning or taking down ones opponent. But rather an
exchange of facts ideas and principles. Or in its purest form simply the
art of persuasion.



A true democracy where the voice of the individual can still be heard
over the political chatter. A democracy where policies need not of
necessity be measured against our GDP but also how they enhance the
welfare of the people. About how we react to each other in our social
equity, our work, our play, our art, our poetry and wellbeing.



We will of course, because of our individual and collective
confidence, continue to grow. Our natural optimism will create new ideas
and change will make us richer. The opportunities are only narrowed by
conservative negativity. However, wouldn’t it be nice if we had a
government who shared our gregariously positive outlook instead of this
pessimistic lot of political fools.



Whitlam as a leader was creative and positive, whereas Abbott is
Captain Negative. Whitlam was the most constructive opposition leader
Australia has known; Abbott the least constructive.



What might Bill Shorten turn out to be?


‘’If you think positively that’s what you will become and the same applies to negativity. As we think so we become”


NegativityJohn Lord