The Speaker's resignation reflects a government that is in chaos

This tweet by Tony Abbot on 24 Nov 2011 applies now to his government in August 2015.  The Internet never forgets.

The Speaker's resignation reflects a government that is in chaos. The Govt has lost its way, lost its majority and now lost its speaker.

— Tony Abbott (@TonyAbbottMHR) November 24, 2011

Tony Abbott Doorstop: Peter Slipper MP

This article was published on the Liberal Party of Australia website but was deleted on 17 August 2015 amidst the furor surrounding incumbent Speaker Brown Bishop over her misuse of entitlements relating to using here parliamentary travel allowance for a helicopter trip from Melbourne to Geelong to attend a Liberal Party fundraising event.

=============

21/04/12

Source

  

TONY ABBOTT:

The Speaker is the guardian of parliamentary standards. The Speakership is one of the most important offices in the Parliament. The Speaker is there to uphold the integrity of the Parliament and now we have very, very serious allegations against the incumbent Speaker, allegations of sexual harassment and allegations of potentially criminal misuse of entitlements. These are very serious allegations indeed. Yes, the Speaker is entitled to the presumption of innocence but he does have quite a lot of explaining to do.

 It’s also very important that the Prime Minister act to ensure the integrity of the Parliament. The Speaker is only in that office because the Prime Minister used her numbers late last year to install him. The Prime Minister, to uphold the integrity of the Parliament, needs now to require the Speaker to step down until these matters are resolved.  It’s also incumbent upon the Australian Federal Police to swiftly investigate the potentially criminal allegations that have been made against the Speaker. 

I can’t underestimate the seriousness of this. The Speaker is required to maintain parliamentary standards and yet there are now these extremely serious allegations against the Speaker himself. So in order to maintain the respect and the reputation of the Parliament, in order to preserve the integrity of the Government and our institutions, it is very important that the Prime Minister act swiftly to require the Speaker to step aside and it’s very important that the Australian Federal Police quickly investigate these matters so that they can be resolved as soon as is humanly possible.

QUESTION:

So these aren’t the first allegations against him. Should this have been dealt with a long time ago?

TONY ABBOTT:

Well these are matters that have been referred to a court. These are matters where legal documents have been lodged. These are matters that are now to be the subject of proceedings in court, so these are of a vastly more serious and substantial nature than anything that has been alleged against Mr Slipper in the past.

QUESTION:

After everything that’s been going on with Craig Thomson, I suppose the question is, you know, where to from here? Does she need to make a stand now?

TONY ABBOTT:

Well this does go to the integrity not just of the Parliament but of the Prime Minister and of the Government. The Prime Minister cannot wash her hands of this business the way she has tried to wash her hands of the allegations concerning Mr Thomson because Mr Slipper is no mere backbencher. Mr Slipper is the Speaker of the Parliament. Mr Slipper occupies a very, very important office. He is the guardian of the standards of the Parliament, the protector of the reputation of the Parliament and now there are these extremely serious allegations against him and that’s why the only proper way forward is for the Speaker to step aside while these allegations are being dealt with. If he doesn’t do so voluntarily, the Prime Minister should indicate that she will require him to step aside until these matters are resolved.

QUESTION:

Do you have any thoughts on who should take his place while the investigation is ongoing?

TONY ABBOTT:

Well, as a matter of ordinary parliamentary procedure, if the Speaker is unable to take the chair, the senior Deputy Speaker automatically would take the chair.

[ends]

People who have recently bullied and threatened Australian Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs

People who have recently bullied and threatened Australian Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs include PM Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton MP, Browyn Bishop MP, Senator George Brandis, Senator Barry O'Sullivan, Scott Morrison MP. 

They are all thugs and unfit for public office.

Links

• Senate estimates turn aggressive as Coalition senators line up to take a swing at Gillian Triggs, Sydney Morning Herald
• Why we should care about the hounding of Gillian Triggs, Mamamia
• Revealed: Abbott government tried to remove Gillian Triggs as head of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Sydney Morning Herald
• Govt denies bullying Triggs, The New Daily 
• Abbott govt ‘bullying’ human rights president, The New Daily

Tony Abbott, please keep your promise and retain the RET

Open letter to Josh Frydenburg, Kooyong.

Josh, 

Late last year Prime Minister Abbott broke an election promise when he called for devastating cuts to the Renewable Energy Target. 

This week the Abbott government has used national media channels to deliver veiled threats: take our offer to slash the Target to around 31,000 GWh, or we'll walk. 

I ask that you represent my views in the Australian parliament and your Party Room on retaining the RET in its current form. 

Solar energy is a clean renewable solution for the future. You are attacking on solar energy if you reduce the RET, and breaking a clear election promise. 

Please keep the Renewable Energy Target strong. The Renewable Energy Target is one of the most successful pieces of nation building legislation in past years. 

Not only has the Target helped more than 5 million Australians go solar, it also benefits the entire country - increasing investment, growth, jobs and regional development. 

Yours sincerely, 

Peter Campbell

[home address supplied]

====================

You can send an email like this to your local MP, asking them to retain the RET and stop attacking renewable energy, from [here] 

Tony Abbott, the Game of Thrones and why party politics is failing

Its interesting to watch the decline of Tony Abbott as Prime Minister.  I was concerned when he became Prime Minister that he would not be a good leader.  My worst fears have since been realised.

Tony Abbott: Source

The list of broken promises and bad policies gets longer almost every day, here are just a few:

• Funding cuts to ABC and SBS (a broken promise and appalling "efficiency levy lie)
• "Loggers are the ultimate conservationists" and "no more national parks" (appalling lie)
• "Coal is good for humanity" (appalling lie)
• Deregulation of university fees - that could result in $100,000 degrees (no policy for this during the 2013 election campaign)
• Continued incarceration of asylum seekers (including children) in concentration camps and offshore processing centres - a clears breach of human rights and the UN Convention for Refugees. (Note this is also supported by the Labor opposition)
• Encouraging Islamaphobia is making Australia less safe, rather than considering the causes of radicalisation of the minority who join the likes of ISIS, and how we can prevent this happening.
• Lifters and Leaners: vilification of low income earners and protection of corporate tax evaders
• A budget emergency that actually did not exist, but is now being created by the failed LNP budget and policies.
• Ongoing denial of climate change accompanied by policies that are crippling our transition to renewable energy and a zero carbon future.
• The proposed GP Copayment - research indicated that this will have a negative effect on health care outcomes and greatly disadvantage low income earners.

All these policies have a common thread - they are based on ideology rather than evidence.

However, for all this I don't just blame Tony Abbott.  

We have serious systemic problems with political parties, where their policies come from, how their leaders are elected, and the basic failure of representational democracy.

Political parties actually only represent their own traditional support bases:

• Liberal - medium to high income earners, "the big end of town" corporates, media barons etc. Notional "conservatives".
• Labor - "working families", unions (some but not all), Notional "progressives" etc
• Greens - conservationists, some unions, progressives disillusioned with Labor and the Coalition
• Nationals - the notional "rural vote"

The average citizen has next to zero input into party policies.  Many actual party members (a small fraction of voters) also have little or no input to party policies.

Party policies come from secretive processes that are largely controlled by internal and vested interests.

The basic failure of representational democracy is twofold:

1. Yet we vote for our local Members of Parliament, who are supposed to represent us. In reality, they vote the way their party instructs them most of the time.
2. Parties have policy platforms during an election that are not binding - promises are routinely broken once government and policies that were not part of their election platform are forced onto society.

Our Prime Ministers are selected by internal party processes such as Party Room votes.  There is never any public participation with this - MPs decided when to sack a sitting Prime Minister and appoint a new one.

Recently, this has been chaotic.

The Labor Party sacked Kevin Rudd due to internal problems they had with his autocratic leadership style.

The Labor Party then sacked Julia Gillard and reappointed Kevin Rudd because nervous Labor MPs thought she couldn't win the 2013 election - which Rudd went on to lose.

Malcolm Turnbull was deposed as Coalition Opposition Leader in 2009 by the Liberal Party room, many of whom were concerned by his bipartisan support for an emissions trading scheme.  Tony Abbott won by one vote and went to become Prime Minister.

Now in 2015, it is evident to the wider electorate that Tony Abbott is manifestly unsuitable for the role of Prime Minister, so nervous back benchers (scared of losing their seats) bring on a "vote of no confidence" in him, which is defeated (61 votes for him, 39 against) with no alternative candidate. 

Since then, Abbott has continued to prove himself incapable of governing the country, he is locked into "attack mode" where he insists he well "beat Bill Shorten" and he continues to bully and threaten anyone who doesn't agree with him such as Human Rights Commissioner Gillian Triggs.

It now seems likely that the Coalition Party Room will vote again on who will be Prime Minister (if someone challenges) and that Tony Abbott is considered likely to now lose.

So these are some big problems.  

Here are some possible structural solutions:

Constitutional change: Form governments based on the skills of elected MPs rather than party allegiances and membership

Constitutional change: Ban binding party votes - make every vote a conscience vote

Constitutional change: Provide voters with the opportunity to directly elect political leaders (e.g Prime Minister, Head of State) and move to some form of Republic

Legislative change: Ban large political donations - these fundamentally corrupt politics as they buy influence and large media driven election campaigns.

Constitutional change: Citizen initiated referendums and issue/policy referendums - give voters the opportunity to vote on binding policy matters that governments must then implement.

If we don't reinvigorate our democracy will continue to be subjected to the whims and vagaries of a largely autocratic political elite that don't act in the best interests of the nation and all citizens.

A letter to the World Heritage Committee opposing Abbott's attempt to denominate World Heritage listing of Tasmanian forests

 Your Excellency,

I am writing to you as Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, to bring to your attention my deep distress and alarm at the attempt by the Australian Government to remove 74,000 hectares from the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage site.

The decision by the World Heritage Committee to include an additional 172,050 hectares within the World Heritage Area in June 2013 had resolved many long standing threats to the Tasmanian World Heritage site and helped end a conflict that had been dividing Tasmanians for decades.

The decision by the then Australian Government to nominate these areas was only possible because of the strong role played by the World Heritage Committee and it's advisory bodies over the previous 25 years. The integrity and persistence of the Committee and its advisory bodies throughout this process has been exemplary.

The proposal before you by the current Australian Government is politically motivated and is contrary to Australia’s obligations as a signatory to the World Heritage Convention.

The Australian Federal Government has submitted evidence to the World Heritage Committee that large sections of the area under review are severely degraded. This is false - less than 10% of the area proposed for de-listing has been disturbed and the vast majority of this World Heritage Area remains untouched, pristine and wilderness quality natural landscapes.

I urge the World Heritage Committee and you as Chair, to continue to uphold the values and principles of the World Heritage Convention and continue to protect these forests from destruction.

I would be grateful if you could draw my concerns (and the concerns of many other Australians) to the attention of the World Heritage Committee.

Link to Getup letter

The ideal method for evaluating the benefit of co-payments is a proper trial

John Kaldor, Nicholas Zwar 
The Australian,  23/05/2014 

THE government’s proposal for a $7 co-payment for GP visits and laboratory tests is one of the
most hotly debated items in last week’s budget.

Putting aside the “broken promises” issue, most of the criticism of the co-payment has revolved around its fairness. In a purely mathematical sense, a co-payment is a proportionately bigger hit for those on lower incomes, but there is a more fundamental question. What will a co-payment actually do to people’s health?

Basic economics says that a cost increase will reduce demand, which means fewer doctor visits and tests. On the surface, that sounds like it would be unhealthy, but what if people were having consultations they did not need?

The government has in fact claimed several major health bene fits for the co-payments. It believes people will look after their health more if they have to contribute directly to the cost of medical services, and GPs with fewer patients will provide better care to those who do show up.

On the other hand, critics of the co-payments say that health will suffer because people deterred by the co-payment will miss out on care that they need to maintain health. What does the scientific evidence tell us about who is right?

Medical science has well- established techniques for deciding what works and what doesn’t. The ideal method for evaluating health benefit is the randomised trial, which compares groups of people allocated to receive competing forms of “intervention”.

The only large-scale randomised trial of co-payments ever conducted was the Rand Health Insurance Experiment, which took place in the US in the late 70s and early 80s. It found those assigned to the co-payments group used fewer medical services than those with free care. Those on lower incomes had poorer outcomes in several areas of health and for people on higher incomes there was no difference in health outcome.

There was also no difference between the free and co-payment groups in the extent to which people looked after their own health in areas such as diet and smoking.

The Rand trial found that the co-payments reduced use of both needed medical care and unnecessary care, suggesting that people may not be good at making the distinction for themselves.

The Rand trial provided the most methodologically rigorous evaluation of the health effect of copayments, but  it took place more than 30 years ago, in a health system very different to ours.

Since, there have been nearly 50 studies, mainly from Western Europe and Canada, that looked at the impact of co-payments.

Although they did not use the randomised trial methodology, this body of evidence is highly relevant to our current debate about the impact of co-payments.

The studies are consistent in showing lower levels of service usage when co-payments are introduced, and are also generally consistent in showing that people on lower incomes reduce service uptake to a greater degree.

For various methodological reasons, the studies are much less informative about whether the reduction in service uptake systematically led to worse health in the population.

To draw such conclusions, longer timeframes and more detailed data are required, and few studies have had sufficient scope to do so. What is clear is that there is absolutely no evidence introducing a co-payment has any benefit for people’s health.

If a pharmaceutical company proposed marketing a drug that had no proven health benefit, and there was some evidence that it was actually harmful to certain population groups, it would not get past first base with regulatory authorities or clinicians.

That is more or less the position we are in with regard to the health impact of co-payments.

In these circumstances, the argument about whether they should be introduced can certainly not be based on their potential for dir ectly improving health.

If co-payments are to be introduced, the current state of the evidence suggests the very process of their introduction should be through a form of trial that is properly resourced, carefully monitored and perhaps restricted in some way before full-scale implementation is considered.

We now have the ability to track health and health service usage through electronic data bases that protect confidentiality.

If there is any sign from such a trial that people in need of care are being deterred from necessary medical attendance as a result of co-payments, let alone experiencing worse health outcomes, the government would then be in a position to react quickly and make needed modifications to maintain confidence in our health system.

John Kaldor is professor of epidemiology and Nicholas Zwar professor of general practice at the University of NSW.

A tale of two newspapers

Reza Barati, an Iranian asylum seeker incarcerated at the Manus Island "offshore processing centre" in Australia's care was murdered by security guards on Thursday 20 February. The Age (Melbourne) put this story on its front page with further information inside on page 2.

In the Herald Sun (Melbourne), the same story appears for the first time on page 15, with very little information provided.  A leggy model and a local murder is featured on its front page.

This is good example at the extreme bias of the Murdoch-owned Herald Sun towards the Abbott LNP Government.   Bad news stories about Labor are paraded on their front page, while bad news stories about the LNP are relegated much further back.

It is interesting that Herald Sun editorials and some journalist recently stridently attacked the ABC for "alleged bias against the LNP government" supporting claims to that effect made by Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

How do these people lie straight in bed?

The extremely biased Murdoch press and Tony Abbott attack the ABC when they report both sides of a story (such as allegations that Navy personally deliberately inflicted burns on asylum seekers in a boat they were turning back to Indonesia).

Mr Abbott, we need a Royal Commission into the Navy hand burning allegations, and into the Australian Navy's repeated incursions into Indonesian waters!

Sorry, I forgot, Royal Commissions are only held as witch hunts to score points against the Opposition (e.g. home insulation and union corruption).

These are dark days for Australia.  Our international reputation is being trashed by the Abbott government's human rights abuses against asylum seekers, and Abbott's often repeated lie that is "illegal to seek asylum in Australia" when it is not.

Leunig summed things up nicely.

Rest in Peace Reza Barati

External links

• Iranian asylum seeker killed on Manus Island named Reza Barati, The Age
• Petition | Allow journalists access to the Manus Island detention centre, Change.org : 

Why Labor will lose the election

Watching the Labor party tear themselves to bits over the last 3 years has not been a pretty sight.  Alarm bells sounded for me when I listened to Kevn Rudd's election night speech in 2007 - I thought he talked too much, didn't thank enough people and was too focused on himself.

In government he did OK for a while.  The apology to stolen generations of indigenous Australians was a high point.

However the Australia 2020 Summit became just another talkfest with all the usual suspects invited.

The Rudd government's action on climate change was at first encouraging, but the climate change white paper and green paper signalled a direction towards emissions trading.

But the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, pushed hard by Penny Wong, was fatally flawed.  It included several policies that the Garnaut Report had specifically advised against, including gifting free emissions permits to polluting industries.

All this time, Kevin Rudd refused to talk to the Greens.  Instead, he stitched up a deal with Malcolm Turnbull (then leader of the opposition) to pass the CPRS.  However, when Turnbull was rolled by Abbott, this bipartisan support evaporated and it was game on.

Rudd lost his nerve though and shelved his CPRS, an action he himself had previously castigated Brendan Nelson for.  Rudd's public support dropped.  When he wobbled on the Mining Tax after a barrage from the mining industry, his support dropped further.

This wasn't why he was deposed by Labor as Prime Minister though.  He was voted out of the job by the Labor Caucus because it had become apparent he was very difficult to work with and not capable of delegating to or even trusting his ministers.  He was operating as a cell within the Labor Party, surrounded and informed by a close advisers, but disconnected from the rest of the Party and presumably a lot of the Executive arm of government too.  Rudd is now running the election campaign in a similar manner.

Julia Gillard replaced him as Prime Minister and immediately did what Rudd could not - she formed a minority government by negotiating with the 4 independents (Katter, Oakeshott, Windsor and Wilkie) and Adam Bandt from the Greens.

The Gillard government was one of the most successful in Australia's history in terms of passing legislation through Parliament and much of it was good.  Putting a price on pollution provided incentives for Australian industry to reduce carbon emissions (which happened!) and also provided funds to invest in clean renewable energy.

But Gillard sound dull and wooden to the electorate.  She made a few big mistakes too, like "ruling out a carbon tax" during the 2010 federal election, drastically reducing payments to single parents and significantly cutting funding to Universities - a measure that Gonski had not recommended and in fact opposed.

Tony Abbott relentlessly criticised and attacked Gillard and had considerable success tarnishing her government's reputation and her personal integrity.  Tony Abbott turned the Australian Parliament into the Punch and Judy show.

Gillard was also undermined by Rudd and his supporters for her entire term of office.  She may have lost the next election without this undermining, but it certainly did not help matters.   Much of this played out in public, with open shows of disloyalty by ministers like Joel Fitzgibbon and Kim Carr, who were then demoted and went to the back bench.

The Australia Democrats had a similar period of brawling in public and they were decimated in the next election.

In the end, Labor's poor polling and continued destabilisation by Rudd resulted in the Labor caucus vote him back in as Prime Minister, and Julia Gillard out.

But Rudd is not the messiah, he is just a naughty boy.

Rudd's acolytes came in from the cold and were rewarded with ministries (e.g. Kim Carr, Chris Bowen and Joel Fitzgibbon).  But many of quality people have stood down from leadership roles including Greg Combet and Craig Emerson.

Rudd has won the booby prize - an election that cannot be won - with his previous destabilisation and leaks a major contributing factor to their now inevitable loss.

Labor is now deeply divided and has lost of lot of good people.  It will be hard to see them bounce back after what is likely to be a large defeat.

Tony Abbot will repeal the carbon tax and slash funding for clean energy.  He will sack thousands of public servants so government services will suffer.  It is likely he will further reduce funding for government schools.  He will not "stop the boats", but he will continue to trash Australia's international reputation on human rights.

I think political parties have had their day.  No political party truly represents its own members, and their elected members don't even pretend to represent everyone in their electorate.  Democratic representation is a farce.  No independent candidate can match the resources or funding of party political candidates.

Things apparently have to get worse before they will get better.

Post script:
While the environment has not featured much in the election campaign so far, 61 per cent of Australians believe the Government should do more to tackle global warming.  Coalition Australians want more action on climate change, split along party lines 82% Greens, 71% Labor, 24% Coaltion.

Vote Compass: Australians want more action on climate change - ABC News

Rudd the wrecker will kill action on climate change and forests

Where there is smoke there is fire.

I have wondering about media reports over the last several months about "Kevin Rudd agitating to be Prime Minister again".  Initially I thought these were a beat up. There seems to nothing some sections of the media like more than political conspiracies and plots to oust political leaders.  It is s a form of virtual blood sport.

With recent reports and comments from Kevin Rudd, and now Daryl Cheeseman (MP for Corangamite) we can see there is some substance to all this speculation.

Rudd wants his old job as Prime Minister back, at any cost.  I think he also wants revenge on those who orchestrated his sacking.

He, assisted by a secret (small?) band of followers, has been systematically undermining Julia Gillard as PM. His "campaign" includes:

• Leaks at strategic times to derail the Gillard Goverment's momentum (including during the last election campaign)
• Making "Presidential" statements and assuming a high profile as Foreign Minister
• Not ruling out contesting for PM if there is a leadership ballot - even though he says he doesn't want on and there won't be one.
• Saying he has "learnt from his mistakes" and is "more humble etc" - when by his current actions clearly this is not true.

So the Labor is in a death spiral.  Gillard cannot lead effectively with all the attention on leadership intrigue. 

Look at the Gonsky report on education - a core issue for Australia.  There has been virtually no coverage of it.  Our public education system is being denied adequate funding and is being run down.  Middle and high income earners are deserting it in droves.  It appears there is more public money going to private and "independent" schools per student than there is going to public schools.  Yet this issue is hardly getting any attention.

I can only speculate on Rudd's motives.  It would seem revenge and ambition are outweighing all other considerations.  If there was a leadership spill and Rudd got to be PM again, all the bad publicity, and his past skeletons in the closet, would mean Labor would lose the election.

Those who think Rudd can be Labor's salvation have short memories. He lost his mojo just before he was deposed. There was the complete stuff up on pink batts - this should have been done by the States, not Peter Garrett. The Australia 2020 talkfest delivered virtually nothing. Then he abandoned his compromised CPRS and adopted Brendan Nelson's policy on climate change! 

Rudd was also operating as a cell within Labor (as Latham did 2004) - this was the real reason he was shafted. However, now some nervous Labor poll-watching MPs think he might win the next election. He won't as he is shitting in his own nest in public. 

The real issue is that 19C (Labor) and 20C (Liberals) institutions are not well equipped to handle the big challenges and transitions we face in 21C as we run out fossil fuel, forests, water and degrade agricultural land. Both parties have their own right and left and are floundering about what to do. Labor has stepped in the right direction under Gillard by supporting a transition to a clean energy economy but they are having trouble selling this (Rudd's antics are not helping) while the Liberals under Abbott have stepped back in time.

If Rudd was more sensible, smart and strategic he would let Gillard lose the next election (as current polls indicate she is on track to do, if you believe them) then sail back in as the "knight in shining armour" with no bad blood and a clean(er) slate.

If Rudd and his followers keep de-stabilising the government, then Gillard will lose the next election.  One of the few things John Howard said that I agree with was "division is death".   While I am not in favour of autocratic rule by an single political party, this axiom is quite true for the game as they play it.

Unfortunately, the consequence of the current Labor-Greens-Indepedant government falling is that Tony Abbott can just sit back, keep pointing out that Labor has lost the plot, is paralysed and can't be trusted, then sail into government.

Once in government he will ditch the price on carbon and just about every other reform and piece of legislation that the current government has achieved.  Abbot would also axe National Disability Insurance, plain packaging for cigarettes, the NBN, education reform, the mining tax (weak though it is).

The Gillard government might just finalise the Intergovernmental Agreement to protection another 400,000 hectares of Tasmania's government.  They might also recognise and act on the opportunity to protect the rest of Australia's native forests subject to logging and reduce Australia's emissions by a further 5%.  An Abbott government would certainly do neither.  

Game on Kevin.  Its a lose-lose scenario.

Peter Slipper "sinks the slipper"

Today was an interesting day in Australian politics.  I was out and about when I noticed some tweets coming through about Harry Jenkins resigning as the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Australia's national parliament.

He made an interesting speech which you can read here:  Harry Jenkins' resignation speech

He started with a heartfelt acknowledgement of the Ngunnawal people as the indigenous traditional owners of the land where Canberra is located.

He cited a desire to be able to participate in policy and parliamentary debate as his main reason for resigning. He thanked his staff, his wife and his family for their support.  Finishing with:

I go placidly with my humour intact. I wish you all well.

The political interest came about when Peter Slipper, a Liberal MP, was voted in as his replacement, thereby increasing the numbers of the Labor Government by one (with Harry Jenkins rejoining active duties) and the Coalition losing one (with Peter Slipper leaving the Coalition and not having a vote as Speaker).

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott apparently didn't see this coming and proceeded to do what he always does - attack the Labor Government and Prime Minister Julia Gillard.   I don't agree his interpretation of his role "to provide an alternative government and to criticise the current government".  He and all his fellow opposition member's primary role is to represent their electorates, not keep endlessly carping about the government.

It will be interesting to see how this pans outs.  The Labor government cannot now be held over a barrel by any one of the cross benchers - Windsor, Wilkie, Oakeshott, Katter or Bandt.  They can still collectively influence voting on legislation, but individually they now can't.

Personally, I would like to poker machine restrictions proceed - either mandatory pre-commitment or a $1 maximum bet - as problem gambling is a major concern that government and the gambling industry has been unwilling to address properly to date.

Why do we lock up asylum seekers?

There are two answers to this question, and neither of them are nice.

1. We lock them up in mandatory detention as a deterrent to others.

2. For political reasons.

Why should we NOT lock them up?

It is a breach of human rights.
They have done nothing wrong.
Prolonged incarceration causes psychological damage
It is inhumane.
It is very expensive.
It portrays a very negative view of Australia.

In Australia, there is bipartisan support for mandatory detention between the Labor party and the Liberal/National coalition.  But they spend a lot of time scoring "political points" off each other on issues like how many boats are coming and how tough their respective policies are.

This is immoral and wrong.  It just should not be happending in a society that calls itself civilised.

Australia has had waves of immigration, both "legal" and refugees, including Greeks, Turks, Hong Kong Chinese, Italians, Vietnamese (many in boats) to name a few.

Claims that asylum seekers are a "border security issues" and are "terrorists" have emanated from some Australian politicians.  This polarises public opinion and slanders hapless asylum seekers, who of course have no right of reply from behind the razor wire.

We should simply allow asylum seekers to live within our society, assess their claims, and send the cheats home.  It is time our politicians stopped grandstanding and breaching human rights and international conventions.  

We need leadership on this issue, not gutter sniping and political trench warfare.

Why did Julia Gillard rule out a carbon tax last year?

During the "cut and thrust" of a close Australian federal election campaign in 2010, Julia Gillard, the Australian prime minister said something remarkable.

The election was characterised by the usual claims and counter claims about a variety of the "usual issues" such as health, education, the economy, taxation and budget deficits.  There was also contention about some tentative Government policies designed to help us move to a low-carbon future such as the poorly implemented and managed home insulation scheme, green loans and solar panel rebates.

Climate change was the elephant in the room.  The Labor government's previous attempt to push through an Emissions Trading Scheme (the CPRS) had failed for two main reasons:

• The Liberals broke their bipartisan support for it when Tony Abbott rolled Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader.  Abbott's basic position was a mixture of denial that climate is happening and obscure objections to the proposed market-based mechanism for limiting carbon pollution.
• The Greens and other independents did not support the CPRS because they judged it was far to generous to the big polluters and would not have been effective in reducing carbon pollution.

Kevin Rudd, who was prime minister at the time, lost his nerve and didn't call a double dissolution election on this issue.  Instead he back-flipped and delayed the introduction of the CPRS, an action that he had strongly criticised the Liberals for during the 2007 Federal election campaign.  The so-called "gang of four" - Julia Gillard (Deputy PM), Wayne Swan (Treasurer) and Linsday Tanner (Finance) along with Kevin Rudd collectively agreed to go soft on climate change.

Julia Gillard then rolled Kevin Rudd and became the prime minister in the run up to the election.  She was supported by some strong factional players, including Paul Howes (secretary of the Australian Workers Union), who has subsequently stated that "climate change policy must not cost a single worker's job".

Back to the question.  Tony Abbot was running (and still is) an effective misinformation campaign about climate change and carbon pricing that Labor party campaign people felt was getting significant traction with voters.  He was claiming that the CPRS was a "great big new tax" and that Labor would bring in a carbon tax.

With the failure of the CPRS (ETS), a carbon tax was the only quick and effective means of pricing carbon pollution left.  It was worthy of immediate consideration.  However, Julia Gillard specifically ruled it out in the closing weeks of the election campaign by stating "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead".  

I thought at the time that this was an ill-considered statement designed to take the wind out of Tony Abbott's sails.  In short, political considerations during the election campaign ruled out a viable policy option that had been suggested and endorsed by Professor Ross Garnaut, the government's own advisor on climate change policy.

Fast forward to 2011.  To form a minority government, Julia Gillard had to gain the support of the Greens and two out of the three lower house independents.  Part of the deal was formation of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.  The Liberals and Nationals, still stuck in a degree of climate change denial,  "spat the dummy" and refused to participate.  The others on the committee, a mix of Labor, Greens and independent MPs, resolved during 2011 that a carbon tax was indeed a valid and effective mechanism for pricing carbon.

Julia Gillard is now been constantly and relentlessly criticised by the Liberal National coalition for breaking her promise about never introducing a carbon tax.   Yes, she made a stupid promise.  However, a price on carbon is one essential measure for reducing carbon emissions.  But it is only one of many needed.  

It is also subject to the same corruptive influence that fatally compromised the CPRS - industry groups lobbying for special consideration, financial assistance and low carbon tax price - which of course means they just keep polluting.  The fact that many large industry players are opposing the carbon tax is a good thing.  We need to curb excessive profits reaped from carbon pollution and transition to a lower carbon economy.

The proposed carbon pricing mechanism is not even actually a tax.  It is set price on carbon that is likely to only apply to the top 100 listed companies in Australia, which could face an annual carbon cost of $3.3 billion if the government imposes a $25 per tonne price on carbon.

Low income households are already suffering from large increases in their energy bills without a carbon price.  Part of the proceeds of the carbon price will be directed to compensating them for their energy costs so they will end up better off when the carbon price is in place.

Along the journey to carbon price, presumably in response to some agitation by industry and some right-wing unions such as the AWU, Julia Gillard also decided to criticise the Greens at the Gough Whitlam oration in April 2011 with the following statements: 

"The Greens wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy. The Greens have some worthy ideas and many of their supporters sincerely want a better politics in our country. 

"They have good intentions but fail to understand the centrepiece of our big picture - the people Labor strives to represent need work.

"And the Greens will never embrace Labor’s delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation."

This is just more nasty, spiteful and divisive poll-driven politics. It demonstrates a basic failure of leadership by Julia Gillard and alienates a lot of people who voted for Labor either directly or via their preferences with the expectation they would deliver real action on climate change. 

The right wing media in Australia - most notable the Murdoch press including the Australian and the Herald Sun - jumped on these comments and have embarked on their own campaign to attack the Greens, Labor and any sort of price on carbon.  They are clearly in the thrall of large polluting industries who don't want to change, and are aligned with and supporting the Tony Abbott-lead conservative opposition in this regards.  This is not news - it is ill-informed opinion, and a public relations smear campaign.

A carbon price in excess of $50 per tonne is required to shift investment decisions towards renewable energy rather than natural gas.  A lower carbon price will result in a massive investment shift from coal-fired power to gas-fired power.  Unfortunately, while gas is more efficient than coal as an energy source, it will still produce huge quantities of carbon emissions.  I predict that the Gillard Government will announce a carbon price of $15 per tonne, which would be an abject failure.

So in summary, the broad policy measures we need to tackle climate change include:

• A carbon price on pollution in the range of $50 to $100 per tonne. 
• 7 star national building energy ratings.  Our current state standards are lame and a dog's breakfast.
• Mandatory energy efficiency standards for appliances in line with european standards
• A national feed-in tariff  to boost investment in large scale 100% renewable energy such as wind and concentrated solar
• Standard distributed local solar energy production plants of remote communities - possible based on the CSIRO parabolic solar dish system
• Major investment in low-carbon public transport systems in both city and rural areas.  This should be mostly rail systems powered by electricity
• Local low-carbon water storage and conservation measures such as rainwater tanks and urban storm water collection to avoid the construction and use of massive energy guzzling desalination plants.
• Protect Australia's remaining old growth forests to keep the carbon they store safe, and allow logged forests to regrow and sequester more carbon.  Shift all timber production to plantations.

Unfortunately, or political system and leaders seem to be mired is a sideshow prize fight about only one issue - a price on carbon.  

Gillard is bad, but Abbott is worse.  His plan to hand about billions of our money (yours and mine) to large corporates without any tangible or effective carbon emissions resulting is a complete sham.

Both Gillard and Abbott really need to lift their game.

Links

• Multi-Party Climate Change Committee - Think Change
• Carbon tax promise has Julia Gillard choking on her words | Herald Sun
• Carbon price compensation: businesses not like households | Crikey
• Gillard plans FY13 carbon price | News | Business Spectator
• Prime Minister Julia Gillard tells Gough Whitlam Oration Labor will never partner with Greens, news.com.au : 
• Bob Brown warns Julia Gillard's attacks on Greens are 'divisive' | Herald Sun 

Is Julia Gillard doing a Beazley?

So now we have the new Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, launching Labor's election campaign less than a week before the election with hardly a mention of climate change - "the greatest moral challenge of our time".

This election has been largely a content and policy free zone.  It has devolved to a game of cat and mouse between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, both of whom have adopted personas quite different from their own.

Gillards rapier wit and forensic precision so often admired in parliament has been replaced by a bland and carefully measured drone.  She doesn't answer questions and stays on message about "moving forwards".

Abbott's bovver boy combative style has been replaced by a forced joviality and an appearance of calmness and control befitting someone who would be prime minister.

Neither are playing their natural game and it shows.  The winner takes all game they are playing is to form government after the election.  To do this they need to win the votes of a small percentage of swinging votesr  (less than 15%) in a small number of marginal electorates - approximately 20 out of 150.

The entire election has been pitched at winning the votes of this very small proportion (less than 5%) of the Australian population - based on feedback from "focus groups" in these electorates.

Rusted on voters are taken for granted -their votes won't shift.

Voters in non-marginal seats are considered irrelevant as their votes will not determine who will win government.

So what about the issues?

Climate change

• Gillard has committed to a "community consensus of 150 randomly selected people".  There will of course be no consensus if at least one skeptic is included, and there is nothing new that will emerge that the Garnaut Climate Change Report has not covered
• Abbot has committed to NOT introducing any price on carbon pollution if he wins government, and to hand out millions of taxpayers funds as corporate welfare to large polluters to "encourage them to reduce their emissions".  This is ridiculous - the role of government is to legislate, not hand out corporate welfare.
• Gillard scores 1 out of 10, Abbott scores 0.  Neither will commit to the year Australia's emissions should peak then fall.
• Emission reductions 0.

Asylum seekers

• Gilllard has "done a Beazley" and aped Coalition (indeed Howard) policy on offshore processing.  This will disenfranchise a lot of Labor voters and drive them to the Greens.  This could a factor that costs Labor the election.  This is moving to the right and to the bottom, not moving forwards
• Abbott's policy is virtually indistinguishable from Gillard's
• Both are dog whistling on this too - dropping hints about "border security" and "Australia's population growth", both of which are completely irrelevant, but not apparently in the minds of those few voters who matter

National Broadband Network (NBN)

• This is one of the few policy areas where there is a discernible difference.  
• Labor is committing to spending $43b on fibre to 93% of homes offering speeds up to 1gbit per second.  Next generation wireless services to 4 per cent of premises and satellite services to 3 per cent will deliver speeds of 12 megabits per second.
• This has a very high cost and provides bandwidth than many people need.
• Abbott is proposing a confusing mixture of cheaper technologies - but it is quite clear he does not know what he is talking about. He has committed to killing the NBN too.
• I think about $20b should be spent on high speed internet - with the priority shifted to rural and regional Australia that currently has poor and expensive services - and the other $20b allocated to clean energy project to transition us off coal

Health

• Gillard wins on this - GP super clinics are a good idea and some additional funding for mental health have been committed too.
• Abbott will kill the GP super clinics.

The outcome will be interesting.  Labor could well lose the election in the key marginal seats, even though they are likely to have a higher overall vote.

Forests
Forest destruction and land clearing accounts for over 8% of Australia's carbon emissions, yet neither Julia Gillard nor Tony Abbott is proposing to do anything about this.  The solution is quite simple - protect our native forests for their carbon stores, biodiversity and water production.   However, the silence from Tony and Julia on this is deafening.

Indigenous Australians
The racist Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 brought in by John Howard as an election stunt in 2007 is still in place and supported by Labor.  This legislation is racist as they first had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to bring it in.  This suspension is still in force.  Welfare payments are quarantined and indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory are treated differently from everybody else.

It was supposed to be an emergency in 2007, yet in 2010 indigenous affairs have not been mentioned during the campaign.  The gap has not been closed, and needs to be.  Indigenous Australians need to empowered to manage their own affairs, and more funding is required for improved health, housing and employment.

Public Transport
No federal funding is routinely allocated to the States for public transport, unlike roads which are funded 50% federally and 50% from the States.

Consequently, public transport infrastructure has lagged behind and crumbled for over 50 years.

During this election campaign, the Gillard goverment has announced funding for two new urban rail lines that both run through marginal electorates.

• Gillard has pledged $742 million for the long-awaited $1.15 billion Redcliffe rail connection, should Labor be re-elected.
• Gillard has promised to build the long-awaited $2.6 billion rail link between Parramatta and Epping.  This rail line runs through the marginal seat of Bennelong.  This is the biggest single funding announcement of Gillard's campaign so far, with $2.1 billion in federal funds towards the project, with the a state government contribution of $520 million.

Gillard have also pledged up to $20 million for a feasibility study into a fast railway linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne.  This after they has previously voted down a bill from the Greens for exactly this, prior to the election campaign.

Will we get a minority government?

I think the best outcome would be hung parliament followed by negotiation to form government with independent MPs such a Bob Katter and Tony Windsor, and possible Adam Bandt from the Greens if he wins the seat of Melbourne.

This would curb the excesses of either major party governing in their own right, with the democratic representatives of other electorates frozen out of government and forced into a largley futile opposition" role.

Perhaps it is time for political parties to be banned - as they mostly don't act in the best interests of Australia and they corrupt the basic principle of democracy by putting there "partly line" at a much higher priority than the local MPs representing their own constituents.

This is an interesting "example" of election advertising from the Gruen Nation program that we have not seen during this campaign.  It provides some food for thought.

Will Clive Hamilton win Higgins for the Greens?

Clive Hamilton is running as the Greens candidate for the "blue ribbon" Liberal seat of Higgins in inner suburban Melbourne. Clive is the author of several books, including Affluenza and Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change.

Labor decided to not run a candidate. Their motives for this are not clear but it seems they think the seat will be held by the Liberals so it is a waste of their effort.

But Tony Abbott's recent ascendency to opposition leader, thanks have changed.

The residents of Higgins would be justified in feeling abandoned by Peter Costello, and many would be greatly concerned by the Liberal Party's lurch to the right under Tony Abbott, and several recent statements for prominent liberals denying that climate change is happening.

The Liberal candidate is a political animal whose CV includes a stint in right wing student politics at Melbourne University - where she attempted unsuccessfully to shut down the Environment Office - then time in Peter Costello's office as a staffer. She fits the mode of "born to rule and done my party political time".

She is presenting as a "local candidate interested in local issues" and refuses to comment in any detail on climate change and what she will do about it.

In reality, if elected she will become just another muppet on the backbench, silent for most of the time and voting for the Liberal party line. So much for democratic representation.

The question is how many "rusted on" Liberal voters will vote for her? It seems likely that there will be swing against the Liberals based on public concerns about climate and change and the lack of any coherent Liberal/Coalition policy on this topic, and the recently vocal "denialists" such as Nick Minchin and his gang who recently "took out" Malcolm Turnbull.

It is interesting to note that while Turnbull did take a principled stand on climate change he backed a loser with the CPRS - which has been so heavily corrupted by industry handouts and exclusions (such as petrol and agriculture) - that it will not reduce Australia's emissions.

Getting back to Higgins, voters have a clear choice between a candidate that stands for real action on climate change and one who is really only interested in her political career in the Liberal Party.

I predict:

• a 3% swing against the Liberals, but they will retain the seat 54/46 two party preferred
• the Liberal primary vote will fall to 48% - which will be a significant outcome in itself

Let us hope that the good voters of Higgins send a clear message on climate change to our politicians. If Clive Hamilton is elected (I will be happy to be proven wrong on this) it will send schockwaves through both Labor and Liberal parties.

It will also help us avoid the end of the world as we know it.

It will also bode well for the Greens prospects in other seats in the 2010 Australian federal and Victorian state elections.