Submitted by Steve Irons on Sun, 20/10/2013 - 9:40pm
Scorecard?
A month is a long time in politics. I was going to wait for the first 100 days to prepare the score card, as they do in the US after a presidential election, but a lot of water has flown under the bridge, and a few realities are already quite obvious, even before the first Question Time in the new parliament.
So, while the score-card may still happen, a few comments at the end of the first month seem to be well in order.
The overall score
Photo: http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-to-ban-betting-ads-during-li...
The overall score at this point is a big negative. Abbott has proven himself to be ruthless and secretive, and very willing, even delighted, to turn back the wheels of progress and take us back to earlier days. Some changes that have already happened and some changes that we can look forward to are stupid and idiotic, and will turn Australia into a joke around the world. The MSM are relieved now that he has achieved what can only be seen as their "prime purpose" before the election and are a bit more relaxed about asking the big questions; they are now capable of a little more critical journalism, but their general lack of proper critique, which continues, seems to indicate that their days are actually numbered and we are actually entering into an end-game, where we will actually witness the end of the paper as we know it.
That's the score; here is how I arrived at it:
Transparency vs Opaque-ness/Secrecy
Transparency is an important feature of modern democracy. A democracy like ours can be 'participative' or 'representational'; in either case, transparency is important.
In a participative democracy, where ordinary people are involved in decision-making, transparency is required because, without clear information, voters have nothing to base their decision on, and are likely to make huge mistakes.
Even in representational democracy, like ours, where MPs are acting "on behalf of" or "for the good of" ordinary people, transparency is important, because without clear information, voters have nothing upon which to evaluate performance and/or to change who represents them.
When transparency is removed, corruption soon becomes the way the job gets done. Without proper transparency, it is all too easy for ministers to take decisions based on expediency or for the benefit of those who support them or for their own benefit. Transparency has become important for holding MPs and bureaucracies to account and for revealing and ending corruption.
Murdocracy & Murdoch's lack of transparency
It is obvious that murdocracy introduced the opaque-ness and secrecy that was the key feature of the first month of the Abbott government. That is the way that Murdoch works. He lets the reader have what he wants them to understand and believe, no matter how absurd that is. He always works to a hidden agenda.
He has this idea of the stupid common man, one who will accept anything that is thrown at him, as long as the pitch is right and the plan is maintained without deviation. If the absurdity is revealed by external players, there is no need to acknowledge any wrong-doing; simply maintain due course; most will go along with you and, those that don’t, you probably didn’t have them anyway.
Abbott's secrecy
The lack of transparency was well rehearsed and started the moment that Abbott assumed office. Murdoch was well-involved. We know that because the press hardly raised an eyebrow. Huge changes to the rules of engagement between the press and the government (rules that we had gotten used to over the last 100 years) were accepted with little comment. It was like we were in a parallel universe; playing out other possibilities.
The need for proper explanation on the part of those introducing changes, for incisive attention to detail on matters that constitute major changes that will impact on life in Australia, had suddenly become a feature of the MSM of the past.
I must admit, I had not seen it coming. I saw the LNP unwillingness to reveal policy in the lead up to polling day, a clear tactic to get Abbott elected, support that can be built on matters other than policy.
And I saw the MSM acceptance of this lack of information.
But I expected that once in power, Abbott would have to relax these restrictions and would need to explain his changes in the way that governments had always been required to do in the past, and that Abbott would finally be held to account.
But the opposite occurred. Abbott shut his ministers up. He required all seeking of media release to be coordinated through his office. Information that he as Opposition Leader had required of the previous government on a daily basis was reduced to formal weekly statements or were eliminated altogether. He refused to comment on major events. Reliance upon formal ministerial press release with no additional explanation and total blackout suddenly became an acceptable government policy.
And the media let him off, as they had done in the lead up to the election.
We can only hope that some of the requirements of the past will be reintroduced when Parliament resumes. I am a little pessimistic, at this conjecture.
Human decency & the value of human life
Those who suffered the most from this lack of explanation & accountability on the part of federal ministers were the asylum seekers. Lives were lost with complete blackout by the Prime Minister and little comment from the government, apart from some numbers by the Immigration Minister, Mr. Scott Morrison.
The MSM failed to hold them to account. In his weekly statement after the first major incident Morrison claimed that the huge loss of lives at sea could not be avoided and military intervention had happened with efficiency & alacrity.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/inquiry-call-ove...
This was a lie and everyone knew it. But the lies were acceptable to the MSM and were treated as if they were the formal abstract statements required to be made by the government under the circumstances, like condolences at a funeral.
Other incidents involving loss of life became less interesting all 'round.
He announced that boats had arrived in Australian waters but failed to announce other boats had been "turned around".
He claimed that new policy aimed at grabbing asylum seekers & shipping them immediately to PNG or Nauru within 48 hours of arrival was happening & working although what he meant by that & its impact on the transferred was unknown & it had become acceptable for the MSM to accept that statement with the proviso that meaning was unknown.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-23/immigration-minister-morrison-deta...
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/26/morrison-png-asylum-seeker...
http://www.news.com.au/national-news/asylum-seekers-flown-to-manus-islan...
He made a brief statement about an incident in PNG where Australians were transferred from the "detainment facility" to a military location to protect their safety whilst "detainees" were left to fend for themselves, though what all that meant was unclear and he said it wasn’t his concern but the concern of the PNG government.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australians-mov...l
The MSM failed to follow it up, as if it is enough to say it is not our concern.
Here is what happened on Manus Island:
"Asylum seekers detained on Manus Island have accused Australian officials of abandoning them when a violent brawl erupted between rival Papua New Guinean security forces.
"In what witnesses say was a potentially lethal confrontation, Royal PNG Constabulary officers clashed with PNG Defence personnel on the outside perimeter of the detention centre on Friday. [...]
"When Department of Immigration official Renate Croker later emerged from the lockdown to assure detainees that the situation had been 'brought under control', it is understood detainees angrily protested about being left without protection."
READ MORE: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/19476267/asylum-seekers-ca...
See also http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/21/asylum-seekers-manus-island...
So Morrison was telling the MSM a little porkie when he said it was a matter for the PNG government and nothing to do with him.
Morrison failed to treat the health of a pregnant woman suffering in heat & squalor in Nauru as a serious issue and, when he got away with that, he took absurd decisions to round up pregnant women and ship them into the same conditions, a clear method of adding injury & insult to those who had the gall to seek asylum.
http://hazaraasylumseekers.wordpress.com/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-30/sparrow-asylum-seeker-cruel-to-be-...
None of this was new. These types of incidents had happened many times under previous regimes, both LNP and ALP governments. But the retaining of information regarding tragedy and suffering for cynical formal press release at the end of the week had meant that the value of Human life of asylum seekers seeking to come to Australia by boat had become even cheaper and more expendable and this was treated by the MSM as acceptable.
http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/asylum-seeker-toll-passes-grim-mileston...
The idea that we have come to a point where a re-think is essential and desperately needed
http://antonyloewenstein.com/2013/10/02/what-asylum-seekers-are-facing-o...
which is generally agreed by progressive thinkers across Australia looked even less likely to be taken seriously than it was under Labor.
http://theconversation.com/a-deafening-silence-the-medias-response-to-as...
Economic crisis, debt & deficit?
A key point made by the LNP in their run up to the election was that the economy was in crisis and needed some steady hands to take over from Labor to reduce the debt, or it would hurt everyone. The silence on this issue by Murdockery talking to the ordinary voter after Joe Hockey took control of the economy was deafening.
The silence appears to have different meaning than the silence on immigration. (The silence in the immigration debate meant "we said we would stop the boats but the problem is not going away in a hurry but if you don't know what's going on you can't be critical".)
The reader of the finance section of the SMH and the AFR could get some idea of the absurdity of the new government's position on the economy before as opposed to after the election but the ordinary reader got nothing.
Photo: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/lib-plea-for-cash-to-fight-flo...
Though they never said it, it seems that the LNP took over an economy that was a bit flat but still one of the most vibrant economies across the world.
And one of Hockey's first tasks as Treasurer was to increase the debt. He took out immediate short term debt and started talking about the need to increase debt ceiling by a third. (This meant a change in LNP policy before the election to reduce overall debt by $16 billion to increasing overall limits by $100 billion after the election!)
(So the silence on the economy meant "we were talking down the economy before the election but things are better than we thought and we better start talking up the economy if we are going to be good managers!")
And he started talking about a separate debt for infrastructure development, meaning that deficit for operational matters and deficit for infrastructure development have different meaning and the objective for the first in the short term will be a small surplus, which sounds like a glib change to semantics, rather than substance. When you boil it down, it seems that Hockey is arguing for a long term stimulus package based on sustainable debt. How this differs from Labor's stimulus package we'll probably never know. I can't see it, anyway. Maybe Wayne Swan might be able to tell us the difference?
Corruption at the highest levels
Social media journalists
Probably the key issue being dealt with by the new Abbott government in its first month was the issue of corruption by senior ministers and the PM. This is a classic case of the impact of social media on the MSM. While a wide range of players in social media were involved, the key to this finally hitting home and impacting on the new government in its first month was sustained joint effort by journalist
margo kingston @margokingston1
(See http://tweetedtimes.com/#!/margokingston1)
and the social media magazine editor
.jpg)
(See his magazine http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/tony-abbotts-battlerorts-scandal-goes-mainstream/)
The scandal of rorts by key LNP ministers to hit the MSM this month began, under Labor, as a joint campaign by these two fine journalists to expose the fraudulent mistreatment of the Speaker of the House of Representatives by the Abbott team in an attempt to bring about the toppling of a minority Labor government under Gillard (known as the "Ashbygate" scandal). The Speaker, Mr. Peter Slipper was taken to court and the judge found the claims to be fraudulent. The case has yet to be finalised.
Special Referral outside of the Minchin Protocol
While these fraudulent Ashbygate claims were being developed, Abbott caused for the Speaker to be referred to the AFP for criminal investigation of his normal expense claims. Similar referral of false and/or erroneous claims by MPs are usually handled by the Department of Finance under the Minchin Protocol and only referred to the AFP by the department under exceptional circumstances. The acceptance of the referral by the AFP caused for Mr Slipper's resignation and the end of his political career.
The referrers were themselves rorting the system
But the social media journalists' sustained work on this issue has revealed that the very people who sought to criminalise Mr. Speaker's claims, such as Brandis and Abbott himself, were heavily involved in thousands of dollars, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars of fraudulent claims, themselves.
This has finally been taken up by the MSM following the election and has caused a flurry of activity by a range of ministers to repay dubious expense claims to the Finance Department:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/afp-called-on-to-l...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PGejxe0oHI
The role of the AFP
Silence was also part of the AFP's strategy.
- The AFP has so far failed to satisfy an FOI request to reveal the person referring the Slipper claim for $900 to the AFP.
- The AFP has this week failed to answer separate questions on who it considers a "proper person" to refer MPs for investigation.
The AFP this week confirmed it had received "complaints about the alleged misuse of entitlements by several MPs" but had forwarded these to the Finance Department.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/slipper-seeks-end-...
Labor MP Rob Mitchell, who wrote to the AFP to complain about PM Tony Abbott's and Attorney-General George Brandis's expense claims, and said MP Mr Randall's claims for a trip to Cairns to buy an investment property that was the following week recorded in the MPs register of pecuniary interests needed to be properly investigated by the AFP.
It is difficult to see how the AFP's position can be sustained. The referral of Mr. Slipper to the AFP was carried out for short-term political gain by someone on the Abbott team to bring about a change of government. By accepting the referral & NOT referring it back to the Department, the AFP took an active role in the removal of Mr. Slipper from one of the key positions in Parliament, one that has a long-standing tradition of utmost respect from all sides of the chamber, since the formation of the commonwealth in 1901. His non-referral back to the Department and the AFP's charging can only be considered to be unfair treatment when compared to the treatment of other MPs and one that that has brought the office of the Speaker into disrepute.
Photo: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/gallery-e6freuy9-1226492342295?page=2
By not accepting referral of Brandis's and Abbott's fraudulent claims but referring them back to the Department, the AFP has taken sides yet again in the debate and has acted in Abbott's favour in both cases.
It is not the role of the AFP to take political sides or to involve themselves in actions designed to bring about a change of government. The AFP must at all times act in the application of the law with transparency, impartiality, and without fear or favour.
Photo: http://www.smh.com.au/national/afp-boss-silent-on-assistants-trips-20110...
If the AFP continue to act in this one-sided manner, the Head of the AFP should resign and allow his personal actions to be investigated by an independent body.
Climate change
It has become obvious this month that some changes that have already happened under the new government and some changes that we can look forward to are stupid and idiotic, and will turn Australia into a joke around the world. The key change is the downgrading of science and the expression of formal scepticism in relation to climate change. For a conservative government seeking to have friends and partners and influence around the world this is a bad move, especially in the light of continuing commitment from key players such as the President of the United States, the heads of government in the EU, the OECD, the World Bank and the IMF. We wait with interest on how in the fullness of time policy by sceptic soothsayers can be brought into line with these international realities.
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/oecd-throws-support-behind...
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-ship-heads-into-uncharted-w...
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/nations-should-explain-...
http://sensefunction.blogspot.com/2013/10/oecd-speaks-out-on-global-warm...
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change
Post-post note: Two days after the publication of this note, the UN climate chief Christiana Figueres called for global action making specific reference to NSW bush-fires and speaking of the failure of the federal government to understand the urgency and warning them about the cost of maintaining their commitments whilst at the same time removing the price of carbon.
The United Nations says the New South Wales bushfires are an example of "the doom and gloom" the world may be facing without vigorous action on climate change.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-22/un-climate-chief-warns-of-nsw-27do...
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/clear-link-between...
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/10/22/how-dare-you-try-to-politicise-this-...
The Intervention
On a more positive note, the question of the actions to be taken by Abbott on the Intervention are still in early days, and we should retain some optimism:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/abbotts-remote-c...
Royalty
On a lighter note, the time spent by Abbott this month with a visitor from the British royal family gave rise to a couple of photographs in the Australian press of Abbott & his family formally meeting on Sydney Harbour
http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2013100514934/prince-harry-autralian-first-family/
and a picture of Abbott's daughters with their arms around the prince in the UK tabloids
but surprisingly very little general interest. Hey, maybe the position of the current PM in relation to Royalty doesn't have the same sting as previous PMs and it might be more relevant to ignore the whole question and get on with the job of moving towards a republic, sooner than later
Comments
Steve Irons
Thu, 25/09/2014 - 1:40pm
Permalink
Peter Slipper sentenced to community service for Cabcharge fraud
Peter Slipper was this week "sentenced to community service for fraud over Cabcharge visits to Canberra wineries."
"[...] a formal conviction, along with an order he perform 300 hours community service and enter a two-year good-behaviour order, also ends Slipper's plans to return to legal practice after losing his seat in federal parliament last year."
"The maximum penalty was a one-year jail term and a $6600 fine for each offence.
"A sentencing hearing on Monday heard the prosecution and defence both held extreme positions on how Slipper should be treated by the court for his crimes.
"Prosecutors pushed to have Slipper jailed for the fraud, but the former MP's lawyer argued his good character "trivial" nature of the offences entitled him to escape conviction.
"On Wednesday, Ms Walker took the middle ground, sentencing the 64-year-old to 300 hours community service, a two-year good behaviour order, and ordering he repay the Commonwealth the $954." [Steve Irons: which is what would have happened if it had been referred back by the AFP to the Department of Finance under the Minchin Protocol, but without the criminal conviction.]
[Steve Irons: This case is what would have happened for the paybacks of hundreds of thousands of dollars made by Abbott and his ministers, MPs, Senators in the last 12 months if the Dept of Finance had used the Slipper case as a precedent and instead of accepting the payback, had referred it to the AFP for prosecution. The Prosecutor would have been arguing for maximum penalties to apply and maximum jail terms]
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peter-slipper-sentenced-to-community-service-for-fraud-over-cabcharge-visits-to-canberra-wineries-20140924-10lbta.html#ixzz3EIK9l1VE
See also: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-24/peter-slipper-sentencing-hearing/5...
Steve Irons
Tue, 23/09/2014 - 11:12am
Permalink
Tony Negus resigns
The man implicated in the fraudulent special treatment by the AFP of the Speaker of the House flying in the face of the Minchin Protocols in order to further Tony Abbott's career, Tony Negus, resigned as AFP Commissioner in June 2014, to take effect in September of this year.
MSM reporting on his resignation (See http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/afp-commissioner-tony-negus-qui...) were happy to tell us of the controversy surrounding his special relationship with his executive officer, Tamerra Mackell, and his travelling with her to a number of countries, using public money to allow Ms Mackell to join him on trips to Singapore, India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia (See: http://www.smh.com.au/national/afp-boss-silent-on-assistants-trips-20110611-1fy1v.html#ixzz3E630L2lF)
and to tell us about allegations that his son, Mitchell, had been given special treatment when he was allowed to graduate from the AFP while injured and under investigation for a motorcycle crash.
Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/afp-commissioner-tony-negus-quits-20140627-zso5b.html#ixzz3E64Egq3O
But they couldn't bring themselves to mention his role in bringing down the Speaker of the House. Such is the state of MSM in this country.
Steve Irons
Tue, 23/09/2014 - 10:49am
Permalink
The irony of Tony Negus's position
http://www.smh.com.au/national/afp-boss-silent-on-assistants-trips-20110...
AFP boss silent on assistant's trips
On June 12, 2011 Sun-Herald reporters Jim O'Rourke and Jessica Wright gave us a juicy little piece on the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Tony Negus, who "refused to answer questions about his relationship with an assistant he took on overseas business trips. An executive officer, Tamerra Mackell, accompanied him on several trips to Asia in the past 12 months, according to a News Ltd report, which suggested that it was unusual for AFP commissioners to travel without a uniformed chief-of-staff."
"... a federal police spokesman, Nigel Ryan, said yesterday that Ms Mackell's trips had been approved and she would continue in her job.
"The Sun-Herald sent questions to Mr Negus, 47, and Ms Mackell, 31, yesterday but Mr Ryan said that Mr Negus would not be responding to questions relating to the pair.
'''In these circumstances the AFP doesn't believe it is appropriate for us to make comment in relation to inferences you may have drawn from the reporting,' he said.
"He said any inferences in the News Ltd reports that Mr Negus inappropriately used public money to allow Ms Mackell to join him on trips to Singapore and India in July last year and to Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia in February this year were incorrect."
The implications in the article (achieved by quoting a "no comment" from her husband, also in the AFP) was that she was doing a lot more personal assistance than was normal for a man in his position.
It's hard to believe that Negus could have taken such an active role in destroying Slipper's career for 'travel rorts', having been involved in similar allegations himself.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/afp-boss-silent-on-assistants-trips-20110611-1fy1v.html#ixzz3E5vr8pDW
Steve Irons
Sun, 10/11/2013 - 4:19pm
Permalink
Abbott's first cabinet
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/16/tony-abbott-fir...
Steve Irons
Sun, 10/11/2013 - 3:56am
Permalink
The Abbott Govt after 50 days
Bob Ellis 9 November 2013, 6:00pm
http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-abbott...
Steve Irons
Fri, 01/11/2013 - 7:45pm
Permalink
John - where did these come from?
Hi again, John
You need to give us some reference for the "Abbott warned us" topics. If you don't, you might sound like a bit of a stooge trying to promote the concept of "mandate" when there isn't one. But if there is, it would be interesting; let's have it!
john ward
Thu, 31/10/2013 - 11:41pm
Permalink
The future set out for you. Tony, by the IPA.
The following had been foreshadowed
changes by instruction from the IPA:
Mr Abbott, did say“no surprises” so over time we have been warned. He says these are precisely targeted, but nothing about collateral damage.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/coalition-internet-filter-a...
www.theguardian.com
Steve Irons
Mon, 24/11/2014 - 6:21pm
Permalink
IPA Instructions to Tony Abbott
Be like Gough: 75 radical ideas to transform Australia
IPA REVIEW ARTICLE
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2080/be-like-gough-75-radical-ideas-to-tr...
| John Roskam, James Paterson and Chris Berg
If Tony Abbott wants to leave a lasting impact - and secure his place in history - he needs to take his inspiration from Australia's most left-wing prime minister.
No prime minister changed Australia more than Gough Whitlam. The key is that he did it in less than three years. In a flurry of frantic activity, Whitlam established universal healthcare, effectively nationalised higher education with free tuition, and massively increased public sector salaries. He more than doubled the size of cabinet from 12 ministers to 27.
He enacted an ambitious cultural agenda that continues to shape Australia to this day. In just three years, Australia was given a new national anthem, ditched the British honours system, and abolished the death penalty and national service. He was the first Australian prime minister to visit communist China and he granted independence to Papua New Guinea. Whitlam also passed the Racial Discrimination Act. He introduced no-fault divorce.
Perhaps his most lasting legacy has been the increase in the size of government he bequeathed to Australia. When Whitlam took office in 1972, government spending as a percentage of GDP was just 19 per cent. When he left office it had soared to almost 24 per cent.
Virtually none of Whitlam's signature reforms were repealed by the Fraser government. The size of the federal government never fell back to what it was before Whitlam. Medicare remains. The Racial Discrimination Act - rightly described by the Liberal Senator Ivor Greenwood in 1975 as ‘repugnant to the rule of law and to freedom of speech' - remains.
It wasn't as if this was because they were uncontroversial. The Liberal opposition bitterly fought many of Whitlam's proposals. And it wasn't as if the Fraser government lacked a mandate or a majority to repeal them. After the 1975 election, in which he earned a 7.4 per cent two-party preferred swing, Fraser held 91 seats out of 127 in the House of Representatives and a Senate majority.
When Mark Steyn visited Australia recently he described political culture as a pendulum. Left-wing governments swing the pendulum to the left. Right of centre governments swing the pendulum to the right. But left-wing governments do so with greater force. The pendulum always pushes further left.
And the public's bias towards the status quo has a habit of making even the most radical policy (like Medicare, or restrictions on freedom of speech) seem normal over time. Despite the many obvious problems of socialised health care, no government now would challenge the foundations of Medicare as the Coalition did before it was implemented.
Every single opinion poll says that Tony Abbott will be Australia's next prime minister. He might not even have to wait until the current term of parliament expires in late 2013. The Gillard government threatens to collapse at any moment. Abbott could well be in the Lodge before Christmas this year.
Abbott could also have a Fraser-esque majority after the next election. Even if he doesn't control the Senate, the new prime minister is likely to have an intimidating mandate from the Australian people. The conditions will suit a reformer: although Australia's economy has proven remarkably resilient, global events demonstrate how fragile it is. The global financial crisis, far from proving to be a crisis of capitalism, has instead demonstrated the limits of the state. Europe's bloated and debt-ridden governments provide ample evidence of the dangers of big government.
Australia's ageing population means the generous welfare safety net provided to current generations will be simply unsustainable in the future. As the Intergenerational Report produced by the federal Treasury shows, there were 7.5 workers in the economy for every non-worker aged over 65 in 1970. In 2010 that figure was 5. In 2050 it will be 2.7. Government spending that might have made sense in 1970 would cripple the economy in 2050. Change is inevitable.
But if Abbott is going to lead that change he only has a tiny window of opportunity to do so. If he hasn't changed Australia in his first year as prime minister, he probably never will.
Why just one year? Whitlam's vigour in government came as a shock to Australian politics. The Coalition was adjusting to the opposition benches. Outside of parliament, the potential opponents of Whitlam reforms had yet to get organised. The general goodwill voters offer new governments gives more than enough cover for radical action. But that cover is only temporary. The support of voters drains. Oppositions organise. Scandals accumulate. The clear air for major reform becomes smoggy.
Worse, governments acclimatise to being in government. A government is full of energy in its first year. By the second year, even very promising ministers can get lazy. The business of government overtakes. MPs start thinking of the next election. But for the Coalition, the purpose of winning office cannot be merely to attain the status of being ‘in government'. It must be to make Australians freer and more prosperous. From his social democratic perspective, Whitlam understood this point well. Labor in the 1970s knew that it wanted to reshape the country and it began doing so immediately.
The time pressure on a new government - if it is to successfully implant its vision - is immense. The vast Commonwealth bureaucracies and the polished and politically-savvy senior public servants have their own agendas, their own list of priorities, and the skill to ensure those priorities become their ministers' priorities. The recent experience of the state Coalition governments is instructive. Fresh-faced ministers who do not have a fixed idea of what they want to do with their new power are invariably captured by their departments.
Take, for instance, the Gillard government's National Curriculum. Opposing this policy ought to be a matter of faith for state Liberals. The National Curriculum centralises education power in Canberra, and will push a distinctly left-wing view of the world onto all Australian students. But it has been met with acceptance - even support - by the Coalition's state education ministers. This is because a single National Curriculum has been an article of faith within the education bureaucracy for decades; an obsession of education unions and academics, who want education to ‘shape' Australia's future. (No prize for guessing what that shape might look like.) A small-target election strategy has the unfortunate side-effect of allowing ministerial aspirants to avoid thinking too deeply about major areas in their portfolio. So when, in the first week as minister, they are presented with a list of policy priorities by their department, it is easier to accept what the bureaucracy considers important, rather than what is right. The only way to avoid such departmental capture is to have a clear idea of what to do with government once you have it.
Only radical change that shifts the entire political spectrum, like Gough Whitlam did, has any chance of effecting lasting change. Of course, you don't have to be from the left of politics to leave lasting change on the political spectrum.
Both Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan proved conservatives can leave a paradigm-shifting legacy. Though Thatcher's own party strayed from her strongly free-market philosophy, one of the major reasons the British Labour Party finally removed socialism from their party platform under Tony Blair was because of Margaret Thatcher.
Ronald Reagan not only presided over pro-market deregulation and tax cuts during eight years in the White House, but also provided the ideological fuel for the 1994 Republican revolution in the House of Representatives, led by Newt Gingrich, which enacted far-reaching welfare reform.
Here we provide a list of 75 policies that would make Australia richer and more free. It's a deliberately radical list. There's no way Tony Abbott could implement all of them, or even a majority. But he doesn't have to implement them all to dramatically change Australia. If he was able to implement just a handful of these recommendations, Abbott would be a transformative figure in Australian political history. He would do more to shift the political spectrum than any prime minister since Whitlam.
We do not mean for this list to be exhaustive, and in many ways no list could do justice to the challenges the Abbott government would face. Whitlam changed the political culture. We are still feeling the consequences of that change today. So the policies we suggest adopting, the bureaucracies we suggest abolishing, the laws we suggest revoking should be seen as symptoms, rather than the source, of the problem.
Conservative governments have a very narrow idea of what the ‘culture wars' consists of. The culture of government that threatens our liberty is not just ensconced in the ABC studios, or among a group of well-connected and publicly funded academics. ABC bias is not the only problem. It is the spiralling expansion of bureaucracies and regulators that is the real problem.
We should be more concerned about the Australian National Preventive Health Agency - a new Commonwealth bureaucracy dedicated to lobbying other arms of government to introduce Nanny State measures - than about bias at the ABC. We should be more concerned about the cottage industry of consultancies and grants handed out by the public service to environmental groups. We should be more concerned that senior public servants shape policy more than elected politicians do. And conservative governments should be more concerned than they are at the growth of the state's interest in every aspect of society.
If he wins government, Abbott faces a clear choice. He could simply overturn one or two symbolic Gillard-era policies like the carbon tax, and govern moderately. He would not offend any interest groups. In doing so, he'd probably secure a couple of terms in office for himself and the Liberal Party. But would this be a successful government? We don't believe so. The remorseless drift to bigger government and less freedom would not halt, and it would resume with vigour when the Coalition eventually loses office. We hope he grasps the opportunity to fundamentally reshape the political culture and stem the assault on individual liberty.
1 Repeal the carbon tax, and don't replace it. It will be one thing to remove the burden of the carbon tax from the Australian economy. But if it is just replaced by another costly scheme, most of the benefits will be undone.
2 Abolish the Department of Climate Change
3 Abolish the Clean Energy Fund
4 Repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act
5 Abandon Australia's bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council
6 Repeal the renewable energy target
7 Return income taxing powers to the states
8 Abolish the Commonwealth Grants Commission
9 Abolish the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
10 Withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol
11 Introduce fee competition to Australian universities
12 Repeal the National Curriculum
13 Introduce competing private secondary school curriculums
14 Abolish the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
15 Eliminate laws that require radio and television broadcasters to be 'balanced'
16 Abolish television spectrum licensing and devolve spectrum management to the common law
17 End local content requirements for Australian television stations
18 Eliminate family tax benefits
19 Abandon the paid parental leave scheme
20 Means-test Medicare
21 End all corporate welfare and subsidies by closing the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
22 Introduce voluntary voting
23 End mandatory disclosures on political donations
24 End media blackout in final days of election campaigns
25 End public funding to political parties
26 Remove anti-dumping laws
27 Eliminate media ownership restrictions
28 Abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board
29 Eliminate the National Preventative Health Agency
30 Cease subsidising the car industry
31 Formalise a one-in, one-out approach to regulatory reduction
32 Rule out federal funding for 2018 Commonwealth Games
33 Deregulate the parallel importation of books
34 End preferences for Industry Super Funds in workplace relations laws
35 Legislate a cap on government spending and tax as a percentage of GDP
36 Legislate a balanced budget amendment which strictly limits the size of budget deficits and the period the federal government can be in deficit
37 Force government agencies to put all of their spending online in a searchable database
38 Repeal plain packaging for cigarettes and rule it out for all other products, including alcohol and fast food
39 Reintroduce voluntary student unionism at universities
40 Introduce a voucher scheme for secondary schools
41 Repeal the alcopops tax
42 Introduce a special economic zone in the north of Australia including:
a) Lower personal income tax for residents
b) Significantly expanded 457 Visa programs for workers
c) Encourage the construction of dams
43 Repeal the mining tax
44 Devolve environmental approvals for major projects to the states
45 Introduce a single rate of income tax with a generous tax-free threshold
46 Cut company tax to an internationally competitive rate of 25 per cent
47 Cease funding the Australia Network
48 Privatise Australia Post
49 Privatise Medibank
50 Break up the ABC and put out to tender each individual function
51 Privatise SBS
52 Reduce the size of the public service from current levels of more than 260,000 to at least the 2001 low of 212,784
53 Repeal the Fair Work Act
54 Allow individuals and employers to negotiate directly terms of employment that suit them
55 Encourage independent contracting by overturning new regulations designed to punish contractors
56 Abolish the Baby Bonus
57 Abolish the First Home Owners' Grant
58 Allow the Northern Territory to become a state
59 Halve the size of the Coalition front bench from 32 to 16
60 Remove all remaining tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade
61 Slash top public servant salaries to much lower international standards, like in the United States
62 End all public subsidies to sport and the arts
63 Privatise the Australian Institute of Sport
64 End all hidden protectionist measures, such as preferences for local manufacturers in government tendering
65 Abolish the Office for Film and Literature Classification
66 Rule out any government-supported or mandated internet censorship
67 Means test tertiary student loans
68 Allow people to opt out of superannuation in exchange for promising to forgo any government income support in retirement
69 Immediately halt construction of the National Broadband Network and privatise any sections that have already been built
70 End all government funded Nanny State advertising
71 Reject proposals for compulsory food and alcohol labelling
72 Privatise the CSIRO
73 Defund Harmony Day
74 Close the Office for Youth
75 Privatise the Snowy-Hydro Scheme
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2080/be-like-gough-75-radical-ideas-to-tr...
Steve Irons
Fri, 01/11/2013 - 12:07am
Permalink
References
Hi John,
Can you give us references (when & where) these policy objectives were revealed publicly?
Cheers
Steve
Steve Irons
Wed, 23/10/2013 - 8:23pm
Permalink
From: AFP : is taking no action in relation to any allegation
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2013 1:08 PM
To: steve.irons@***.com.au
Subject: Referral to the AFP [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Mr Irons,
I refer to your correspondence to Australian Federal Police (AFP) dated 19th October 2013 in which you request the AFP commence an investigation into the misuse of travel entitlements.
The AFP is taking no action in relation to any of the allegations at this point in time. The AFP has forwarded your correspondence to the Department of Finance as the most appropriate agency to examine the use of entitlements by Federal Members of Parliament.
Thank you for the information provided.
Special References
AFP Canberra
WARNING
This email message and any attached files may contain information
that is confidential and subject of legal privilege intended only for
use by the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you
are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient be advised that you
have received this message in error and that any use, copying,
circulation, forwarding, printing or publication of this message or
attached files is strictly forbidden, as is the disclosure of the
information contained therein. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your
inbox.
AFP Web site: http://www.afp.gov.au
**********************************************************************
Comment by Steve Irons 23 October 2013:
It is not the role of the AFP to take political sides or to involve themselves in actions designed to bring about a change of government. The AFP must at all times act in the application of the law with transparency, impartiality, and without fear or favour. The AFP is in fact refusing to act in this manner. When a referral came from someone other than the Department of Finance in relation to Peter Slipper's travel expenses (an Abbott attempt to dishonour Peter Slipper, to bring about his removal from the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, in order to bring about an early election), rather than refer it back to the Department of Finance to be dealt with under the Minchin Protocol, the Head of the AFP decided to investigate and charge Peter Slipper. This led to his removal from office and the end of his political career. It has now come to light that current Ministers including the Prime Minister were, at that time and since, involved in more serious criminal acts than the one investigated by the AFP in relation to Peter Slipper. By now refusing to investigate similar referrals, the Head of the AFP is again acting in Abbott's favour. By refusing to show impartiality, by refusing to act without fear or favour, the Head of the AFP is calling his own actions into question. The Head of the AFP should now resign and allow his own actions to be investigated by an independent agency.
john ward
Thu, 31/10/2013 - 11:33pm
Permalink
AFP and The way to compel them to do their duty. Sec 75.5.
The Universal Declaration recognises there is no protection of human rights without the rule of law.
Let me read you some of the articles that relate to the rule of law:
Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 11: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Well, if Australia was tardy in implementing or giving effect to Article 7 of the Universal Declaration, it was more than ingenious in recognising the rule of law.
The genius of the Australian Constitution lies in a little subsection called section 75(5). Its terms are probably meaningless to those of you non-lawyers who are present here today. It gives the High Court original jurisdiction in which any person, citizen or non citizen seeks mandamus, prohibition or an injunction against an officer of the Commonwealth. As a result of that tiny little subsection, ministers of the federal government, federal public servants, their agents and others acting on their behalf may be compelled to perform their Constitutional and legal duty and may be restrained from acting in excess of their constitutional or legal power.
The section, like lamingtons and Australian Rules Football, is all our own; our own peculiar genius. Not surprisingly, governments of both sides have sought from time to time to cut down the operation of that little subsection; and equally not surprisingly, High Court has resisted their attempts every time.
That little subsection is quite unique. It has no equivalent, as far as I know, in any other Constitution. Certainly it has no equivalent in the United States of America. And it is only because America hasn't got that equivalent provision that we have that legal black hole known as Guantanamo Bay.
The last time I ventured into the debate about Guantanamo Bay, I was quite rightly dismissed as an armchair critic. Let me not argue the point; but I can still read and I can tell you that the indefinite detention without trial before a properly constituted and independent tribunal is a breach of several of the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights. I won't go through all of those provisions, but let's start with "Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"; "Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"; "Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile". What else is incarceration in Guantanamo Bay? "Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal"; "Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realised".
In dismissing my criticisms of Guantanamo Bay, the Attorney General quiet correctly said that it was the courts of the United States that would decide if David Hicks' detention was lawful and it is true. At this stage they are four years too late in doing so. There is no point in my doing anything more because I'm sure you all know the United Nations and the European Union have both called for the closure, the immediate closure, of Guantanamo Bay.
Now I have mentioned Guantanamo Bay for another reason. It is true that today in far too many places, human right abuses occur on a large scale. Human rights abuses are often driven in those places by political, ethnic or religious differences. In the case of white Australia, human rights abuses also occur, and they occur at individual levels. The victims of those abuses are usually the most vulnerable. As a general rule the authorities don't interfere with nice middle class men and women like us. They pick on the difficult people. They pick on the non-conformists, the troublemakers, the dissidents, and as often as not they pick on the mentally ill and the mentally disabled.
We now know of the most serious violations of the rights of Christine Rau and Mrs Solon.
So far as I know, no compensation has yet been provided. But let me hazard a guess that the damages must be enormous. I read in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, which I always understood to be a journal of record, that two men, nameless and unidentified, have been in immigration detention for three and five years, respectively. How much more vulnerable can you be than to lack a name and an identity? Today, the Herald reported that the Commonwealth government has settled the claim of a child who had been severely traumatised as a result of the two years he spent in immigration detention. According to the Herald, this was settled after a 63-day hearing in the Supreme Court. For that there will not be any change out of a million dollars, I promise you. Moreover, it is said that the damages aspect would be in the order of a million dollars.
Now I have been round this town long enough to know that abuses occur not only because people are vulnerable; they occur as often as not because good people do nothing, and as often as not good people know nothing. Detention centres are set apart and isolated from the mainstream of society, and deliberately so; so that you will not know what is going on. But it cannot be denied that, if abuses can occur, they will occur.
For that reason, I am going to take this occasion to remind you or perhaps acquaint you with the terms of Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It says simply: "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." Not a word about detention centres there. And because of that, I think today is an appropriate occasion to call for the immediate closure of immigration detention centres. At least there is a better than respectable argument that we should do it on economic grounds, if we won't do it because of the terms of Article 14, if we can't do it out of fellow feelings with other human beings.
Mary Gaudron Former High Court Judge
Steve Irons
Fri, 01/11/2013 - 12:16am
Permalink
s.75 of the Constitution
75. In all matters--
(i.) Arising under any treaty:
(ii.) Affecting consuls or other representatives of other countries:
(iii.) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:
(iv.) Between States, or between residents of different States, or between a State and a resident of another State:
(v.) In which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth:
the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedur...
LNP=LIES
Wed, 23/10/2013 - 1:37am
Permalink
First month as expected, lies
First month as expected, lies, backflips and hypocrisy
Fed up
Mon, 21/10/2013 - 3:08pm
Permalink
Comprehension write up
Agree with all. Not bad for a 34 day old government.
Ian
Mon, 21/10/2013 - 2:53pm
Permalink
That third paragraph title
I reckon you'll find it's 'opacity'
Steve Irons
Mon, 21/10/2013 - 8:02pm
Permalink
Opaqueness vs Opacity
Ian's suggestion of opacity is well worth the consideration.
'Opaqueness' is a feature. "Its opaqueness is beyond belief in the current era of the importance of transparency."
'Opacity' is the measurement of the 'mass attenuation coefficient' (LOL -> another feature of murdocracy, how many punters go along with the opaqueness before they begin to realise they have been sold a squirrel! (measured in hundreds of thousands!))
No, Ian's right, you could use 'opacity' in the colloquial sense implied above. But I do love the introduction of 'mass attenuation'. Abbott would be well-advised to take note of the Opacity Coefficient.
Steve Irons
Mon, 21/10/2013 - 7:30pm
Permalink
Thank you, Ian
Opacity it is!
Add new comment