Tony Abbott – a blunder waiting to happen (image from canberratimes.com.au)
The Victorian State Election has become a
defining moment for the LNP, whether they like it or not. The burning
question on most Liberal minds right now is what to do with the dear
leader, Tony Abbott.
On the one hand it is difficult to see the Liberals allowing Abbott
to lead them to the next election. His propensity for appearing
dysfunctional cannot be tolerated indefinitely. The odds that he will
continue to embarrass his government in one way or another are very
short. The likelihood he will change and assume statesman-like
characteristics is a pipe dream. He is just so far out of his depth a
submarine would struggle to find him.
And, historically the Liberals have limited patience for those who
become an impediment to the image they have of themselves; an image of
‘born to rule’, of continued, ongoing governance of the peasantry. They
know that sooner or later Abbott is going to drop another clanger either
domestically, or on the international stage.
They also know the nation is, in effect, on 24 hour alert steeling
itself as it waits for the next big blunder. The hope might be, within
Liberal minds that as each blunder comes along we might start getting
used to them and even become immune to them. Not likely.
On
the other hand, if the Liberals leave him there, keep him out of harm’s
way and try to create a troika around Bishop, Hockey and Turnbull, it
won’t be long before confusion, contradiction and back bench
dissatisfaction cause a parliamentary meltdown. Whatever they do, Abbott
will remain an electoral liability so toxic, the majority know it will
send them back into opposition after one term.
But, by removing him they also paint themselves with the same brush
they so savagely slapped over Labor when Julia Gillard replaced Kevin
Rudd. The only difference is, we can all see Abbott’s dysfunctional
nature. We would understand why he had to go and that might work in
their favour. That small positive, however, is unlikely to work. The
reason is that the options for a new leader are pretty ordinary.
Whichever way they go, they are on a hiding to nothing.
At the beginning of the year Hockey looked the goods but it wasn’t
long before he started suffering from foot in mouth disease and then, of
course, he delivered his first budget, which turned out to be a
self-inflicted blight on his aspirations for future leadership.
More recently, Julie Bishop has been seen as leadership material as
she strutted the international stage, turning heads and getting pasted
up in Harper’s Bazaar. However, we have not forgotten her foray as
shadow treasurer at the beginning of the Rudd administration which saw
her out of her depth too.
As Foreign Affairs minister we only get to see her in ten second
bites shaking hands with other world dignitaries. It is difficult to see
her holding up to the close scrutiny of national leader if she couldn’t
cut it as an alternative treasurer. One thing is for certain; she is no
Julia Gillard and that, sadly for her, is the current benchmark.
Which leaves us with the only other possibility, Malcolm Turnbull.
While there are plenty in the party who would back him, there are more
who simply won’t. It is questionable that he shares their ideology; many
fear he might drag them, kicking and screaming, to the centre, away
from Murdochism. That would leave them without a narrative.
And therein lies their dilemma, made even more difficult as their
ideological approach to government continues to hit brick walls in the
senate. Who would have thought twelve months ago that it would come to
this ; the quickest act of political self-destruction in our history.
And how deserving of it, they are.
As
I watched these pretenders parading themselves up and down the lower
house chamber one day last week, I was reminded of the stench of
arrogant superiority I witnessed in St. Peter’s Square in Rome some
years ago watching the red hats of the Vatican do much the same thing.
And that, it seems to me, is who these ideologically, recalcitrant
adolescents think, they are. These pompous overlords of Neo-liberal
macroeconomics, these Reaganists and Thatcherite’s, the ‘trickle down’
team of wealth distribution. Only in the senate do they display
themselves with any degree of humility and respect for the office they
hold; a measure of their uncertainty and reliance on others beyond their
control.
So, I say, let them continue to self-destruct and display themselves
as they really are to those who voted for them; not their loyal members,
their ideological clones, but the swinging voters who were sucked in by
their lies, their spin, their false promises.
Let those who voted for them see what they got for their money. Let
the 6-10 per cent of the electorate who decide elections squirm a little
longer. Keep the dear leader in play for another two years as we watch
the economy go headlong into recession and the false debt continue to
grow.
Whichever way they go, we can be sure self-preservation will trump
national interest and that, ultimately, will be their undoing.
As if a switch has been flicked, as if a group memo has gone out
(perhaps from Rupert Murdoch), Australian political journalists have all
very neatly and in a scarily synchronised fashion all decided there are
problems with the Abbott government. I don’t want to sound ungrateful,
but this is the biggest case of too little too late that I have ever
witnessed. It is now official that the mainstream political press is
exactly one year and three months behind the independent media who, like
me, have been pointing out to our readers since the day Tony Abbott
became Prime Minister, that he is not fit for the job. Actually that’s
not true. I and most others were saying it for six years before that.
And now, after over a year of relentless, daily horrors from the Abbott
camp, including internationally embarrassing gaffes, broken promises,
horrible and unfair revenge policy, rorting of the public purse,
corruption and mean spirited behaviour, it’s as if they’ve all suddenly
had permission to point out that there might be a problem here. Low and
behold, I think they might be right! Even a broken clock is right twice a
day.
But if only it ended there. No. There’s another clause in the ‘you
may now point out how bad the Abbott government is’ memo which they have
all dutifully complied with to the letter. Not that I think it took any
convincing. You guessed it. They only have permission to call the spade
of the Abbott government a dysfunctional spade if they also maintain
their completely misrepresentative and downright dishonest anti-factual
narrative of Labor dysfunction at the same time. So the narrative goes
like this: Abbott’s government is bad. We only just noticed. We also
can’t help but notice it’s just as bad, if not possibly not quite as
bad, as the previous Labor government.
Don’t believe me? I hear people like Bolt, Albrechtsen and Alan Jones
have been piling on Abbott in their own synchronised act of ‘let’s give
Julie Bishop a run’ narrative, while carefully laying the blame mostly
at the feet of Abbott’s support team. Because criticising Abbott himself
would be career suicide for these types I assume. I’m not, however,
going to link to these bottom-feeders. But I will link to
Murdoch-Liberal-lite commentator Peter van Onselen, who today
contributed this piece: ‘Wheels are falling off as Abbott careers to year’s end’.
This article provides bad feedback from Abbott’s Liberal friends about
his dire political situation, and also helpfully highlights this line:
‘So far, however, Abbott’s government more closely resembles the dysfunction of the Labor line-ups he fought so hard to defeat.’
Then we also have Peter Hartcher, who today contributed ‘Abbott’s rudderless ship won’t scrape by’,
which quotes numerous un-named Liberal sources who are ‘panicking’
about Abbott’s terrible performance (Hartcher’s favourite sources are
un-named). Hartcher then summarises:
‘Is the rising panic justified? The comparison with the
Rudd and Gillard years is particularly striking. In a couple of ways it
is apt.’
I won’t bore you with the ways that Hartcher thinks criticism of
Abbott is an apt comparison with Rudd and Gillard, as it’s really just
more bullshit from a journalist we have come to expect this sort of
bullshit from. Anyone who has read Gillard’s My Story will
understand Hartcher is the lowest form of gutter rat ever to inhabit the
Press Club and can’t be trusted to report anything about Labor in a way
that is objective and fair. Here is a quote from Gillard about Hartcher
and his similarly badly behaved Press Club colleagues:
‘No journalist apologised to his or her readers when
dramatically reported [leadership vote] deadlines passed in silence, nor
publically discussed how they themselves were systematically used and
misled in order to puff up claims about the number of Labor members who
wanted to vote for Kevin Rudd. A few, like Peter Hartcher, became
combatants in Kevin’s leadership war’.
So not only was this man, Hartcher, a key player in the leadership
dysfunction that he then wrote about I assume every week for the three
years of Gillard’s government (although I couldn’t say this for sure
because I gave up reading him after the first broken-record
Labor-leadership-tensions crap), he is also still a keen-perpetuator of
the misleading information that the previous Labor government was
dysfunctional. How this man is still employed and still welcome in the
Press Club is beyond me. I’ve written before about how leadership dysfunction doesn’t automatically lead to political dysfunction.
Note this isn’t an opinion. This is based on fact. Even while Gillard
was fighting against Rudd’s betrayal and white-anting, she was
delivering political stability, in a minority government. Here’s another
quote from her book to back up my opinion with some facts:
‘Minority government delivered the nation effective and
stable government. This was the most productive parliament, able to deal
with the hardest of issues. During the terms of my government, members
of parliament sat for more than 1,555 hours and 566 pieces of
legislation were passed. This is more legislation than was passed in the
last term of the Howard Government, notwithstanding their complete
command of parliament with a majority in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate.’
This record can’t even be compared with Abbott’s first year as Prime
Minister, because any comparison would just be too ridiculous to even
contemplate. Abbott’s biggest achievements are noted as turning good
policy off. The Mining Tax. The Carbon Price. And his ability to stop.
the. boats. Even if you’re a Murdoch hack and you think these three
policy successes constitute achievements, and not crimes against
Australia’s future and the lives of desperate asylum seekers, it’s still
a very lonely looking policy achievement scoreboard. It can’t compare
to Gillard’s success because it’s too pathetic to even begin to compare.
Abbott’s budget is a barnacle covered ship that never even set sail
before it became a rusted shipwreck. Abbott’s government is defined by,
is awash with failure to its very core. There is no justifiable
comparison with the previous Labor government that does justifiable
comparisons justice.
Lastly, I’ve include Lenore Taylor. Even when Taylor is being
accurate and generally reasonable in the Guardian about the awfulness of
the Abbott government (and to be fair, she has been very critical since
the start of Abbott’s term), she still manages to get a punch in for
the previous Labor government. It does seem to be entirely compulsory
for every member of the Press Club to follow this pattern. In her
article today, ‘Three things that a good government would do’, Taylor wrote:
‘Abbott told his party room on Tuesday (in the same
speech in which he promised to clean the barnacles and before all the
confusion about what they were) that his government’s “historical
mission is to show that the chaos of the Rudd/Gillard years is not the
new normal”. After a truly chaotic week we can safely say that mission
has not been accomplished.’
The Labor-government-was-dysfunctional narrative is just not true and
everyone who repeats it is treating their readers like idiots. It’s
just not true. It’s a misrepresentation of political reality. It’s
certain proof of journalistic bias and misinformation. It was rampant
throughout the media for the entire length of the Labor government’s
previous two terms. And now the myth continues as journalists come up
with ways to justify how they missed the incompetence of the Abbott
government while the Abbott government was campaigning to become the
Abbott government. They missed their opportunity to scrutinise the
Abbott government and for that reason they should never be trusted ever
again. It’s not like any of them have the courage to stand up and say
‘yes, we got it wrong. Our obsession with Labor leadership tensions led
us to misrepresent the Labor government as a bad government when on all
objective measures it was a surprisingly successful government. We’re
sorry we did this, and we’re sorry our focus on this one political angle
prevented us from properly scrutinising Opposition Leader Abbott and
his plans for Australian. We’re all paying for our mistakes now’. You
just won’t ever see this happen. So instead we get bullshit served up to
us as truth. Even when the broken clocks are correct twice day, they’re
still wrong about the Labor government.
Conservative commentators appear to be growing increasingly
frustrated with the Abbott government, as it struggles to present a
coherent message leading into the final parliamentary sitting week for
the year.
The Prime Minister said this week he wanted to clear a
few policy "barnacles", but by the end of the week it remained unclear
which barnacles he was speaking of.
Failing the pub test? Tony Abbott with Alan Jones in 2011. Photo: Andrew Meares
Janet Albrechtsen, Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt are among the
prominent conservative voices to criticise the Abbott government this
week for its struggles. All three commentators were among conservative
supporters of Tony Abbott who were invited to Kirribilli House last year for a private function.
But in light of the government's difficulties they have switched their aim.
"Another
week. Another wasted opportunity by the Abbott government to score a
political win. And another reminder of one of the simplest lessons in
politics and life: respect is a two-way street. On that critical front,
the Abbott government has failed time and again," Albrechtsen wrote in
her column for The Australian on Tuesday. "What should have been an effortless political win this week turned into yet another political disaster. "But instead of working through that initial error, the government played condescending word games."
Janet Albrechtsen Photo: Robert Pearce
On Thursday, Bolt wrote for News Corporation that the government
was making "the same blunders that killed Julia Gillard" when it came to
the ABC.
"What is so frustrating for those who wish Abbott well
is that this disaster was utterly predictable - and, indeed, predicted,"
Bolt wrote.
"In April, even though it killed me, I warned through gritted teeth that the government should honour its promise to the ABC."
Andrew Bolt Photo: Louie Douvis and Jesse Marlow
Earlier in the week, Bolt argued the government had developed a
habit of apologising, "But apologising just signals another mistake was
made. And this government apologises an awful lot, lacking confidence in
its ability to prosecute an argument in the media."
In an editorial last weekend, before the government became entangled over the $7 GP fee and ABC job losses, The Australian argued that "Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey appear tongue-tied" and had to "reboot their sales job." "Without a clear narrative, the task will be beyond him; his communications strategy is in disarray."
And in an interview after the G20 summit a fortnight ago, Jones attacked the Prime Minister over the renewable energy target and for "failing the pub test" with elements of the free trade deal with China.
"To
win an election – and you're not worth two bob in opposition – to win
an election, you've got to pass the pub test," he said. "PM, you don't have a mandate for this."
"The people who vote are the masters, aren't they? They have given you
whatever authority you've got – they don't agree with this."
“It is an absolute principle of democracy that
governments should not and must not say one thing before an election and
do the opposite afterwards. Nothing could be more calculated to bring
our democracy into disrepute and alienate the citizenry of Australia
from their government than if governments were to establish by precedent
that they could say one thing before an election and do the opposite
afterwards.” Tony Abbott, August 22, 2011
Every time Abbott lies to the citizens of this country we become
increasingly disaffected, and not only from our Prime Minister, but from
the institution he represents. Abbott has normalised the discourse of
lies. He has taken the dishonesty of politicians to a whole new level.
We barely expect anything else from him, and from his fellow
politicians. Under the leadership of our mendacious Prime Minister, we
have increasingly abandoned hope of fairness, straightforwardness,
belief and trust. Our Prime Minister doesn’t think we are worthy of the
truth.
One of the many unpleasant effects of being lied to is that the liar
insults and patronises me by creating a false reality that I have to
inhabit, until I discover I’m the victim of deception.The liar denies me
the right to know the truth, a serious offence against me, because
truth is something no one has the right to deny me.
Whether it’s on a personal or a political level, lying to me
signifies the liar doesn’t consider me as entitled to the truth as is he
or she. This infantilises me, is disrespectful to me, and denies me the
knowledge I need to make informed decisions about my life. There’s
little more insulting than being lied to, kept in the dark with lies of
omission, and intentionally misled because the liar doesn’t consider you
capable of handling the truth, or is acting entirely in their own
self-interest because you knowing the truth will in some way threaten
them.
The Prime Minister of our country, Tony Abbott, has never made any secret
of his ambivalent relationship with truth. There is his notorious
assertion that nothing he says is “gospel” truth unless it’s written
down.
There’s his prescriptive declaration
that “It is better to seek forgiveness than ask permission.” While this
isn’t necessarily an endorsement of lying, it is a ruthless and callous
prescription for relationship with one’s fellow humans. It recommends
that one do that which one desires and if it backfires apologise, but it
isn’t necessary under the terms of Abbott’s prescriptive to negotiate
with or communicate intention to others, prior to taking an action. This
has a similar effect to lying, in that it assumes an inferiority of
some kind on the part of another that doesn’t require Abbott to enter
into an equal, respectful relationship in which another’s opinions and
wishes count for the same as his own.
We have a liar for a leader. When the lies start at the top, there’s
little hope truth will ever see the light of day. Abbott is leading us
into an abyss of normalised deception that will damage every one of us,
because when dedicated liars are in power, the country will inevitably
lose its way. If you don’t think this country is losing its way, you’re
dreaming.
Australia’s Future Fund invests in nuclear weapons development and our banks are happy to provide capital as well.
On August 9, 2013, Future Fund CEO Mark Burgess
encountered some unexpected visitors at his Melbourne office. A group of
about 20 protesters gathered outside his office doors, some dressed
from head to toe as nuclear missiles, before being escorted away by
police. The human missiles turned up again a few weeks later at the
fund’s Sydney office, demanding answers about its investment portfolio,
which includes nuclear weapons.
The protesters were drawing attention to the fact that the federal
government’s $101 billion Future Fund invests more than $260 million in
foreign companies involved in the manufacture of nuclear weapons (and
that figure has increased by $33 million since last June).
“There are clearly many different views on what should be invested
in, but the Future Fund takes a disciplined approach to considering
exclusions that reflects best practice,” a fund spokesperson told The Saturday Paper.
“Our policy and process considers the fund’s legislation, mandate and
investment strategy, as well as conventions and treaties ratified by
Australia and consideration by the board. While we have excluded
entities connected to tobacco, landmines and cluster munitions, our
policy has not led us to identify other categories for exclusion.”
The Future Fund’s nuclear weapons investments only came to light in
2011 when Tim Wright, director of the International Campaign to Abolish
Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) Australia, issued a series of
freedom-of-information requests that uncovered the investments.
According to Wright, the Future Fund argues that the investments are
justified because the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) doesn’t
establish a ban on nuclear weapons.
“They say they are taking a disciplined position, but it’s hardly a
disciplined approach to exclude tobacco, landmines and cluster
munitions, but not nuclear weapons. The fund argued that, given the lack
of a global prohibition on nuclear weapons, it was perfectly legitimate
for them to invest in these weapons,” he says.
“The Future Fund has consistently mischaracterised the NPT as a
treaty permitting certain states, including the United States, Britain
and France, to possess nuclear weapons. In fact,” Wright says, “the
treaty compels these and other states to pursue negotiations in good
faith to eliminate their nuclear weapons. The substantial upgrades they
are now making to their arsenals – with plans to retain them for decades
to come – are clearly incompatible with the aims of the NPT.”
However, Australia’s Future Fund is a relatively small player in the
global trend that has seen 411 international investors making an
estimated $US402 billion available to the nuclear weapons industry since
2011, either as investments or loans.
These figures are contained in the report “Don’t Bank on the Bomb”,
released earlier this month by Dutch peace organisation IKV Pax Christi
(PAX). It details how Australian banking institutions, including ANZ,
the Commonwealth Bank, Macquarie Group, Platinum Investment Management
and Westpac, have financed an estimated $US4.6 billion for nuclear
weapons producers since 2011.
The money is used to modernise old nuclear warheads and assemble new
ones, build missiles and launchers, and update the technology that
supports them. While most of that money comes directly from taxes
collected in nuclear-armed countries, private-sector investors and banks
from non-nuclear-armed countries (including Australia) provide the
missing financing to maintain nuclear arsenals.
ANZ and Westpac have both provided sizeable loans (totalling more
than $US200 million) to Honeywell International, a US company that
manufactures components for nuclear weapons, as well as being involved
in tritium production and the life-extension program for the US Navy’s
Trident II nuclear missiles. Westpac has also made $US380 million in
loans available to companies such as Boeing, the manufacturer and now
maintenance supplier of the US’s Minuteman III nuclear intercontinental
ballistic missiles arsenal, and URS, which manages US nuclear weapons
facilities such as Los Alamos National Laboratory and provides
electronics systems support for the Trident missile program.
A Westpac spokesperson referred to the bank’s “Financing the Defence
Sector” policy, which states: “Westpac will not provide direct financing
for controversial weapons.” The policy further notes that these
“include those weapons which are banned by international arms control
treaties ratified by Australia, such as cluster munitions and
anti-personnel landmines”.
However, the spokesperson said this policy “does not preclude us from
having banking relationships with organisations in this sector as it
relates to other parts of their business. For example, the development
of aircraft used for peacekeeping missions or production of equipment
used for working with communities after natural disasters.”
Susi Snyder, a “Don’t Bank on the Bomb” co-author, says the loans and
investments are generally organised by financial conglomerates that
call on cashed-up foreign banks to sign up to a financing package for
these companies. She describes these transactions as “more Secret of My Success than Wolf of Wall Street.”
“The drama is when someone inside a financial institution realises
just what types of things this company is up to,” Snyder says. “Most
everyone knows what Raytheon or Lockheed Martin do – militarism is their
core business – but when it comes to Boeing or Airbus … you need to dig
deeper to find the link with weapons.”
“It’s great that Westpac recognises the challenges with financing the
defence or military sector. It is unfortunate that their policy has
loopholes which allow for the financing of companies involved in
producing indiscriminate and inhumane weapons. A comprehensive policy
would prohibit all types of financing, both direct and indirect.”
On August 28 this year, Greens senator Scott Ludlam put a number of
questions on notice to the minister for finance, Mathias Cormann, on the
question of the Future Fund’s nuclear weapons-related investments.
Although the fund is governed by an independent board headed by
former treasurer Peter Costello, Cormann is ultimately responsible and
the fund’s investment decisions are not always free from political
interference. For example, Labor health ministers Nicola Roxon and Tanya
Plibersek were influential in the Future Fund’s 2013 decision to divest
from tobacco stocks.
However, to Ludlam’s questions, Cormann responded, “The Future Fund
has not excluded any companies on the basis of involvement in the
design, manufacture and/or maintenance of nuclear weapons.”
Pressed on the issue’s potential reputation damage, the minister
continued: “The Future Fund protects its reputation by establishing
policies and procedures designed to enable it to operate to standards
that are of international best-practice for institutional investment and
to comply with the requirements established by law and its investment
mandate.”
Ludlam says these types of investments point to a bigger failure
around the way markets are currently structured. “Investment decisions
need pay no heed whatsoever to human welfare or risks to the
environment. They operate in a complete moral vacuum,” he says.
“Australia states support for nuclear disarmament, yet we sell
uranium to nuclear weapons states, and our very own Future Fund is up to
its neck in nuclear weapons investments. That’s the broader hypocrisy
that is beyond the remit of the board of governors of the Future Fund –
we’re in it up to our necks.”
In 2009 in Prague, US President Barack Obama raised the hopes of the
global disarmament movement by vowing he would take “concrete steps
towards a world without nuclear weapons”. It proved to be a hollow
promise – the US has in fact increased its military spending under the
Obama administration to about $US600 billion annually (more than three
times China’s defence spending and more than six times Russia’s, and
about 40 per cent of the world’s total defence spending).
However, as we have seen recently at the G20 in Brisbane, while
climate change is rightfully recognised as the key threat facing the
survival of the planet, a growing number of international governments
are starting to raise the issue of divestment from nuclear weapons. In
February 2014, more than 140 governments, including Australia’s,
participated in a conference in Mexico to discuss the humanitarian
impact of nuclear weapons, with many countries calling for a global
treaty banning them.
Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser has joined former senior US
defence and government figures including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz,
William Perry and Sam Nunn in calling for the complete elimination of
nuclear weapons.
“I believe nuclear weapons don’t add to the security of any country
and they make every country less secure,” Fraser said. While he allowed
that investment in companies involved in nuclear power for peaceful
purposes could be acceptable, Fraser said he would like to see Australia
divesting from companies solely involved in nuclear arms. He sees it as
part of a larger question about defence policy.
“What I would like to see in Australia is a proper examination by the
federal government of where our defence policies support a nuclear
weapons industry or support the use of nuclear weapons,” Fraser said.
“There is no doubt there are defence arrangements between Australia and
the United States that support or add to the capacity of America to fire
nuclear weapons. We need to enter into a negotiation with America so
that our defence arrangements only relate to conventional arms and that
we do not make it easier for the United States to use nuclear arms. This
would build a stronger momentum toward the ultimate abolition of
nuclear weapons.”
Prime Minister Tony Abbott faces a difficult decision in a potential ministerial reshuffle. AAP/Lukas Coch
Tony Abbott’s reference to removing “barnacles” from his government has become the Canberra chatter.
In technical terms, according to senior government sources who’ve had
nautical advice since the Prime Minister’s comment, the process
involves “careening” - turning a ship on its side for cleaning or
repair.
In politics, that’s easier said than done, and it’s questionable
whether the government has the stomach for a rigorous job or indeed what
state the paintwork would be in afterwards.
Take the problem of the unfortunate Defence Minister David Johnston.
The term “barnacle” was particularly apt for his performance although
Abbott, speaking before the minister’s gaffe, wasn’t referring to him.
Johnston on Tuesday played into the hands of his many critics when he
said he wouldn’t trust the Australian Submarine Corporation “to build a
canoe”.
A double humiliation followed. The Prime Minister’s Office issued a
statement supportive of the ASC, and saying the government was working
with it to improve shipyard performance and productivity. On Wednesday
Johnston had to make a grovelling but unconvincing statement to the
Senate. “Regrettably, in a rhetorical flourish, I did express my
frustrations in the past performance of ASC,” he said.
South Australian Liberals, already trying to cope with the political
fallout of ABC cuts in their state, suddenly had another problem on
their hands. Labor called for Johnston’s removal. Question time in both
houses was dominated by the issue. The Senate censured Johnston.
If there is a reshuffle early next year, after the Independent
Commission Against Corruption reports on Arthur Sinodinos (who
originally coined the “barnacles” reference when adviser to John
Howard), Abbott will have an invidious choice in relation to Johnston.
He either stands by him and cops criticism about being unwilling to
get the best team, or he gives blood to the sharks by moving him.
In recent months the word has been that Johnston, who enjoys deputy
Liberal leader Julie Bishop’s support, has Abbott’s backing, and that
Abbott wants minimal changes in any reshuffle.
More immediately, the “barnacles” comment has been taken to mean some policy change. This too is complicated.
It’s expected the $7 co-payment will be ditched. In one sense that
barnacle has already been partially scraped off – because the co-payment
has no hope of getting through the Senate.
What are the implications of trying to make a virtue of necessity by abandoning it altogether?
The cynics would say the government was just accepting reality. Many
of its ideological supporters might ask: isn’t the notion of “patient
pays” part of the ship’s hull?
Ministers who have defended the policy for months would suddenly have
to do a U-turn. (Incidentally, another meaning of the word “careen” is
“teetering from side to side”.) Labor would allege that no one could
believe the government wouldn’t go back on its word, given the Prime
Minister’s record of broken promises.
Then there is the disappointment of (presumably) having to abandon
the medical research fund, which was to get the co-payment revenue.
It’s easy to compare the present situation to 2001 when an embattled
John Howard made policy adjustments, including scrapping fuel
indexation. But that was after he had his major GST reform through – he
was cleaning up damage. Measures such as the co-payment are basic to
this government’s argument that everybody must share some of the burden.
Another “barnacle” being talked about is the paid parental leave
scheme. This plan is widely disliked, but is core to Abbott’s political
identity – he’s defended it relentlessly.
He could water it down (he’s already had to do this once) or shelve
it for some time. The latter would probably be seen as just accepting he
would not be able to get the plan as presently framed through the
Senate.
Attacking these particular policy barnacles is unlikely to transform the government’s fortunes.
A major barnacle on the government is Abbott’s breach of trust, and
his compounding that sin by being unwilling to be upfront about his
broken promises.
He is now carrying the same burden that Gillard did. His Labor opponents throw around the description “liar” with impunity.
This is damage that cannot be easily removed and perhaps can never be repaired. It’s eaten into the ship’s frame.
The philosophical opposition to the ABC is deeply entrenched in Tony Abbott’s political DNA, writes Ricky Pann.
The ABC is a unique Australian asset that provides essential services
that are part of the fabric of Australia’s egalitarian democracy, free
from the shackles of commercial interest and influence.
The ABC as a technology leader is seemingly being punished by the
neo-conservative government in direst contradiction of a promise made on
the eve of the election. This promise was made on the eve of polling
day which would have had great sway on swinging voters decision as cuts
to the ABC is a bipartisan deal breaker.
Quit simply Tony Abbott has lied and despite all the creative
linguistic rhetoric of painting these cuts as “efficiency dividends” for
essential budgetary measures they have cost 400 jobs representing which
equates to ten percent of the ABC’s operational workforce. This lie is
more proof that Tony Abbott is untrustworthy, unscrupulous, candid and
incapable of governing for the whole of Australia.
Neo-conservatives, as evangelists of free market capitalism, are
using economic rationalism as a sickle of faux outrage painting the ABC
as a left wing biased, bloated waste of taxpayers money. Applying
“commercial imperatives” to relate the logic of this justification to a
broadcaster, uniquely disparate from the model of commercial
broadcasting not rationalised by advertising revenue is bordering of
farcical and at odds with the ABC charter.
All
this is rhetorical posturising as there are no evidentiary proof of
bias, other than the rigors of exceptional journalistic accountability.
The standards of editorial review are internally rigorous and detached
from the proprietors business agenda. It is apparent that this
government considers itself above scrutiny due to its soft run by right
wing commentators flying the conservative flag. The appointment of right
wing conservatives to the board and board selection panel is an attempt
to kill Aunty with their own ideological bias from within.
While all the commercial media outlets have been centralising the ABC
has been expanding regional presence with ABC open and regional radio.
This philosophical opposition to the ABC is deeply entrenched in Tony
Abbott’s political DNA. Abbott’s ideological imperative were shaped as
an operative soldier of ABC detractor Bob Santamaria, Abbott’s Mentor.
Let’s look at the cuts:
300 job cuts immediately and up to 400 representing 10% of the broadcasters operational workforce
5 regional radio hubs to close in Wagin, Morwell, Gladstone, Port Augusta and Nowra.
Adelaide TV production to close
Shutting down the fleet of Outside Broadcast vans
Program cuts to RN and Local radio, ABC Classic FM
The cuts represent around 254 million dollars which is about 5% of the operational budget.
$20 million will be cut from the ABC’s budget in 2015-16, rising to
$61 million in 2016-17, $55 million in 2017-18, and $68 million in
2018-19.
It
is my hope that the swinging voters who voted Liberal will remember
Abbott’s pledge and the litany of undisclosed agendas that were unaware
they voting for.
The quicker the Liberal party reclaims liberalism and conservatism
from the right wing radical religious neo-conservatives the better.
Australia needs some middle ground away from this divisive political
football match where anyone who disagrees with their radical program of
social engineering disguised as fiscal conservatism is a Lefty. I am not
a Lefty, I am a centrist and I find it offensive, it’s nonsense.
The ABC is not a play thing to shape as an instrument of political
ideology, it is an important and vital component of society’s fabric
that shapes Australia’s story. It is the voice of the nation. This
government should be judged by its contempt for the ABC and all who
support it.
Education Minister Christopher Pyne was quick to start a petition
objecting to the cuts when he found out that his electorate would be
effected, with the decision to close down the Adelaide TV production
facility. The magnanimous hypocrisy of this ass covering exercise is
ironically like shooting yourself in the foot and blaming the gun you
loaded by your own hand. He was boasting 2500 signatures, he should have
looked a little closer at the detail as I’m pretty sure Steve McQueen
is dead.
Malcolm is as his namesake . . . as he will “Turn” his back on his
beliefs and “Bull” shit though an indefensible lie using up his
dwindling personal collateral. Turnbull’s justification was pretty much
like his NBN charade, unconvincing and insincere as he sells a
chocolate dipped turd to a hostile electorate in shock. His double cross
handshake with Kerry Packer comes to mind. This sign says it all:
Excusing Murdoch’s Newscorp of a 800 million dollar tax bill when
they move HQ offshore as Rupert viciously attacks the ABC, then cutting
the ABC of 254 million dollars claiming Australia has a fiscal emergency
is a little rich, don’t you think?
I just hope Australians wake up from this catastrophic dalliance with
neo-conservative radicalism, its UnAustralian and regressive. Maybe,
just maybe the ABC has taken the bullet to prove the reality of just how
divisive and unfair this socially disconnected government are.
Remember this phrase. It will besmirch Abbott’s tarnished political reputation (that long precedes the hair dye and election reinvention)
and serve as a warning to anyone contemplating a promise from any
member of the current right wing neo-conservative religious right
dominated Liberal party . . .
“No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to
pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS” under a
government he leads.
On
As
All
It
