Monday 16 February 2015

Deconstructing a dog whistle - The AIM Network

Deconstructing a dog whistle - The AIM Network



Deconstructing a dog whistle














Tony Abbott’s government has taken some body-blows in recent
weeks, and Abbott’s own leadership standing is suffering. Some say that
this is due to a savage budget that seeks to address a non-existent
budget emergency by penalising those who can least afford it and by
punching the powerless, compounded by poor communications and
head-scratching political decisions. If this were the case, one might be
forgiven for thinking that the best way of recovering the party’s
fortunes might be to revisit the thinking behind the budget, to seek to
appropriately identify who the real lifters and leaners in the economy
are, and to fix the way that the government goes about doing business.



Or you could go for the approach of sowing distrust and disunity,
painting an amorphous group as the “Other” in order to convince
Australians that you are “One of them” and being strong to protect them
from the forces of darkness. This is a skill-set and a rulebook Tony
Abbott inherited from his great hero John Howard and this weekend’s video message shows that he has enthusiastically embraced it.



If national security is so important that it has prompted an address
to the nation, at the expense of attention to Joe Hockey’s “Never back
to surplus” budget and Andrew Robb’s TPP negotiations and the likely
forthcoming execution of the Bali Nine kingpins, then it would seem
worthwhile to examine the detail of Mr Abbott’s speech.



When you look at what Mr Abbott had to say, it becomes clear that he
is taking two specific incidents and generalising threats from them,
generalising failures from them, and using them to beat up the necessity
for changes. In two minutes and 23 seconds, he commiserates with the
victims of violence, generalises the threat to all Australians, spruiks
the actions of the government, reminds us of the threat and reassures us
that he is keeping us safe.



An examination of the specific incidents to which Abbott refers,
however, tells a more sobering story. There have been no significant
failures of our immigration and border protection regulations, no
breaches of our balanced and considered jurisprudence and bail system.
There are no practical measures that could have prevented these specific
events that prompt Abbott’s address. Once you understand that any
measures the government might propose can have no possible effect on
preventing these specific events, the low-brow dog whistle becomes
crystal clear, and it becomes possible to see the real threat behind the
words – the threat of further intrusive and unwarranted interference
into people’s everyday lives.



A Message from the PM


Abbott begins by referring to the recent Lindt cafe attack by Man
Haron Monis. It is perfectly appropriate to “acknowledge the atrocity”.
It was one man with a shotgun and three people, including the attacker,
died in the event. “Atrocity” is a strong word, but Abbott commences as
he means to continue. In any case, the scene is set, the tone of the
address is identified: this is a message about terrorism.



Abbott continues with a pledge to keep Australia as “safe and secure”
as humanly possible. Federal and State governments are conducting a
joint review into the siege, and the report will be released soon. The
report will make recommendations and the government intends to take some
actions. History has shown us that actions taken by a government are
often only a subset, or sometimes a completely different set, to the
recommendations of any given report, but we will reserve judgement. In
effect, Abbott is attempting to take credit in advance for an
announcement the government has yet to make. He is showing the
government is strong, by pointing to the future when it intends to take
strong action that it can’t tell us about yet.



We may get an inkling of the actions the government has in mind when
Abbott addresses the Parliament on the topic of national security next
Monday. But we may have a sneak preview as Abbott continues on.



“For too long we have given those who might be a threat to our
country the benefit of the doubt. There’s been the benefit of the doubt
at our borders, the benefit of the doubt for residency, the benefit of
the doubt for citizenship and the benefit of the doubt at Centrelink.
And in the courts, there has been bail, when clearly there should have
been jail.”



When we unpack this statement, in the context of recent events and of
the preceding text, Abbott is effectively telling us that we have not
been strong enough in our immigration policies, and failures in our bail
and justice systems. Abbott refers very specifically to the one example
he has mentioned, Man Haron Monis, the attacker in the Lindt cafe
event. Australians – particularly those in Sydney, Abbott’s home
constituency – will be very aware

also of the arrest this week of two young men, home-grown potential
jihadists. Despite not mentioning them specifically, the media has been
quick to connect the dots between their arrest and this statement by
Abbott.



The problem is that neither our immigration, residency, citizenship nor bail processes failed in any of these cases.


Man Haron Monis was on bail for a variety of criminal offenses at the
time of his cafe attack. These cases were not religious in nature. He
was accused of being accessory before and after the fact for the murder
of his wife by his girlfriend. Separately, he was on bail on indecency
charges. Neither case could have given indication that he was planning to turn into a shotgun-wielding maniac. [Read: How was Man Haron Monis not on a security watchlist?]



There were indications perhaps of mental instability, of paranoia,
and definite isolation and marginalisation. Monis was known for holding
“extremist” views. That’s easy to say in retrospect. His views on the
West’s involvement in Middle-Eastern conflicts would not be out of place
in a Greens party room meeting. He was, until very shortly before his
act of terror, a well-dressed and urbane Australian.



Could the Lindt Cafe attack have been avoided if Man Haron Monis was
denied bail? Certainly. On what basis could bail have been denied,
though? This was not a wild-haired fanatic before the magistrate.



Bail is a State issue of law enforcement. As it happens, laws have
already been tightened in NSW that would have prevented Monis’ bail. So
what exactly does Abbott, in the Federal sphere, expect to do to make
Australians still safer?



The recent arrests in Sydney were of two young men, Mohammad Kiad and
Omar al-Kutobi. Allegedly they were arrested just hours before they
intended to attack members of the public with knives. Could either of
these alleged terrorists have been captured earlier with tighter border
protection policies, or more intelligence resources? Were they abusing
their Centrelink entitlements?



It would appear not. Kiad, now 25, came into Australia four years ago
on a family visa to join his wife. al-Kutobi fled Iraq with his family
ten years ago; he came to Australia in 2009. Shortly thereafter he
received a protection visa and he became an Australian citizen in 2013.
Neither man was a wild-haired fanatic, nor obviously a danger to the
public.



The pair were not known to police. They were not known as religious
extremists. Until recently, it doesn’t appear that they were. Instead,
they were young Aussie men, fond of barbeques and American TV and luxury
goods. Their radicalisation occurred over the last few weeks, perhaps
triggered by the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices last month in
Paris. Their rapid radicalisation was reported to Australian authorities
by their own community about a week ago. Mere days later, police
swooped.



How were tighter immigration rules four years ago going to prevent a
planned terror attack that took months, at most, to be conceived and
instigated, from men who by all reports only became extreme within the
last six months, and on Australian soil?



The other problematic element of this densely offensive paragraph is
the reference to Centrelink. In the context of this strident message,
the inference is clear:
that terrorists rely on Newstart. This is so ridiculous as to be
laughable – yet it plays to the same crowd who lapped up the election
rhetoric about boat people clogging up the motorways of Sydney.



The other possible reading is that people who rely on welfare are as
bad as terrorists. I’m not certain which interpretation is the more
offensive.



Abbott continues his address with the key message: all too often, “bad people play us for mugs. Well, that’s going to stop.”


Who are these bad people? That’s not been shown. Hopefully it’s not
Man Haron Monis, because if we’re going to stop people like him from
“taking us for mugs”, we presumably will no longer be providing welfare
to those with mental issue. Hopefully it’s not Mohammad Kiad and Omar
al-Kutobi, because in order to curtail the terrorist threat they pose,
we would need to prevent muslims in general from entering the country.



Abbott makes a variety of references to the “Islamist death cult”.
There’s a three-word slogan that’s earned him a couple of poll points
before. It is also simultaneously emotive, highly offensive to large
groups of undeserving people, and impossible to criticise without coming
across as an apologist. Well, this author will criticise it. Islamic
State might possibly be Islamist, but using the term paints all Muslims
alike. IS is most certainly not a death cult. Yes, it uses unsupportable
means and revels in bloodshed, but it does so not for the sake of
killing people, but rather to attract those it considers devout. The
killings are a means, not an end. And the idea of a world caliphate of
muslims is dear to many. Nobody should seek to defend the actions or the
Islamic State. However, belittling IS with a three-word slogan ignores
the complexities and the real grievances and aspirations of millions of
muslims everywhere.



Abbott goes on to talk about the much-discussed “new threats” of
home-grown backyard terrorists, armed with “a knife, a flag, a camera
phone, and a victim”. Terrorists are everywhere, around every corner,
lurking under every bed.



By all means, do what you can to identify potential attackers before
they take a life. But in the same way that it’s impossible to protect
the public from an armed robber in a milk bar, it is impossible to
protect the public from a quiet young man who just wants to be
respected.



Abbott finishes his presentation by proudly boasting of working with
other nations to degrade the Islamic State through military means; and
improving the powers and resources of Australian intelligence agencies.
Finally, he claims the need for stronger laws to “make it easier to keep
you safe”. These include the data retention laws currently before
parliament, but, worryingly, might also include other laws and
regulations Abbott does not describe, but which will inevitably further
encroach on our liberties and our privacy. Of course, it’s all for our
own good. The government is being strong to keep Us safe from Them.



“As a country we won’t let evil people exploit our freedom.” As Kaye Lee has written today, it’s a pity that credo doesn’t stretch to include the current government.












Saturday 14 February 2015

Top lawyers and former PM Fraser slam Abbott's attacks on Triggs and AHRC

Top lawyers and former PM Fraser slam Abbott's attacks on Triggs and AHRC



280 5



Former Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser says Tony Abbott is a "bully-boy"


PM Tony Abbott's claims about "good government" starting this
week looked even more shaky after Australia’s two peak legal bodies, as
well with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, condemned remarks he
made about Human Rights Commission (AHRC) President Professor Gillian
Triggs and the AHRC.




The prime minister, who caused outrage amongst his own party this week by sacking Liberal Party elder statesman Philip Ruddock as chief whip, has another headache as the presidents of the Australian Bar Association and the Law Council of Australia, as well as a former Liberal PM, all strongly condemned the attacks on Triggs.



The attacks were largely instigated by Tony Abbott himself, who
launched an angry and extended attack on the integrity and credibility
of Professor Triggs and the Human Rights Commission both in Parliament
and the media after the release of The Forgotten Children report




The report came after a more than a year long inquiry by the
statutory body and called for a royal commission into the detention of
children under both the Labor and Coalition Governments.




However, the Report was immediately labelled a "transparent stitch up" and "a blatantly partisan politicised exercise" in comments made by PM Abbott on Thursday. He went further, saying Triggs "should be ashamed of herself" and instead of releasing the report should instead be "sending a note of congratulations to [former Immigration Minister] Scott Morrison. The prime minister's attacks were echoed by other senior Coalition figures.



In a rare joint statement issued Saturday (14/2/15), Fiona McLeod SC, president of the Australian Bar Association and Duncan McConnel,
president of the Law Council of Australia, labelled the attacks on
Triggs and the Commission as "unprecedented" and "alarming".




From the statement:



'The leaders of Australia’s two peak bodies representing all
Australian lawyers have taken the unusual step of issuing a joint
statement because of the unprecedented attack on the President of the
Australian Human Rights Commission for carrying out her statutory
duties.'







Law Council president Fiona McLeod SC stated that the personal
criticism of Triggs were an unwarranted attack on the Commission
and served to undermine public confidence in the justice system:




“Professor Triggs has a distinguished career in the law and is
highly respected. She was the Dean of Sydney Law School and has lectured
and written extensively in international law and human rights. Personal
criticism directed at her or at any judicial or quasi-judicial officer
fulfilling the duties of public office as required by law is an attack
upon the independence and integrity of the Commission and undermines
confidence in our system of justice and human rights protection."





Abbott's angry outburst was also reportedly condemned by former Liberal Party Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser on the same day, labelling it "foolishness" and "bully-boy" tactics from a prime minister with his "back to the wall"



The Prime Minister has got his back to the wall. He's just
survived a near rebellion from his own backbench and he has
demonstrated, since then that ... he has not changed; he has not learnt;
he has behaved in the same bully-boy fashion, which is a reputation
that has haunted him since long before he was Prime Minister.




It is the utmost foolishness because it's going to be one of
those things which again are put into the scales against the Government
and against the Prime Minister.





The attacks by the lawyers are similar responses by the legal fraternity in Queensland after similar attacks on
lawyers and the judiciary by former Premier Campbell Newman's LNP
Government, whose short and turbulent time in power formally ended yesterday.






Fiona McLeod said in the statement critics of Triggs should actually
read the report, which she said commended the Abbott Government where it
was warranted:




“Those who are critical of Professor Triggs and the Commission
need only stop and read the Report to see that it is concerned with
detention practices of both the current and former government. The
Report has welcomed the reduction in numbers of children in detention
under this government."





Bar Association president Duncan McConnel said that what is being
lost in the debate is the urgent need to minimise harm done to children
by immigration detention:




“What is being lost in the commentary is the undeniable fact that
the detention of children in immigration detention has been physically
and mentally harmful to them. The detailed examination of the issues by
the Commission provides government with information .upon which it can
develop responses aimed at minimising, and hopefully eliminating, the
harm caused to children being held in immigration detention. The Law
Council is willing to offer any assistance it can in developing
practical, achievable reforms to the law that will improve the
situation”





The lawyers concluded with a joint statement condemning personal
attacks on officials and institutions simply for carrying out their
legal duties:




“The Australian Bar Association and Law Council of Australia
agree that personal attacks deflect attention from the very serious
findings of the Report and place an individual office holder under
significant pressure - we cannot tolerate our public officials and
institutions being subjected to this barrage for fulfilling their
statutory duties. To do so is to compromise the integrity of those
institutions charged with holding the government to account."







Creative Commons Licence

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






Help keep Independent Australia strong. Subscribe today.

Friday 13 February 2015

Good Government Starts Today... Or Tomorrow, But We're Definitely Committed To It! - The AIM Network

Good Government Starts Today... Or Tomorrow, But We're Definitely Committed To It! - The AIM Network



Good Government Starts Today… Or Tomorrow, But We’re Definitely Committed To It!














There’s an old cartoon where the couple in a car are speeding down
the highway while there’s hundreds of cars stuck in traffic in a lane
beside it. The wife says, “Look at the sign – we’re going the wrong
way!” To which the husband replies, “Who cares, we’re making great
time.”



Every few days someone in the current Abbott Government makes me remember that cartoon.


Of course, unlike the man in the cartoon, most members of the
goverment seem completely unable to acknowledge that they are going the
wrong way, even though that’s what the sign clear says.



“We’ve made great progress on the Budget!”


But the deficit is growing and it’s not predicted to get back to surplus any faster than Labor planned.


“But you’d be a fool to trust what Labor said. They promised to get
it back to surplus a couple of years ago and they still haven’t done
it!”



But you’re the government now; you’re the ones promising to have it back in surplus, then changing the date. 


“Yes, but I’m not a quitter. I’m determined to see this through, as
is the PM. He’s a nice bloke, you know. A terrific guy. Family man.
Athlete. He pedals really fast. Firefighter. And he’s a fighter. He’ll
get back up. Really, I can’t think of someone with more attractive
daughters. No, he’s certainly the best person to lead the country. ”




Of course, Hockey did acknowledge that having the highest
unemployment since John Howard was PM wasn’t great, but attempted to
argue that it could be worse. Basically, his point was that if there
hadn’t been so many jobs created last year then unemployment would have
been over seven per cent, so we were really, really lucky that we’d rid
ourselves of that Labor Government who wouldn’t have grown the economy.



He went on to argue that the best possible way to improve the
 unemployment figures was to get the economy growing faster. Which, to
me, is a bit like a mechanic saying that the best possilbe thing for
your car is to get it moving again, because once it’s moving then you
won’t have this problem with it stalling. And if it keeps stalling,
well, that’s because it’s not moving. At this point, don’t be tempted to
ask the mechanic how you’re supposed to get it moving again, because
he’ll just tap his nose and tell you that he has a plan, and, though it
may not be popular, the best thing you could do is to pay his bill.



In fact, that’s more or less what Hockey said:


“I’m trying to get it to shift and things that have been unpopular but necessary have helped.”



I’m still trying to work out how sacking large numbers of public
servants is meant to stimulate the economy and lead to an increase in
employment numbers in the short term, even if one accepts the rather
dubious argument that it’ll help get the Budget back in surplus and once
the Budget is back in surplus, all will be well. (And once the car starts moving, it’ll no longer be stalled. $739, please, for parts and labour!!)



But, of course, the week truly belongs to Tony Abbott. Now I’m not
going to mention the war – in particular, I’ll say nothing about the
holocaust; neither will I make cheap shots about him not being able to
stop Japanese subs from coming to Australia. (Actually they’ve
announced that it’s no longer the case that Adelaide can’t build them,
and that the they’ll be allowed to put in a thing that nobody seems to
know what to call, before the contract is given to the Japanese under
the free trade deal that’ll lead to jobs, jobs, jobs in whatever part of
the world we’re trading with, and now that we have a free trade deal,
well, what benefits them, benefits us, because we’re all just one happy
free trading partnership where we’ve managed to break down the borders.
Actually, change that to barriers. We want STRONGER borders, but no
barriers to the movement of money, trade and anything else you care to
name, if your donation is big enough.)



So after we’ve had the barnacle clearing, the learning, back to work
Tuesday, more learning, and good government starts today day, we were
treated to the government’s attempt to bury a report by waiting six
months then releasing it late in the day, only to have Tony attack the
Human Rights Commission for all he’s worth (no, actually, probably a bit more than that!) A
report that was apparently partisan against his government, yet  Mr
Abbott suggested only minutes later that he was doing the Labor Party a
favour by not following its recommendations, because if he implemented a
Royal Commission “… it would condemn them (the former Labor government).
Strange that a report that was so ‘blatantly partisan’ report should
also condemn the Labor Government, but, never mind, Abbott’s attack on
Gillian Trigg’s managed to create enough attention that the report
didn’t go the way of so many reports: We’ve got it, thanks, we’ll
read it and get back to you, unless it’s the Gonski Report which
Christopher Pyne refused to read because there were no pictures.



But just to cap off the week, we had the sacking of Phil “Smiley”
Ruddock. Undertaker Ruddock, the Father of the House (do we know who the
mother is?), the third longest serving member ever, Uncle Phil, the
Liberal Party Whip was sacked. Make no mistake, Abbott wasn’t going to
give him the dignity of resigning to promote generational change, or
because he wanted to spend more time nursing a family member’s ingrown
toenail, the PM made it clear that the decision was his. (I don’t think
that he added and his alone, because that may have necessitated another
announcement about how he intended to be more consultative in future,
and people tend to grow a little cynical when you announce the same
intention to change on a weekly basis, instead of the monthly basis that
we’ve grown used to.)



Yep, I’ve heard people argue that the term, “forward progress” is a
tautology, because you can’t have “backward progress”. That, of course,
was before the Abbott Government.



Cheers,


Rossleigh



The new Abbott, much like the old one, with added aggro –

The new Abbott, much like the old one, with added aggro –

The new Abbott, much like the old one, with added aggro








A few more days of good government like yesterday and Tony
Abbott will be history. And, again, the problems are entirely
self-generated. Let’s recap:



  • Abbott called a report showing, among many other horror stories,
    that there had been 33 separate incidents of sexual assault of children
    in Australian care “blatantly partisan” and said the body that produced
    the report should be “ashamed of itself” — the sort of response that
    used to characterise Catholic objections to criticism of its handling of
    paedophiles, when it would claim sectarian victimisation;
  • Revealed information about the case of two Sydney men charged with
    planning a terrorist attack that police had previously refused to
    release, potentially endangering the chances of a conviction of the men;
  • Completely overturned his previous approach of seeking
    bipartisanship and a “Team Australia” approach to the national security
    with a deliberate strategy to try to link Labor and its asylum seeker
    policies with one of the suspects;
  • Again failed to explain what process the government would now use to
    determine the construction of the new Royal Australian Navy submarine
    fleet, insisting the whole thing was Labor’s fault anyway;
  • Boasted about breaking his commitment to not cut funding to the ABC, saying “frankly, it is just as well we did”;
  • Failed to articulate what the government’s economic strategy was on the day unemployment surged to a 12-year high; and
  • As a kind of rhetorical grace note, accused Labor of being responsible for a “Holocaust” of jobs.

It’s clear that Abbott’s path to turning around his
leadership lies in aggression — not merely at Labor, but at anyone
perceived as not on the government’s side, like the Human Rights
Commission or the ABC. This was the path he flagged after he survived
last Monday’s spill motion when he boasted of his capacity to fight
Labor and asked to be allowed to get on with doing that.



But in style, it represents a doubling-down, not a change of
direction. It was Abbott’s aggression that exacerbated the government’s
problems last year: his refusal to accept criticism of the unfairness
of the budget and his insistence it was an example of the “fair go”; his
refusal to accept that he had broken election promises; his attack on
critics of Peta Credlin as sexist; his attacks on the ABC; and most of
all his stubborn refusal to accept any need for change until he came
within a handful of votes of having his leadership spilled.



Out of all the criticisms of Abbott made by his enemies, his
opponents, commentators, his ministers and his backbenchers over the
last 17 months, the lament that he is not being sufficiently aggressive
has rarely featured among them. Aggression is, famously, Abbott’s native
state. As a media adviser he literally shaped up to journalists; as an
MP he would challenge dinner-table interlocutors to step outside; as a
junior minister he gleefully played the role of John Howard’s attack
dog; as opposition leader he brilliantly tore down two prime
ministers — one of them twice.



As prime minister, though, aggression isn’t enough; if
anything, it can be counterproductive. The best leadership teams have a
leader above the fray and a ferocious deputy who does the attacking.
Aggression contains within it possibility of going too far; overstepping
is an occupational hazard of the attack dog, and when the prime
minister is the chief attack dog it means he ends up having to
apologise, as Abbott did yesterday.



Keating, of course, was his own attack dog, but voters also
knew it was in the service of a political and economic vision. To the
extent that voters think they know what Abbott’s political and economic
vision is, they don’t like it. And it’s not clear more aggression is
going to change that. but who knows, perhaps “good government” will
start next week.


Thursday 12 February 2015

Abbott To Re-Scrap Carbon Tax – The Shovel

Abbott To Re-Scrap Carbon Tax – The Shovel




Abbott To Re-Scrap Carbon Tax


















Tony Abbott carbon tax






Eager to stamp his authority and set a clear direction for his
Government after the recent leadership scare, Prime Minister Tony Abbott
today outlined plans to abolish the carbon tax again.



“The Australian people gave us a mandate to scrap this toxic tax, and
we’ll continue to keep scrapping it,” Mr Abbott said. “That’s what we
were elected to do, and that’s what we intend to keep doing.



“If you look to our strong record of achievement over the first 18
months, you’ll see we scrapped the tax, and stopped the boats. We plan
to repeat those successes in the second half of our term.



“This is about easing the burden on households and stopping the python squeeze on our economy,” Mr Abbott said.


One Liberal MP said it was reassuring to see the PM had rediscovered
his mojo. “I think he’s found a cause he can really get behind”.



Mr Abbott bristled at suggestions that Government had run out of new
ideas. “Getting rid of a tax that’s already been abolished is certainly a
new idea,” he said.



For more breaking stories, follow The Shovel on Facebook and Twitter or sign up for email updates at the bottom of this page.



Tuesday 10 February 2015

Anthony Albanese says Abbott government 'decided to have a gap year' - video




ANTHONY ALBANESE PRESS CONFERENCE

Monday 9 February 2015

Labor accuses PM of making up term to win spill votes

Labor accuses PM of making up term to win spill votes

Competitive evaluation process: Labor accuses PM Tony Abbott of making up submarine project term to win spill votes








Updated






Labor has accused the Prime Minister's office of
making up a term about Australia's biggest ever defence project to win
the party room votes of South Australian MPs.
Whether the
Government builds its next fleet of submarines locally or overseas is a
hot political issue in South Australia, where thousands of jobs could be
on the line.


On Sunday night Tony Abbott, in the hunt for
crucial party room votes, confirmed the contract worth tens of billions
of dollars would be awarded through what he called "a competitive
evaluation process".


It appeased South Australian Liberal senator Sean Edwards, but he admits he had not heard the term until now.

"Defence has a way in which they operate and that's the terminology they use," Senator Edwards told the ABC.


"But when I spoke to the Prime Minister and I said 'let me be
very clear does that mean ASC (the SA-based Government ship builder)
would be able to participate in this process' and he confirmed that they
would."


Labor's David Feeney says the defence community is horrified.

"This is a form of words that I think we can reliably say has emerged from the Prime Minister's office," he said.

"Everybody in the defence community is aghast.

"How
can it possibly be that a project of this significance is bandied
across the Liberal Party's factional manoeuvrings like a bargaining
chip? It is a desperate outrage."


Senator Feeney believes the
promise does not bode well for Australia's relationship with Japan, the
country Labor believes the Coalition wanted to give the work to.


"I
think that the Japanese are entitled to say that their engagement with
Australia ... has been marked time and time again by shifting sands," he
said.


"For Japan as it moves slowly and deliberatively out of
what has been quite an isolationist defence posture, that is a
completely impossible set of circumstances for them to tolerate."


Xenophon worried Government is dragging out decision process

Senior
analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Andrew Davies
says "competitive evaluation process" is not a formal defence term.


"It's not a formal part of the nomenclature in defence, no," he said.

Dr Davies does not believe Mr Abbott's promise provides any more clarity on how the contract will be awarded.

I get the terrible feeling that the Government's making this up as they go along.

Independent South Australian senator Nick Xenophon
"Before the comment made in the press yesterday about the
submarine strategy we didn't really know how defence was going to go
about acquiring the new submarine and I'd suggest that we still don't,"
he said.


On Monday Finance Minister Mathias Cormann repeated the
PM's pledge of "a competitive evaluation process" but said it did not
mean the Government's policy had changed.


"Obviously the Government will be determining the process and how it works," Senator Cormann said.

"I mean at the moment no decision has actually been made in relation to the procurement of the next generation of submarines."

Asked whether he was alarmed by Senator Cormann's comments
Senator Edwards said: "It doesn't alarm me because I know what I've
spoken about with the Prime Minister and he was unequivocal."


Independent South Australian senator Nick Xenophon is worried the Government is dragging out the decision-making process.

"I get the terrible feeling that the Government's making this up as they go along," he said.

"The face is that, prior to the last election, the Government committed to having the subs built in Australia.

"After
the election, the Government said it would be making a decision within
18 months on the subs, to ensure there wasn't any capability gap.


"We
now find that the Prime Minister, despite those statements time and
time again in the last 12 months, is now talking about a decision being
made at the end of this year.


"That's stretching it out an
additional eight months, despite the urgency that Joe Hockey as
Treasurer professed on this issue just a few months ago."









First posted

Sunday 8 February 2015

Will Tony Abbott's words come back to haunt him? - The AIM Network

Will Tony Abbott's words come back to haunt him? - The AIM Network



Will Tony Abbott’s words come back to haunt him?














Anyone who has been on Twitter today would have no doubt seen this tweet from any number of Twitter users:




Did you notice the results: 71-13 in favour of Gillard? Looks fairly
safe compared to the 61-39 in today’s vote. And Tony’s decree that he
will now get on with the job of governing is certainly in stark contrast
to his suggestion to the former Labor Governments as noted in the above
tweet. Before, during or following leadership turmoil in the former
Labor Governments Tony Abbott was set to pounce with his mandatory call
for a new election. Here’s a few of them:



Tony Abbott has demanded
a snap election to allow Australian voters to chose their preferred
Prime Minister, responding to the Federal Labor leadership crisis.




Speaking at the opening of the Grove fruit juice factory in
Warwick this morning, Mr Abbott took aim at the “faceless men” he said
were responsible for the ongoing instability within the Labor party.



“What I think the Australian people yearn for right now is a
Prime Minister they chose, not a Prime Minister who the faceless men
choose,” he said.



“Whatever happens on Monday or next week it will be the faceless
men pulling the strings and the only way we can get away from a
government based on dodgy back door deals… is to have an election.



“Let the people decide.”


. . .


Tony Abbott says Julia Gillard’s victory in the Labor leadership battle is a stay of execution, rather than a new start for Labor.



Ms Gillard today won the ballot against Kevin Rudd, 71 votes to 31.


Mr Abbott said there were still 31 members of caucus who did not have confidence in Ms Gillard.


“What I think today is likely to be is not so much a new start
for this prime minister but merely a stay of execution,” he told
reporters in Canberra.



Mr Abbott renewed his call for an early federal election.


“The clear answer from today is that the only way we can get real change is with an election,” he said.


“The prime minister should be chosen by the people – not the faceless men.”


Asked if he would move a no confidence motion against the government, Mr Abbott remained uncommitted.


“I have no confidence in this prime minister,” he replied.


. . .


The independents and Greens have welcomed the end of the Labor’s
leadership melee saying the focus can now return to policy, while Tony Abbott renewed calls
for an early election.The independents and Greens have welcomed the end
of the Labor’s leadership melee saying the focus can now return to
policy, while Tony Abbott renewed calls for an early election.



Mr Abbott said: ”We need an election not because I particularly
like elections or I particularly want the Australian people to go
through the inconvenience … but because I think that the Prime Minister
of this country should be chosen by the people and not by the faceless
men.



. . .


But wait! There’s more! Even Joe Hockey even got in on the act:


The Labor Party is, yet again, going through another messy
leadership round. Australia needs strong, decisive leadership from a
government that is united and has a common cause. Julia Gillard should
just pull on a leadership battle with Kevin Rudd and have the matter
resolved; otherwise it is quite clear that she is going to remain a lame
duck leader. Australia deserves better than a lame duck Prime Minister.
We deserve strong leadership. We deserve strong direction. Anything
Julia Gillard says today is immediately discounted by the electorate.



We need strong and decisive leadership at the moment and we are not going to get that until we have a general election.


If Julia Gillard can’t resolve her problems within the Labor
Party, she can either call on a leadership battle with Kevin Rudd or
call an election – frankly Australians just want to have a general
election, wherever they are.



. . .


I’m reluctant to be a commentator here, but I would think that
Kevin Rudd has to do something. It’s kind of ridiculous that he and his
supporters are out there backgrounding. It means the Labor Party is
focusing on their own jobs rather than the jobs of workers and
Australians. I suspect
that Kevin Rudd will move sometime in the not too distant future,
probably before Queensland and quite frankly if he becomes the leader
they’ll dump their pledge to have a surplus and he’ll spend some money
and call an election.



Well there you have it. Whenever there was leadership unrest in the
former Governments Tony Abbott (and his side-kick) demanded an election.
Ironic, isn’t it? And in light of today’s events and subsequent
promises one could also say hypocritical.



Let their words come back to haunt them.