STATE OF PLAY: Gun importation regulations in Australia and why we are all still vulnerable to the decisions of week-kneed politicians

https://youtu.be/X5hiG8kpEM8

On 18 October 2016 Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told Parliament and the nation that:

Under the current national firearms agreement, lever action shotguns are category A. There has been a move on the COAG committee of justice ministers to have those guns reclassified, which we have supported. Because agreement has not been reached, we put in place an import ban, which expired in August this year, so we have renewed it and we have renewed it indefinitely. What that means, of course, is that—…..

It is not a temporary ban. It is permanent. It is set in stone. It can be amended, but it is there—like any import ban. If the honourable member is seriously interested in the safety of Australians, as I trust we all are, let me explain. Firearms are classified under the national firearms agreement as category A, B, C or D. Category A guns are relatively readily able to be acquired. For category B you need to nominate a specific purpose, like primary production. Firearms in categories C and D are very, very difficult to obtain, and appropriately so. So the debate that is being conducted and has not yet been agreed between the state jurisdictions, who of course have the regulation of firearms, is whether and how the Adler seven-shot lever action gun should be classified. What my government has done is to ensure that no Adler lever action guns with more than five rounds can be imported in any category. They cannot be imported at all….

What we have done is put a stop on it. The fact is that we stand by the national firearms agreement. We want to see it stronger. We are supporting that with an import ban. We are proud of the achievements of John Howard. The action of the opposition in trying to use this as a distraction is a disgrace…..

I tell you that ban will remain in place until such time as there is a satisfactory reclassification of these guns by the COAG committee. That was the purpose of the ban when we first put it in place; that was the purpose when we renewed it. We stand by our commitment for the public safety of Australians.

On 8 August 2016 the Turnbull Government had given effect to the latest version of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956.

These regulations state in part:

Part 2—Requirements for specific firearms, firearm accessories, firearm parts, firearm magazines, ammunition, components of ammunition and imitations

Note:       The public interest test under item 8A of Part 1 and the national interest test under item 8B of Part 1 apply in relation to the importation of all the articles to which this Part applies (see subregulation 4F(1A))….

15

Detachable firearm magazine, having a capacity of more than 5 rounds, for: (a) semi‑automatic shotguns; or (b) pump‑action shotguns; or (c)  fully automatic shotguns; whether or not attached to a firearm.

The importation must comply with at least 1 of the following tests: (a) the official purposes test; (b) the specified person test; (c) the specified purposes test; (d) the returned goods test; (e) the dealer test.

Despite Prime Minister Turnbull's assertion that the Adler A110 shotgun cannot be imported, it appears that there is no longer an absolute ban in place provided any specific application to import this lever action shotgun can meet at least two of seven tests.

Rather alarmingly under the public and national interest tests in the regulations Turnbull refers to, Attorney-General George Brandis may give written permission to import these lethal weapons (which fire a bullet per second) based on his interpretation of public and national interests and the weapon being properly registered/authorized and safely secured once in the country.

Additionally he may certify in writing that in his or her opinion it is in the public interest that responsibility for a permission or a refusal of a permission specified in the certificate should reside solely with the Attorney‑General and should not be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Mr. Turnbull was careful to avoid the question of how easily the Adler shotgun with less than a five round magazine can be legally converted after importation into an 11 round lever action shotgun. Something which has reportedly been occurring since the Abbott Government first allowed importation of the 4-round version of this shotgun.

Today the NSW Baird Government will consider reclassifying both four and seven-round Adler shotguns to make them more available to shooters, who as a lobby group appear to harbour the strange notion that firearm ownership in this country should be covered by Amendment II of The Constitution of the United States.

Tomorrow 21 October 2016 the eight state and territory police and justice ministers are expected to consider the ban at a scheduled meeting.

Given the lack of spine displayed by politicians these days I am not expecting that public safety will receive more than lip service in any decision they make on the day.

BACKGROUND

The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 October 2016:

Tony Abbott has publicly criticised Malcolm Turnbull's failure to rule out trading away elements of Australia's gun laws in exchange for crossbench support for its key industrial relations legislation.

Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm said on Tuesday the government had reneged on a deal to end the ban on importing the controversial Adler lever-action shotgun into Australia. 

Senator Leyonhjelm warned he wouldn't vote to reinstate the government's construction industry watchdog unless Mr Turnbull agreed to allow the gun to be imported into Australia.

Labor moved to suspend standing orders in the House of Representatives, emboldened by comments from Mr Abbott over the Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation.

"Disturbing to see reports of horse-trading on gun laws. ABCC should be supported on its merits," Mr Abbott wrote.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten accused the Liberal Party of entertaining "grubby deals" on gun laws and said reforms championed by former Liberal prime minister John Howard in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre shouldn't be watered down.

The Abbott government had previously agreed to allow the importation of the gun later in 2016, in exchange for Senator Leyonhjelm's support on migration issues.

A deal to introduce a sunset clause came as a review of technical elements of the National Firearms Agreement was under way.

But a temporary ban on the gun was extended before expiring in July.

In August 2015, Senator Leyonhjelm bragged to the Senate about blackmailing the government into adding the 12-month sunset clause to the Adler ban, claiming bureaucrats advising Justice Minister Michael Keenan were incompetent and too closely aligned to an anti-guns agenda. 

The man behind plans to import the Turkish-made gun is Robert Nioa, the son-in-law of Queensland independent MP Bob Katter. 

@CroweDM & @ljayes, 18 October 2016

Click on images to enlarge

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2015L01401/Explanatory%20Statement/Text

In 2013-14 115,827 modern guns were imported into Australia, by 2014-15 109,994 modern guns were recorded as coming into the country and in 2015-16 the figure was 104,000 firearms imported.

According to The Conversation on 28 April 2016 there are now an additional 1,026,000 firearms in private hands since the government gun recall after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre and, the total number of registered guns in Australia are in the hands of only est. 6.2 per cent of all households.

Medicare: what a difference two years, two unpopular budgets and a close run federal election make to ministerial attitudes

THEN it was a bad, bad thing….

The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 January 2014:

Health Minister Peter Dutton has predicted an overhaul of Medicare, saying spiralling costs will make the system ''unmanageable'' without change.

In an interview with Fairfax Media, Mr Dutton gave the strongest signal yet that the Abbott government may adopt a politically explosive proposal to charge a $6 fee to visit the doctor…..

Annual spending on Medicare climbed from $8.1 billion in 2002-03 to $17.8 billion, an increase of 120 per cent. Growth in Medicare spending was faster than growth in the total health budget of 104 per cent over the decade, and Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule spending, which rose 79 per cent over the same period.

News.com,au, 18 March 2015:

A NEW report has found 880,000 Australians see their GP more than 20 times a year and account for 17.1 per cent or $2.8 billion of the nation’s non hospital Medicare spend.

These people receive more than $3,200 a year each in non hospital Medicare payments and nearly half of them were also admitted to hospital, the National Health Performance Authority says.

There are 2.3 million Australians who see their doctor more than 12 times a year and they are eating up forty one per cent (16 billion) of the Medicare budget.

These patients received on average $1,850 in non hospital Medicare payments.

NOW it is something to celebrate….

Liberal MP for Farrer and Australian Minister for Health and Aging, Sussan Ley, media release, 28 August 2016:

An extra 17 million GP services were bulk billed under the Coalition last year compared with Labor following another year of record Medicare investment by the Turnbull Government, as Bill Shorten’s Mediscare lies “crumble around him” and leave the credibility of his leadership in tatters.

Minister for Health and Aged Care Sussan Ley today revealed a record 123 million out of 145 million GP services were fully-funded by the Turnbull Government at no cost to patients through Medicare during 2015-16.

This saw GP bulk billing hit a historic high of 85.1 per cent under the Turnbull Government – up from 84.3 per cent in 2014-15 – and follows the Coalition’s record $7.1 billion investment in general practice via Medicare last year.

The number of Australians accessing Medicare-funded GP services was also up by nearly half-a-million to 20.9 million last year, while the average number of services and spend per GP patient grew to 6.9 and $344 respectively…..

Overall, the number of Medicare services increased to 384 million in 2015-16 – more than one million per day – at a total cost of $21,107,750,246 – an increase of nearly $1 billion on 2014-15 – with the overall Medicare bulk billing rate also increasing to 78.2 per cent in 2015-16 from 77.6 per cent the year before.

I suspect that  a number of government MPs will be making appointments with their local chiropractor after repeating this spectacular backflip.

CSIRO implements Abbott-Turnbull Government's climate change denial agenda?

The latest CSIRO chief executive Dr. Larry Marshall (with the organisation since January 2015) clearly states in this podcast that the type of scientific investigation to be conducted in the future will be dictated by the federal government ("the customer") and implies that the Abbott-Turnbull Government is unbiased when it comes to climate change.......

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ginarushton/secret-tape-reveals-why-climate-change-is-off-the-csiros-age?utm_term=.tjdmAJnAG#.yr3Dy3Eyz

Both an Abbott and Turnbull appointee, Dr. Marshall was previously employed by a Silicon Valley-based private capital venture firm and, was sued in 2015; Shareholders in failed laser technology company Arasor claim Dr Marshall was a central figure in the company’s collapse, alleging he and other directors engaged in misleading and ­deceptiveconduct, as well as ­serious breaches of the Corporations and ASIC acts inrelation to the company’s financial reports and a disastrous $81 million float.

Meanwhile, as Marshall trashes the international reputation of the CSIRO, a newly resurgent One Nation is all set to strengthen the hand of  climate change denialists' in Coalition ranks.....

Independent Australia, 7 July 2016:

Hanson, who leads her own One Nation party, has won election to Australia’s Senate and, as counting continues, she could bring more candidates with her.

But as well as pushing xenophobia and division, the Queensland politician will also take a most extreme brand of climate science denial with her into the Senate.

As I wrote on The Guardian, Hanson’s party has been taking cues on climate science from one of the country’s most enthusiastic and relentless pushers of climate science denial, former coal miner Malcolm Roberts.

Roberts is the volunteer project leader of the Galileo Movement, a Queensland-based project launched in 2011 to fight laws to put a price on greenhouse gas emissions.

Roberts is also standing as a Senate candidate for One Nation and still has an outside chance of being elected, although Hanson is more enthusiastic about his chances than some analysts. The “wacky world view” of Roberts has since been reported by the Courier-Mail and the Sydney Morning Herald.

If you hang around the climate change issue for long enough, then at some point you’ll likely come across the extreme end of science denial and the conspiracy theories that Roberts represents.

It goes a bit like this. Humans are not causing climate change. Government-paid climate scientists and their agencies are corrupt. The United Nations is in league with international bankers to defraud the world. It’s all about control. 

That sort of stuff.

The Galileo Movement was founded in 2011 by Queensland retirees Case Smit and John Smeed.

A year earlier, the pair had organised a speaking tour for British climate science denialist Lord Christopher Monckton — a tour that attracted sponsorship from mining billionaire Gina Rinehart.

Roberts became the project manager. The group pulled together an “advisory council” that includes the likes of Fred Singer, Monckton, Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen. 

The advisory group once included influential political blogger Andrew Bolt, until the News Ltd writer claimed Roberts had been spreading anti-Jewish conspiracy theories — a charge the Galileo Movement denied.

The climate policies of Hanson’s One Nation party have been quite literally cut and pasted from the Galileo Movement.

Those policies include calls for investigations into the “corruption of climate science” and the teaching of climate “scepticism” in schools.

After gaining enough votes to secure her own seat, Hanson told The Saturday Paper:

“This whole climate change is not based on empirical evidence and we are being hoodwinked. Climate change is not due to humans.”

Elsewhere, One Nation also reflects Roberts’ paranoia over United Nation’s policies to support environmentally sustainable development — known as Agenda 21. In the eyes of One Nation, Agenda 21 morphs into a sinister control program leaving “no person outside of its reach.”

Former Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey's 'gift' to all property owners across the nation

Australian Financial Review, 13 August 2015

The Australian, 19 May 2016:

The current mess was created when former treasurer Joe Hockey caved into pressures to curb Chinese investment in Australian residential property in 2015. In the process, the treasurer was convinced by the Australian Taxation Office to widen the net to cover local residents.

Parliament was being bombarded with tax legislation at the time and the Canberra politicians did not pick up what the ATO had done.

So, fasten your seats belts for a horror commentary.

I was alerted to the position by one of Australia’s top commercial/tax barristers, John Fickling of WA. I am using many of Fickling’s words in describing what is about to happen.

If you purchase a property worth $2m or more on or after July 1 2016, you will be required to withhold 10 per cent of the purchase price and remit it to the ATO UNLESS the vendor is able to provide a special purpose tax resident’s “clearance certificate” from the ATO. It does not matter if the vendors were born in Australia and have lived all their lives in Australia — unless they have that clearance certificate, they are classed as a foreigner and the buyer must send 10 per cent of the purchase price to the tax office.

In case you think I’m kidding, read the ATO’s exact words: “A vendor who sells the following assets is also a relevant foreign resident, even if they are an Australian resident for other tax purposes.

The definition of property is very wide and includes leaseholds but does not include stock exchange investments. A purchaser who does not receive a “clearance certificate” from the vendor and does not send 10 per cent of the purchase price off to the ATO will still be liable to pay that 10 per cent to the ATO plus, almost certainly, will have to pay severe additional penalties and interest. The economics of buying the property will be severely damaged.

Fickling says all real estate agents selling $2m plus properties should be considering how this new regime will impact on their business and what will be the contractual consequences under the different scenarios that could play out.

For example, banks and other financiers may be affected where their secured debt exceeds 90 per cent of the value of the selling price. In a situation where the owner is being forced to sell, the banks will be better to take possession and sell themselves rather than being caught in the “tax clearance” delays.

To be fair, in the vast majority of cases local resident vendors will have no problem obtaining a “clearance certificate”.

However, for locals it might increase their risk of a tax audit and there are clear hazards for property sellers who:

Have not filed tax returns for many years;

Have filed tax returns, which would indicate they could not afford such a property;

Are selling their residential house at the same time as their neighbours to a single developer, which may give rise to a profit making scheme (such that the principal residence capital gains tax exemption may not apply to the value uplift generated by selling the properties together); or

Where the ATO has gathered information that indicates the vendor is in the business of developing property, which means that the principal residence capital gains tax exemption may not apply.

Fickling says in extreme cases action could potentially be taken by the ATO prior to the sale, to freeze the transaction.

Those who see any of the above as dangers might consider selling in a hurry (before July 1), so there might be some property bargains for buyers in coming weeks.

It’s also important to note that the $2m is “hard-coded” into the legislation, so, as property prices increase, more vendors will be caught. Over time, the ATO may shift their audit target identification processes to $2m-plus property vendors and away from other areas.

Additionally, if the vendor has a tax debt, the application for a “clearance certificate” may in some circumstances involve the ATO seeking to recover some or all of that tax debt from the purchaser by way of a garnishee notice.

At this point, it is worth noting that we are giving the Australian Taxation Office another weapon to recover tax legitimately owed and that is a good thing for society.

The great danger is the complexity created and that currently the tax office is badly run and is operating outside the law in key small business areas. It knows it can’t be challenged because of the cost of court cases.

Meanwhile, the legislation is yet another blow being aimed at Chinese and other Asian investors in property. These blows have come separately and each one has had reasonable motivations. But, in combination, they could inflict severe damage to the apartment and other parts of the residential property market.

Chinese and other Asian investors face a Hobson’s choice. They will not enjoy getting a tax clearance but nor will they appreciate the buyer of their property taking 10 per cent off the purchase price.

And if the tax office treats locals illegally, what might they do to foreigners?

Australia desperately needs greater independent supervision of the tax office.

In case readers imagine that high property prices are confined to large metropolitan areas a quick look at realestate.com.au will dispel that view – within the NSW Northern Rivers there are currently 7 properties in Yamba and environs with a sale value of $2 million and over, 4 in the Grafton area, 6 in Kyogle, 9 in the Lismore region, 35 in the Ballina district, 78 in the Byron Bay greater region and 46 in the Tweed local government area.

Federal Election 2016: Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and housing affordability

On 4 May 2016 this on-air exchange occurred between ABC 774 Radio presenter Jon Faine and Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull:

JON FAINE: " Yeh but my question was specifically about the intergenerational aspects of it. It’s  [negative gearing] creating conflict with effectively the kids of your and my generation, who can't get into the market and they're saying oh for goodness sake you baby boomers, you just want everything and you're locking us out.”

MALCOLM TURNBULL: "Are your kids locked out of the housing market?"

JON FAINE: "Yes"

MALCOLM TRUNBULL: "Well you should shell out for them, you should support them, a wealthy man like you"

JON FAINE: "That's what they say" [laughing]

MALCOLM TURNBULL: "Exactly. There you go. See you've got the solution in your own hands”

JON FAINE: “That’s hardly national policy”

MALCOLM TURNBULL: You can provide a bit of inter-generational equity in the Faine family"

There is a reason why Turnbull can be so casually dismissive of concerns about home ownership and housing affordability and, it can be found in his privileged background.

Domain.com.au:

Title records show that Mr Turnbull was a law student at Sydney University when he spent $17,000 on a worker’s semi on Newtown’s Wells Street. At the time he was far from a struggling student kicking around the backstreets of the inner west. He was already a Point Piper resident, with corporate records showing he lived in the Longworth Avenue apartment owned by his late father, hotel broker Bruce Turnbull.

That Newtown investment property was likely Mr Turnbull’s first windfall from the Sydney property market. He sold it in 1981 for $68,000, quadrupling in value over the three years.

The year after his Newtown purchase title records show the Rhodes scholar (or “student” according to the property transfer) bought a terrace on Redfern’s Great

Long before Malcolm Turnbull ascended to the highest political office in the country and took the keys to his official Sydney residence Kirribilli House, he had already amassed a fortune – much of it from Sydney’s property market.

The 29th prime minister has come a long way from his 1978 first-home purchase in Newtown, to his $50 million-plus trophy waterfront home in Point Piper.

Privately educated Malcolm Turnbull was 23 or 24 years old, son of a successful property speculator and a recent university graduate, when he purchased his first property in 1978.

By the end of 1982 this now married practicing lawyer was a member of the Liberal Party, had inherited an est. $2 million in assets, become a grazier and acquired a second investment property – all the while residing in a Point Piper flat owned by his father.

Five years later he was an investment banker at Whitlam Turnbull & Co. Ltd.

By the time he entered parliament as the Member for Wentworth in 2004 he was reputedly worth $133 million.

Turnbull’s fortune continues to grow.

This is a man who has never known Struggle Street. 

Australian Federal Election 2016: Abbott shafted the frail aged in New South Wales, Turnbull ignores their predicament and now Baird has turned his back

The profits of aged care homes surged 40 per cent in the past year as operators cut hours of nursing care while claiming higher payments from the federal government for servicing more of the most frail patients. The earnings boom in the sector comes after the government introduced widespread reforms of aged care in 2014, including deregulating fees and lifting restrictions on the accommodation bond that nursing homes can levy on residents. [The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 January 2016]

In 2014 then Prime Minister Tony Abbott amended the C’wealth Aged Care Act 1997 with the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Act 2013.

The amendments impacted on the requirement under s104 of the NSW Public Health Act 2010 to have a registered nurse on duty at all times in a nursing home.  

The Baird Government initially grandfathered its Public Health Act until December 2015 and then awaited a report by the NSW Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 3’s parliamentary inquiry established on 25 June 2015.

On 29 October 2015 the Committee’s Final Report was tabled with the following recommendation:

On Friday 29 April 2016 at 3.15pm the NSW Baird Coalition Government responded to the Final Report’s 17 recommendations by washing its hands of any responsibility for staffing levels NSW nursing homes:

So three days before the 2016-17 federal budget details are revealed, possibly less than 32 days until the federal government enters caretaker mode ahead of a 2 July 2016 double dissolution federal election, and at the end of a working week, this Liberal-Nationals state government announces that it is very willing to place the lives of every frail aged resident in New South Wales nursing homes at significant risk.

Perhaps he and his government are hoping that the media will quickly lose interest and, that older voters and their families will forget that they will now be playing what could possibly be a cruel game of Russian roulette if they decide to spend their remaining years in aged care.

So how is the Coalition's 'supadupa' Jobactive Australia scheme going?

This is an excerpt from a Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Minister for Employment Senator Eric Abetz, MP for Cowper and Assistant Minister for Employment Luke Hartsuyker joint media release on 31 March 2015:

In 1998, the Howard Government introduced the Job Network and revolutionised the delivery of employment services to job seekers.

Unfortunately, the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Government changed the employment services system to reward process over results and encourage training for training’s sake.

The system became mired in red tape, letting down job seekers and employers.

The new jobactive system will be focused on results and reward performance not process.

From 1 July 2015, 66 organisations will deliver one or more jobactive services to job seekers and employers across Australia.

There will be clearer incentives to ensure employment service providers are focused on better preparing job seekers to meet the needs of local employers and helping people to find and keep a job.

Service providers will no longer receive ‘job placement’ payments.

The rules around training have also been tightened to ensure that job seekers are not being sent to training for training’s sake, as is currently the case.

There will be less red tape so that providers can spend more time doing what they do best – helping job seekers find and keep a job.

The new employment services contract will also be extended from three years to five years.

A new regional loading for providers in selected regions will be introduced, recognising that labour market conditions vary across Australia.

The new model encourages young job seekers to take up a job and employers to take on new employees.

The Job Commitment Bonus programme will encourage young, long-term unemployed job seekers aged 18-30 to find and keep a job.

Setting up Jobactive Australia cost an est. $6.756 million according to the Dept. of Employment.

In the first two months it was operating (1 July 2015 to 30 September 2015) those approved service providers billed the Employment Fund General Account a total of $6.170 million predominately for professional services, training, clothing & presentation.

On 17 September 2015 Employment Minister Eric Abetz boasted that Jobactive Australia had reached 50,000 job placements since the start of the scheme. However he was careful not to qualify what comprised a 'placement'.

According to the Dept. of Employment Budget Statements 2015-16 Jobactive Australia was allocated $1.459 billion for that financial year. This budget expense is expected to rise to $1.778 billion in 2016-17, with total employment services expenses expected to total $1.932 billion.

For that amount of money the Abbott-Turnbull Government expects the Jobactive scheme to have placed 380,000 jobseekers in often wage-subsidised employment in 2015-16, at a cost of est.$2,500 per placement covering Employment Fund expenditure, service fees and outcome payments.

Unfortunately 68% of these placements are likely to last only 4 weeks before the person is unemployed once more. I suspect the percentage of temporary jobs is so high because this allows service providers to bill the government again and again for ‘helping’ those same job seekers find other temporary jobs once the initial placement dissolves into thin air and, via the $1.2 billion national wage subsidy pool potentially allows employers to 'churn' new employees on short term contacts so that employers receive financial benefits from the pool but employees are unemployed at contract's end.

None of the departmental employment sustainability measures encompass positions lasting longer than six months, so it is unclear as to whether there is a genuine expectation that job service providers will assist in finding permanent employment for anyone.

In July 2015 when Jobactive Australia commenced, the real national unemployment rate was probably running at est. 8.7% and by March 2016 it had climbed to est.11% according Roy Morgan Research vs ABS Employment Estimates (1992-2016).

In November 2013 the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) seasonally adjusted combined unemployment and underemployment rate (underutilisation) was 13.5% and by February 2016 this combined rate was 14.2%.

In September 2013 the average number of weeks an unemployed person spent looking for a job was 39, with an est.134,400 people looking for 52 weeks and over.

Under the Abbott-Turnbull Government by March 2016 the average number of weeks had risen to 46.2, with an est. 181,700 people looking for 52 weeks and over. [Australian Bureau of Statistics, Labour Force, Australia, Detailed - Electronic Delivery, Mar 2016] 

In June 2014 an est. 123,800 15 to 24 year-olds were looking for full time or part-time work. By March 2016 the number of young people in this category had risen to 133,000. [ibid]

The Brotherhood of St. Laurence reported on 14 March 2016 that some rural and regional areas weregrappling with youth unemployment rates above 20 per cent.

Richmond-Tweed (including Tweed Heads, Byron Bay, Lismore, Mullumbimby) in the NSW Northern Rivers region had a youth unemployment rate of 14.5% in January 2015 and by January 2016 this rate had risen to 17.4% [Brotherhood of St Laurence, Australia’s Youth Unemployment Hotspots: Snapshot March 2016, p. 3]

Yet on 1 May 2016 Treasurer Scott Morrison was telling The Courier Mail that there had been 50,000 youth jobs created in the past 18 months across Australia. He also was offering no supporting proof for this bold statement covering November 2015 to April 2016 and, as neither ABS labour force nor job vacancy data tracks jobs growth it is hard to see where he finding his figures.

Somehow these statistics engender little confidence that the Liberal-Nationals Coalition has taken a genuinely constructive approach to unemployment since winning government in September 2013 – despite that gung-ho media release announcing “jobactive services”.

Australian Federal Election 2016: Kristina Keneally's open letter to Cabinet Secretary Senator Arthur Sinodinos

The Guardian, Open letter to Senator Arthur Sinodinos, from Kristina Keneally, 29 April 2016:

Woody Allen said 80% of life is showing up. 

Every single day of my ministerial career I showed up. I did my job. I answered the hard questions. I faced the opposition, the media and the public.

Ask any NSW press gallery journalist. As premier I ended every media conference by asking, “Are there any more questions?”, and the journalists answering no.

Ask your fellow Coalition colleagues in NSW. Every time they called an inquiry, no matter how politically motivated, I showed up. An upper house inquiry into the murder of Michael McGurk: I showed up. An upper house inquiry into the sale of electricity assets: I showed up. 

After Barry O’Farrell was elected he instituted a second electricity transactions inquiry, conducted by Justice Tamberlin. I volunteered to show up to that as well, but was never called.  

Not one of these inquiries made adverse findings. If anything, these processes vindicated my actions. Tamberlin found my government acted with probity in regard to the electricity transactions and achieved the best possible result for taxpayers.   

As for planning, there was absolutely no evidence uncovered of any planning official involved in McGurk’s murder. Later Icac found no evidence of corruption in the NSW planning system while I was minister. 

So why won’t you turn up to the Senate and answer questions about the fundraising activities of the NSW Liberal party in the 2011 NSW state election?

Did you know the Free Enterprise Foundation was taking funds from prohibited donors and sending them to the NSW Liberal party? If you didn’t know, why not? You were the honorary treasurer and finance committee chair, after all. 

Who conceived this scheme? What legal advice did you receive? What advice did you give to candidates in regards to NSW fundraising laws and prohibited donors? Was O’Farrell aware of the washing of funds from prohibited donors? 

Here’s the question I really want you to answer: why the hell did the Liberal party undertake such stupid, questionable and potentially illegal acts in that election? I led a 16-year-old government that was trailing some pretty high profile scandals. Surely you could have just passed the plate for gold coin donations at the Ku-ring-gai and Manly Liberal party branch meetings and still won the election. 

Was it hubris? Was it immaturity? Was it carelessness? Was it idiocy?

Your party’s fundraising tipped more money into key seats and likely ended the careers of several good, hardworking Labor MPs who were simply outspent in the campaign. Now we know why. The funds were ill-gotten. The NSW Liberal party subverted democracy. Do you care?

I know you are at both the beginning and the end of your political career. After years of supporting others as an adviser, you finally have your chance to be the man, to make the decisions, to run the show and be seen to run the show.  

But this is also the end. You aren’t young. This is your second chance. There won’t be a third go. You are likely terrified this is how your whole career will be defined. 

You seem willing to do whatever it takes, including disrespecting the Senate when it exercises its proper authority, in the hope you can avoid the tough questions. 

You can’t. Not forever. 

I didn’t always believe in karma, but that bottle of vintage Grange a few years ago reminded me that people, more often than not, reap what they sow. 

Show up. 

Australian Federal Election 2016: bolting to the ballot box before arrests are made?

It is looking more and more as if Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to go to the polls early has less to do with so-called Senate obstruction and a lot more to do with a number of allegedly criminal skeletons in Liberal and National Party closets……..

ABC News 29 April 2016:

Australian Federal Police (AFP) have ramped up their investigation into the copying of former speaker Peter Slipper's diary.

The ABC has been told the AFP has made an application to the Federal Court, which, if granted, would allow police to use evidence from an earlier civil case in a criminal prosecution.

That evidence includes text and picture messages exchanged between Mr Slipper's former staffer, James Ashby, and Liberal National Party MP Mal Brough.

Mr Brough is under investigation by the AFP, who executed a search warrant at his Queensland home last year as part of that probe.....

Now the AFP has asked the Federal Court to grant it permission to use the material harvested from Mr Ashby's phone, including excerpts from Mr Slipper's diary sent by Mr Ashby to Mr Brough.

In its application, the AFP has said the messages will be used in the current investigation, and any subsequent prosecution.

Permission is necessary because the exhibits were originally only to be used in the civil case.

Mr Ashby's sexual harassment suit was rejected by a Federal Court judge, who said Mr Ashby had been part of a "combination" including Mr Brough, which had used the legal action as a political weapon against Mr Slipper.

Mr Ashby then appealed and the original judgement was set aside, but Mr Ashby later dropped the case.

However, it subsequently emerged the AFP is investigating whether Mr Brough committed a crime by encouraging Mr Ashby to copy pages of Mr Slipper's diary.

Mr Brough stood down from his role of Special Minister of State in December, saying he would not contest the upcoming federal election.

How to explain the trainwreck that is the last three years of the federal government?

Josh Bornstein writing in The Guardian on 13 April 2016 manfully tries to explain that which confounds us all:

How to explain the trainwreck that is the last three years of the federal government? The debacle poses a challenge that will dog journalists, policy wonks and historians for decades to come. The explanations for its dysfunction and sustained under-achievement are complex, but there are at least two distinct theories worth considering.

In Malcolm Turnbull’s second ministerial reshuffle in February, Alex Hawke was promoted to the office of assistant minister to the treasurer. In 2005, the then young Liberal office holder prophesied that conservative politics in Australia would move increasingly towards an American model. Hawke explained that: “The two greatest forces for good in human history are capitalism and Christianity, and when they’re blended it’s a very powerful duo.”

Can the relentless incoherence and incompetence of the current government be attributed to a particular blend of capitalism and religion that has found favour in the US? Perhaps…..

And yet, there is also a far more prosaic explanation for the mess.

The federal government is hostage to the campaign run by Abbott in opposition – a campaign had three essential features: it was ruthlessly prosecuted, very successful and, finally, completely and utterly irrational.

The opposition inculcated a state of perpetual crisis that was the envy of professional catastrophists the world over. The crises said to beleaguer the nation under a Labor government formed an impressively long list: the cost of living crisis, the retail crisis, the productivity crisis, the debt crisis, the deficit disaster, emergency low interest rates, sovereign risk crisis, the budget emergency.

None of the crises were real. Rather, they were a fiction borne of a political strategy designed to destabilise and remove the Labor government which, for all its faults presided over a stunning macroeconomic performance and successfully ducked a recession in the wake of the global financial crisis.

It is one thing to proclaim a series of crises. It’s another to promulgate the solution. The then opposition’s program was remarkably simple and painless: “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.” Critically, there would also be tax cuts.

Exactly how the federal government would cut taxes, reduce government debt and transition to a budget surplus, boost infrastructure and not cut major expenditure like health, education and the pension was never made clear. Nor could it be made clear. The laws of mathematics do not accommodate such idiocy.

Economic illiteracy can be masked by theatrical bluff and bluster for only so long. The government’s 2014 budget cut a swathe through its pre-election promises including gouging an $80bn hole in funding for health and education. Taxes weren’t cut; in fact, there was an attempt to raise a new tax – for visiting a GP.

The Senate kept the government to its pre-election promises and it has been stuck in a paralysing funk ever since.

In its short life the LNP government has levied more tax as a proportion of GDP than its predecessor. Government spending as a proportion of GDP has also increased, the budget deficit has more than doubled from its “crisis” levels in 2013, and gross government debt has ballooned by over $100bn…..

By January 2016, even conservative partisans at the Australian could no longer maintain the fiscal fantasy. Judith Sloan wrote: “I’m calling it here: the Turnbull government is a big spending, big taxing government with no real intention to pare back the growth of government spending, let alone cut it.” In other words, Turnbull continued where Abbott left off.

The wild irrationality that has infected the government has manifested itself in a series of government appointments. A climate science denier, Maurice Newman, was one of the government’s first, appointed to head its Business Advisory Council.

The appointment of Tim Wilson to the role of “freedom commissioner” was an Orwellian coup for the extreme right lobbyists at the IPA, effectively outsourcing Wilson’s labour costs to the taxpayer.

The man who specialised in the dehumanisation of asylum seekers and perpetuated the incarceration of children, Philip Ruddock, secured an appointment as special envoy for human rights. More Orwell…..

It sought to silence, intimidate and then remove the president of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs. It has enacted laws to prevent doctors speaking about the harm being inflicted on refugees.

There are the measures taken to silence NGOs including community legal centres who are banned from advocating for law reform. The work of environmental organisations including the Environmental Defenders’ Office has been sabotaged notwithstanding the government’s failed attempt to prevent environmental groups accessing the legal system. So much for the rule of law…..

Who or what is responsible for the government’s many other strange cultural and religious obsessions? Eric Abetz’s insistence on a link between breast cancer and abortion, notwithstanding the science that discredited this theory five decades ago. The attempt to ban the burqa in the confines of Parliament House. The campaign to water down racial vilification laws in support of the right to be a bigot. The havoc wreaked on investment in renewable energy as the government campaigned against “ugly” wind turbines. The many attacks on the ABC, culminating in a government black-ban on appearing on its current affairs flagship, Q&A. The attack on Safe Schools.

Endless fuel to stoke the fires of satire – perhaps – but there is another more disturbing dimension to these obsessions. The federal government almost always “punches down”. The coalition caucus is a toxic brew of fierce antagonism directed at minority groups, the disadvantaged and victims of discrimination.

Those targeted to be disadvantaged by its policies are invariably minorities, the less well-off and those with little or no political voice: those with the smallest superannuation balances, Muslims, cleaners of Canberra offices, food processing workers employed at SPC, the unemployed (the attempt to impose a six-month qualification period to qualify for unemployment benefits), children in disadvantaged schools (the sabotage of Gonski education reforms), the strenuous attempts to chisel lowly paid workers with intellectual disability out of backpay owed to them, the calculated and deliberately cruel infliction of injury on refugees fleeing war zones including Syria.

And let us not forget the attempt to wind back consumer protections against predatory crooks in our ethically challenged banks, championed by Turnbull’s key ally, Senator Arthur Sinodinos…..