Australian Federal Election 2016: oh dear, Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan is at it again

In February this year Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan fronted the Grafton Chamber of Commerce and delivered a large pork pie regarding thresholds for foreign investment in Australian agricultural land and businesses.

He was at it again this month with a public assurance concerning foreign workers made to ABC News on 9 March which also picked up the daily double by repeating that misinformation about investment thresholds:

A National Party MP is hoping local jobs will not be lost as a result of a Chinese buy-out of north coast NSW macadamia farms.

Four properties covering 380 hectares at Dunoon near Lismore, and formerly run by US-based Hancock Farms, have been bought by a Chinese group known as "Discovery".

The member for Page Kevin Hogan said he was aware of rumours of a sale.

Mr Hogan said a Free Trade Agreement with China did not mean the door was now open to foreign workers.

"It's a well-known fact within the free trade agreements that we do with any country, not just China, because let's not just make this a China thing, that any company and there's been companies that have owned Australian assets for 200 years and with every free trade agreement the work has to be offered to Australians first," Mr Hogan said.

Kevin Hogan said any foreign investment greater than $15 million had to be approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board, and he was waiting on information on whether the macadamia sale was vetted.

"We made an election commitment to lower it from the ridiculous amount of $ 250 million when it used to be triggered to look at a purchase if it was in the national interest, we have lowered that from 250 to 15 [million dollars] so if this entity has triggered over $15 million it would have absolutely gone before the Foreign Investment Review Board," Mr Hogan said. [my red bolding]

Now voters in the Page electorate are far from silly and many would have wondered what free trade agreement Mr. Hogan had been reading to boldly state that “with every free trade agreement the work has to be offered to Australians first”.

The Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s own copy of ARTICLE 10.4: GRANT OF TEMPORARY ENTRY of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement clearly states:

3. In respect of the specific commitments on temporary entry in this Chapter, unless otherwise specified in Annex 10-A, neither Party shall:

(a) impose or maintain any limitations on the total number of visas to be granted to natural persons of the other Party; or

(b) require labour market testing, economic needs testing or other procedures of similar effect as a condition for temporary entry.

So this free trade agreement allows an unlimited number of temporary work visas for Chinese nationals (and in some cases their spouses) in many employment categories and, there is no test to see if the employment positions in Chinese-owned businesses within this country that they are taking up – for a period up to 4 years - could be filled by suitably qualified Australian workers.

One has to wonder if Kevin Hogan reads beyond the regular ‘talking points’ distributed to MPs by his party.

Australian Federal Election 2016: these tired old tricks no longer work, Tones

This was the Member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, in the Australian Financial Times on 9 March 2016:

On Friday, Tony Abbott said one of Labor's "five new taxes" included a housing tax (negative gearing), a wealth tax (capital gains), a seniors tax (superannuation), a workers tax (smokers), and the carbon tax.

"Five new taxes is what Bill Shorten has in store should Labor win the next election”…..

There it is, another three-word slogan – “five new taxes”.

So where are these five new taxes?

Negative gearing is a tax concession not a tax charge and Labor does not intend to eliminate this concession for all existing negatively geared investments or future new housing stock – the concession will be removed only on any future investment purchases of old housing stock after 30 June 2017.

Capital gains tax already exists so it is not new. The existing discount subsidy on this tax will be halved under a Labor Government on 1 July 2017. However, all investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered and this policy change will also not affect investments made by superannuation funds. The CGT discount will not change for small business assets. This will ensure that no small businesses are worse off under these changes.

Superannuation is already taxed at certain points of accumulation. Labor is proposing to make this tax fairer by discouraging its use for estate planning/tax avoidance by people with very large incomes by realigning super tax concessions i.e. lowering the High Income Superannuation Contribution (HISC) threshold to $250,000. Around 110,000 people will be affected by the new arrangements.  It will  also reduce the tax-free concession available to people with annual superannuation incomes from earnings of more than $75,000. From 1 July 2017, future earnings on assets supporting income streams will be tax‑free up to $75,000 a year for each individual. Earnings above the $75,000 threshold will attract the same concessional rate of 15 per cent that applies to earnings in the accumulation phase. This measure will affect approximately 60,000 superannuation account holders with superannuation balances in excess of $1.5 million......To ensure that similar concessions are reduced for defined benefit superannuation schemes, Labor will also remove the 10% tax offset for defined benefit income above $75,000, estimated to effect approximately 9,500 account holders.

Tobacco taxation already exists so it also is not new, but the tax percentage will change if Labor wins government. Resulting in a price increase on a packet of cigarettes of an est. $10 spread over four years.

Carbon tax does not exist currently – in fact the previous Labor government's carbon levy was scheduled to end in 2014-15 as it moved towards the then legislated change to a market-driven carbon pricing mechanism. In 2014 a newly elected Abbott Government abolished this national emissions trading scheme. To date Labor has not announced details of its new climate change policy except to point out that it intends to implement an emissions trading scheme which will not be a tax.

Five new taxes planned under Labor? Er..... more like no new taxes in these five instances identified by Tony Abbott in full election campaign-mode.

While we're waiting for the Turnbull Government to stop chasing its tail.......

A look round at the political landscape in the lead up to this year's federal election.

__________________________________________

Which Australian politician said this?

The Prime Minister cannot even summon up the courage to try to fix this mess. His threat of a double dissolution and an early election proves to all of us what this budget is really about. It is not about protecting the jobs of Australians, least of all the one million Australians it says will soon be out of work; it is about the job security of one man and one man only. A Prime Minister frightened of the consequences of his mismanagement now wants to cut and run before he is found out. [House of Representatives Hansard, 14 May 2009]

Why, it was Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull as Leader of the Opposition in May 2009.

Looking back less than seven years later, this speech to parliament makes his current situation almost seem like karma.

__________________________________________

I’m told there was a “great turnout” for the International Women’s Day dinner at which Labor Senator Penny Wong was guest speaker on 8 March 2016 and for Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's Lismore City Hall Q&A on 10 March.

The number of people seeking to book a seat at the dinner exceeded the seating capacity at the Lismore Workers’ Club and people were “spilling out of the building for Bill” according to one supporter of Labor candidate Janelle Saffin, who is seeking election in the Page electorate after losing to the Nationals Kevin Hogan in 2013. 

The Northern Star covered the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate’s visit:

WE asked on our Facebook page which questions you wanted us to ask Penny Wong during her visit.

What will you do for youth unemployment in regional areas?

I think the first thing is to make sure we give our young people the best opportunities they have, or can, to get the skills that they need.

And the problem we've got at the moment is we've got a Federal Government taking money out of TAFE, taking money out of apprenticeships, making university harder to get into and asking people to pay $100,000 for their degree.

So I think the first thing is to try and get the right investments in vocation education, in apprenticeships, in TAFE - and we've got a TAFE funding guarantee - as well as making sure our universities are made accessible.

If your government was elected, would you add dental to the Medicare rebate?

I understand how expensive dental work can be, and in government what we did do was put money towards dentistry services for children.

Certainly, you know there's only one party that supports Medicare and wants to strengthen Medicare and that's the Labor party.

Can you give us an update on the Gonski reforms?

Labor has recently re-committed to the full Gonski funding. Our education policy is a commitment to the full Gonski funding, to roll-out across the country.

Of course this is a very big difference between us and the Liberal and National parties who have walked away from their commitment to fully fund Gonski.

People in rural and regional Australia will be the ones most disadvantaged by the National party's refusal to fund the reforms and I'm very proud Labor has put money on the table to make sure every child can be the best of who they are, no matter where they live.

__________________________________________

Tony Windsor represented the people of Tamworth in the NSW Parliament from 1991-2001 and the people of New England in the Federal Parliament from 2001-2013. This year he comes out of retirement to stand in the New England electorate again and support begins to gather.

The Guardian, 29 February 2016:

A Reachtel poll of 712 residents in the seat of New England conducted on 11 January found 32.2% would vote for Windsor as their first preference if he returned – compared with 39.5% for Joyce.

The poll, obtained by Guardian Australia, found 11.2% would vote for Labor and 4.6% would vote for the Greens with 6.2% nominating others including other independents with 5.1% undecided. The Palmer United Party attracted just 1.3%.

The polling results suggest if the majority of Labor and Greens preferences flowed towards Windsor, Joyce – who has been Nationals leader for less than three weeks – could lose New England.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 March 2016:

Exclusive ReachTEL polling of elector sentiment obtained by Fairfax Media - the first such voter-feedback in the crucial electorate - shows primary support for Mr Joyce stands at an apparently healthy 43.1 per cent, compared to Mr Windsor, who trails on 38.

But with the likelihood of strong preference flows from anti-Coalition Labor voters, who constitute 7.1 per cent, and equally hostile Greens voters who account for another 3.4 per cent, there is a reasonable chance Mr Windsor would finish ahead, were a contest held now.

The automated telephone survey of 662 residents across New England was conducted on the evening of March 10 - the very same day Mr Windsor declared his candidacy.

The supportwindsor.com campaign website was created on 9 March 2016 according to Whois.

_________________________________________

On 15 March 2016 a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network held in Committee Room 2S3 at Parliament House revealed that the internal company nickname for the roll out of Malcolm Turnbull’s hybrid version of the National Broadband Network (NBN) is Operation Clusterf*ck.

_________________________________________

The Northern Star, 15 March 2016:

Thanks to Clarrie Rivers for this snapshot.

_________________________________________

Why Abbott's sex life is my business

Cross-post with North Coast Voices' thanks and permission from No Place for Sheep:

6 March 2016

Why Abbott’s sex life is my business

Mr & Mrs Abbott

There’s only one circumstance in which I consider the sexual lives of politicians to be my business, and that’s when they legislate about what goes on in other citizens’ sexual lives.

Failed Prime Minister Tony Abbott operates from a platform that is largely based on his personal morality, drawn from Catholic dogma. This morality advocates traditional heterosexual monogamous marriage, and argues fiercely that this is the only circumstance in which children ought to be raised.

Abbott supports the current Marriage Act with the amendment added by John Howard specifically to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Same-sex marriage will, in Abbott’s view, destroy what he perceives as the “sanctity” of monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Abbott foisted the notion of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage on his party, a completely unnecessary, extremely expensive and likely barbaric exercise in which citizens vote on whether or not other citizens are permitted to legally commit themselves to each other in marriage.

As health minister in the Howard government, Abbott refused Australian women access to the non surgical abortion pill known as RU 486 because his personal morality is offended by abortion. RU 486 had been declared perfectly safe, and was widely used in many parts of the world. Abbott directly interfered in the sexual lives and futures of women who did not wish to have a child, by denying us access to this drug should we need to use it, thus restricting our options in the event of unplanned pregnancy.

Abbott has paraded his wife and his daughters as evidence of his personal morality: he is a traditional, heterosexual married male, and therefore we assume him to be upholding monogamy as a significant value in our society and in his personal life.

Tony Abbott has made it his business to comment on, criticise and exercise legislative control over the sexual practices and commitments of Australians. If he is not living up to the ideals he demands are enforced, if Abbott is himself desecrating the perceived sanctity of monogamous marriage by infidelity with a married woman, I have a right to know about that hypocrisy.

If Tony Abbott would care to lose his interest in controlling the sexual practices of adult citizens, I will be more than happy to lose my interest in his. Until then, everything Tony Abbott does that can be seen to affect the sanctity of the ideals he espouses and imposes is my business, and yours, and everyone else’s.

One woman dying a violent death every six days in Australian 2016

Destroy the Joint, 14 March 2016

Is Malcolm Turnbull the man you thought he was?

This is Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull’s voting record since 2006 according to theyvoteforyou.org.au. Does it match his rhetoric as prime minister?

Voted very strongly for

An emissions reduction fund

Compensating victims of overseas terrorism since the September 11 attack

Decreasing ABC and SBS funding

Encouraging Australian-based industry

Giving apprentices access to a $20,000 loan

Government administered paid parental leave

Increasing funding for road infrastructure

Increasing the price of subsidised medicine

Live animal export

More scrutiny of intelligence services & police

Recognising local government in the Constitution

Stem cell research

Temporary protection visas

The Intervention in the Northern Territory

Tighter means testing of family payments

Voted strongly for

Decreasing availability of welfare payments

Deregulating undergraduate university fees

Unconventional gas mining

Voted moderately for

Charging postgraduate research students fees

Increasing availability of abortion drugs

Increasing indexation of HECS-HELP debts

Increasing or removing the debt limit

Privatising government assets

Regional processing of asylum seekers

Voluntary student union fees

Voted a mixture of for and against

Increasing competition in bulk wheat export

Increasing the age pension

Voted moderately against

Implementing refugee and protection conventions

Increasing Aboriginal land rights

Increasing consumer protections

Increasing the diversity of media ownership

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

Voted strongly against

Increasing funding for university education

Increasing investment in renewable energy

Increasing marine conservation

Restricting donations to political parties

Voted very strongly against

A carbon price

A minerals resource rent tax

An NBN (using fibre to the premises)

Building Australia’s new submarine fleet in South Australia

Carbon farming

Decreasing the private health insurance rebate

Extending government benefits to same-sex couples

Increasing access under Freedom of Information law

Increasing accessibility of government data and documents

Increasing fishing restrictions

Increasing protection of Australia's fresh water

Increasing restrictions on gambling

Increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management

Increasing trade unions' powers in the workplace

Increasing transparency of big business by making information public

Letting environmental groups challenge the legality of certain government decisions

Re-approving/ re-registering agvet chemicals

Restricting foreign ownership

Same-sex marriage equality

Tobacco plain packaging

Am I being cynical in suspecting that the Liberal and Nationals parties are looking to the mining industry for political donations in this 2016 federal election year?

Am I being cynical in suspecting that the Liberal and Nationals parties are looking to the mining industry for political donations in 2016?

I cannot know the answer for certain as there is no real time reporting of political donations in Australia.

However, the timing of these moves by the Baird Government looks suspiciously like the Coalition has gone a-courting.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 March 2016:

Penalties of just $5000 could be issued to coal seam gas companies who explore or mine without permission instead of a potential $1.1 million fine under changes introduced by the Baird government.

As energy minister Anthony Roberts unveiled plans to clamp down on anti-coal seam gas protesters, the government has ushered in smaller alternative penalties to court prosecution for a range of offences.

For example, mining without authority - currently a $1.1 million fine plus $110,000 per day for a company if successfully prosecuted in court - can now be punished with a $5000 penalty notice.
Prospecting without authority - currently a $550,000 fine and $55,000 per day under a prosecution - may now be dealt with via a $5000 penalty notice.

Failure to provide information and records to an inspector - currently a $1.1 million fine  and $110,000 a day under a prosecution - is now punishable with a $5000 penalty notice……

On Monday, Mr Roberts unveiled proposed laws giving police additional powers "to deal with people who intend to 'lock-on' to equipment", and authority to move people on in all protest activities.

Sue Higginson, principal solicitor with Environmental Defenders Office NSW, said they are an over-reach and the current laws have been applied successfully for many years.

"The proposed increase to police powers appears to be unnecessary and in part a substantial intrusion on civil liberties," Ms Higginson said.

The timing of the new laws was "like waving a red rag to a bull," she said.

"The legality of the CSG activities of Santos in the Pilliga is currently being questioned in the NSW Courts, along with the actions of the Department of Industry," Ms Higginson said, noting the Land and Environment Court will begin hearings on a legal challenge against Santos on April 6……

Meanwhile in the NSW Upper House the Greens Jeremy Buckingham continues his battle of many years:

356. Mr Buckingham to move— That leave be given to bring in a bill for an Act to prohibit exploration for and mining of minerals and petroleum in the Liverpool Plains and certain land within the Hunter Valley; and for other purposes. (Mining Control (Protect Liverpool Plains and Hunter Critical Industry Clusters) Bill) (Notice given 27 August 2015)

425. Mr Buckingham to move— 1. That this House notes that: (a) there are currently no insurance providers available to farmers in New South Wales who provide a product to insure against potential Coal Seam Gas (CSG) contamination, (b) leading environmental insurance specialist Anthony Saunders has today told the Land Newspaper that the risk of contamination from CSG activities in New South Wales cannot be insured because “no insurance company wants to be responsible for a future claim that is quite likely”, and (c) he has also said that “if future financial loss of the landholder as a result of CSG mining 300 kilometres away is uninsurable, then the activities of the CSG company could be considered as reckless”. 2. That this House calls on the Government to explain how coal seam gas drilling can be legal in New South Wales when there is no insurance cover available for farmers to cover the process. (Notice given 17 September 2015—expires Notice Paper No. 45)

438. Mr Buckingham to move— 1. That this House notes that AGL has spent the past 18 months trying to prevent the release of a 2013 site visit report from the Environmental Protection Authority examining AGL’s Hunter coal seam gas fields.

2. That this House notes that this report reveals routine and systemic failures in AGL’s management of its coal seam gas (CSG) wells including:

(a) 212 tonnes of AGL’s CSG waste being transported to a non-licenced facility, Bettergrow,

(b) the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) expressing concern that AGL “is not ensuring that drilling waste at the site is being disposed in an environmentally friendly and proper manner”,

(c) a completely inadequate and unreliable groundwater monitoring program which included:

(i) inadequate information about how samples were collected,

(ii) no information on the special precautions necessary for taking samples for trace contaminant groundwater sampling,

(iii) not taking the necessary precautions to prevent contamination of samples during groundwater sampling,

(iv) limited data on quality control,

(v) using unreliable house methods to analysing samples, (vi) inadequate monitoring of dissolved metals,

(d) significant well integrity issues including at least five breaches of the Well Integrity Code of Practice and two breaches of AGL’s Environmental Management Plan for CSG activities despite the EPA noting that “if the cementing process is not undertaken properly, liquids from aquifers and gas may migrate and cause inter aquifer connectivity and pollution of groundwater.”, including:

(i) a core hole left without a casing for two months,

(ii) using the wrong cement in a well,

(iii) potential leaching of heavy metals in the fly ash to groundwater,

(iv) no placement of temporary plugs in a perforated well, even though this “provides a pathway for highly saline formation water from with the coal seams to migrate within the casing”,

(v) samples of cement slurry not being kept for the duration of the well as required,

(vi) no information available on the integrity of cement bonds, (vii) no laboratory tests of the cement slurry undertaken as required,

(viii) no cement bond log carried out for two wells “to ensure that the cement bond provided an effective barrier to prevent any interaction between aquifers” as required,

(e) no monitoring of potential gas leaks,

(f) drill pads not being maintained properly,

(g) no dust suppression controls in place,

(h) breaches of their Soil and Water Management plan including no monitoring of run off estimates or sediment controls for major storm events,

(i) spills or leaks of liquids onto drill pads, (j) inadequate storage and no secondary containment of drilling fluids and chemicals, which led the EPA to note their concern that “spills or leaks could potentially pollute groundwater”, and

(k) no high level overflow or low level alarm on the mud tank, contrary to international best practice. (Notice given 13 October 2015—expires Notice Paper No. 46)

509. Mr Buckingham to move— That leave be given to bring in a bill for an Act to prohibit the grant, renewal or modification of authorisations and titles that permit exploration for and mining of minerals and petroleum (including coal seam gas) in Central Coast water catchment areas. (Central Coast Water Catchments Protection Bill) (Notice given 28 October 2015)

579. Mr Buckingham to move— 1. That this House notes that:

(a) Gloucester Council today passed a motion 6-1, put by the Mayor, Councillor Rosenbaum, which read as follows: “That Council write to the Premier and Minister Roberts requesting negotiations be commenced with AGL to buy back the Licence for the following reasons.

* the social fabric of the Gloucester community is suffering

* mental health issues and trust.”, and

(b) the background to the motion by Councillor Rosenbaum notes that: “Ethically, I am asking the Government for understanding of my great concern for our community after the death by suicide of farmer George Bender, in Chinchilla, Queensland. Morally, our Council cannot sit back and ignore the fact of the effects this is having on our people. One life lost is too many - this could happen here, this is real not a perception. The wellbeing of our people is suffering and the mental health and other issues too many to mention; the length of time has been too long.”

2. That this House calls on the Premier and the Minister for Resources and Energy to respect the wishes of the Gloucester Council and community and immediately commence negotiations to buy back AGL’s Coal Seam Gas licence. (Notice given 18 November 2015—expires Notice Paper No. 59)

603. Mr Buckingham to move— 1. That this House notes that on 4 February 2016, AGL Energy announced that it will no longer be involved in coal seam gas in New South Wales or Queensland, handing back its licence for the Gloucester Gas Project, and flagging that production will cease at its Camden Gas Project in 2023, 12 years earlier than expected.

2. That this House congratulates:

(a) the people of Gloucester and Camden, for their passionate and well organised efforts to protect their land and water, and

(b) AGL, for their decision to pull out of coal seam gas and to set up a $2 million legacy fund to assist the town of Gloucester to grow sustainably. (Notice given 23 February 2016—expires Notice Paper No. 61)