A reasoned appraisal of Australian politics in 2012 from a Labor perspective

2012 H.V. Evatt Memorial Dinner

Senator John Faulkner

Beginning in fear to end in failure: the price to our democracy of the politics of distrust

Carrington Hotel, Katoomba
28 April 2012

Samuel Taylor Coleridge remarked, some two centuries ago, on the tendency for politics that begin in fear to end in either folly, or failure.

And today we find ourselves in the midst of a political climate increasingly dominated by fear. Not fear of an external enemy, but a fear felt by many in our political class of an open contest of ideas.

And these politics of fear, rooted as they are in some politicians’ lack of trust in the judgement of the people, and lack of faith in their own convictions, carry within them the seeds of failure.

Although in the current climate of cynicism about politicians it may seem absurd to say so, trust is at the heart of functioning democracies.

I have spoken before of the corrosive effect on our democracy of the increasing distrust of politicians and the increasing cynicism about politics. Individuals who are accused of transgressing – recent examples are Peter Slipper and Craig Thompson – are seen by many as representatives of the rest. And the assumption that our politicians are motivated entirely and solely by the basest of motives diminishes the ability of politicians and political parties to successfully argue for policy and for change. The damage this does to our political discourse has its greatest impact on progressive parties – like the ALP – because change through policy reform is our motivation, is indeed our very reason to exist.

But there is a deeper form of trust on which democracies depend, until recent years a bedrock that enabled our democracy, and others around the world, to negotiate competing interests, resolve differences, and solve the problems we face as a community, as a nation, and as global citizens.

That trust is not - or not necessarily - trust of any particular individual involved in the political process, but trust in the political process itself. Trust that elections produce governments, even if they are not the government of our preference; trust that in the balance between the executive government, the parliament and the courts, each fulfils a specific and necessary role; trust that even where we disagree with policy, it is shaped and delivered by our representatives, and that those representatives make informed judgements based on sound advice.

On that consensus of trust rests the operation of our government: the ability to make decisions, even where they may not be popular; the ability to pass laws, even where they constrain or disadvantage some members of the community; the ability to assign finite resources to certain priorities only, making those limited resources unavailable for other areas or interests.

On that consensus of trust has been built some of humanity's most courageous efforts to transform the world in which we live.

In 1945, representatives of the governments of the world crossed the globe to San Francisco, to attend the United Nations Conference on International Organization. The leap of faith they made dwarfed the length of their journey.

They believed that men and women of goodwill could, through democratic processes and legislative frameworks, “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”.

At that Conference, they created the United Nations.

And despite the currently fashionable criticisms of the United Nations, nearly seventy years into the atomic age, we have avoided the cataclysmic wars that convulsed the world in the first half of the last century, and which, if repeated with current technology, would put our very survival as a species at risk.

 

The optimism and the courage of the delegates to the Conference has been vindicated: their faith in the ability of governments to grapple with, and resolve, the most pressing and difficult problems facing us all has been borne out. The United Nations and its agencies have not only minimised armed conflicts, but also eradicated diseases such as smallpox, and substantially improved the living conditions of millions around the world.

The foundation of the United Nations rested on the energy and intellect of the conference delegates, not least amongst them our own Doc Evatt. But those delegates were able to carry out their work because they were there to represent nations whose citizens, by and large, shared their faith in the power of law and the rigor of process. And they were able to carry out their work because their nations gave them the authority and the flexibility to reach agreement, trusting them – not as individuals, but as office-holders – to negotiate and compromise in the interests of their nations.

I doubt such a conference could succeed today.

Not that the world is devoid of politicians of energy and intellect. But very few democratically-elected representatives could carry with them to such a discussion a broad consensus from their country that politics can solve problems and government and inter-governmental actions can substantially improve human life. And few would be entrusted with the authority needed to engage in such a discussion.

Australia has had for most of our national existence a broad consensus that government should take responsibility to provide a far greater range of services and regulate a far larger number of practices than in many other countries. But in recent years that consensus has begun to deteriorate: instead of belief in the potential of co-operation and the role of government in creating and guiding that collective effort, there is distrust – distrust fuelled by some members of the political class, for their own short term electoral gains.

Arguing policy, debating national direction, proposing solutions: these take real effort, and success is never guaranteed.

But the politics of distrust are easy: why challenge your opponent's ideas when you can instead simply assert your opponent’s illegitimacy?

In 2008, Barack Obama won the US Presidential election. John McCain did not.

Unsurprisingly, those who had supported Obama were pleased; those who had voted for McCain, unhappy.

However, instead of settling in for four years of criticising the new President’s policies and performance – the traditional strategy of those on the downside of the democratic process – many of those opposed to Obama took refuge in fantasy.

In their fantasy, John McCain did not lose the 2008 Presidential election, because Barack Obama was not even eligible to be a candidate. In their fantasy, Barack Obama was born outside the United States, and was subsequently the beneficiary of a vast conspiracy involving his parents, his grandparents, the Hawaii State Department of Health, American Customs and Immigration, and Hawaii state officials, all designed to enable him to run for President 47 years later. In this fantasy, the conspiracy has continued to this very day, without a single leak or whistle-blower.

It’s easy to laugh. Actually, it’s very hard not to laugh.

But in the United States of America, 13% of all adults – 23% of Republican voters – believe it’s true. In some states, such as Virginia, only 32 % of Republican voters believe Barack Obama was born in the United States.

‘Birther’ ideas, as the fantasy of the President’s secret overseas birth are known, are not just the crackpot rantings of a lunatic fringe or one more wacky conspiracy theory shared between a lonely coterie on the fringes of the internet: they are deeply embedded in America’s political discourse.

And I believe they are emblematic of a growing trend in western democracies for political parties on the right-wing of the political spectrum to respond to defeat with the politics of distrust, denial, and de-legitimacy.

Distrust – distrust of the institutions and agencies of government, of expert testimony, of the integrity of the democratic process.

Denial – denial of the verdict of the people at the polls, of their own failure to gain popular support for policies, and of the mandate of their victorious opponents.

And de-legitimacy – attacks not only on the policies, politics and actions of an opponent, but on the legitimacy of their victory, and by extension on the legitimacy of the democratic processes that saw them emerge the winner of the electoral contest.

And ladies and gentlemen, we have seen the emergence of just such politics here in Australia.

In 2010, Australia went to a federal election for the House of Representatives and half the Senate – a reasonably common event that has been interrupting the Saturdays of Australians every two or three years since 1901. The outcome was less common, although not unprecedented: neither the Labor Party nor the Coalition won enough seats to command a majority on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Fortunately, our Australian Parliamentary democracy is robust and enduring, and so it proved in 2010. As we all know, the Leader of the Labor Party, Julia Gillard, and the Leader of the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, entered into negotiations with independent and minor party MPs, and sufficient of those MPs determined to support the formation of a Labor Government. The Governor-General, informed of this fact, issued the appropriate commissions in accordance with our Westminster system of government, as Governors-General have been doing since Federation.

And yet, we hear constantly from the conservative coalition and their allies in the media that Prime Minister Gillard is “unelected” and the government she leads is illegitimate, because it is a minority government: as if the normal operation of Parliamentary processes – which were designed to cope with not just one, two, three or four parties, but any number – are some sort of sneaky underhanded trick.

Australia is now experiencing its 14th period of minority Federal Government since federation. Prime Ministers – Barton, Deakin, Watson, Reid, Fisher, Hughes, Scullin, Menzies, Fadden, Curtin and now, Julia Gillard, all led minority governments.

Minority national governments are common place in other Western democracies:

• Canada from 2004 to 2011,
• New Zealand since 1996,
• the United Kingdom had six minority governments and four coalition governments in the 20th century, and their most recent election of May 2010 resulted in a hung parliament,
• no party has come close to having a majority in the Dutch House of Representatives since the introduction of proportional representation in the Netherlands in 1917, and
• in Sweden and Denmark majority governments are a pipe dream.

These governments, past and present, were and are governments determined by the electoral and parliamentary processes of the nations they led. Their citizens, and the international community, found no reason to question their legitimacy.

I do not think it is a complete coincidence that such questions of legitimacy, such vitriolic attacks on the very right of elected officials to hold their office, are directed against America’s first black President and Australia’s first female Prime Minister.

In Australia, since Federation – even in 1975 when the Liberals used the Senate to block supply to the Whitlam Government in an unprecedented abuse of parliamentary and constitutional processes – no Opposition has gone as far as the current Opposition, led by Tony Abbott, has to undermine, through their political rhetoric, public trust in electoral and parliamentary process. Tony Abbott has sunk to new depths.

But the pervasive miasma of the modern politics of distrust go far further. We have seen also an increase in political parties and career politicians hypocritically hanging their political campaigns on the denigration of politics, claiming to be ‘above’ the process, as if failure to engage in negotiation and deliberation is either virtuous or possible. Such purity, as Gough reminded us, can only be the province of the impotent. And those who clothe themselves in claims to it – many minor parties in Australia have mastered this art – create an atmosphere in which any actual progress or achievement becomes seen as evidence of cynical manipulation and grubby deals.

We see also a continual distrust of the processes of government decision-making - of expert advice, of our public service departments - creating a climate in which no decisions or policies carry authority because the legitimacy of their basis is undermined.

The absolute classic example of this has to be the so-called ‘debate’ on global warming. There is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that the earth is warming, the climate is changing, and that human activity is responsible. Yet, if you listen to certain sections of the media and certain members of the Opposition, you get the impression that scientific opinion is evenly divided or even on the side of the climate-change deniers. The motives and methods of the most reputable climate scientists around the world are attacked and impugned - despite the rigour of their science and the reliability of their results – to posit wild conspiracy theories and extremist claims.

We also see it in how so much political commentary in Australian mainstream media has devolved into endless opinion polling, and speculation and analysis of its findings. Detailed examination and explanation of policy, coverage of political debate beyond the issue – or scandal – of the day, are largely absent. Why unpack the intricacies of government policy or Opposition alternatives, why interview experts in the field, when you can poll just a handful of randomly selected citizens and fill your column inches with their opinions? The specialised knowledge of policy professionals, and the expertise of the best in the press gallery and universities, gets short shrift.

Despite the incredible potential of the internet, social media, and citizen journalism to democratize decision-making and spread information, it is undeniable that the internet also contributes to the de-legitimization of political process and of expertise. As well as communities of interest, the internet also creates communities of ignorance. And debate on internet forums, blogs, and social media has developed a tendency to move rapidly to uncompromising and often abusive and bullying extremes: entrenching positions, limiting compromise, and often curtailing engagement with information that challenges or conflicts with the reader's own views.

There is, I believe, a corresponding general disinclination developing in our own, and other, democracies to accept that government requires compromise, and to understand that perfection never happens. Ironically, this discourages the kind of ambitious policy that people say they want – the lack of which is often cited as the reason for cynicism. Any over-arching statement of vision will inevitably become a rod to beat the maker in a climate where anything less than perfection is defined as an absolute failure.

It is no surprise, then, that the politics of personality have become so dominant. Hollowing out policy from political discourse and presenting electors with a collection of 'convictions' loosely attached to certain cultural mores is easier. It certainly avoids the difficulty of negotiating legislative change and substantive reform in a diverse community, and it provides significant electoral advantage in the current climate of distrust. Those elected on the back of such strategies, however, are likely to find themselves in government with neither an agenda, nor a mandate, for reform. Political parties trading in the currency of distrust and de-legitimacy should be aware that they are selling the possibility of progress to purchase the pursuit of power.

Politics can be better than that.

Politics has been better than that.

We have in Australia a great heritage of politics begun, not in fear, but in passion. Doc Evatt and his confident, ambitious, visionary journey to rid the world of war is one, but only one, of many who have struggled and worked in Parliament and on the hustings – struggled and worked and yes, negotiated and compromised as well – in a contest of ideas. We in the Australian Labor Party can look back with pride on the courage and pragmatism of Chris Watson, of Andrew Fisher, of Curtin and Chifley, of Whitlam, of Hawke, of Keating.

Ladies and gentlemen, their legacy to us is not only their conviction but also their courage. The politics of fear do lead to failure, but we can find their antidote in the politics of passionate belief.

If we draw on our Labor heritage, we can not only look back with pride, but also look forward with optimism.

When political bias goes such a long way

This is the published profile of one anti-science print, radio and television journalist writing for The Australian:

Commentator, author and former political adviser, Chris Kenny, takes an unashamedly rationalist approach - with an emphasis on the good and the free - to all that matters in national affairs. Follow Chris on Twitter @chriskkenny

His column which has been online since November 2011 is relentlessly anti-Labor – so it should come as no surprise that the unnamed political party he ‘advised’ was the Liberal Party of Australia.

Sometime in 2002 he joined then Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer’s staff, where he remained until the Howard Government’s election defeat in 2007. He then went on to serve as Chief of Staff to then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull. Before moving into the federal sphere he had been Director of Strategic Communications for South Australian Premier John Olsen and Chief of Staff to Olsen’s successor Rob Kerin and, he once stood for Liberal Party pre-selection in the state seat of Unly  - so one could assume he may still be a member of the Liberal Party.

A history which should have seen The Australian insist that his published profile name him as a former Liberal Party political advisor for its readers’ edification.

... you can get everything else on ebay!

ebay = the solution finder

This one popped up in a friend's ebay window.

Looking for female friends around Yamba/Grafton area May 16, 2012 12:44 AM

hi im a 32 yr old female looking for other females around my area to hang out with. No guys as i have one. well you can get everything else on ebay! A reply: I don't live near you but was up that way a couple of weeks back. You live in a beautiful spot!!! Maybe the best way to go is to try and join some local groups or volunteer somewhere to meet other people. Good luck

Singing The Yamba Cycle Way Blues

The disappearing Yamba Road cycle lane

On Monday 9 April I wrote on the subject of changed traffic conditions affecting one section of the dedicated cycle way along Yamba Road. A road on which this small town’s main traffic volume flows.

By 12 May The Daily Examiner was reporting on the same safety issue where the cycle way now ends as the road approaches the Freeburn Street T-intersection and, its article quoted Clarence Valley Council's deputy general manager :

Clarence Valley Council's deputy general manager Rob Donges was aware of Mr Hunt's complaint, however he said that particular section of roadway did not include an officially designated cycleway.

"It's a shared zone and includes car parking," Mr Donges said.

"If it was a designated cycleway, then it would be marked with a solid line."

Mr Donges said the cycleway was, in fact, a shared bikeway/pedestrian pathway and there were signs provided to indicate this.

"Anyone is allowed to ride on the road and must follow normal traffic conditions," he said.

Responding to Mr Hunt's concerns regarding a lack of community consultation, Mr Donges said the pedestrian refuge had been on the drawing table for "a couple of years".

I’m not sure which I find the most offensive; the fact that council management would so misrepresent that particular section of the roadway or the fact that The Daily Examiner (which has a staffed office in Yamba) obviously didn’t bother to sight that same section before it published this quote.

One has to hope that council management displays a higher level of professional discipline when it advises Clarence Valley Council’s traffic advisory committee on this matter later this month and that in future the newspaper does not uncritically accept statements by local government staff.

Here is a segment of the map Clarence Valley Council attaches to its own 2008 Bike Plan and Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan which clearly indicates that the dedicated regional cycling route (marked with pink broken lines and arrows) extends beyond the Freeburn Street T-intersection with Yamba Road and that the road section in question should be marked as such. That the shared bikeway/pedestrian pathway referred to does not commence until a subsequent T-intersection leading to the gantry wall.

Section of Yamba Map 

Click on image to enlarge

If Clarence Valley Council has varied the provisions in its bike, pedestrian access and mobility planning document, then it has allowed residents and ratepayers to largely remain in ignorance of the fact as it still displays the 2008 plan and maps on its website as principal documents.

Strange coincidence

The stars must have been aligned this week for nit nose pickers. First, Jason Chatfield's Ginger Meggs appeared in Wednesday's Daily Examiner:

Then, Dr Joan Croll had this piece in the letters columns of The Sydney Morning Herald:

Credits: www.gingermeggs.com   The Sydney Morning Herald

Examples of NSW legislators' very own handiwork are cause for concern

If the 2011-2012 Register of Disclosures by Members of the NSW Legislative Assembly, which was tabled in the chamber recently, is anything to go by then there's enough evidence to say that some of those so-called honourable persons should be sitting a NAPLAN-style test of their own to examine their capacity to perform basic literary and numeracy tasks, and thus satisfactorily perform their roles as representatives of their constituents.

Honestly, some of them are struggling to attain primary school levels of attainment.

Take a look at these examples:


That, believe it or not, is the work of a Minister. Phew!
Comment: Pathetic! The Minister has a Masters Degree. Perhaps a ghost writer helped with the Minister's thesis.


That one was submitted by a first term MP who resides on the Government benches in the chamber.
Comment: Must do a lot better. Pay attention in class and complete all set homework.


That, too, is the the work of a Government MP.
Comment: Sympathies are extended to ratepayers in the MP's local government area.

Several MPs have difficulties with their principals and principles (see below).

Those MPs aren't half smart. The effort of another MP has shown them up well and truly - if in doubt, use short-cut method #1.

Or, to throw readers off the trail completely, do something completely different and use method #2.

Okay, so who did what?

The samples have been taken from the disclosures by:

1. The Hon. Donald Loftus PAGE, BEc, MEc, DipRurAcctg MP

Member for Ballina

Minister for Local Government, and Minister for the North Coast
Member of the The Nationals

2. Mr (Chris) Christopher Stewart PATTERSON, MP

Member for Camden

Member of the Liberal Party

3. Mr (John) Giovanni Domenic BARILARO, MP

Member for Monaro

Acting Speaker
Member of the The Nationals

4. The Hon. Linda Jean BURNEY, HonDEd, DipEd MP

Member for Canterbury

Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Shadow Minister for Planning Infrastructure and Heritage, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation, Shadow Minister for the Hunter, and Shadow Minister for the Central Coast
Member of the Australian Labor Party

5. Again, the work of Mr Barilaro who is, quite obviously, a serial offender.

6. Ms Tania MIHAILUK, BEc, LLB MP

Member for Bankstown

Shadow Minister for Fair Trading, Shadow Minister for Healthy Lifestyles, and Shadow Minister for Volunteering and Youth
Member of the Australian Labor Party

7. And, who were the smarties?

#1. Mr John ROBERTSON, MP

Member for Blacktown

Leader of the Opposition, Shadow Minister for Western Sydney, and Shadow Minister for the Illawarra
Member of the Australian Labor Party

#2. Ms Clover MOORE, MP

Member for Sydney

Independent

Sources:

1. 2011-2012 Register of Disclosures by Members of the NSW Legislative Assembly

2. MPs' profiles shown on the NSW Parliament website

Cripes! Andrew Stoner - rapidly elevated and staged a political takeover

Seems Andrew Stoner is now Australia’s Acting Premier and Minister for Trade and Investment. Well, that's what an international publisher for the exhibition, conference and events industries is saying.

Read it for yourself:

AUSTRALASIA - Australia’s Acting Premier and Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Stoner will be the inaugural Patron of Business Events Sydney’s (BE Sydney) Ambassador Programme, a business development programme that helps to secure international events for Sydney and the state of New South Wales.

The publisher is aptly named. It's Mash Media. Perhaps Stoner provided MishMash with the information in the first place.

Richmond Valley Council declares moratorium on new coal seam gas projects. When will Clarence Valley Council do likewise?

Today's Northern Star reports:

Richmond Valley Council has joined the growing list of Northern Rivers councils to declare a moratorium on new coal seam gas projects.

Councillors voted to approve the moratorium (Stuart George, who works for Metgasco, and Charlie Cox excluded themselves from the vote) despite previously having opposed a moratorium.

NSW Greens MLC Jeremy Buckingham, who is the party's spokesman on mining, said it was clear the coal seam gas industry "has not got a social licence to operate in NSW".

"Local government is acting to fill the void left by the state government's failure to implement a moratorium on coal seam gas," he said.

"Santos Chief Executive David Knox's assertion that opposition to coal seam gas has 'peaked' is just wishful thinking. We saw a massive rally in Sydney recently, and 7,000 people marched through Lismore just last weekend. Community understanding and concern continues to grow.

"Last week Marrickville Council voted against allowing coal seam gas at St Peters, and Dart Energy canned their plans to drill. Narrabri Council is considering a motion to stop coal seam gas; Lismore Council has a moratorium; Moree Council, Leichhardt Council, Kyogle Council, Tweed, Byron, Wollongong Council, Camden, Campbelltown and Wollondilly have all expressed concern.

"There is nothing like a looming election to focus the mind of elected officials, and Councillors across NSW are recognising that the community wants to protect their land and water from the threat of coal seam gas.

"Congratulations to Richmond Valley Council for standing up for their community and a healthy environment."

Oh what a difference a day or two (doesn't) make in the media

The Daily Examiner Letter to the Editor on 11 May 2012 alerted regular readers to a problem in the veracity of its reporting:

Too much info is barely enough

IT WOULD appear that too much information is never enough for some in regards to the Education Tax Refund (or the new Schoolkids Bonus).

It has been reported (DE 8/5/12) that some families will be worse off under the new scheme, however, this is difficult to reconcile with the information provided regarding both the old and new scheme. Under the old scheme, parents were able to claim 50% of eligible expenses, irrespective of how much they spent during the year. For a primary school student, this meant that in 2011/12 under the ETR a parent could claim a maximum of $409 in rebate, which would mean they had incurred $818 or more in eligible expenses. If Ms. Franklin-Hentscher intended to claim 50% of her $2100 in expenses, for a single primary school-aged child, she would still only have received $409, which is the maximum allowable refund. She also suggests that tuition fees are claimable, which according to the ATO website is also incorrect.

Under the new scheme, Ms. Franklin-Hentscher will be eligible for $410 in rebates, and will not have to produce a single tax receipt to do so. Unless there is more information regarding this individual situation that has not been reported, to suggest that this change is "a kick in the teeth" is quite bewildering.

Michael Clark

Grafton

Editor's note: We acknowledge an error in reporting of this story and issued a correction in our online version. Mr Clark is correct and the error was based on an assumption during an interview that was not checked properly, needless to say the reporter in question was a little embarrassed.

The Daily Examiner 8 May 2012 article in question:

Not all parents better off with Schoolkids Bonus

SOME families will be worse off under the Government's proposed Schoolkids Bonus which promises an annual payment of $410 (for primary students) and $820 (for high school kids).

Those who spend more than $820 on their primary school child's education or more than $1640 on their high school child would be better off under the existing Education Tax Refund which gives parents 50% of costs back through the tax system.

Maclean mother Nicole Franklin-Hentscher, who worked out yesterday she claimed half of the $2100 she spent on claimable education items this year, described the policy change as a kick in the teeth and "the last nail in Julia Gillard's coffin".

Nicole's daughter Indiana attends St James Primary School, Yamba, and while her school fees were not claimable, tuition fees, uniforms, books, internet and other resources were.

"Julia Gillard has lied to us and given us a mining tax that wasn't meant to be there and a carbon tax that wasn't meant to be there, why not kick us a little more," she said.

She said parents who could prove they were spending the money on education were being penalised and this new handout method removed that incentive.

Others, including South Grafton mum Amy Morgan, welcomed the news.

"This seems to be great considering how much cost goes into uniforms each year and by doing it twice a year helps parents with summer and winter uniforms," she said.

Ms Gillard said the ETR had not been working as families were forgetting to keep receipts or could not find the cash to buy necessary equipment in the first place.

About 1.3m families will benefit from the bonus which will be introduced in parliament next week.

Sources in Canberra said the Schoolkids Bonus would be paid for out of the 2011/12 budget alongside the ETR.

The online ‘corrected version as of 5.06 pm 11 May 2012 differed only in the headline,
Bonus doesn't benefit everybody (which continued the published untruth), and rider at its end:

Terry Deefholts has taken responsibility for an error in reporting above. The Education Tax Refund can be claimed for 50% of specific education costs and is capped to a maximum of $794 for primary kids and $1588 for high school kids. The article above suggests that larger amounts be claimed therefore parents would be worse off under the new Schoolkids Bonus - this is incorrect. The Examiner apologises oversight.

Further information: http://www.educationtaxrefund.gov.au

Unfortunately both the letter, www.educationtaxrefound.gov.au and the 2012-13 Budget Papers clearly demonstrate that the online ‘correction’ itself is misleading in that there is still an implication that large amounts had been claimable in the past - without pointing out that the cited $794 (primary) and $1,588 (high school) caps only ever resulted in tax refunds of $397 and $794 respectively in 2010-11.

Because the federal government website states; The Education Tax Refund provides up to 50% back on a range of children's education expenses.

For the 2010–11 tax year refunds may be as much as $397 for every child at primary school, and up to $794 for every child at secondary school. The amount of the refund increases each year by the Consumer Price Index. In the 2011-12 tax year your refund could be as much as $409 for primary kids and $818 for secondary students.

While Budget Paper No. 2 states; From January 2013, every family with a child at school will be guaranteed $410 per annum for each primary school student and $820 per annum for each secondary school student. All eligible families will receive the full rate of payment and will no longer need to keep receipts as proof of expense, or wait until tax time. Eligibility for the payment will remain open to families with children enrolled and attending school who are in receipt of Family Tax Benefit Part A (FTB A) or other qualifying income support payments or allowances under a prescribed educational scheme that precludes the family from receiving FTB A. [my red bolding throughout]

What is clear is that the entire premise of both these articles in The Daily Examiner is incorrect and should never have been written and then published under those headlines. Both types of rebate rise and are to be paid at the maximum rate for each child attending school.

What makes the situation worse is that an opinion piece in the newspaper's 11 May issue appeared to assert that although the journalist could be trusted to spend the Schoolkids Bonus wisely, others might spend some of it on "booze, pokies, plasma TVs, remote control cars - anything but education" and that this bonus was "not healthy". Effectively dumping on at least a million families across the country. One could almost believe that APN's Grafton masthead belonged to the Murdoch media stable.

In all fairness, the erroneous premise of the original story should have been questioned from the start by the newspaper's editor and the blame lies squarely in that quarter when it comes to allowing publication.

As for Ms. Nicole Franklin-Hentscher who so unreasonably feels cheated by the Gillard Government - there are no words to describe the level of silliness being displayed.

Unfortunately bungled reporting has a life of its own and the Internet now owns this misinformation in all its glory.

Why are NSW taxpayers forking out for this man's salary?

Why are we paying this man's salary? Must be a question many NSW taxpayers ask themselves whenever they come across statements made by arch-buffoon the Hon. Dr. Peter Phelps MLC.

Excerpt from Hansard transcript  for NSW Legislative Council, 10 May 2012:

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [10.57 a.m.]: I agree with the Hon. Trevor Khan when he said that Mother's Day allows for an expression of love and commitment to one's mother. The nature of motherhood is unconditional love, irrespective of circumstances, irrespective of facts and irrespective of what foibles and faults our mothers have. I am pleased that the Hon. Cate Faehrmann has expanded the motion because I would like to talk about a different form of motherhood.

The Hon. Luke Foley: Talk about Lee Rhiannon and Mother Russia.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: There is no better example of this than Lee Rhiannon and her love of Mother Russia. Lee Rhiannon and the Brown family's love of Mother Russia is a wonderful example of an unconditional, irrational love that transcends all boundaries. The Brown family have loved Mother Russia for many, many years, despite all that they know. They loved Mother Russia when Mother Russia executed 20,000 people per month in the two years immediately following the Bolshevik revolution. They loved Mother Russia when the bayonets were driven into the Romanov family, including the children.

The Hon. Cate Faehrmann: Point of order: My point of order refers to relevance. The motion is about Mother's Day. It has nothing to do with the country of Russia, which is clearly the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps' line of argument.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: The motion has been expanded by way of an amendment moved by the Hon. Cate Faehrmann. I may well have my own motion at the end of this debate that may seek to amend the amendment. I am speaking to both the amendment and the substance of the original motion.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: Members have not gone outside the purview of talking about women in this country and the relevance of Mothers Day. The Hon. Dr Peter Phelps is well outside the leave of this motion; he is well outside the purview of any debate within this Chamber. He is specifically talking about international relations and Russia. It has nothing to do with this debate.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: The Hon. Lynda Voltz is incorrect. The Hon. Trevor Khan spoke about the origins of Mothers Day in the United States. So we are talking about Mothers Day around the world.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps that his comments must be generally relevant to the motion. If he intends to move an amendment I suggest he do so quickly. His comments would be relevant if they related to his amendment.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: I am speaking about the love of Lee Rhiannon for her family, who were staunch members of the Communist Party for many years. I can only presume that it could not have been her own intellectual rationalisation of communism which caused her to do that. It must have been a blind and unswerving adherence to her own mother, Freda Brown, a staunch member of the Communist Party, which prompted her to do it. After all, no sane and rational human being, knowing of the murder of Trotsky or the disgraceful behaviour of the Communist Party after the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was announced, could possibly have done this. It must have been her mother and her love for her mother.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: In your last ruling on relevance, you advised the member to move his amendment if he wished to be generally relevant to the debate. I have not heard the member move his amendment.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: I am speaking specifically about a relationship between a mother and her daughter, and the close relationship occasioned by that relationship.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: To the point of order: Earlier you ruled that the Hon. Dr Peter Phelps needed to move an amendment to be relevant. He is flouting your ruling; he has not moved the amendment.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Further to the point of order: I am no longer speaking of international relations; I am speaking about a relationship between a mother and her daughter. If I am not allowed to use practical examples of the relationship between a mother and a daughter in an examination of Mothers Day and the nature of motherhood, then I am not sure how I can further progress the argument in relation to the original motion.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I do not uphold the point of order. While members are participating in a lively debate, I encourage them to be generally relevant to the motion.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: We can envisage the quaint and delightful evening scene—an idyll of bliss—around the dinner table where Bill and Freda Brown would be discussing with Lee, their young daughter, the wonders of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and how the glories of the Five-year Plan had led the Soviet Union into a new, peaceful and wonderful era.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: My point of order relates to relevance again. The member is now talking about the Five-year Plan in Russia. At no point in his last statement has he drawn the attention of the House to either Mothers Day and its relevance to our community or to the women of Australia.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the member that his comments must be generally relevant to the motion.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Earlier members—including the Hon. Cate Faehrmann—raised the issue of domesticity and the enforced domesticity of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, with some critical aspect to it. During those 1940s, 1950s and 1960s there was a level of enforced domesticity where women were supposed to stay at home, cook, sit around the dinner table and chat, and look after their children. The Brown family is an example of this. I can imagine them sitting around the table, justifying the Rosenbergs' treason against the United States with their nuclear espionage.

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: While the Government Whip may take great sport in defaming a woman who has been dead for three years, I do not see the relevance of this individual to the debate. The member is out of order by making references to somebody who is not relevant to this debate. What happened in the Brown household is not part of a Mothers Day debate.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: The Hon. Cate Faehrmann has previously raised issues of enforced domesticity and I am going through examples of the sort of situation you would find in a 1950s family.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: The member is flouting your ruling on relevance. On numerous occasions he goes directly back to talking about Russian foreign policy. That is of no relevance to this debate on Mothers Day. At no time has this member spoken in regard to Mothers Day and its relevance to women in this country.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order: It was clearly recognised at the time—and indeed by some left-wing academics today—that domesticity and the role of females is an integral part in understanding class theory. If one does not address this, one is basically saying that this Feminist-Marxist interpretation has no validity. I am quite happy for the Hon. Lynda Voltz to say that Feminist-Marxist interpretations have no validity whatsoever but I do not believe she is going to say that.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Further to the point of order: The member has not spoken about domesticity in the 1950s. He has constantly referred to one family and referenced that to Russia and Russian foreign policy. I appreciate that the member has now found the feminist view of history useful to him. However, I ask you to bring him back to the debate.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. The member's comments need to be generally relevant at all times.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: As people become older, they move away from their mothers—the traditional phrase is "moving out from behind one's mother's skirt". But it appears that, for many people—especially in the 1960s—they did not merely move out from behind their mother's skirt but they took up the causes which had so enlivened their mothers. There is no better example of this than Lee Brown, as she then was, and her maintenance of strong links with Communism. She supported the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

The Hon. Lynda Voltz: Point of order: I feel obliged to do this and will perhaps end up doing this all day. The member is constantly flouting your ruling. He is constantly referring back to Russian foreign policy, which has nothing to do with the debate.

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind the member that his comments must be generally relevant at all times.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Teenagers move into adulthood, and adulthood brings with it a greater understanding—especially when one becomes a mother—of one's mother's position. Certainly, that was the case of Lee Brown. As she moved into adulthood she came to appreciate her mother's position on a range of issues far greater than she had in the past. In relation to the State of Israel, the invasion of Czechoslovakia—

Dr John Kaye: Point of order: If the member thinks that the particular political position of one particular mother in New South Wales is relevant to this debate, then I am mystified. This is a debate about motherhood. How could offensive remarks about one particular individual be relevant to this debate?

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: To the point of order. If we are not permitted to illustrate the development of an individual, from her first contact with her mother through to becoming a mother herself and understanding the nuances and complexities of one's life as we move along that journey, how can we give true appreciation to the heartfelt sentiments behind this motion?

DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. Sarah Mitchell): Order! Once again, I uphold the point of order. I again remind the member to be generally relevant at all times.

The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS: Finally, I would like to say: Happy Mothers Day.

Peterintg Time was right to call Phelps a troll and it would appear from the above Hansard quote that his nasty habit is not just confined to Twitter.

Oakeshott follows Abbott's lead to the detriment of the Australian electorate

My personal views is that those findings [in the FWA report] are damning enough that the Parliament does have to respond in some form," Mr Oakeshott said.

Only in an Australian Parliament irrevocably tainted by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s politically opportunistic and totalitarian world view, would an Independent Member of the House of Representatives so forget himself as to decide that action should be taken against a fellow parliamentarian BEFORE any criminal charges were laid and the Director of Public Prosecutions had decided to go forward with criminal court proceedings which resulted in a conviction.

Are waters being muddied already in the Clarence Valley campaign to improve mental health services?

According to yourhealth.gov.au:

Northern Rivers General Practice Network Ltd, in partnership with Tweed Valley General Practice, Hastings Macleay General Practice Network, Mid North Coast Division of General Practice, North Coast GP Training and Many Rivers AMS Alliance has been selected to establish the North Coast NSW Medicare Local.

It went on to outline North Coast NSW Medicare Local's agenda in relation to mental health in this November 2011 document:

Establishment of a regional low intensity mental health service “Stress Less”……Continuation of support to clinicians and service providers delivering a range of programs including headspace, Mental Health Nurse Funding and Access to Allied Psychological Services.

On its own website North Coast NSW Medicare Local states:

Medicare Locals are part of plans to shift the focus of health care away from hospitals, instead providing better coordinated primary care (out of hospital care) in the community.

Over the next little while, our CEO Vahid Siberi will be taking to the road to meet politicians, VIPs and media and explain NCML's vision and aims and how the community can get involved. Not everything will happen overnight, it will take time for NCML to gather the information required on primary health care services to enable it to make a difference to the patient journey.  

On 9 May 2012 The Daily Examiner reported:

Though NCML can't help directly with The Daily Examiner's latest push for an overnight mental health facility at Grafton Base Hospital, the organisation's chief executive Vahid Saberi said he would listen to all concerns at a planned public meeting on mental health set down for Tuesday, June 5 at the Grafton District Services Club.

"I am familiar that there has been a need expressed for an overnight mental health facility in Grafton ... but bed-based services need to be funded through the state," he said. "But I would be happy to advocate for it." "My jurisdiction is outside hospital walls."

One has to wonder what NCNSWML’s principal government partner, the federal Dept. of Health & Aging, thinks of  Mr. Saberi moving so far from his brief next month by advocating for increased in-hospital care – no matter how much it may possibly be needed.

Well intentioned though he may be, this CEO is creating a situation which may yet get both federal and state agencies off-side.

Teh Kouk kicks out at Abbott's economic credentials and Pure Poison follows with a boot to the rear

Stephen Koukoulas of Market Economics had this response to the Australian Leader of the Opposition’s Budget Reply Speech on his blog on 10 May 2012:

ABBOTT: People who work hard and put money aside so they won’t be a burden on others should be encouraged, not hit with higher taxes.
FACT: The tax to GDP ratio of the first 5 Labor Budgets averaged 21.1%. The lowest ever tax to GDP recorded under the Howard government was 22.2% and the average was 23.4%. The last time a Coalition Government delivered a tax to GDP ratio below 21.1% was in 1979-80. Cannot see where the “hit with higher taxes” statement fits these facts in the current Budget context.

ABBOTT: And people earning $83,000 a year and families on $150,000 a year are not rich, especially if they’re paying mortgages in our big cities.
FACT: Average annual earnings are around $53,500 in NSW and $51,500 in Victoria. Maybe they are “not rich”, but someone on $83,000 is earning around 60% above the average wage whether they have a mortgage or not.

ABBOTT: Madam Deputy Speaker, from an economic perspective, the worst aspect of this year’s budget is that there is no plan for economic growth; nothing whatsoever to promote investment or employment.
FACT: After registering a 19^th straight year of economic growth in 2010-11, the Budget shows Australia growing at 3% in 2011-12, 3.25% in 2012-13 and 3% in 2013-14. Having risen a Chinese-type 18% in 2011-12, business investment is forecast to rise a further 12.5% in 2012-13. Employment is forecast to rise by 1.25% in 2012-13, which will see the creation of around 175,000 new jobs from now until June 2013.

Read the rest here.

The full transcript of Tony Abbott's budget reply (containing no specific economic/funding information concerning his own inchoate policies) can be found here.

Over at Pure Poison they are wondering when the press gallery is finally going to call Abbott out on the rubbish he's spouting:

Contrasting the GFC deficits with the pre-GFC boom as if there wasn’t a GFC – surely someone could ask Abbott if he even noticed the existence of a global financial crisis or if he’s a weirdo conspiracy theorist who thinks the rest of the world just made it up.

The “cuts to defence” line, which are mainly to do with delaying the disastrous Joint Strike Fighter that’s running late and is a step backward anyway. Could someone ask Abbott whether he’d insist on going ahead with it right now while other buyers are backing away?

The “we’ll find savings” line – could someone ask Abbott just why any Australians should believe that he’ll find $70 billion savings in a way that none of us will mind? And why he thinks we shouldn’t all be very worried that something we or a family member or friend rely on might not be one of the things he slashes in order to give “incentives” to big polluting companies?

How about his “trickle down” theory, where you don’t need any actual plan for growth other than slashing taxes for big business (except when Labor proposes them) and the super rich?

You could question his complaints about not enough money going into the NDIS and dental care given that the Liberals haven’t promised to put in any more either.

How about asking him to reconcile his demand for “growth” with his previous fixation on interest rates being low? Is that suddenly not important now that interest rates are lower under Labor than they ever were under the Coalition?

Growing dirt pile is getting closer to NSW O'Farrell Government Resources and Energy Minister, Chris Hartcher

Something which places a different emphasis on Chris Hartcher’s open for business philosophy?

Sean Nicholls writing in The Sydney Morning Herald on 13 May 2012:

A SENIOR staff member of the NSW Minister for Resources and Energy, Chris Hartcher, has resigned and his electorate officer has been suspended after election funding authorities launched an investigation into allegations against them.
Tim Koelma, who had worked for Mr Hartcher for a decade, and Ray Carter, Mr Hartcher's electorate officer in Terrigal, were suspended in late March after the NSW Liberal Party wrote to the Election Funding Authority alleging they had breached funding laws.
It is understood political donations to the NSW branch of the party were being sought through a trust connected to Mr Koelma……