Christopher Pyne attempts to rewrite Abbott history

 

Christian politicians cannot check their faith into the parliamentary cloakroom and be otherwise indistinguishable from everyone else…

Why isn’t the fact that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies regarded as a national tragedy…

[Tony Abbott on THE ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A CHRISTIAN POLITICIAN March 2004]

 

Mr Abbott had hoped to encourage a private member's bill on what he termed the "epidemic" of abortion, and was advocating an inquiry.

[The Age 1 February 2005]

 

Given the recent public debate on Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott’s attitude to women, there was an interesting ABC TV Q&A exchange between the Labor Minister for Employment Participation and the Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare and the Liberal Shadow Education Minister and Manager of Opposition Business on Monday 8 October 2012:

 

KATE ELLIS: Well, I just think if you want to talk about his record and if you want to talk about his record as Health Minister, I think we should talk about his record over a number of decades. But if you want to talk about when he was Health Minister, why don’t you talk about the way he restricted access to RU 486 for Australian women across the country because his religious views did not agree with that. Let’s talk about that because is his record...

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: No, he restricted it...

KATE ELLIS: That is his record and he had to be overruled by the parliament when we voted in a conscience vote because, as Health Minister, he refused to do it.

CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Actually the Department of Health's advice, Kate, because I was the Parliamentary Secretary for Health at the time with responsibility for the Therapeutic Goods Administration, was that RU 486 was and is a dangerous drug and the recommendation is it should not be approved for use in Australia.

 

Apparently Christopher Pyne would have us believe that when he was the Federal Minister for Health in the Howard Government, Tony Abbott was opposing the introduction of this drug based on advice received from the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

 

However, this is what Tony Abbott is reported to have said in January 2006:

 

"This use of the drug is sufficiently controversial, if you like - there are sufficient public interest issues involved - for the added accountability of a ministerial decision to be part of that process," Mr Abbott told the Nine Network.

While this is what he wrote himself on 6 February 2006:

 

The abortion pill is too risky to leave to medical officials, argues Health Minister Tony Abbott.  In 1996, the ederal [sic] parliament decided that decisions about abortion drugs were too important to be made by unelected, unaccountable officials…. The parliament decided that it was not just the science of abortion drugs that mattered but the circumstances surrounding their use. Experts can explain fads [sic] but politicians then have to resolve the values that are to be placed on those facts to the satisfaction of a democratic electorate. The parliament decided that ministers rather than bureaucrats should have the final say on these drugs’ availability because polilicians [sic] are accountable for their actions in a way that officials are not….

So far no application to use RU486 has been finalised by the TGA for ministerial consideration.  

 

On 15  February 2006 this is what Abbott as Federal Health Minister told the Australian Parliament:

 

I suppose this is why I pose the question to him and others: why does he trust the head of the TGA, whom he does not know and cannot question, to make these decisions, rather than a minister whom he does know and can question and apparently trusts? I have great respect for the officers of the TGA, but I simply pose the question: why should the head of the TGA, a person whose name would not even be known to most of the members of this House and who has never given an interview, be responsible for making decisions on some of the most fraught questions facing our society, rather than being responsible for simply providing expert advice?.....

So the big issue is not RU486 but what can be done to ensure that the women of Australia have real freedom of choice. That is why I am so pleased that the cabinet will shortly be considering new support for pregnant women facing very difficult decisions.

I believe that, in essence, this private member’s bill before us is a political statement by its sponsors that there should be no external restrictions or controls on abortion whatsoever. I think that society should not be indifferent to the fate of up to 100,000 unborn babies every year, and it will not always remain as indifferent as it currently seems. At the very least, this debate has at least focused attention on how, in this respect, our nation falls so very far short of its best self.

 

By 14 October 2012, under siege for his sexist views, his position had changed according to The Advocate:

 

A spokesman for Mr Abbott responded that ''administration of RU486, as with other drugs, is a matter for the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Coalition will not change that''.

 

Or has it? Do we have this change of heart in writing?

Too Late Mate! or Who's trying to protect Abbott from himself?

  Mr Onthemoon ‏@firstdogonmoon

Interesting that someone went to Sydney Uni Library and cut everything Tony Abbott wrote from old copies of student newspaper honi soit 

15th October 2012

Too funny for words! The horse has long bolted when it comes to Tony Abbot's early forays into print.

Letters originally posted at The Sydney Institute

Christian Kerr thinks Twitter has girl germs and therefore tweeters' opinions don't count

 

 

http://video.theaustralian.com.au/2289902086/Gallery-1-Twitter-0

The Australian newspaper's Christian Kerr gives his opinion

Apparently the latest excuse for dismissing any support for the Australian Prime Minister's 9 October 2012 speech is the perceived failings of social media.

It would appear that Twitter doesn't count as a serious reflection of community attitudes because it is supposedly peopled by women with an average age of 28 years, who use an iPhone, have a propensity to like the colour purple and a small online following of about 280 other tweeters, according to male journalist Christian Kerr aka "Colonel Walter Kurtz" * * aka "Hillary Bray".

Kerr has obviously never read the Beevolve study of 36 million Twitter users he is quoting, because it was careful to point out that Only 0.45% of Twitter users disclose their age and those who do are predominately in the younger age groups - therefore the data here is skewed towards the younger demographic.

Further, the study was only able to determine gender for ~66% of the 36 million Twitter users because Gender information is not readily available on a Twitter user profile.

As 70% of twitter users also didn’t have their bio specified, to differentiate gender the survey guessed using account names, avatars and whatever else could be casually gleaned and, we all know that names and avatars are often used as a running gag and frequently don't reflect true gender.

When it comes to Kerr's fascination with colour, it should be pointed out that of those whose gender was either confirmed or guessed at,  22.1 per cent of female tweeters preferred the colour purple and 36.1 percent of males preferred a steel grey hue. However, calculations exclude the default twitter profile colors, so even these percentages are suspect.

Yes, world wide A twitter user on average has 208 followers, but as this survey apparently counts the 25% of Twitter users who have never tweeted all those zeros skew this average.

Additionally, as this was a commercial marketing potential survey, it did not create a category for tweets with political content, so Kerr can have no real idea of the average global profile of those tweeting about Gillard's speech.

So basically, Christian Kerr has decided on very little evidence that political tweets tend to be ferociously partisan (presumably excluding those from the many representatives of mainstream media found on this social platform) and are probably infected with girl germs. Which means that these can easily be dismissed if they don't agree with his assessment of any issue.

But what if Kerr was right to suggest that support for the Prime Minister was being driven by a Twitterverse dominated by women? Why does either the social platform or a tweeter's gender make this support any less legitimate? Ah, yes - it would be because the gender in question is female.

** You’re a little c***, but as someone who’s worked as either a pressie or political advisor for two federal cabinet ministers and a state premier, I’ve got to say that I firmly believe your site was crucial to Saturday’s outcome.
[Quote from a Hotmail allegedly sent by "Colonel Walter Kurtz"]

Cathy Stoner gets caught out and shut down

The Sunday Telegraph 14 October 2012

Unfortunately for Cathy Stoner, it is harder to eradicate tweets than she originally thought.

Here is an example of the last 401 still on record at http://topsy.com/twitter/cathystoner?nohidden=1&page=1 

and, at the time of writing her Twitter Pics were still online at http://www.twicsy.com/i/pzLCE. 

Although www.cathystoner.com/ is now hidden behind a blank pink screen.

cathystoner CathyStoner

@OakeyMP you have abused the trust of all who supported you +your constituents. You were put there for a reason. God will not be mocked.

4 days ago Reply Retweet Favorite 8

cathystoner CathyStoner

@elissa1987 isn't it disgraceful? They clearly think we are stupid.

4 days ago Reply Retweet Favorite

cathystoner CathyStoner

How does Michelle Obama, who is a member of Emily's list, say God Bless and mean it..

5 days ago Reply Retweet Favorite 2

Janelle Saffin MP urges late submissions to state inquiry into the adequacy of water storages in New South Wales

From A Clarence Valley Protest.

Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner 6 October 2012:

Not A Drop still holds water

I have noticed a growing number of correspondents expressing concern about the Clarence River, specifically about those who would dam it and divert our water inland or to Queensland.

I reiterate my rock solid commitment to 'Not A Drop', the slogan we all adopted from The Daily Examiner's highly successful 2007 campaign against such moves.

I simply will not allow it, and the Australian Government, as expressed many times through the Leader of the House Anthony Albanese in Federal Parliament, will not allow it.

I wanted to put this firm policy stance on the public record again, for the benefit of people among us who have moved to the Clarence Valley in recent times.

I am sure that these new residents will be surprised and shocked to hear that many vested interests have tried this on for years.

I have urged locals to make submissions to the NSW Legislative Council's Standing Committee on State Developments' current inquiry into the adequacy of water storages in New South Wales.

While the closing date for submissions was August 31, the inquiry is prepared to take late submissions for another six weeks. They can be emailed to statedevelopment@parliament.nsw.gov.au

The primary contact is Cathryn Cummins on 02 9230 3528. I understand the inquiry will hold further publics hearings in Wagga Wagga and Sydney in November and possibly more hearings early next year.

One thing I can be sure of is that there will be some of the regulars who want to raid our water supply - the mighty Clarence.

I call them the River Raiders; they seek every and all opportunity to lay claim to our river.

I thought it was a big worry when the NSW National Party's 2008 State Conference resolved to "support greater efforts to reduce the amount of eastern water lost to the ocean and campaign for more in-depth investigations into finding ways to turn this water inland." - Tweed Daily News, June 16, 2008.

I urge Clarence Valley residents to be watchful of anyone who would have designs on tampering with our most precious natural resource - water.

Janelle Saffin MP

Federal Member for Page

O'Farrell, Stoner, Cansdell, NSW DPP and Police set a dangerous precedent

The Daily Examiner 12 October 2012:

AN ASSOCIATE Professor of Law says the NSW Government's decision not to pursue charges against former Clarence MP Steve

Cansdell sets a dangerous precedent.

Associate Professor Sam Garkawe from the Southern Cross University School of Law said the outcome of the Cansdell case eroded the credibility of a statutory declaration as a legal document.

"I think it does set a very bad precedent and I would suspect the State and the Commonwealth will get their heads together to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again," he said.

"It seems as though he has got off on a technicality where he has wrongly signed a Commonwealth stat dec when he should have signed a NSW stat dec."

Assoc Prof Garkawe said without seeing all the evidence it was difficult to comment on specifics, but he believed Mr Cansdell had still committed an offence under Commonwealth law……