Abbott's Direct Action Plan held up to ridicule

Smithsonian Magazine 12 September 2013:

Australia’s newly elected liberal government, led by prime minister Tony Abbott, has very different ideas about what constitutes adequate climate policy than the country’s former political leaders. Among those changes, the New Scientist writes, are getting rid of both the country’s emissions trading scheme and its climate advisory board. To make amends, Abbott proposes a new carbon reduction policy, but experts have already written off that plan as a fatally flawed failure.

Rather than sneak these changes by the Australian public, they seem to have driven the Liberal-National coalition’s victory. Here’s the New Scientist:

It ran for election with a core idea of “scrapping the carbon tax”.

Abbott’s coalition also signalled that it would disband Australia’s Climate Commission – an independent scientific body that provides reliable information on climate change to the public. In response to a report the commission released, warning that extreme weather was made more likely by climate change, Abbott said: “When the carbon tax goes, all of those bureaucracies will go and I suspect we might find that the particular position you refer to goes with them.”

Abbott does not keep his climate skepticism a secret. In 2009, the New Scientist points out, he commented that the “science is highly contentious, to say the least” and “the climate change argument is absolute crap.” Staying true to form, upon victory his party declared that funding for such “ridiculous” climate-themed research will soon dry up.

According to the IPCC, there is “ample evidence for significant potential impacts” to Australia’s climate and ecology as climate change continues to tamper with temperatures and precipitation in the future. By 2030, rain patterns will change by about 10 percent in magnitude, mostly decreasing but also producing more frequent severe storms in the summer. In Sydney, for example, “100-year floods” are predicted to increase by a factor of ten. Pest animals like rabbits will increase, while some of Australia’s beloved biodiversity–think koalas and coral reefs–may decrease. Overall, things don’t look pretty for Australia under a warmer future scenario.

Abbott may consider adding the disclaimer of potentially more events like the recent flooding, drought and fires his country has suffered to his promises of creating ”a stronger Australia” and a “better future.” However, his campaign slogan of “Chose real change” may turn out to be unsettlingly on the mark.....

Did Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott make doubly sure he received four particular votes in the 2013 Australian Federal Election?

Anyone who has watched the past televised coverage of Australian Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott with his family in an interview situation will know that he has a habit of breathing down the necks of his wife and daughters when they speak to the media.

Tony Abbott quickly moving into frame when one of his daughters was asked to comment during the

ABC TV Kitchen Cabinet program on 4 September 2013

The troublesome question is; has Abbott carried this one step too far? 

Apparently all the family submitted sealed votes at the Freshwater Surf Life Saving Club on 7 September 2013, which may possibly have been silent votes lodged with the precautionary aim of concealing their (already widely publicised) main residential address on the public electoral rolls.

Certainly the photographs below show these sealed envelopes were lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission at the polling booth they attended for that last media bite played out for the attending press.

Which leaves one wondering - did the over controlling Abbott line up his wife and daughters at home and either direct or check that they had voted according to his wishes before the envelopes were sealed?

A far cry from the Abbott family queueing to vote sans sealed envelopes, in the election the Coalition lost in 2010

These election day photographs are courtesy of relentless self-promotion by the Abbott family found on Zimbio

As the Abbott Government is sworn in today - a look at the National Party of Australia post-election September 2013

Starting at 10.20am on 18 September 2013 the Abbott Federal Government was sworn in.

As of 9.22am on the same day......

Across the entire continent of Australia the National Party only received 535,121 first preference votes out of the 12.96 million votes cast in the 2013 Federal Election or 4.39 per cent of the total vote pool.

In their own right the Nationals hold a mere 9 of the Coalition’s 90 House of Representatives seats in the 44th Australian Parliament.

While the Liberal National Party of Queensland (which absorbed the Queensland Nationals into its Liberal dominated ranks) only received 1,103,311 first preference votes or 9.04 per cent of the total vote pool and only holds 22 of the Coalition’s 90 seats.

Or to put it in perspective – the Nationals hold only two more federal seats now than they did after the 2010 election, the Liberal National Party holds only one more seat and, even the Nationals and Liberal National Party combined only hold 31 seats in the Lower House of this parliament.

Whichever way one looks at it, the Nationals are no longer the solid rump of the Coalition but rather a small, increasingly irrelevant appendage to the dominant Liberal Party Of Australia which in its own right holds 58 seats in the House of Representatives. Even Labor at 55 seats still holds more electorates than the Nationals.

In a 20 person Federal Cabinet announced on 16 September the Nationals hold just two ministries and have 2 assistant ministers in the Outer Ministry, one of which is in the Senate.

So how effective are these 9 lonely House of Representatives Nationals going to be in Canberra?

More importantly – just how effective will be those two Nationals MPs representing the NSW Northern Rivers region?

Will our region only get scraps from the Liberal Party table when it comes to vital federal funding?

Luke Hartsuyker failed to deliver much in the way of funding across the Northern Rivers the last time he was in government, while Kevin Hogan has never held any form of public office before and his funding promises during the recent election campaign amounted to peanuts with one exception.

How seriously the Northern Rivers currently takes Kevin Hogan might be indicated by the fact that the day after the first post-election joint Coalition party room meeting in Canberra at which he was introduced to his colleagues, the lead online story in The Northern Star was about a giant pumpkin for sale in Kyogle.

Abbott's immigration policies come under United Nations scrutiny this week

ABC News 17 September 2013:

The incoming Federal Government's immigration policies are being brought before a United Nations Human Rights council meeting in Geneva, possibly as soon as tonight.

The council is meeting this week and an item has been included in the general debate agenda which will openly condemn the new Government's plans.

A representative from Australia's Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) will read a statement to the body, calling for it to hold Australia to account for what it calls violations of the Refugee Convention and other treaties.

The statement will accuse Australia of setting an "alarming global precedent" if it does use the Navy to return asylum seeker boats to their country of origin without proper assessment.

"Australia has also promised a strong military response," the statement reads.

"It has announced plans to issue orders to the Australian Navy to tow boats carrying asylum seekers back to their origin without proper assessment of the protection needs of those on board."

The HRLC's director of legal advocacy, Daniel Webb, says indefinite and offshore detention, plans to abolish appeal rights, and the withdrawal of legal assistance to some asylum seekers will also be highlighted as breaches of international law......

The 2013 Australian Federal Election may be over but the circus will continue.......

Palmer United Party Leader Clive Palmer's electoral status may still be in doubt but Mal Brough has been confirmed as elected to the Australian Parliament, so there is now a little extra sting in the tail of this court case.

Sunshine Coast Daily 5 September 2013:

CLIVE Palmer has issued a Supreme Court writ seeking more than $800,000 in damages from Fisher LNP candidate Mal Brough.

The billionaire Palmer United Party candidate for Fairfax alleges Mr Brough made statements to the Press which effectively claimed he had lied to Australian voters and that he had done so for his political gain and that of his fledgling party.

In a statement of claim issued in the Supreme Court this morning Mr Palmer stood by his own statements that Mr Brough approached him last year to fund the James Ashby sexual harassment suit against sitting Member for Fisher Peter Slipper who is standing as an independent against Mr Brough.

Mr Palmer's legal team yesterday emailed Mr Brough asking him if he had solicitors on whom the writ could be served. The email said if no response had been received by 11am today it would be taken that Mr Brough wanted the writ served personally on himself.

The writ seeks $355,500 in general compensatory damages and a further $450,000 in aggravated compensatory damages and costs.

New Coalition Government not yet sworn in and it may be that Australian voters are already starting to question their choice

It would appear that Australians polled a mere nine days after the 7 September federal election believe that unemployment, cost of living, interest rates, health services, job security, workers’ rights, the environment, education and schools, public services, welfare benefits and their personal financial situation will all be “worse off” under the incoming Liberal/National Government.

The Essential Report of 16 September 2013 also shows the beginnings of a potential shift in voter intentions:

Federal politics – voting intention

Sep 16, 2013

Q. If a Federal Election was held today to which party will you probably give your first preference vote? If not sure, which party are you currently leaning toward?

Q. If don’t know -Well which party are you currently leaning to?

Sample size = 1,864 respondents

NB.  The data in the above tables comprise 2-week averages derived from the first preference/leaning to voting questions.  Respondents who select ‘don’t know’ are not included in the results.  The two-party preferred estimate is calculated by distributing the votes of the other parties according to their preferences at the 2010 election.