NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell gets a well-deserved serve

http://www.moir.com.au/

OBIT: Hon. Anthony John 'Tony' Abbott MP, Prime Minister of Australia

The Hon. Anthony John 'Tony' Abbott MP, Prime Minister of Australia, passed away suddenly on Friday, 13 June 2014.

He collapsed in mid-sentence at a press conference outside Parliament House with what was at first thought to be heatstroke brought on by an unseasonably hot winter day.

However his condition worsened and he was rushed to Canberra Hospital where he was admitted to the coronary care unit.

Medical treatment was complicated by the discovery of symptoms of ‘concrete heart’ syndrome and that, in combination with low hospital staffing levels due to recent Federal Government funding cuts, meant that the Prime Minister died within four hours of admission.

Tony Abbott was a man of no fixed principles, who rose to power on the back of his ability to be unrelentingly negative, viciously sledge political opponents and endlessly repeat three word slogans.

An intolerant, muscular Christian who thought the poor always responsible for their own misfortune and their children undeserving of a decent public education.

His reputation for sexism and misogyny was known around the world, as was his commitment to political untruths.

A friend to a select few – particularly those from his own religious or social background and assorted media barons.

Tony Abbott is sincerely mourned by members of his immediate family.

The Liberal Party of Australia issued a brief statement of regret on his passing, then returned to the task of choosing a new leader.

A number of spontaneous street parties were reported to have occurred across Australia when his death was announced.

There was a mixed reaction from world leaders.

Cardinal George Pell has issued a media release stating his intention to tirelessly work for the canonisation of the late prime minister.

Mr. Abbott’s ashes will be returned to England and interred in the grounds of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, close by the grave of his hero former British Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven.

Australian Politics 2014: Der Führer marches on and on

On 19 March 2014 it is expected that Australia’s own little führer will present to Parliament the as yet unsighted Omnibus Red Tape Repeal Bill and a series of specific bills proposing the repeal of an estimated 8,000 legislative instruments.

These bills will be passed by the House of Representatives because the Coalition has the voting power to do so easily.

As yet there is no indication as to what specific regulations will be abolished, however the financial sector, road transport industry, coastal shipping, education, agriculture, environmental approvals and trading hours have been mentioned in the media today.

The only certainty is that, with Abbott Government’s track record, one can be sure that any and all negative impacts of this mass repealing will fall heavily on the shoulders of ordinary wage earners and the poor, allow foreign multinationals further access to Australian markets, possibly lead to job losses in some industries and limit measures protecting Australian consumers and workers.

The Murdoch press reports:

The repeal day comes after Mr Frydenberg, who has been charged with implementing the government's deregulation agenda, conducted more than 100 meetings and a string of roundtable forums over the past three months with sharemarket-listed companies, multinationals, big private companies and business lobby groups to determine the pieces of regulation that need to be scrapped.

They include firms such as Westpac, Wesfarmers, IAG, Ten Network, Aldi, Dow Chemical, Incitec Pivot, the big four accounting firms and lobby groups such as the National Farmers Federation and the Minerals Council of Australia.

Mr Frydenberg has also had meetings with the likes of Rio Tinto, Orica, BHP Billiton, BG Group, Telstra, Medibank Private and Credit Suisse, as well as Woolworths chief executive Grant O'Brien, Coles managing director Ian McLeod and food group Goodman Fielder's Chris Delaney.

The Abbott Government asserts that it has also consulted with the not-for-profit- sector. This alleged consultation appears to be solely in relation to regulations concerning this sector’s funding applications and grant provisions.

  

The Abbott Government And The Environment

THE ABBOTT GOVERNMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT

PART 1:  SOME ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT MOVES ON CLIMATE POLICY

All has not gone as smoothly as Prime Minister Abbott would have hoped in dealing with climate change policy since he took over the reins of government.

Abolition of the carbon tax was one of the new Prime Minister's early priorities. He indicated that he fully expected the parliament to enable him to fulfil his election promise immediately.  This was an unrealistic expectation given that the Government does not control the Senate.  Threats that Senate non-compliance could be used to trigger a double dissolution election unsurprisingly have not produced the cooperation Abbott demanded.  Despite the threat, a double dissolution election is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons including the expectation that the new Senate, to be installed in July, will pass the legislation - which means the Government just has to be patient.  Furthermore, the Government's position in the polls does not suggest another election as a viable option. 

The new Government's changes to climate change policy extend beyond the abolition of the carbon tax and its replacement with their "Direct Action".

There is no longer a Climate Change Minister or Department of Climate Change. The responsibility for climate change policy has been taken over by the Department of the Environment under Minister Greg Hunt. Mr Hunt made his mark early in his ministerial role during an interview with a British journalist by using a statement from  Wikipedia to support his claim that there was no link between the severe Blue Mountains bushfires and climate change (because  bushfires have always been a feature of Australian life since European settlement).  The use of such an authority as the basis for a serious public statement by a federal Minister subjected Mr Hunt to considerable ridicule both at home and abroad.

 

Beyond checking Wikipedia, Mr Hunt has moved on a number of climate bodies which have either been abolished or slated for abolition.  Three of these bodies are the Climate Change Authority, the Climate Commission and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

The Climate Change Authority (http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/ ) was established to advise on Australia's emissions targets and to analyse the effectiveness of policies designed to meet those targets.  According to Mr Hunt this advice will, following the Authority's abolition, be provided by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO.  As these agencies obviously have other commitments, it will be interesting to see just how much of the CCA's work they will be able to take over. It will also be interesting to see whether the Government is prepared to provide them with additional funding to assist with their new roles.

However, the Climate Change Authority can only be abolished through an act of parliament.  While the relevant act has passed the House of Representatives, it has been blocked in the Senate. So it is likely the CCA will continue to operate until July 2014.

The Government probably did not appreciate the Climate Change Authority's most recent report  (October 2013) on emissions targets  - Targets and Progress Review Draft Report (http://climatechangeauthority.gov.au/Node/100  ) – which concluded that the 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 was insufficient and that Australia should be  looking at a reduction between 15% and 25% on year 2000 emissions.  Mr Abbott's Government (along with the former Labor Government) committed to the 5% reduction on year 2000 levels. It has costed this and has stated that this is the only funding available for this purpose.  So it is extremely unlikely that the Government will commit to a stronger reduction target.  The Authority's Final Report, with its emissions target recommendation, will be delivered to the Government by 28 February.

The Climate Commission was abolished on 19 September.  Minister Hunt claimed that the closing down of the Commission was "part of the Coalition's plans to streamline government processes and avoid duplication of services" and that the Commission's "function to provide independent analysis and advice" would be continued by the Department of the Environment.  It is quite obvious that Mr Hunt has no understanding of the term "independent analysis and advice".  The level of independent analysis and advice a Government department will provide is likely to be rather different to that provided by a body at arms-length from Government as the Climate Commission was. Furthermore the capacity of that Department to provide analysis and advice of an equivalent standard to that of Climate Commission would depend on factors such as the expertise of departmental staff and whether they had the time to undertake the necessary research – and whether the Government provided funding additional to current provisions to enable this.  All highly unlikely.

A considerable segment of the community, unimpressed with the Government's Climate Commission decision, was prepared to do something about it.  This led to a "crowd funding campaign" to replace the Commission with a group independent of the Government.  Over $1 million was raised in a little over a week and the Climate Commission was re-formed as the Climate Council. (http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/  ) Perhaps this is an early warning that Mr Hunt and the Government should think carefully about the way they deal with climate change and providing the community with information on this important issue.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation ( http://www.cleanenergyfinancecorp.com.au/   ) which commenced operation in July last year is responsible for making co-investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in the commercial sector. At the end of November last year $536 million had been invested in renewable energy, energy savings and low-carbon technologies.  According to the fund's board, for every dollar the CEFC invested, the private sector had invested three and the fund had generated carbon emissions savings of 3.88 million tonnes.

 

This is another planned abolition which has been foiled by the Senate for the time being.  It is interesting that a number of supporters of the CEFC and its work have pointed out to the Government that this body is actually the epitome of real direct action.  Unsurprisingly, this has not made any impression on Abbott's ideologically-driven Government.

The Coalition's commitment to acting effectively on climate change was open to question before it won the election.  Tony Abbott 's attitude (his 2009 comment about climate change being crap remains to haunt him)– and that of many of his Liberal-National Party colleagues - to the reality of climate change has for years been equivocal at best.

Concern about this commitment has only increased since Mr Abbott became Prime Minister. Factors such as Mr Hunt's unsatisfactory statements about how both the Climate Change Authority and Climate Commission roles will be filled following their abolition have only increased the concern of those who see an urgent need for effective action on climate change.

There continue to be serious questions about the likely effectiveness of the Coalition's "Direct Action" policy. The major component of "Direct Action", which is to replace the carbon tax, is the payment of polluters to stop them from polluting – the carrot rather than the stick - taxpayer funded in order to ensure the right behaviour.  The Senate has referred to the Government's Direct Action policy to the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications  - which must be a further irritation to the Government.  The Report on this inquiry is due on 24 March.  (Information  on this Senate Inquiry can be found at : http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Direct_Action_Plan)

A rather unexpected sideshow occurred recently when Maurice Newman, head of the Prime Minister's new Business Advisory Council, claimed that climate change is "a scientific delusion".  To have someone heading what is presumably an influential Government business group espousing such a view lends further credence to the suspicion that climate change is not being taken seriously by the Government.

The next few months should prove interesting on the climate change front.  It is highly likely that the Government will feel increased pressure from the Opposition and the Greens as well as those in the community who want an effective climate policy.

 Hildegard

Northern Rivers

Spot the difference

Readers of APN newspapers, including The Daily Examiner, are very excited because the publications are running their "Spot the Difference" competition again. 

Here's DEX's effort (Saturday 11/1/2014) :

And here's GoComic's version:

Readers' entries can be sent  to DEX's editor at newsroom@dailyexaminer.com.au

Images from DEX digital edition and Gocomics.

United Nations asks Abbott Government to explain

ABC News 11 January 2014:

The UN refugee agency says it is awaiting an explanation from the Australian Government over reports asylum seeker boats have been forcibly returned to Indonesia.

Earlier this week, Indonesian police told the ABC that a second boat carrying asylum seekers had been forced back to Indonesian waters by the Australian Navy.

The first boat was found shortly before Christmas on the island of Rote, in Indonesia's East Nusa Tenggara region.

The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) is warning such actions may place Australia in breach of its obligations under international law.

"UNHCR is seeking details from the Australian parties about these recent reports," said spokesman Babar Baloch.

The agency is also investigating reports of plans to provide lifeboats for asylum seekers for future push-backs.

"For the UNHCR it's a very concerning policy or practice if it involves pushing asylum seeker boats back out to sea without proper consideration of individuals who need international protection," said Mr Baloch.

"Any such approach would raise significant issues and potentially could place Australia in breach of its obligations under the Refugee Convention and international law.

"If people who are in need for international protection seek a country's safety, then they must be allowed to go through a process which helps to determine if these people are in need."

Media reports indicate that up to five asylum seeker boats were towed back/pushed back in recent months and, it is possible that as many as 361 asylum seekers may have been involved since 18 September 2013.