Is Joe Hockey a repeat offender when it comes to non-disclosure of pecuniary interests?

It must have irked the Murdoch media to have to run with this:

“Aspiring treasurer Joe Hockey has been caught breaching parliamentary rules after failing to declare a family interest for almost his entire 17-year career in federal parliament.

Mr Hockey declared the directorship of Steel Harbour Pty Ltd held by his wife, Melissa Babbage, in May last year among a series of "new positions" under spouse declaration rules. But business records show Ms Babbage was appointed to the role in 1998. Pecuniary interest register declarations are supposed to be made within a month. The revelations come after News Corp Australia revealed earlier this year Arthur Sinodinos, tipped to be Mr Hockey's right-hand man as finance minister in an Abbott government, failed to declare six company directorships in his first year in the upper house. The directorship blunder has emerged ahead of a key economic debate showdown between Mr Hockey and Treasurer Chris Bowen at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday. Mr Hockey yesterday suggested he was clueless about his wife's business interests for 14 years and would not explain what the company did.”

However, what the Murdoch media failed to mention in that article was the fact that Mr. Hockey had been down this road before if the House of Representatives Hansard of 26 March 2007 is any guide:

Ms GILLARD (3:09 PM) —Mr Speaker, I have a question to you relating to the obligation of members to declare registrable interests. Can you investigate the reasons why the member for North Sydney did not declare his interest in Babbage Hockey Pty Ltd until 19 February 2007, more than 12 months after the company’s registration? Can you also investigate the reason why the member has failed to disclose his previous directorship of the company? Finally, can you advise the House whether the member’s claim that he was not required to declare the company because ‘we did not know what we were going to do with it’ is consistent with the obligations on members—

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms GILLARD —they are quite simple questions—to comply with House resolutions relating to the disclosure of interests? It is in the interests of all members of the House to be clear on these things.

The SPEAKER —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do not believe that question time is the time to raise that issue; however, I will examine the points that she has raised. I will take those on notice and I will give further consideration to them.

Then there is this trading partnership (shown in the snapshot below) which perhaps requires further explanation, as it does not appear that in his Register of Members' Interests statement Mr. Hockey has informed the Parliament that the partnership has apparently been reactivated.

Click on image to enlarge

Abbott & Co's costings promise lasts less than three full days

Snapshot from Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey and Shadow Finance Minister Andrew Robb Joint Media Release 28 August 2013:

The Age 31 August 2013:

Tony Abbott.......has revealed he will not release detailed costings of his policy promises until the last few hours before the poll.

Coalition Policies and the Environment

In the election campaign both major parties are short-changing the environment but by far the weakest response to environmental issues comes from the Coalition.

The Coalition parties' attitude is encapsulated in a comment made by Nationals leader Warren Truss in an election broadcast – "You don't improve the environment by trashing the economy." Truss and many other politicians miss the point entirely when they speak of the economy and the environment as being separate entities with the economy the central matter. They do not understand that the economy and the human community are subsets of the natural environment.  A healthy economy is dependent ultimately on a healthy environment.

Politicians such as Warren Truss may learn this in the future as the effects of climate change start to impact severely on our way of life – and on the economy.

Truss' comment referred to the carbon tax which he and his Coalition allies have promised to abolish.

While the Coalition officially acknowledges that climate change is a problem, there is still the taint of climate scepticism about some Coalition politicians including the Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.  His climate change is "absolute crap" statement was made some time ago but more recently we have had his disparaging comment about the "invisible substance".

Two major components of the Coalition's Direct Action policy on climate change are planting trees and paying farmers for storing carbon in their soils.  Another more significant one is paying polluters to reduce their emissions rather than making them pay for polluting.  Just how effective an incentive this will be in encouraging polluters to move to a low carbon economy is very doubtful.

There are serious questions about the effectiveness of this policy in meeting the target reductions to which the Coalition committed.  There are also questions about the cost of the scheme.  A recent report commissioned by the independent Climate Commission highlights the problems with the Coalition scheme.

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TCI_CoalitionClimatePolicyandtheNationalClimateInterest_15August2013.pdf

For another view of the recent ALP-Coalition "debate" on Direct Action's likely effectiveness see Politifact   http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/20/mark-butler/how-much-direct-action-cost/

Another Coalition policy which has serious implications for the natural environment is the pledge to reduce what developers call "green tape" and to leave much environmental governance to the states.  The idea behind this is to make it easier for business and prevent duplication – naturally something business and industry applauds.  However, removing federal oversight is not in the interests of the natural environment or the broader community.  Consider, for example, what has happened to environmental regulation / environmental protection in NSW under the current state government where, for example,  marine reserve protection has been downgraded, national parks are to be opened up to recreational hunters and land-clearing regulations have been eased.  Giving the states either too much power or sole power on environmental protection is almost certain to be disastrous for the natural environment. 

The Coalition has committed $20 billion to road infrastructure but is ignoring investment in rail which is a much less carbon intensive method of transport.  According to the Australasian Railway Association (quoted in Smoke and mirrors, with no policy on smoke   http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/smoke-and-mirrors-with-no-policy-on-smoke-20130825-2sjoc.html) 14% - 76 million tonnes per year - of Australia's greenhouse emissions are generated by transport.  90 % of these emissions are attributable to road transport and only 2% to rail.  Investment in rail in this carbon-constrained world is sensible policy.  Why is this not obvious to Mr Abbott and his team?

Other policies/announcements which are cause for concern include:

* The scrapping of the Biodiversity Fund (originally $1 billion but which now stands at $600 million) and replacement with a $300 million "Green Army".
* Slashing of the $10 billion renewable energy fund and replacement with a $1 billion solar roofs program. Plans to review and possibly weaken the current renewable energy target.
* A proposal to build up to 100 dams throughout the country.

Simplistic sloganeering has been the hallmark of the Coalition in Opposition.  If they win government, they won't be able to rely on slogans.  Environmental challenges such as biodiversity loss, and particularly preparing Australia for the climate challenge ahead, will test the new government.  The Coalition's policies show that it is ill-prepared to meet that challenge.

Hildegard

Northern Rivers

30 August 2013

* Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at gmail dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

Tony Abbott just can't help himself

Australian Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott's love affair with his own Action Man image often sees him flashing the voters.

This screenshot featured on Twitter courtesy of @mrgrumpystephen .

Yet another Liberal candidate who has no idea about his own party's policy

ABC NEWS 20 August 2013:

A Liberal candidate in the northern Adelaide seat of Wakefield has admitted he does not know anything about the Coalition's climate change policy.

In a debate between Liberal candidate Tom Zorich and Labor member Nick Champion, mediator Peter van Onselen asked Mr Zorich to explain how the Coalition's Direct Action plan would work.

Mr Zorich told the audience he was not across the issue and did not have an answer.

"I will say to you as the candidate, as a candidate, as a candidate and a businessman I'm not across everything. My opponent has already acknowledged that. I'm sorry Pete, I haven't got much to tell you about that," he said.

Mr Zorich's response was met with jeers from the crowd.

He was then asked to explain why the Coalition had changed its policy from an Emissions Trading Scheme to Direct Action, and repeated he "did not have an answer for you here."

Mr Zorich was challenged about whether he should have understood his party's policy.

"I'm in a different sphere to where Nick Champion is and I will say to you now [I'm not] across all the issues Peter, and I will leave it at that," he said….

Federal Election 2013: and on a lighter note

On 19 August 2013 this video was released by Super Best Friends.......

http://youtu.be/5H7BTKTOwLE

Doggone right to have fun

Letter to the editor in The Daily Examiner 14 August 2013:

Doggone right to fun

JOHN Fraser in his letter to the editor appears to be totally intolerant of all dog behaviour and perhaps wants all dogs on lead, even in allocated lead-free areas.

Claiming a dog ran up to him and instantly started to bite him - perhaps the event is coloured by his apparent lack of understanding of dogs and their behaviour.

I do not wish to take away the fact that there are indeed some aggressive dogs out there and they should always be on a lead in a public place, but it is more rare than common that you will be attacked while walking along the beach.

Dogs will run and play and you will, as you will with children, get in the way of their play. It is not aggression and something that is innocent.

One can't complain that a dog is simply enjoying frolicking along the beach. I have seen people get dirty looks simply because a dog has trotted past them or trotted alongside them going along its merry way. With these types of people the dogs can do no right. It is often these people who get aggressive and the dog is scared off.

Dogs along the beach, for the majority of the time, get along with one another and greet people with a sniff or a wag of tail and sometimes an over enthusiastic jump, which generally has the owner apologising for and correcting the dog's behaviour.

I have rarely come across aggressive dogs in my many years of walking dogs along the beach and I have come across fewer lousy dog owners along the beach. I have not had any uncontrolled dog run up to me and 'attack' me as John has described of his 'many times uncontrolled dogs have run at me or my partner'. This just isn't normal. No one has that much bad luck so many times walking along the beach!

I believe John Fraser's letter comes from more overreaction and lack of understanding than it does of any real problem. I believe this as I see the reaction from the very few people who walk along the beach without animals and who do not like the idea it is also a leash-free area. They overreact to the slightest thing a dog does, from its walking past them, greeting them with a touch of a wet nose on their hand or as it bounds along well past them. There are many more non-leash-free areas you can visit without any terror of being brushed past by a dog.

He emotionally claims "something must be done to stop this.." claiming an elderly person unable to walk well would be hurt by such pooches. These elderly often have dogs with them (and don't think it is always the little fluffies they have) or if they are so poorly balanced they are not inclined to visit the beach.

By claiming something must be done the usual mentality comes into play by the 'few buggering it up for the majority'. Yes, the whingers who whinge over everything animal, those squeaky wheels and those troublemakers claiming 'something must be done' are the ones who bugger it up for the majority of sensible people who understand the behaviour, John.

Celeste Warren

Yamba