LIBERAL LEADERSHIP SPILL"We cannot govern ourselves in an internal climate of fear and intimidation. And that is the unacceptable situation we have endured for the past five years."

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott's 'co-operative', 'consultative' and 'collegial'  party leadership style is finally exposed in three short sentences.

Teresa Gambaro, Federal Liberal MP for Brisbane, 8 February 2015

The question to be resolved at 9 am this morning is whether 101 members of the federal parliamentary Liberal Party will continue to support Tony Abbott or will they honour their oaths and place loyalty to their electorates, states and the nation first.

UPDATE

This morning, 9 February 2015, Liberal Party MPs and senators woke to the latest Newspoll published in The Australian: 

If a federal election had been held between 6-8 February 2015 with Tony Abbott as prime minister, the Coalition's primary vote would have been reduced to 35 per cent against Labor's 41 per cent.

On two-party-preferred preference flows the Coalition would have lost the election to Labor, 43 per cent to 57 per cent. 

Abbott's performance satisfaction rating was polled at just 24 per cent.

FURTHER UPDATES

# The leadership spill motion failed with the party room vote going 61 to 39 in Tony Abbott's favour, with one abstention.

# Suddenly Abbott discovers that the national economy is essentially strong…..

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s statement post-leadership spill motion on 9 February 2015:

The Liberal Party has dealt with the spill motion and now this matter is behind us. We are absolutely determined to work for you the people who elected us. We want to end the disunity and the uncertainty which destroyed two Labor governments and give you the good government that you deserve. We think that when you elect a government, when you elect a Prime Minister, you deserve to keep that government and that Prime Minister until you have a chance to change your mind.

So the focus now is once more on jobs, families, a stronger economy and a secure nation. We do face many challenges. At heart, we are a highly successful country, justifiably proud of what we’ve achieved. In essence, we are a strong economy with so much creativity and dynamism and the challenge for government is to work with you, not against you. I love this country. I will do my best to help our country to succeed.

Desmond John Euen produces a slide show of his $22.6 billion plan to destroy the Clarence River estuary along with the communities of Yamba, Iluka, Goodwin and Chatsworth

The Clarence River on the NSW North Coast is home to the small Port of Yamba.

The Clarence River supports two towns dependent on tourism (including recreational fishing) at its trained river mouth, Yamba and Iluka.

Both towns also have commercial fishing fleets that in combination comprise one of the largest fleets in NSW. The Lower Clarence region seafood industry generates an estimated $40-60 million annually.

This is Lloyds of London’s Australian ports information for the Port of Yamba at the mouth of the Clarence River on the NSW Far North Coast: 

Click on images to enlarge

This is Google Earth’s view of the restricted entrance to the Clarence River:

Excerpt from Port of Yamba Notice to Mariners, 12 January 2015:

These are the current upper range dimensions for vessels which can safely navigate the Clarence River lower estuary at high tide:

* 120m long

* 20m wide

* Draft having 10% Under Keel Clearance + 1.5m on approach and 10% Under Keel Clearance when underway.
Typical maximum draft appear to be 5m or under.

This is Desmond Euen’s fanciful proposal to blow up Dirrangun Reef (a significant Aboriginal mythological site under claim as part of the Lower Clarence River registered Native Title claim) and, dredge an 18m deep navigation channel from the river mouth up to Goodwin and Chatsworth islands, with twenty 18m deep berths at the proposed two terminals sites. Thereby permanently diminishing and perhaps irrevocably destroying the environmental, cultural and existing economic values of the Clarence River estuary system:

Full presentation slideshow here.

These are examples of the proposed Post Panamax container and bulk vessels, typically at least 366m long, 49m wide with a draught of 15.2m:

This is an example of the proposed Cape Size vessels, typically 280m long, 47m wide with a draft of 16m:

What such proposed large shipping will have to contend with if it actually could enter, berth and exit the Clarence River which is situated on an extensive flood plain:

9. Flood Conditions. Vessels that cannot be maintained at a safe berth will be required to clear the port before the onset of flood conditions. A flood may be associated with a weather system that produces sea conditions that close the port. Where this is possible early action will be taken to clear the port.

10. Impact. Floods can produce debris in the river making it unsuitable for safe navigation, propulsion and cooling systems use. Navigation aids can be displaced and river depths changed including the location of the navigation channels / best navigable water.

11. Tide heights will result in a positive residual tide and continuous ebb streams may occur regardless of tide heights and times. The port will work closely with the shipping industry to determine the likely impact and resume port operations and the earliest safe opportunity.

BACKGROUND

Des Euen, the ex-lorry driver from Queensland, has put forward a number of variations on his proposal for the Port of Yamba.

One he has taken to denying since 2013 is the plan to turn the port into a coal loading facility.

This is what Mr. Euen stated in an ABC News item on 27 May 2014:

"There has never been any plan by Australian Infrastructure Developments, or YPR Australia Pty Ltd to turn Yamba into a coal port.

"Not even in the equation.

"YPR Australia's intention is to turn Yamba Port into a container intermodal terminal, handling import-export cargoes that we daily need throughout Australia."

Yet this is what can still be found on his website to date at
http://www.ypraust.com.au/competitive-edge/ and http://www.ypraust.com.au/?s=competitive:

To make it perfectly clear here is the relevant passage again:

CSIRO map showing the Surat Basin which has existing and proposed new coal mines in the NSW section:

The path down which Tony Abbott so recklessly trod

The Daily Telegraph political cartoonist Warren Brown 

 Part One: Team Abbott

The Guardian 8 February 2015:

Team Abbott sailed to victory, extraordinary gusts of hubris filling their sails. If opposition had been conducted within the confines of a box, the prime ministership was to become a fortress. The victors disdained the cultural moment and thumbed their noses at the zeitgeist with a towering kind of arrogance.

The coterie around the prime minister brought their conflict addiction, their brittle tribalism and their self-reinforcing insularity into government. The prime minister’s chief of staff stood sentry at the door, and the prime minister wanted the security blanket of the old rituals, like an elite sportsman insisting on his lucky socks.

Abbott then insisted that the entire government cede its freedom just as quiescently as he had. The culture of freedom and managed dissent in the Liberal party was to be replaced with command and control from his office. The Abbott cabinet lacked the talent and firepower of the Howard cabinet, and Abbott lacked the finesse and accumulated wisdom of Howard – so perhaps this was a gesture of insurance more than an outburst of gratuitous authoritarianism. But talent within government ranks did exist. It was just banished to the bleachers if it was mouthy. It wasn’t just ministers. Friends and confidants had the door closed in their face if the feedback was unpalatable.

The backbiting began almost immediately. The take-no-prisoners culture imposed inside the government created the bizarre cult of Peta Credlin, which was both vexed reality and collective mythology. The “witch in the office” began to loom larger than ministers, and project as a proxy for the prime minister rather than a conduit. The prime minister was rendered a sock puppet, and consented to his diminution.

Politics has a high tolerance for bastardry as long as the strategy is working. But the edifice began crumbling very slowly right from the start. The whole enterprise felt strangely vacant and unconvincing.

There was no real clean break, no fresh start. How could there be? Abbott began his life as prime minister knee deep in the wreckage he’d imposed on the polity. All the things to resent about politics since 2010 were not past tense because one of the main protagonists was still on his feet. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard had faded, sensibly, into history.

Abbott has always been a contrary figure, a complex person, and his stock in trade, aggressive simplicity, could only resonate when it was delivered in broad brushstrokes. The devil was always going to be in the detail. The basic contradictions started early. The man who’d elevated trust and competence to moral imperatives in national politics quickly proved himself neither trustworthy nor particularly competent. Small-target politics in opposition was replaced by an agenda the voters didn’t expect, and then Abbott blamed onlookers for failing to read the tea leaves.

At budget time the new Coalition government unleashed an ambitious referendum. Would we tolerate a society that was less fair? This was not supposed to be a surprise because Joe Hockey once made a speech about ending the age of entitlement. The answer to the question was a resounding no. Again, very little made sense. Low and middle-income earners copped the pain disproportionately, only to see savings spent on thought bubble priorities rather than directed to repairing the deficit. How could a genuine budget emergency produce net savings of only $3bn over four years? It was bollocks, and the voters knew it.

The agenda in Abbottland whipped around in the prevailing wind. Abbott didn’t know if he was freedom Tony, or security Tony, or austerity Tony, or double the deficit Tony. The treasurer thought poor people didn’t drive cars and high-income earners paid half their income in tax. Apart from gaffes and thought bubbles and brain explosions, there was a basic and persistent level of identity confusion.

In government, Abbott had relished the daily combat but his officials complained he wasn’t enamoured by detailed policy work. Government can’t just be a culture war, a raised fist against modernity, it requires focus and direction. It requires an intellectual core. Rather than soothing persistent anxiety in the community, Abbott heaped on the surprises to the point where it was impossible to define the government’s character. What was Abbott’s core? Why does Tony Abbott want to be prime minister? It is entirely unclear. Does he even want to be prime minister? That is also, sometimes, unclear.

Looking through the self-interested anecdotes various protagonists are feeding to journalists in order to deepen this current crisis in order to force a resolution, understanding that in a leadership crisis everybody lies and everything is quicksand – the simple facts are Abbott’s leadership is on death watch because he has lost, comprehensively, in the court of public opinion.

Full article here.

*************************

Part Two: Fiscal Frolics

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT GENERAL GOVERNMENT SECTOR MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 2014

Crikey 3 February 2015:

The Coalition that promised in 2012 to reduce Australia's debt by $30 billion delivered in 2014 an increase of more than $60 billion. Clearly Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey have failed spectacularly to reduce Labor's "skyrocketing debt".

Outcomes for the full calendar year 2014 are now online at the Finance Department's website. Commonwealth monthly financial statements show year-to-date net debt and the projection for the full financial year. Hence it is simple to calculate the debt incurred — or repaid — each month.

Australia's net government debt — that is, money borrowed minus money loaned out — was $239.16 billion at the end of December. This was a hefty increase over the level a month earlier of $224.35 billion. In just one month, the debt rose almost $15 billion, or 6.6%. Compounded, that rate would double the debt in less than a year. Fortunately, the December rise was abnormal.

So what was the full-year increase through 2014?

At the end of 2013, the actual net debt was $177.74 billion. Hence the increase over the full year was $61.42 billion ($239.16 - $177.74). That's a rise of 34.6%.

That December 2013 actual figure is pretty close to the level that can reasonably be attributed to Labor. As Crikey explained last October, the best measure of Labor's debt is the projection for the end of the full year 2013-14 at the September 2013 election. At that time, projected debt at year end was $178.1 billion, although actual debt then was marginally lower. That year-end projection of $178.1 billion was affirmed in Finance's statements for October and November 2013. It did not shift until well after Joe Hockey had taken control of the levers.

So is it possible that debt has peaked and will soon tumble, as promised? No — Friday's figures also show a higher estimate for total debt at year end, still six months away. This is now projected to be $244.84 billion.

If $178.1 billion is the debt level attributable to Labor, then it can be argued that by the end of this financial year the Coalition will have blown out Labor's debt by $66.7 billion ($244.8 billion to $178.1 billion) or 37.5%. In one budget.

Full article here.

The Peril Of Intergenerational Theft

In his speech to the Press Club on 2nd February, Tony Abbott once again called up the spectre of intergenerational theft:

And reducing the deficit is the fair thing to do – because it ends the intergenerational theft against our children and grandchildren.

We’ve never been a country that’s ripped off future generations to pay for today.

And under my government, we never will.

http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2015/02/02/prime-minister-address-national-press-club

"Intergenerational theft" has been a catchcry of the Prime Minister and other ministers such as Joe Hockey and Eric Abetz.  It has invariably been used in defence of the Government's budget and its cost-cutting measures.  According to them we should suffer some pain now in order to leave the nation in a sound state for our children and grandchildren.

On one level this seems eminently commendable.  But it completely misses the point of another area of government policy where today's Government is severely ripping off future generations. Our children and grandchildren and their descendants are being ripped off because of the Government's tepid and ineffective policy on climate change.  There is no Government understanding of a need for urgent action and of the impact ineffective action now will have on the economy of the future and the health and lifestyle of our descendants as well as the health of the natural world.

And the truly amazing thing is that no-one in the Government seems to recognise the inconsistency of their position on inter-generational theft.  A cynical person could claim that at least some Government MPs do see this inconsistency – and just choose to ignore it. After all it would be decidedly awkward to concede that climate change is a really important and urgent issue and therefore know that not taking effective action will severely penalise future generations.  It's much easier to pay lip-service to the climate problem with a shonky "direct action" plan and to claim that the government will do more when other major emitters take more action.  Interestingly, the fact that many other major emitters are starting to take more action appears to have escaped the attention of the Abbott Government.

Obviously the Government's tepid climate policy suits those dinosaur Liberals and Nationals – and there appear to be quite a few of them - who are climate change deniers.

I suspect that the inconsistency about intergenerational equity/theft probably is seen by very few, if any, government MPs. After all, many of them still don't seem to understand that a great number of people oppose their budget because it is inherently unfair – that it places all of the pain on the less well-off in our society. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and many others just don't get it.  Many Coalition MPs still seem to believe that the policies can be delivered if they improve their communication strategy. In their self-centred view those benighted electors just don't understand.  In reality very large numbers of electors understand only too well.

The core of their problem is that they are out of touch with ordinary Australians.  They are purblind inhabitants of a series of ivory towers.

Until the Government starts to take effective action on climate change, it should stop using the argument of intergenerational theft to justify other aspects of policy.  That would eliminate one of the areas in which it renders itself ridiculous.

Hildegard

Northern Rivers

*  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: from political rooster to feather duster in seventeen months?

Tony Abbott during his unsuccessful bid to rally backbenchers & voters behind him

National Press Council Address

2 February 2015 

The anglophile who only became an Australian citizen for personal financial advantage, the aggressive bully who thought his divine destiny was to rule the country, the intellectual lightweight who believes good policy is a quiverful of three-word slogans, the man whose sense of entitlement has him dipping his hand deep into the taxpayer's pocket, the right wing ideologue without a decent bone in his body, the sole author of his own misfortune  - has Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott  finally morphed into a political feather duster?

West Australian Liberal MP for Cowan, LukeSimpkin, signalling the party leadership spill scheduled for 10 February 2015:

@latikambourke, 6 February 2015

The Daily Telegraph, 6 February 2015:

An angry Mr Abbott yesterday called a press conference to stare down his backbench, before sending out cabinet ministers to back his leadership publicly.

Tony Abbott’s Press Statement, 6 February 2015:

As you know, two of my colleagues have called for a leadership spill of the two senior positions in our Party. They’ve called for a spill of my position as leader and they’ve called for a spill of Julie Bishop’s position as Deputy.
The first point to make is that they are perfectly entitled to call for this, but the next point to make is that they are asking the Party Room to vote out the people that the electorate voted in in September 2013.
I want to make this very simple point: we are not the Labor Party. We are not the Labor Party and we are not going to repeat the chaos and the instability of the Labor years.
So, I have spoken to Deputy Leader Julie Bishop and we will stand together in urging the Party Room to defeat this particular motion, and in so doing, and in defeating this motion to vote in favour of the stability and the team that the people voted for at the election.
We have a strong plan. It’s the strong plan that I enunciated at the Press Club this week and we are determined to get on with it – and we will.

Julie Bishop's position as deputy leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party will also fall vacant if the spill motion is successful.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 February 2015:

On Friday evening, after a spill motion to oust the Prime Minister was moved, Channel Nine's political editor Laurie Oakes reported the Prime Minister's office "was so concerned about the optics of them appearing together looking like a unity ticket", it asked Ms Bishop to cancel her attendance at the fundraiser with Mr Turnbull but she refused.

UPDATE

Abbott blinks?

Quotes of the Week

“it’s a classic example of what goes wrong when, in a fit of absent-mindedness, people elect Labor governments.”

[Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott during 2 February 2015 National Press Club question period on the reason voters reject his political party]

Abbott over-reached when telling his audience that removing a Prime Minister is the preserve of the public come election time.

Party room colleagues who take pride in their right to cast a vote for or against a leader won’t have liked hearing such an arrogant observation from Abbott, who they already believe takes them for granted.

The right of party MPs to choose their leader is what makes a Prime Minister a first among equals. John Howard always respected this. It is how MPs can ensure a leader listens.

While Abbott used his speech to (again) promise to consult and listen more, the obvious disdain Abbott showed for his colleagues right to remove him suggests that he won’t.

[Peter Van Onselen writing in The Australian, 2  February 2015]

The Prime Minister spent much of last week calling around his backbench trying to quell the anger of those frustrated by his leadership.

But MPs are still angry that Mr Abbott changed his personal mobile number late last year, leaving backbenchers unable to contact him directly with their concerns.

“We wanted to talk to him directly and none of us had his number. It’s just not a genuine consultative style.”

[Herald Sun, 3 February 2015]

Dr Jensen is from the WA electorate of Tangney. He was involved in calling the first of the Liberal spills in 2009 with Wilson Tuckey that ultimately saw Mr Abbott installed as the party’s leader.

Speaking on 7.30 tonight, Dr Jensen said he informed Mr Abbott on January 23 — three days before the disastrous Australia Day knighting of Prince Phillip — that he no longer supported the Prime Minister. [Federal Liberal MP Dennis Jensen, Herald Sun, 3 February 2015]

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott: 'out of touch', 'arrogant', 'narrow-minded' and 'erratic'

Five days before the September 2013 federal election which saw him become Australia’s 28^th prime minister, Anthony John ‘Tony’ Abbott’s chief personal attributes (according to Essential Research polling at the time) were ‘hard working’ and ‘intelligent’.

Seventeen months later, he is primarily seen as 'out of touch with ordinary people', 'arrogant', 'narrow-minded' and 'erratic'.

For over half those polled he remains ‘hardworking’, but is also viewed as ‘superficial’ and ‘intolerant’.

The percentage of poll respondents who consider Tony Abbott as ‘intelligent’ has dropped from 63 per cent prior to his becoming prime minister down to 50 per cent at the beginning of this week.

Tony Abbott, when compared with Bill Shorten, is considered by more respondents to be ‘erratic’, ‘out of touch with ordinary people’, ‘arrogant’, ‘narrow minded’, ‘intolerant’, ‘aggressive’ and ‘superficial’.

Bill Shorten, when compared with Tony Abbott, is regarded by more respondents to be someone who is ‘intelligent’, ‘hardworking, ‘understands the problems facing Australia’, and ‘a capable leader’.

'Someone else' still has more support than Tony Abbott as being the best leader of the Liberal Party - as does Malcolm Turnbull and Julie Bishop at 24 per cent and 21 per cent respectively.

This poll indicates that if an election had been held on Tuesday 2 February 2015 Labor would have taken back federal government by roughly the same percentage as the Coalition won it in 2013.

Essential Report* of 3 January 2015:

* This report summarises the results of a weekly omnibus conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Your Source. The survey was conducted online from the 30th January 2015 to 2nd February and is based on 1,019 respondents.