Why Abbott's sex life is my business

Cross-post with North Coast Voices' thanks and permission from No Place for Sheep:

6 March 2016

Why Abbott’s sex life is my business

Mr & Mrs Abbott

There’s only one circumstance in which I consider the sexual lives of politicians to be my business, and that’s when they legislate about what goes on in other citizens’ sexual lives.

Failed Prime Minister Tony Abbott operates from a platform that is largely based on his personal morality, drawn from Catholic dogma. This morality advocates traditional heterosexual monogamous marriage, and argues fiercely that this is the only circumstance in which children ought to be raised.

Abbott supports the current Marriage Act with the amendment added by John Howard specifically to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Same-sex marriage will, in Abbott’s view, destroy what he perceives as the “sanctity” of monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Abbott foisted the notion of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage on his party, a completely unnecessary, extremely expensive and likely barbaric exercise in which citizens vote on whether or not other citizens are permitted to legally commit themselves to each other in marriage.

As health minister in the Howard government, Abbott refused Australian women access to the non surgical abortion pill known as RU 486 because his personal morality is offended by abortion. RU 486 had been declared perfectly safe, and was widely used in many parts of the world. Abbott directly interfered in the sexual lives and futures of women who did not wish to have a child, by denying us access to this drug should we need to use it, thus restricting our options in the event of unplanned pregnancy.

Abbott has paraded his wife and his daughters as evidence of his personal morality: he is a traditional, heterosexual married male, and therefore we assume him to be upholding monogamy as a significant value in our society and in his personal life.

Tony Abbott has made it his business to comment on, criticise and exercise legislative control over the sexual practices and commitments of Australians. If he is not living up to the ideals he demands are enforced, if Abbott is himself desecrating the perceived sanctity of monogamous marriage by infidelity with a married woman, I have a right to know about that hypocrisy.

If Tony Abbott would care to lose his interest in controlling the sexual practices of adult citizens, I will be more than happy to lose my interest in his. Until then, everything Tony Abbott does that can be seen to affect the sanctity of the ideals he espouses and imposes is my business, and yours, and everyone else’s.

One woman dying a violent death every six days in Australian 2016

Destroy the Joint, 14 March 2016

Is Malcolm Turnbull the man you thought he was?

This is Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull’s voting record since 2006 according to theyvoteforyou.org.au. Does it match his rhetoric as prime minister?

Voted very strongly for

An emissions reduction fund

Compensating victims of overseas terrorism since the September 11 attack

Decreasing ABC and SBS funding

Encouraging Australian-based industry

Giving apprentices access to a $20,000 loan

Government administered paid parental leave

Increasing funding for road infrastructure

Increasing the price of subsidised medicine

Live animal export

More scrutiny of intelligence services & police

Recognising local government in the Constitution

Stem cell research

Temporary protection visas

The Intervention in the Northern Territory

Tighter means testing of family payments

Voted strongly for

Decreasing availability of welfare payments

Deregulating undergraduate university fees

Unconventional gas mining

Voted moderately for

Charging postgraduate research students fees

Increasing availability of abortion drugs

Increasing indexation of HECS-HELP debts

Increasing or removing the debt limit

Privatising government assets

Regional processing of asylum seekers

Voluntary student union fees

Voted a mixture of for and against

Increasing competition in bulk wheat export

Increasing the age pension

Voted moderately against

Implementing refugee and protection conventions

Increasing Aboriginal land rights

Increasing consumer protections

Increasing the diversity of media ownership

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

Voted strongly against

Increasing funding for university education

Increasing investment in renewable energy

Increasing marine conservation

Restricting donations to political parties

Voted very strongly against

A carbon price

A minerals resource rent tax

An NBN (using fibre to the premises)

Building Australia’s new submarine fleet in South Australia

Carbon farming

Decreasing the private health insurance rebate

Extending government benefits to same-sex couples

Increasing access under Freedom of Information law

Increasing accessibility of government data and documents

Increasing fishing restrictions

Increasing protection of Australia's fresh water

Increasing restrictions on gambling

Increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management

Increasing trade unions' powers in the workplace

Increasing transparency of big business by making information public

Letting environmental groups challenge the legality of certain government decisions

Re-approving/ re-registering agvet chemicals

Restricting foreign ownership

Same-sex marriage equality

Tobacco plain packaging

Am I being cynical in suspecting that the Liberal and Nationals parties are looking to the mining industry for political donations in this 2016 federal election year?

Am I being cynical in suspecting that the Liberal and Nationals parties are looking to the mining industry for political donations in 2016?

I cannot know the answer for certain as there is no real time reporting of political donations in Australia.

However, the timing of these moves by the Baird Government looks suspiciously like the Coalition has gone a-courting.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 March 2016:

Penalties of just $5000 could be issued to coal seam gas companies who explore or mine without permission instead of a potential $1.1 million fine under changes introduced by the Baird government.

As energy minister Anthony Roberts unveiled plans to clamp down on anti-coal seam gas protesters, the government has ushered in smaller alternative penalties to court prosecution for a range of offences.

For example, mining without authority - currently a $1.1 million fine plus $110,000 per day for a company if successfully prosecuted in court - can now be punished with a $5000 penalty notice.
Prospecting without authority - currently a $550,000 fine and $55,000 per day under a prosecution - may now be dealt with via a $5000 penalty notice.

Failure to provide information and records to an inspector - currently a $1.1 million fine  and $110,000 a day under a prosecution - is now punishable with a $5000 penalty notice……

On Monday, Mr Roberts unveiled proposed laws giving police additional powers "to deal with people who intend to 'lock-on' to equipment", and authority to move people on in all protest activities.

Sue Higginson, principal solicitor with Environmental Defenders Office NSW, said they are an over-reach and the current laws have been applied successfully for many years.

"The proposed increase to police powers appears to be unnecessary and in part a substantial intrusion on civil liberties," Ms Higginson said.

The timing of the new laws was "like waving a red rag to a bull," she said.

"The legality of the CSG activities of Santos in the Pilliga is currently being questioned in the NSW Courts, along with the actions of the Department of Industry," Ms Higginson said, noting the Land and Environment Court will begin hearings on a legal challenge against Santos on April 6……

Meanwhile in the NSW Upper House the Greens Jeremy Buckingham continues his battle of many years:

356. Mr Buckingham to move— That leave be given to bring in a bill for an Act to prohibit exploration for and mining of minerals and petroleum in the Liverpool Plains and certain land within the Hunter Valley; and for other purposes. (Mining Control (Protect Liverpool Plains and Hunter Critical Industry Clusters) Bill) (Notice given 27 August 2015)

425. Mr Buckingham to move— 1. That this House notes that: (a) there are currently no insurance providers available to farmers in New South Wales who provide a product to insure against potential Coal Seam Gas (CSG) contamination, (b) leading environmental insurance specialist Anthony Saunders has today told the Land Newspaper that the risk of contamination from CSG activities in New South Wales cannot be insured because “no insurance company wants to be responsible for a future claim that is quite likely”, and (c) he has also said that “if future financial loss of the landholder as a result of CSG mining 300 kilometres away is uninsurable, then the activities of the CSG company could be considered as reckless”. 2. That this House calls on the Government to explain how coal seam gas drilling can be legal in New South Wales when there is no insurance cover available for farmers to cover the process. (Notice given 17 September 2015—expires Notice Paper No. 45)

438. Mr Buckingham to move— 1. That this House notes that AGL has spent the past 18 months trying to prevent the release of a 2013 site visit report from the Environmental Protection Authority examining AGL’s Hunter coal seam gas fields.

2. That this House notes that this report reveals routine and systemic failures in AGL’s management of its coal seam gas (CSG) wells including:

(a) 212 tonnes of AGL’s CSG waste being transported to a non-licenced facility, Bettergrow,

(b) the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) expressing concern that AGL “is not ensuring that drilling waste at the site is being disposed in an environmentally friendly and proper manner”,

(c) a completely inadequate and unreliable groundwater monitoring program which included:

(i) inadequate information about how samples were collected,

(ii) no information on the special precautions necessary for taking samples for trace contaminant groundwater sampling,

(iii) not taking the necessary precautions to prevent contamination of samples during groundwater sampling,

(iv) limited data on quality control,

(v) using unreliable house methods to analysing samples, (vi) inadequate monitoring of dissolved metals,

(d) significant well integrity issues including at least five breaches of the Well Integrity Code of Practice and two breaches of AGL’s Environmental Management Plan for CSG activities despite the EPA noting that “if the cementing process is not undertaken properly, liquids from aquifers and gas may migrate and cause inter aquifer connectivity and pollution of groundwater.”, including:

(i) a core hole left without a casing for two months,

(ii) using the wrong cement in a well,

(iii) potential leaching of heavy metals in the fly ash to groundwater,

(iv) no placement of temporary plugs in a perforated well, even though this “provides a pathway for highly saline formation water from with the coal seams to migrate within the casing”,

(v) samples of cement slurry not being kept for the duration of the well as required,

(vi) no information available on the integrity of cement bonds, (vii) no laboratory tests of the cement slurry undertaken as required,

(viii) no cement bond log carried out for two wells “to ensure that the cement bond provided an effective barrier to prevent any interaction between aquifers” as required,

(e) no monitoring of potential gas leaks,

(f) drill pads not being maintained properly,

(g) no dust suppression controls in place,

(h) breaches of their Soil and Water Management plan including no monitoring of run off estimates or sediment controls for major storm events,

(i) spills or leaks of liquids onto drill pads, (j) inadequate storage and no secondary containment of drilling fluids and chemicals, which led the EPA to note their concern that “spills or leaks could potentially pollute groundwater”, and

(k) no high level overflow or low level alarm on the mud tank, contrary to international best practice. (Notice given 13 October 2015—expires Notice Paper No. 46)

509. Mr Buckingham to move— That leave be given to bring in a bill for an Act to prohibit the grant, renewal or modification of authorisations and titles that permit exploration for and mining of minerals and petroleum (including coal seam gas) in Central Coast water catchment areas. (Central Coast Water Catchments Protection Bill) (Notice given 28 October 2015)

579. Mr Buckingham to move— 1. That this House notes that:

(a) Gloucester Council today passed a motion 6-1, put by the Mayor, Councillor Rosenbaum, which read as follows: “That Council write to the Premier and Minister Roberts requesting negotiations be commenced with AGL to buy back the Licence for the following reasons.

* the social fabric of the Gloucester community is suffering

* mental health issues and trust.”, and

(b) the background to the motion by Councillor Rosenbaum notes that: “Ethically, I am asking the Government for understanding of my great concern for our community after the death by suicide of farmer George Bender, in Chinchilla, Queensland. Morally, our Council cannot sit back and ignore the fact of the effects this is having on our people. One life lost is too many - this could happen here, this is real not a perception. The wellbeing of our people is suffering and the mental health and other issues too many to mention; the length of time has been too long.”

2. That this House calls on the Premier and the Minister for Resources and Energy to respect the wishes of the Gloucester Council and community and immediately commence negotiations to buy back AGL’s Coal Seam Gas licence. (Notice given 18 November 2015—expires Notice Paper No. 59)

603. Mr Buckingham to move— 1. That this House notes that on 4 February 2016, AGL Energy announced that it will no longer be involved in coal seam gas in New South Wales or Queensland, handing back its licence for the Gloucester Gas Project, and flagging that production will cease at its Camden Gas Project in 2023, 12 years earlier than expected.

2. That this House congratulates:

(a) the people of Gloucester and Camden, for their passionate and well organised efforts to protect their land and water, and

(b) AGL, for their decision to pull out of coal seam gas and to set up a $2 million legacy fund to assist the town of Gloucester to grow sustainably. (Notice given 23 February 2016—expires Notice Paper No. 61)

Australian Federal Election 2016: another one for the FFS! file

An article in the Brisbane Times on 8 March 2016 clearly indicates that climate change denying right-wing nutters still rule the Liberal Party of Australia and they want to spend the Turnbull Government to spend taxpayer dollars chasing their delusions:

The NSW Liberals have formally called on the Turnbull government to conduct public debates about climate change - including whether the science is settled - in a stark reminder of the deep divisions within the party over the issue.

A motion passed at the party's state council calls on the government to "arrange and hold public debates/discussions" between scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and "independent climate scientists".

The motion says the events should cover "the global warming/climate change debate"; "the claims by the IPCC"; and the statement "is all the science settled".

It proposes the first debate be held in Sydney, the second in Melbourne and "the others to take place one in each state".

Fairfax Media understands the motion passed with support of more than 70 per cent of delegates at the state council meeting held on the Central Coast last weekend.

A second motion called on the Turnbull government to hold an inquiry into Australia's engagement with the United Nations on climate change and report back to the party by mid-year.

But an amendment by NSW MLC Catherine Cusack, supported by left faction powerbroker Michael Photios, ensured the motion was sent off to the party's platform committee for consideration at a later stage.

The motions - which were debated after Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had left the room following his speech - reveal the level of climate change scepticism among the Liberal base in NSW.……

Who will the country be supporting in 2016 - Bill Shorten or Tony Abbott?

This is Leader of the Opposition and Labor MP for Maribyrnong, Bill Shorten.....

And this is the Janus-faced Australian Prime Minister and MP for Wentworth, Malcolm Anthony Abbott Turnbull.......

Video courtesy of Clarrie Rivers

Australian federal election date must be getting closer - Border Protection has been trotted out to spin indefinite, arbitrary offshore detention of asylum seekers

Given the level of public and parliamentary debate, it would be hard to be completely oblivious to human rights issues surrounding Australia's asylum seeker policies, however Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Michael Pezzullo appears to have managed an Olympic-level feat of amnesia, denial and spin.

Dept. of Immigration and Border Protection, news release, 8 March 2016:

Immigration detention and children: separating fact from fiction

A message from Michael Pezzullo - Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection

08-03-2016

Consistent with the law of the land, and under direction of the government of the day, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection operates a policy of keeping children in detention only as a last resort, and releasing those children that might be in detention as soon as reasonably practicable.

This is a very contentious area of public policy and administration. Sometimes emotions rise and facts gets distorted. For the reputation of my Department and its officers, it is crucial that I set the record straight: the Department and its uniformed operational arm, the Australian Border Force, does not operate beyond the law, nor is it an immoral ‘rogue agency’.

Recent comparisons of immigration detention centres to ‘gulags’; suggestions that detention involves a “public numbing and indifference” similar to that allegedly experienced in Nazi Germany; and persistent suggestions that detention facilities are places of ‘torture’ are highly offensive, unwarranted and plainly wrong – and yet they continue to be made in some quarters.

In the same vein, any contention that prolonged immigration detention represents "reckless indifference and calculated cruelty," in order to deter future boat arrivals, do not pass even the most basic fact check. The number of children in detention would not be falling if that were the case.

The resources devoted to providing medical and support services, and the commitment of doctors, service providers and departmental staff to the welfare of those individuals, undercuts emotive and inflammatory claims to the contrary.

The Department’s operations are underpinned by the law of the land. In this regard, the High Court of Australia has upheld the legal foundations for both ‘turn back’ and ‘take back’ maritime operations (in a case brought down in January 2015) as well as regional processing arrangements (in the case known as M68, brought down in January 2016).

While policy can be debated, there should be no place for falsehood, rumour and unfounded speculation. People smugglers are constantly poised to jump on any relevant mistruth in order to convince prospective asylum seekers to pay them to get to Australia.

That is also why official statements on this issue have to be precise and unambiguous as to the essential objective of government policy. The maritime path to Australia is closed; and people subject to regional processing will not be allowed to settle in Australia.

What is often overlooked in so called commentary on this issue (and even, regrettably, in some media reporting) are the facts. Significant progress has been made over the past year to move children and their families from detention into the community. As I write, there are now 58 children who arrived by boat in held detention, down from a peak of almost 2000 back in 2013.

Much recent commentary has centred on a group of asylum seekers temporarily in Australia for medical treatment. A large number of this group are family members accompanying those in need of treatment. Consistent with policy and law, they will be returned to Nauru or Papua New Guinea at the conclusion of their treatment. The policy of the Government is that these persons will not be allowed to settle in Australia. No child will be returned to a place of harm, and we will exercise appropriate discretion and compassion in making decisions on a case-by-case basis, without fanfare.

Those returning to Nauru will return to a full open centre arrangement for all transferees and settled refugees. All are free to come and go from the accommodation centre 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Within the Department we have taken significant steps to enhance oversight, advice and scrutiny being applied to the care of those in detention, including children. The Department’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr John Brayley, provides me and the Commissioner of the ABF with impartial professional medical advice on health matters.

We have also increased our engagement with independent oversight bodies including the Minister’s Council on Asylum Seekers and Detention, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Consistent with advice provided to me by the Department’s Chief Medical Officer, all transferees and refugees in Nauru and Papua New Guinea receive appropriate mental health care. The Department’s service provider’s support these Governments to provide health services, including mental health care, broadly commensurate with Australian community standards.

Recognition of an individual's mental health needs is particularly pertinent because many individuals in detention arrive with pre-existing mental health issues and may have experienced traumatic events in their country of origin or on their attempted journey to Australia.

For this reason the Department and its service providers support individuals with a range of specialist care options including mental health assessments and individualised care plans. The Department provides access to mental health nurses, counsellors, psychologists and psychiatrists to individuals transferred to Australia for medical care. 

The Nauru and Manus RPCs both have mental health care staff onsite, including mental health nurses, counsellors, torture and trauma counsellors, psychologists and a psychiatrist. There are also additional mental health care staff based at the Nauru Settlement clinic.

Since December 2014 significant improvements have also been made to infrastructure, education and health and welfare services in Nauru.

Around $37 million has been spent upgrading medical facilities in Nauru, which has a population of about 10,000 people. This includes, at the Republic of Nauru Hospital, a new surgical inpatient ward and medical building as well as the installation of a CT scanner which is also available to transferees, refugees and local Nauruans.

This is supplemented by improved neonatal and obstetric services and the establishment of visiting specialist consultation and surgical services to transferees.

The Australian government has also provided additional settlement accommodation in hard-walled buildings, expanded the Nauru Primary School, built a new Community Resource Centre and upgraded the island’s water supply. To support education, we have provided expatriate professional development and teacher support services (a total of 11 teachers) in Nauru schools and five school counsellors.

I must also address ongoing and consistent claims that those expressing opinions on immigration detention are “risking jail by speaking out”. While often repeated, this claim is also wrong and unsupported by any facts.

The secrecy and disclosure provisions in Part 6 of the Australian Border Force (ABF) Act are not unique. These types of provisions are similar to those which apply to partner agencies and a wide range of other Commonwealth agencies with responsibilities for the management of confidential or protected information. They do not prevent, for example, medical professionals from seeking the best clinical outcomes for their patients.

In the midst of this debate, the Department will continue to focus on the fair, dignified and humane treatment of people in our care. We make decisions compassionately, consistent with Australian law. We will continue to reduce the number of children in detention as soon as practicable, within the law, as we have done in recent years.

Ultimately, the Department shares the same goal as its critics – to have no children at all in immigration detention, consistent with the law of the land.

Now I have to confess that I did not immediately spot the errant "allegedly" in this section of the Border Farce news release - suggestions that detention involves a “public numbing and indifference” similar to that allegedly experienced in Nazi Germany,  but I did enjoy the fallout which resulted in this statement later that same day: 

Statement on Department's opinion piece

08-03-2016

In response to recent media reporting and claims on social media relating to an opinion piece published by the Department regarding children and conditions in immigration detention:

Any insinuation the Department denies the atrocities committed in Nazi Germany are both ridiculous and baseless.

This has been wilfully taken out of context and reflects deliberate attempts to distort this opinion editorial to create controversy.

The term ‘allegedly’ was used to counter claims of 'public numbing and indifference' towards state abuses in Nazi Germany and the link to immigration detention in Australia. We reject the comparison to immigration detention as offensive and question this being made as a blanket statement - an allegation hence 'allegedly' - to describe the attitude of the German population at large during that terrible time.

Brief Background

The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 September 2015:

Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has slammed as "extremely troubling" that the firm running offshore detention centres will likely have its contract renewed even though a Senate report revealed systemic abuse and human suffering under its watch.

Professor Triggs, a distinguished and respected lawyer, said the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's decision to name Transfield Services as its preferred tenderer to continue running the camps at Nauru and Manus Island, on a contract worth a speculated $2.7 billion, reflects the secrecy and lack of transparency pervading detention centres.

We are deeply concerned, it's extremely troubling," she told ABC radio, adding Transfield Services, who has been paid billion of dollars to run the camps, had been forced to dismiss scores of staff members for poor conduct.

She said the decision should be examined by "an objective independent reviewer".

"The idea that [Transfield Services] should be granted another five-year contract in these circumstances is something that clearly needs to be reconsidered in light of the findings of the select committee."

That committee, which delivered its report into Nauru on Monday, found conditions were "not adequate, appropriate or safe" for asylum seekers.

It concluded the Nauru centre is badly run and despite the Australian government spending billions of dollars on the camp, its knowledge of what goes on inside is inadequate......

Australian Psychiatry, February 2016 issue, Abstract: