Tony Abbott MP: the man who lied about a carbon tax is preparing to lie to voters once again

The week former chief of staff to Tony Abbott, Peta Credlin, confirmed that he had deliberately lied when characterising the Gillard Government’s price on carbon as a "carbon tax", The Sydney Morning Herald reported this:

Tony Abbott has laid out a five-point plan for the Coalition to have a chance at the "winnable" next election, including cutting back immigration and scrapping the Human Rights Commission.

In a major speech in Sydney at the launch of a new book, Making Australia Right, on Thursday evening, Mr Abbott gave the clearest signal yet he believed the Turnbull government is failing to cut through with voters, and that the contest of ideas - and for the soul of the modern Liberal Party - between the current and former prime minister has a long way to run.

Mr Abbott noted nearly 40 per cent of Australians didn't vote for the Coalition or Labor in the 2016 election: "It's easy to see why".

In a sign a return to the leadership was on his radar, Mr Abbott set out ideas on how to take the fight to Labor and win back Coalition voters thinking of defecting to Pauline Hanson's One Nation.

"In short, why not say to the people of Australia: we'll cut the RET [renewable energy target] to help with your power bills; we'll cut immigration to make housing more affordable; we'll scrap the Human Rights Commission to stop official bullying; we'll stop all new spending to end ripping off our grandkids; and we'll reform the Senate to have government, not gridlock?"

He said the next election was winnable for the Coalition, however, "our challenge is to be worth voting for. It's to win back the people who are giving up on us". [my highlighting]

So let’s look at this jumble of potential three-word slogans being readied for the next Coalition federal election campaign.

RET –renewable energy target

In 2014 the Abbott Government ordered a review of RET. This review found that RET tends to lower wholesale electricity prices and that the RET would have almost no impact on consumer prices over the period 2015–2030.

Despite Abbott's downgrading of RET targets when he was prime minister, in 2017 the Turnbull Coalition Government (of which Abbott is a member) continues its support of these targets.

According to the Dept of Industry, Innovation and Science network costs are the biggest factor driving up the cost of electricity and  a large part of these higher costs has been the need to replace or upgrade ageing power infrastructure, as most electricity networks were built throughout the 1960s and 1970s.

Housing affordability

In December 2016 the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) recorded 11.3 million houses/units/flats purchased by investors for rent or resale by individuals and a further 1.3 million for rent or resale by others. [ABS 5609.0 Housing Finance]

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in June 2015 clearly indicated that purchase of housing stock by investors had increased to almost 23 per cent of all housing stock and, that increased investor activity and strong growth in housing prices were occurring along with an increase in negatively geared investment properties. [RBA, Submission to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics Inquiry into Home Ownership]

The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) put the matter bluntly in Fuel on the fire: negative gearing, capital gains tax & housing affordability - The tax system at both the federal and state level inflates housing costs, undermines affordability, and distorts the operation of housing markets. Tax settings are not the main reason for excessive growth in home prices, but they are an important part of the problem. They inflate demand for existing properties when the supply of new housing is insufficient to meet demand. Ironically, many public policies that are claimed to improve affordability - such as negative gearing arrangements, Capital Gains Tax breaks for investors, and first home owner grants for purchasers – make the problem worse.

Competition between investor-developers recently saw $1.3 million added to the sale price of an older house at a Sydney metropolitan auction.

Although population growth is a factor in competition for housing stock, nowhere in reputable studies or reports can I find mention of immigration levels significantly contributing to this competition.  Which is not surprising, given that natural population increase and increase through migration do not occur uniformly within Australian states & territories and natural increase will outstrip migration in some states and territories in a given year.

Human Rights Commission

On 26 December 1976 the Fraser Coalition Government announced its intention to establish a Human Rights Commission which would provide orderly and systematic procedures for the promotion of human rights and for ensuring that Australian laws were maintained in conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in order that citizens who felt they had been discriminated against under specific Commonwealth laws such as laws relating to discrimination on grounds of race or sex (but excluding laws in the employment area) would be able to have their complaints examined.

The Commission was created in 1981 by an act of the Australian Parliament and later rebirthed as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in 1986 by another act of the Australian Parliament.

Whilst ever no Commonwealth statute exists which sets out the core rights of Australian citizenship the federal parliament continues to fail to guarantee protection against its own legislative or regulatory excesses.

The Human Rights Commission is one of the few points at which ordinary citizens without considerable financial means can seek redress of a wrong or harm done to them.

No new spending

I simply refer readers to Tony Abbott’s economic record in the slightly less than two years he spent as Australian prime minister, when on his watch economic growth was slowing and living standards were falling.

Senate reform

This is Section 57 of the Australian Constitution which would have to be amended and is required to be taken to a national referendum before reform can occur:

Disagreement between the Houses

                   If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

                   If after such dissolution the House of Representatives again passes the proposed law, with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.

                   The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representatives, and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be taken to have been carried, and if the proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so carried is affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of the Parliament, and shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.

The last national referendum held in Australia was in 1999 and cost $66,820,894 according to the Australian Electoral Commission for a vote on two questions.

Like 34 of the 44 referendum questions before them these two questions did not carry. In fact the last referendum questions to be carried were in 1977.

Prospect of successful right-wing reform of the Senate? 

The American Resistance has many faces and this is just one of them (4)

United States Federal Election Commission (FEC):

Ellen L. Weintraub took office as a Member of the United States Federal Election Commission (FEC) on December 9, 2002.  After an initial recess appointment, her nomination was confirmed by unanimous consent of the United States Senate on March 18, 2003.  Commissioner Weintraub has twice served as Chair of the Commission, for calendar years 2003 and 2013.  

Prior to her appointment, Ms. Weintraub was Of Counsel to Perkins Coie LLP and a member of its Political Law Group. There, she counseled clients on federal and state campaign finance and election laws, political ethics, nonprofit law, recounts, and lobbying regulation. During the election contest arising out of the 1996 election of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ms. Weintraub served on the legal team that advised the Senate Rules Committee. Her tenure with Perkins Coie represented Ms. Weintraub’s second stint in private practice, having previously practiced as a litigator with the New York law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel.

Before joining Perkins Coie, Ms. Weintraub was Counsel to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the U.S. House of Representatives (the House Ethics Committee). Like the Commission, the Committee on Standards is a bipartisan body, evenly divided between Democratic and Republican members. Ms. Weintraub’s work focused on implementing the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and subsequent changes to the House Code of Official Conduct. She also served as editor in chief of the House Ethics Manual and as a principal contributor to the Senate Ethics Manual. While at the Committee, Ms. Weintraub counseled Members on investigations and often had lead responsibility for the Committee’s public education and compliance initiatives.

Ms. Weintraub received her B.A., cum laude, from Yale College and her J.D. from Harvard Law School. A native New Yorker, she is a member of the New York and District of Columbia bars and the Supreme Court bar.

Commissioner on the U.S. Federal Election Commission, Ellen L. Weintraub, Statement 21 February 2017 by clarencegirl on Scribd

The statement was in response to this document (filed by the right-wing Cause of Action Institute rumoured to be partly funded by the Koch Brothers) which stated in part:

CoA Institute requests that you open an investigation² to determine whether Ellen Weintraub, a Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”), violated applicable ethics regulations when she used government property and official time to call on President Trump to provide evidence of his claims of voter fraud in New Hampshire and then continued to promote her statement after it was issued. We also urge you to determine whether it is appropriate for the FEC website to continue to host Commissioner Weintraub’s statement.

DHS & Centrelink now threatening clients who expose unfair or inappropriate implementation of social security policy?

Screenshot via @BernardKeane

Political reporter with @abcnews:

Henry Belot Verified account ‏@Henry_Belot

This Department of Human Services has just issued a pretty clear warning to Centrelink clients who want to public criticise #notmydebt.

6:03 PM - 27 Feb 2017

ABC News, 27 February 2017:

Those who publicly criticise Centrelink's automated debt recovery program could have their personal information released to correct the record, the Department of Human Services (DHS) has warned.

Blogger Andie Fox wrote an opinion piece for Fairfax Media earlier this month claiming Centrelink "terrorised" her while chasing her for a debt she believed she did not owe.

On the weekend, Fairfax published an article from the Government's perspective, raising the prospect of Centrelink being "unfairly castigated".

In the article a spokesman for Centrelink commented on Ms Fox's personal information including her history of claiming the Family Tax Benefit and relationship circumstances.

A DHS spokesman said personal information could be released by the Government to correct public statements of complaints.

"Such disclosures are made for the purposes of the social security law or the family assistance law, they do not need to be formally authorised by the secretary," the spokesman said.

"Unfounded allegations unnecessarily undermine confidence and takes staff effort away from dealing with other claims.

"We will continue to correct the record on such occasions."

Labor's Linda Burney accused DHS of "deeply unethical actions" and the Government of seeking "revenge".

"The disclosure has occurred deliberately to smear a private individual who has spoken out about the error prone robo-debt program and the deeply flawed Centrelink debt recovery process," she said.

"Correcting the record is one thing, attempting to smear and discredit opponents is entirely different and far more troubling."

Ms. Fox's response can be found at https://bluemilk.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/is-this-what-happens-when-you-criticise-government/.

However, neither Centrelink nor the Turnbull Government can stop criticism being aired during - the rather wordily titled - Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs’ Inquiry into Design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative and mainstream media reporting.

The Canberra Times, 28 February 2017:

People pursued by Centrelink over its controversial "robo-debts" are being denied the protection of Australian consumer law, a Parliamentary inquiry has been told.

The welfare agency is exempt from laws and guidelines covering debt collection by private businesses, "even the much maligned banks", according to the chief executive of Victorian community organisation Family Care, David Tennant.

But Centrelink says that is, and the private sector debt collectors hired to pursue its clients, are compliant with legal requirements.

Mr Tennant, who has a background in consumer law, says much of Centrelink's activities in pursuing its millions of dollars in "robo-debt" would be illegal if done by a non-government player.

The legal immunity enjoyed by Centrelink allows it to "pressure people for payment in ways that are objectively unfair," Mr Tennant says in his submission to the Parliamentary inquiry into the robo-debt crisis……

In his submission to the inquiry, Mr Tennant, a former chairman of the national peak body for financial counsellors, say he is surprised by the "lack of commentary about how Centrelink's conduct stacks up against the normal rules applying to the collection of debts in Australia".

"There are significant problems associated with a government department pursing a course of action that would likely be illegal if adopted by a body other than government," Mr Tennant wrote.

"It potentially erodes the confidence of those who rely on the benefit system to treat them fairly, or to recognise them as having the same rights as all citizens.

Although I suspect that one of the reasons behind Centrelink supplying personal and perhaps sensitive client information to the media may be in order to produce a chilling effect on submissions made to this particular Senate inquiry.

This inquiry is accepting written submissions until 22 March 2016.

The inquiry reporting date is 10 May 2017.

Australia is an upside down society with skewed values

Australia is an upside down society with skewed values if something like this can occur……

ABC News, 20 February 2017:

The coal industry's multi-million-dollar advertising and lobbying campaign in the run-up to the last federal election was bankrolled by money deducted from state mining royalty payments and meant to fund research into "clean coal".

The mining industry spent $2.5 million pushing the case for lower-emissions, coal-fired power plants in the run-up to last year's election — a cause the Federal Government has since taken up with gusto.

The source of the funds was a voluntary levy on coal companies, originally intended to fund research into "clean coal" technologies, which coal producers could deduct from state mining royalties.

Instead, some of the money raised paid for phone polling, literature and TV ads that declared "coal — it's an amazing thing".

The funds were channelled through the Australian Coal Association Low Emissions Technology Limited (ACALET), formerly owned by the Australian Coal Association and now part of the Minerals Council for Australia.

Queensland Government documents list "the COAL21 levy payable to Australian Coal Association Low Emissions Technologies Ltd (ACALET)" as an eligible deduction against royalty payments in the state…..

Coal21 was launched more than a decade ago, with the aim of creating a $1 billion fund for research into "clean coal" technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS), but only a fraction of the money was raised or spent.

With a lack of research projects to finance, the levy was suspended in 2012. In 2013, the coal lobby changed the mandate of Coal21 to downplay research and allow its funds to be used for "coal promotion"…….

In the wake of the coal industry campaign, the Federal Government has embraced the push for lower-emissions, coal-fired power stations and is intending to use considerable public money to fund the technology.

It wants the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), established to fund zero or very low carbon emissions technology, to be able to fund coal projects.

That will require changing the CEFC's current mandate which prohibits funding technology that reduces emissions by less than 50 per cent and excludes funding of coal carbon capture and storage.

The office of the Federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg has been contacted for comment.

U.S. President Donald Trump's lies are so easy to expose

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828939235499638784

Letterman: Have you had any dealings with the Russians?

Trump: I've done a lot of business with the Russians. I know the Russians very well pic.twitter.com/u3FyvcXeoq

— Lauren Werner (@LaurenWern) February 17, 2017

 https://twitter.com/LaurenWern/status/832672268077584384/video/1

We deposed Trump and Felix Sater about their relationship. Sater noted that he shepherded the Trump kids in Moscow https://t.co/FKK4TdbDtD pic.twitter.com/H1KEQA9Rme

— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) February 21, 2017

Australia-U.S. relations in 2017: "If the dead could shout, they would be shouting at us now."

A timely history lesson………………..

The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 February 2017:

We have no excuse for overlooking the meaning of this anniversary. And its timing compels us to consider its lessons.

In last week marking the 75th anniversary of the fall of Singapore, Malcolm Turnbull called it "shattering". Bill Shorten called it "unthinkable". It was the bitterest strategic betrayal in Australia's history since white conquest.

The fall of Singapore was, according to Winston Churchill, "the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history". Britain has never recovered from the blow to its prestige. For Australia it was about much more than prestige. It was about national survival. The fall of the supposedly impregnable British fortress in Singapore opened Australia to Japanese invasion. With Singapore taken, Japan's bombers opened their first attacks on Darwin just four days later.

Yet even as Parliament paused last week to reflect sombrely on that shocking event, officialdom showed troubling signs of utterly missing the point. Neither Turnbull nor Shorten drew any big conclusions about the fall of Singapore in their speeches. They paid tribute, rightly, to the troops and the civilians who were the immediate victims of Britain's incompetence when they were killed or captured by the Japanese…..

Betrayed by one great and powerful friend, Australia threw itself into the arms of another. Curtin's expression of independence was to take Australia from one dependency to another. Of course, it was the right thing to do in the face of imminent invasion.

But the lesson of the fall of Singapore must surely be that Australia can not trust its survival wholly to a foreign power. Even a close ally. Yesterday Britain, today America……

Yet, as historically tectonic as China's return may be, it is not the biggest source of uncertainty for regional security. Nor is it Russia's aggression. As a Russia expert from America's Georgetown University, Angela Stent, remarked at the Munich Security Conference on the weekend: "You come here and you realise that the biggest source of instability in the world right now is not Russia. It's the US."

There is no prize for guessing what, or whom, she could possibly be talking about. Some American patriots are trying hard to reassure US allies that the America remains reliable despite its President……

Did Payne or her US counterpart mention the biggest source of instability in the world, the man who overshadows every conversation, Donald Trump, I asked?

"Given the strength of the defence relationship," Payne told me, "there was no need to venture further afield in that regard."

In other words, the Australian and American defence ministers and their governments are trying to conduct relations pretending Donald Trump doesn't exist. "Oh, who is the mad king shouting from the top of the castle?" we ask. "What mad king?" the officials reply, straight-faced, trying to be heard over the ruckus.

Which sane country would wager its national security on the sanity of the mad king? Would you catch him in a moment of lucidity, or would he be preoccupied with a non-existent terrorist attack on Sweden, perhaps?

When the commander of the British fortress on Singapore, General Arthur Percival, was asked why he refused to erect essential defences against the Japanese, he told his subordinates that it would be "bad for the morale of troops and civilians".

Allan Gyngell, former head of the top intelligence body, the Office of National Assessments, writes in the Financial Review: "The natural tendency of Australian foreign policy advisers faced with change is to suggest going along for the ride [with America] and seeing where things end up ... It is sometimes excellent advice. But not this time."

We have no excuse for overlooking the meaning of the fall of Singapore. If the dead could shout, they would be shouting at us now.

Redfern Statement revisited in 2017

Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC) - National Voice for our Children, YouTube, 13 February 2017:

Media Release, 14 February 2017:

Australia’s leading Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peaks will today demand a new relationship with government as they deliver the historic Redfern Statement direct to the Prime Minister at Parliament House.

In the lead up to today’s 9th Closing the Gap Report to Parliament, the leaders will call on the Prime Minister to support the historic Redfern Statement, a road map to better address the appalling disadvantage gap between Australia’s First Peoples and non-Indigenous Australians by working with them as genuine partners.

National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples’s co-chair Mr Rod Little comments:

“After 25 years, eight Federal election cycles, seven Prime Ministers, eight Ministers for Indigenous Affairs, 400 recommendations, and countless policies, policy changes, reports, funding promises and funding cuts it’s time to draw a line in the sand.

“We need a new relationship that respects and harnesses our expertise, and guarantees us a seat at the table as equal partners when governments are making decisions about our lives.”

– Rod Little, National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples co-chair

The Redfern Statement was released during last year’s Federal Election campaign on 9 June by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders from health, justice, children and families, disability, and family violence prevention services.

The statement calls for changes across these sectors through structured engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and is supported by more than 30 major mainstream organisations including the Australian Medical Association and Law Council.

National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples’s co-chair Dr Jackie Huggins said Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations have worked with our people on the ground for decades and have shown they have solutions.

“Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations deliver 2.5 million episodes of care a year in their local communities – and are the only health and leadership models making inroads on Close the Gap targets.

“Our teachers, education professionals and family violence experts are delivering real results on the ground in their communities every single day – despite chronic underfunding and an ad hoc policy approach based on three-year election cycles.

“Today we are seeking a new relationship, a genuine partnership and a commitment to ongoing structured engagement.”

– Dr Jackie Huggins, National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples co-chair

Read the full Redfern Statement.

Redfern Statement

See also: Closing the Gap: Prime Minister’s Report 2017