Nationals MP Kevin Hogan caught trying to rebrand funding

Federal Nationals MP for Page, Kevin Hogan, appears to think the voters in his electorate are all idiots and that this clumsy attempt to rebrand funding, by inserting himself into story, would go unnoticed.

This is Hogan in The Northern Star on 14 December 2013 along with Diesel the wombat and friends:

Three new rainproof features worth $500,000 were unveiled at the popular local attraction yesterday by owner Tony Gilding and Federal MP for Page Kevin Hogan....

"We have no problem getting tourists here," Mr Hogan said.

"But we know from every study we do the longer we keep them here, the more money they spend."

These are the same new features being announced in the Echo NetDaily eight months earlier by then Federal Labor Government MPs Janelle Saffin and Justine Elliot who were photographed with the very same wombat:

Tony Gilding of the castle yesterday announced a major expansion and refurbishment program. The program is in part funded by two grants from the federal government’s tourism industry assistance schemes. The total project budget is excess of $500,000 and the funding assistance from the federal government is $227,475. The balance will be funded by the Macadamia Castle.....

Federal MPs Justine Elliot and Janelle Saffin attended the launch of the Macadamia Castle expansion program. Ms Elliot said the Macadamia Castle is one of the north coast’s most iconic and exciting tourist destinations. In operation for more than 30 years, its animal park has provided exciting adventures for generations of kids. ‘I’m proud as the local MP to have delivered this important federal funding for an outstanding local business,’ she said. ‘This federal funding will help Macadamia Castle expand to provide more jobs and enhance their tourist attractions. I congratulate Macadamia Castle for their outstanding role as a major tourist destination on the north coast.’

Ms Saffin said she was pleased to support the application for federal funding as Macadamia Castle provides valuable employment and training opportunities to over 50 local people. ‘Many of his wonderful staff are my constituents, as are many of the local families that take advantage of the attractions wonderful facilities.’

Side by side with Hogan’s photo opportunity with the wombat, The Northern Star ran this short article on 14 December 2013:

THE Federal Government has scrapped the Tourism Industry Regional Development Fund Grants Program.

The Northern Rivers received $500,000 for two tourism-related infrastructure projects from the program.

It is understood the money will be redirected to larger tourism infrastructure projects instead of the government picking individual businesses to benefit.

"In line with the government's policy priorities for tourism, funds allocated to the TIRF grants program will be re-focused to support demand-driven infrastructure for the tourism industry," the Department of Industry website stated.

Apparently Diesel will not be having his photograph taken with Mr. Hogan again for quite a long while.

More bad press for Metgasco Limited

Just when coal seam gas exploration and wannabe production company Metgasco Limited thought that the Heilpern judgment might be fading from memory, comes this....

Ballina Shire Advocate 10 December 2013:

GREENS MLC David Shoebridge has obtained documents showing Metgasco CEO Peter Henderson was writing to Police Minister Michael Gallacher and Attorney General Greg Smith about anti-CSG protests in Northern NSW earlier this year.

The documents came as a result of a GIPA (Government Information Public Access) request from Mr Shoebridge after magistrate David Heilpern questioned whether charges against two protesters were politically motivated.

Mr Heilpern said the case against Alan Roberts and Bradley Rankin was "an abuse of the processes of the court" and said the police resources spent on a minor traffic offence were over the top.

"It is in that context that the realistic suspicion of political interference arise," he said.

Mr Shoebridge said the documents, seen by The Northern Star, raise more questions than they answer.

"There clearly was significant pressure from Metgasco for police to prosecute protesters.

"The public has a right to know the full extent of the corporate pressure on police to prosecute the Glenugie protesters and my office is making further application to the police to be provided with all of the correspondence they had with Metgasco."

Metgasco CEO Peter Henderson confirmed he wrote to four NSW ministers, saying they had "a legitimate, government-approved right to explore" within their licence area.....

I note that during Glenugie protests former Deputy State Director and Director of Party Affairs at Liberal Party of Australia (NSW Division) Richard Shields was still Metgasco’s External Relations Manager. Shield’s came to Metgasco in 2011 immediately after leaving his position with the Liberal Party machine.

Australian democracy is dying by inches on the floor of the House of Representatives and the cause is the Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Bishop MP

Excerpt from Australian House of Representatives Hansard of 10 December 2013, in which The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has yet another ‘senior moment’, forgets parliamentary processes, gets snakey when she is reminded of the correct procedure and shows her intensely partisan nature:

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (21:16): I move:

That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson moving immediately:

That this House:

condemns the Government for failing to allow proper debate on legislation before the Parliament.

Mr BURKE: We are in the middle of a debate on important legislation about infrastructure—

The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the House.

Mr BURKE: and the cowardice of the Leader of the House—

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (21:17): I move:

That the Member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.

The House divided. [21:21] .....

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (21:25): Indeed, Madam Speaker. I second the motion and I have nothing more to say.

The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the House.

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, Madam Speaker, now that I have concluded my speech, you need to put the resolution to the House before you give someone else the call.

Mr Pyne: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr Albanese: Yes, well, you need to do that, Madam Speaker. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that.

Government members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The former Leader of the House, who is now apparently the Acting Manager of Opposition Business, has given the chair advice. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker—

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker—

The SPEAKER: Both the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House will resume their seats. If the Manager of Opposition Business is raising a point of order to resume his status, then it is acknowledged.

Mr Albanese: Let's be bipartisan! That is outrageous!

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, if you want to be an impartial chair, I ask that you withdraw.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (21:27): Madam Speaker, the government opposes the—

The SPEAKER: I recognise the Manager of Opposition Business and have already said that I acknowledge the Manager of Opposition Business. Now I call—

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Mr Burke: A point of order, Madam Speaker!

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. There will be no further points of order acknowledged.

Honourable members interjecting—

Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (21:28): Madam Speaker, I move:

That the Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

You have just ruled that no other points of order will be heard. That is a ruling, and I move that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr Burke: No, Madam Speaker! There has never been an occasion when a Speaker has refused to allow a resolution for dissent to be heard. Your role and everything that is contained within Practice falls apart if you will not hear the dissent motion.

Honourable members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I don't need to. I—

The SPEAKER: Both members will resume their seats. You are asked to resume your seat; you will do so.

Mr Burke: I have asked that your ruling be dissented from!

The SPEAKER: You will resume your seat. You have said that you are dissenting from my ruling. Whether or not you consider I have made a ruling, I do not consider I made a ruling. However, I will entertain your dissent motion if you wish to pursue it.

Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, critical to the role of Speaker in this House is the one principle that the Speaker will not engage in debate. The comments that you made with respect to me would have been reasonable interjections when you were in this House merely as the member for Mackellar—rules that were reasonable for any member to get up and try to make a half-funny, childish interjection. But you need to recognise, Madam Speaker, that you are meant to be impartial. You need to recognise, Madam Speaker, that the office you hold is

greater and more important than your own political rhetoric. You need to recognise, Madam Speaker, that we have not previously—

Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (21:30): It is time this farce were brought to an end, and I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.

The House divided. [21:34].....

Question agreed to.

The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (21:40): Yes, Madam Speaker. A high degree of impartiality in the execution of the duties of office is one of the hallmarks of good speakership. That is what House of Representatives Practice—

The SPEAKER: I call the Leader of the House.

Mr Pyne: I move:

That the member be no longer heard.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard. A division having been called and the bells being/having been rung—

Mr Albanese: I am wondering, Madam Speaker, whether there is any precedent for a shutting down of a dissent debate in the Speaker of the House of Representatives since 1901, ever?

The SPEAKER: I do not know whether that is a point of order.

Mr Albanese: Because there has not been in the last 17 years.

The SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. There is no point of order.

The House divided. [21:44] ....

The rest of this sorry saga can be read from Hansard 10 December 2013 p. 107

The Lies Abbott Tells - Part Six

THE AIRBRUSHING OF AUSTRALIAN POLITICAL HISTORY

I've asked the Leader of the Opposition to accompany me, in recognition of the fact that governments of both sides of Australian politics campaigned for an end to apartheid...

[Prime Minister Tony Abbott in YouTube video produced by his media team, 8 December 2013]

THE INCONVENIENT FACTS

1952-1957

In 1952, Australia [Menzies Coalition Goverment] defended Pretoria at the United Nations during massive internal defiance campaigns. The Australian Foreign Minister [R.G. Casey] conceded privately that in 1957 he had made `as good a plug as I could for South Africa'.

1960-61

Liberal Party MP and Coalition Prime Minister of Australia Robert ‘Bob’ Menzies:

* Refuses to condemn the Sharpesville Massacre. South African Prime Minister Verwoerd informed him that he was the "best friend South Africa has".

* When South Africa’s apartheid policies threatened to split the Commonwealth advocated ‘non-interference’ on the grounds that it was an internal matter. 

1964

Coalition Prime Minister of Australia Robert ‘Bob’ Menzies:

* Prime Minister’s XI played visiting South African cricket team

1970

Former Coalition Prime Minister of Australia Robert ‘Bob’ Menzies:

* Regarded the cancellation of the South African cricket tour of Britain as “a great injury to cricket – a giving way to the threats a noisy minority...”.

1971

Liberal Party MP and Coalition Prime Minister of Australia William ‘Billy’ McMahon:

* Called the six Australian Wallabies footballers, who refused to play the South African Springboks when they toured Australia, “a disgrace to their country”.

Federal Minister for Primary Industry and Country Party MP Ian Sinclair:

* Called South Africa “a market of growing importance”.

Queensland Country-Liberal Coalition Premier Joe Bjelke-Petersen:

* Declared a state of emergency in order that a Springbok tour football game could be played at Exhibition Ground behind a high barbed-wire fence.

Victorian Liberal-Country Coalition Premier Henry Bolte:

* called the anti-apartheid protests “rebellion against constituted authority”.

1975-1977

It wasn't until the a Coalition Government led by Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser came to power that the Liberal and National parties took an anti-apartheid policy stance by supporting the UN General Assembly resolution on apartheid in sport in 1976 and became party to the Gleneagles Agreement in 1977.

1979

President of the Sydney University Students Representative Council Tony Abbott:

* allegedly objected to student union funding “groups such as International Socialists, South African terrorists,....ultra militant feminism, homosexual proselytism and environmentalism gone to crazy lengths”. 

Across the kitchen table my mother smiles....

Something to ponder on.......

http://youtu.be/zQucWXWXp3k

How to eradicate pre-election sound bites

Glen Le Lievre via @mmechomski 

Liberal Party's Alex Hawke drinks the Murdoch Cool-Aid

News Ltd added more colour to the Abbott Government’s attempt to demonise GM Holden Ltd in this article in The Australian on 10 December 2013:

ONLY $150 million a year will save Holden? Rubbish. The Holden Enterprise Agreement is the document that has utterly sunk Holden's prospects. It defies belief that someone in the company isn't being held to account for it.

Holden's management masks a union culture beyond most people's comprehension. Employment costs spiralled way beyond community standards long ago. Neither "pay freezes" nor more money will save Holden, but getting the Fair Work Commission to dissolve the agreement and put all workers on the award wage might be a start....

It would appear that Liberal Party Member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke, drank some of that Murdoch cool-aid:

Leaving aside the rather dodgy stab at the actual amount GM Holden receives each year in subsidies, what would Mr. Hawke’s desire to trim wages mean to the weekly pay packets of ordinary workers?

The basic wage for non-trade employees at GM Holden’s Elizabeth plant ranges from $892.75 to $1,194.50 per each 38 hour week to be worked on the basis of 152 hours within a work cycle, according to the current Holden Enterprise Agreement 2011. While wages for cleaning maintenance workers range from $803.95 to $976.29 per week for 38 hours to be worked over the seven days of the week within the spread of twenty-four hours of the day, according to the current Resolve FM-Holden Enterprise Agreement covering its Elizabeth SA plant.

So it would appear that Mr. Hawke would like to see wages for these two groups of Holden workers reduced to between $267.98 and $398.16 per week. 

As the minimum award wage for workers engaged in manufacturing cars is from $484.40 to $822.50 per week, according to the Vehicle Industry Award 2000, he also seems to be advocating  a breach of industrial relations law.

Alex Hawke’s own base salary is $195,130 per annum or around $3,752 per week, having received a generous 2.4 per cent wage rise on 1 July 2013.

General Motors in Detroit was not amused by Abbott, Hockey and Truss

Apparently the three amigos pictured above had a plan to force General Motor’s hand – no increase in motor industry funding and get the bad news over before Christmas.

It worked.

So its Merry Christmas! to GM Holden workers at Elizabeth, Dandenong and Port Melbourne from an ungrateful Abbott Government they helped elect just 98 short days ago.

How it played out in the media........

The Australian 7 December 2013:

Holden sources said Mr Abbott's comments were an "extraordinary" attempt by the Coalition to "bully" GM into an announcement before Christmas.

The Sydney Morning Herald 10 December 2013:

Holden strategists suspect the Coalition wants the car maker to pull the pin as soon as possible to put as much distance between the announcement and the South Australian state election it is hoping to win...

Tony Abbott has already pre-empted his own Productivity Commission to some extent by declaring there will be no more money for Holden above that already on the table...

News.com.au 11 December 2013:

THE Prime Minister's flagship fleet of high-security Holden limos is expected to be replaced with bomb and gas proof BMWs after Government sources claimed Holden had failed to bid for a lucrative $4 million plus contract to replace the ageing convoy of armoured cars.

The Sydney Morning Herald 12 December 2013:

It was the text message that sounded the death knell for Holden as a manufacturer in Australia. 

''Are you seeing this question time attack on Holden?'' read the text message, sent by a company insider. ''Taunting [Holden] to leave. It's extraordinary.''

It was sent by one of the company's key strategists at 2.30pm on Tuesday, as Acting Prime Minister Warren Truss and Treasurer Joe Hockey were ripping the car maker to shreds during parliamentary question time...

While listening to the words of Mr Hockey and Mr Truss, the Holden boss was on the phone to Detroit, where it was after 10pm.

Mr Devereux informed GM headquarters of the events in Australia. The decision was swift. Detroit pulled the pin...

UPDATE

The Age 13 December 2013:

The top-of-the-line Holden Caprice was recommended by the Attorney-General's Department in 2012 as the preferred option for a fleet of nine specialised blast-proof VIP vehicles to be used by the Prime Minister and other dignitaries, according to confidential government documents.

The revelation appears to contradict reported Abbott government sources as saying Holden had not even submitted a bid in the tender because the car-maker simply ''was not interested''.

Holden viewed that claim, which appeared in a News Corp newspaper on Wednesday, just hours before the US-owned car maker announced its withdrawal, as part of a deliberate negative backgrounding campaign by Coalition ministers to make Holden look uncommitted to Australia.

The report also cited government sources revealing the multimillion-dollar contract to replace the ageing fleet of Caprices, was about to be filled with ''off-the-shelf BMW High Security 7-Series vehicles'', worth $525,000 each.

Part of a confidential ministerial brief from the Attorney-General's Department to then Attorney-General Nicola Roxon has been shown to Fairfax Media.

Dated 12-12-12, and headed ''Protected Vehicle Acquisition - an update on progress'', its summary advised Ms Roxon that after a lengthy evaluation process through 2012, a bid by BAE Systems in conjunction with Holden was successful - outpointing several European options.

It said the successful bidder had been chosen from a shortlist of four, which also included two German automotive manufacturers - Audi and Mercedes-Benz - and another Holden joint bid by a company called Integrated Design and Engineering Solutions. BMW, however, was not mentioned and it is understood from the documentation that the Bavaria-based auto giant had not even been shortlisted.
It remains unclear why the Holden-BAE recommendation was not acted on, but a government insider from the time said the then-prime minister Julia Gillard had been concerned about negative publicity if Labor was seen to be spending $7 million of taxpayers' money on limousines in the lead-up to the election. The internal departmental documents from December 2012 raise questions as to how BMW came to be considered given it was not shortlisted and was not the successful bidder....

Does Federal Nationals Member for Page Kevin Hogan start his political career with potential conflicts of interest?

The House of Representatives Register of Members Interests has been updated to reflect the composition of the 44th Australian Parliament.

Newly elected Nationals Member for Page, Kevin Hogan, has an investment portfolio which includes shares in two gold mining companies, Newcrest and Citigold.

His wife and/or young children have shares in these same companies, as well as in Lion Selection Group (specializing in direct investment in mining/exploration companies, including YTC Resources Ltd with interests in the Taronga Tin Project/EL 7348 in the Emmaville district of north-east NSW), Aurizon (a freight rail company specialising in QLD/NSW bulk coal & WA iron ore haulage), and Teltra (a telco currently re-negotiating with the federal government in relation to the sale of its copper wire infrastructure to the government-owned National Broadband Network) and a company whose name is indecipherable on the member’s submitted document.

I’m sure voters on the NSW North Coast will follow his parliamentary voting history with great interest.

Members Interests Statements can be found here.

Say hello to the Blick River Guardians

Protecting the high country of the Clarence River catchment....

Go to http://www.blicksriverguardians.org/ for more information.

Peta Credlin - loyal chief of staff, smart political operator, puppet master or control freak?

Peta Credlin as Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s chief of staff is gaining more media attention of late – most of it very critical of her in that role.

There has been some fight back, with the Prime Minister publicly coming to her defence with ''Decisions made by my chief of staff and my office have my full backing and authority. Anyone who suggests otherwise is wrong”  and at least one journalist opining that this criticism may be a form of sexism.

However, the media rarely gives any history of this prominent member of Team Abbott with which to judge these criticisms.

This is as much as I have been able to collate from available articles published in the mainstream media (sometimes sourced from Credlin herself) and, I will let readers judge whether the charge of sexism is legitimate.

Peta Credlin admits to being in her early forties, so was probably born sometime between 1969-1971. She appears to have originally hailed from Wycheproof, a small rural community on the edge of Victoria’s mallee country where members of the Credlin family had lived since at least the late 1800s.

She was a pupil at Wycheproof P-12 College and went on to Sacred Heart College, Kyneton, after the family moved to the St. Leonards area. On leaving school she completed an Arts/Law degree at Melbourne University. By 2009-2010 she had completed a graduate diploma in legal practice, commenced a Masters of Law and been admitted to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Credlin’s early employment history is unknown. However in 1999, aged around 28 years, she appears to have been employed by then Victorian Liberal Senator Kay Patterson. Later moving onto the staff of Federal Communications Minister Richard Alston, ending her term there as a senior adviser.

Sometime between 1998 and 2001 she was reportedly personal assistant to the head of the Department of Defence at a time when her soon-to-be husband was Defence Minister John Moore’s chief of staff.

In September 2001 she was known to be employed as director of public affairs, communications and publications at Racing Victoria, a position she resigned from in April 2005.

In December 2002 she married Brian Loughnane, who officially became federal director of the Liberal Party in February 2003.

By mid to late 2005 she was back in Canberra full-time; working first as a policy adviser to Defence Minister Robert Hill and, then as chief of staff to Communications Minister Helen Coonan in 2006.

After the defeat of the Howard Government in 2007 she appears to have accepted a position at the Australian Jockey Club in Sydney. It is uncertain as to whether she ever took up this position.

Credlin quickly moved on to become a senior adviser to the Opposition leader of the day, Brendan Nelson, in late 2007 or early 2008. When he gave way to Malcolm Turnbull in September 2008 she became acting chief of staff for the new Opposition leader, who declined to make her position permanent.

By the end of December 2009 or early January 2010 she was in her current position as Chief of Staff for Tony Abbott. Abbott became Leader of the Opposition on 1 December 2009 and Australian Prime Minister on 18 September 2013.

According to contemporary media reports during these years in Canberra, Peta Credlin has a well-established reputation for being dominant, out-spoken, aggressive, confrontational, obsessive,  a micro-manager, and a political game player who is capable of causing considerable friction within an office. She is often called the “Queen of No”. The prime minister’s wife, Margie Abbott, has been quoted as saying in 2011: "I'm scared of her".

Credlin is also reported to have actively participated in every federal election campaign since first coming to Canberra. Her husband was the Coalition's National Campaign Director for the 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2013 federal elections.

In February 2012 she risked permanent expulsion from the House of Representatives after heckling Prime Minister Gillard and Leader of the House Anthony Albanese from the political advisers box during question time (allegedly calling Albanese “an idiot”) and, in September 2013 she plead guilty to a drink-driving offence in the ACT with no conviction recorded by the magistrate.

* 2013 photograph found at Marie Claire

What Prime Minister Tony Abbott knows about the Low Income Superannuation Contribution and why he will still rob the Australian working poor

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Coalition colleagues (including National Party MPs Hogan in Page, Hartsuyker in Cowper, Gillespie in Lyne, and Joyce in New England) have sent a bill to the Senate which will allow the potentially abolition of the $500 Low Income Superannuation Contribution. This is being characterised as a budget savings measure.

Not surprisingly the Senate Inquiry into the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 indicates that the business community is in favour of the abolition, as can be seen by the evidence given by Dr Burn representing the Australian Industry Group:..... we support the repeal of the minerals resource rent tax, we support the removal of the special accelerated depreciation facilities for motor vehicle write-off by small business, we support the repeal of the geothermal exploration measures, we support the pause to the superannuation contributions guarantee levy, we support the repeal of the low-income super measures and we support the repeal of the income support bonus and schoolkids measures. We do not support the repeal of the loss carryback provisions and we do not support the proposal to reduce the small business asset write-off threshold.

The Senate Inquiry was also told the following.

Mr Lyons (Australian Council of Trade Unions - ACTU): ....In respect of the low-income super contribution, let me put it this way: this bill proposes to restore the position where large numbers of low-income Australians pay more tax on their superannuation than they pay on their take-home pay. That is an absurd proposition for money which is compulsory and preserved and in contrast to the enormous tax concessions given to high-income earners. This bill will raise superannuation taxes on 3.6 million low-paid workers, 2.1 million of whom are women. Just as an example, about 360,000 retail workers alone will see an increase in super taxes. It is unjustifiable and unfair, particularly in circumstances where the government has chosen to not proceed with a very modest saving in respect of super taxes on high-income earners....

We could just add one or two points. The important point here, I think, is that the repeal of the LISC would leave those earning less than $37,000 per year as the only Australian wage and salary earners who do not receive a concessional treatment of their superannuation contributions. Everybody else in the economy except these low income workers would receive some measure of tax break, and as Mr Davidson has pointed out, at the top end there are very significant concessions.

Mr Cowgill (ACTU): If I could just add something to that, I would draw your attention to some analysis by the Treasury of the distribution of superannuation tax concessions. The Treasury analysis shows that in 2009-10 the top decile of income earners received 38.2 per cent of all superannuation tax concessions, which is more than the share of the bottom 70 per cent of income earners combined. To quote the Treasury, they find that the top one per cent of income earners received the most combined support, and by 'a combined support' they mean both the age pension and the superannuation tax concessions. So high-income earners receive greater support for their retirement than low-income earners, even when you take the age pension into account, and we feel that is a grossly inequitable situation....

Dr Denniss (The Australia Institute): Can I just add very briefly to that? To put these percentages into context, if a high-income earner were to put $1,000 into super, they would save $300 in tax. If a low-income earner were to put $1,000 into super, they would pay $150 more in tax....

The system is obscene. It is obscene and it is bizarre for the parliament to tell itself that this $50 billion a year tax concession for superannuation is 'taking pressure off the age pension system', when the demographic group that will rely on the age pension is penalised for participating, and the people who already have too much superannuation to be even eligible for the age pension when they retire are subsidised. It is obscene....  

I agree entirely. Let us be clear. In 2016-17 the cost of tax concessions for super will be $50,000 million a year, $50 billion, according to Treasury. As the ACTU pointed out, the vast majority of that $50 billion annual expenditure will accrue to the top 10 per cent of income earners, who are probably not even eligible for the aged pension. So if you are worried about the budget, I would not be taking tax concessions off the low-income earners, who will rely on the aged pension.  

Ms Campo (Industry Super Australia):... Of the 3.6 million Australians who will be impacted by this proposed measure, 2 million are our members. We would respectfully ask that this committee take into account their interests. I have a few comments on some of the demographic impacts. As others identified and as we identified in our submission, about two-thirds of those affected are women. We think that the LISC has been the single most important policy setting in the super system which helps to address the inequity in savings gap whereby women are currently retiring with about 40 per cent less than men, which is significant given that their longevity is greater.....

Three of the 3.6 million affected are from second-income earners. The largest single identifiable group is part-time earners in family households. The abolition of the LISC affects around 1.67 million female part-time earners, who constitute around 80 per cent of all part-time female workers nationally—so a very significant impact on women working part time in a family setting....

Ms Wood (Women In Super): Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before the committee. I am the National Chair of Women in Super, which is a national advocacy and networking group for women employed in the superannuation and financial services industries. Women in Super is concerned to ensure that the retirement savings system is fair and equitable and offers the prospect of greater comfort in retirement for all Australians. This is not currently the case for women. Women currently have only half the superannuation savings of men. The average retirement payment for a woman is $112,000 compared to $198,000 for a man. On top of that, women live longer than men, so their reduced savings must stretch over a longer period in retirement. The super savings gap is the result of many factors, including unequal pay, which is currently at 17.5 per cent. It is caused by breaks from the workforce, periods of part-time work, overrepresentation in lower paid industries and barriers to employment beyond age 45. Women in Super support policies that assist low-income earners as women make up the majority of this sector of the workforce.

We see the increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent and the low-income superannuation contribution as crucial policies to deliver adequacy in retirement and to take the pressure off future taxpayers. These measures are doubly important for women who currently have such a marked superannuation savings gap. The LISC is not simply a mechanism to increase superannuation savings; it is fundamental to the equity of the taxation treatment of compulsory superannuation savings.

Repealing the LISC will impose a tax burden of up to $500 on the lowest paid on our community, and this will impact 50 per cent of the female workforce. Those earning under $37,000, if the LISC is repealed, will be the only Australians who will receive no tax benefit from compulsorily contributing to their superannuation. Those earning higher incomes will receive a tax break of up to 30c in the dollar. It is simply not equitable for our system to treat the low paid and the high paid so differently for making compulsory contributions to their super. The male and female workers who will be impacted by the repeal of the LISC span all age categories, with up to half of those who will be impacted and who will qualify for the LISC being over 41 years of age.

There is community support for the LISC, as Women in Super discovered. We have consulted, and we have received support from community groups, from business leaders and from public think tanks. However, I would say that there has not been a true public debate about repeal of the LISC. The issue has not been in the public arena, and I think reality will only hit for many low-income earners when they receive, on their superannuation statements, rebates relating to the most recent financial year and then understand that those rebates will not be there in the future if the LISC is repealed....   

Mr Davidson (Australian Council of Social Service):...With regard to the low-income super contribution: the contribution is a small step towards a fairer super system. The present system penalises those on the lowest incomes, the majority of whom are women, for saving and gives those on high incomes twice the subsidy paid to middle-income earners. So the tax system for super contributions is upside-down. Ideally, the Henry report reforms would be implemented whereby the flat 15 per cent tax on employer contributions is replaced by taxation at marginal rates offset by a rebate. Still, the contribution is a good start. It means the tax break for people earning less than $37,000 a year is increased from minus 15 per cent to zero. That is not fantastic, but it is a good start, and we think it should be retained....  

Rather unsurprisingly, in a Senate inquiry dominated by Coalition members, its report tabled on 2 December 2013 weakly recommended:

Recommendation 1

2.114         The committee recommends that the government revisit certain measures in the Bill, in particular incentives in superannuation for low income earners and taxation issues affecting small business, once the Budget returns to strong surplus.

Recommendation 2

2.115         The committee recommends that the government consider revisiting the question of incentives in superannuation for low income earners as part of its tax review.

Recommendation 3

2.116         The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.

There appears to be little hope that a Prime Minister who came from an affluent family, who has a more than comfortable lifestyle and, a generous superannuation pay out on retirement (in excess of  $371,000 per annum with additional retirement benefits), is going to revisit his proposed superannuation measures for low income earners.

Low-income workers and women in particular will rue the day that Tony Abbott took hold of the reins of government.

Workers earning over $37,000 annually will have to nervously live in hope that Abbott will honour his undertaking to only defer their scheduled superannuation increase by two years.

Hitler was a time traveller!

News.com.au commits an historic blooper on 6 December 2013:

This military hospital was built in 1989 to house tuberculosis patients, and Adolf Hitler recovered there after being injured in the 1916 Battle of the Somme. It was a busy hospital in the 1920s but after WWII the soviets took control of Beelitz-Heilstätten and used it to treat Soviet soldiers stationed in the area. Once they withdrew in 1994 it was left empty.

Where is Dr. Who when you need an infamous war criminal safely contained within the correct time stream? Obviously somewhere Rupert Murdoch could find him, because when I checked later that same day the paragraph had been emended by 91 years.

How do you know when the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association is not telling the truth? It posts on its web site

Excerpt from a Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) news and media web page dated 5 December 2013 :

Some commentators continue to grab the wrong end of the pineapple when assessing the impact of liquefied natural gas exports on greenhouse gas emissions.

Singling out LNG production with scant regard for Australia’s wider industrial processing and power generation sectors provides a remarkably narrow view of a big picture and one which ignores the role cleaner forms of energy, such as natural gas, play in helping reduce greenhouse emissions.....

The Dept. of Environment’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory March 2013 quarterly update states:

Annual emissions for the year to March 2013 are estimated to be 557.0 Mt CO₂-e. This represents zero growth in emissions when compared with the year to March 2012. For the year to March 2013, there was a decline in emissions from electricity (section 2.1), reflecting lower electricity demand and changes in the generation mix. This decline was largely offset by an increase in fugitive emissions (section 2.4), resulting from increased production activity in the coal mining and natural gas sub-sectors....

Fugitive emissions occur during the production, processing, transport, storage, transmission and distribution of fossil fuels such as black coal, crude oil and natural gas. Emissions from decommissioned underground coal mines are also included in this sector. In the year to March 2013, fugitive emissions accounted for 8% of Australia’s national inventory.

Fugitive emissions from fuel extraction have increased 3.8% in trend terms in the March quarter 2013.

Annual emissions in this sector have increased by 12.7% over the year to March 2013. This annual increase was driven by a 6.3% increase in raw black coal production and a 12.9% increase in production of natural gas...... [my red bolding]

Will the Abbott Government's headlong rush towards the TPP treaty result in Australia having permanent status as a minor client state?

There is a very important reason why Choice has positioned this advertisement in the national newspaper The Australian on 5 December 2013 - and that is this country's legal status as an democratic, autonomous sovereign state.

Choice has this petition online:

Dear Minister, 

We are concerned with the lack of transparency in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, and are calling on the federal government to release the text. 

We do not believe that the TPP should restrict the Australian Government’s ability to make decisions on public health, food labelling, energy and copyright. 

Consumers and the general public have the right to know what is on the table in the TPP. 
Please bring us to the table and release the text to the TPP before it is signed. 


Yours sincerely,

You can sign choices petition here.

The neo-conservative Abbott open for business Government's spin on the secretive TPP in 2013:

TPP Meetings 19-24 November 2013, Salt Lake City

Chief negotiators for the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement countries have reported significant progress after six days of intensive meetings in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Working with key subject-matter experts, the lead TPP negotiators resolved a substantial number of outstanding issues, including with regard to intellectual property, cross-border trade in services, temporary entry, environment, market access, state-owned enterprises, investment, financial services, sanitary and phytosanitary issues, government procurement, labour, e-commerce, legal issues, technical barriers to trade and rules of origin.

The work of the chief negotiators this week has significantly narrowed the number of issues to be addressed directly by the TPP Ministers at their upcoming meeting in Singapore.

Discussions among TPP negotiators will continue in the coming days to further set the stage for a productive meeting among the TPP Ministers on 7-10 December 2013.

Bandjalang People gain Native Title on NSW North Coast

Tears and cheers after the court judgment was announced

Photograph from Valley Watchdog

On 2 December 2013 two longstanding native title applications were finally determined by the Federal Court of Australia in Bandjalang  People No 1 and No 2 v Attorney General of New South Wales [2013] FCA 1278:

NSD 6034 of 1998

THE COURT DETERMINES THAT:

Existence of Native Title

1.           Native title exists in relation to:

(a) each of the areas of land and waters described in Schedule One, to the extent that each falls within the external boundaries of the claim area as described in Attachment B to the Further Amended Claimant Application in the Proceedings (which is reproduced as Schedule Three to this Consent Determination) ("External Boundaries"); and

(b) all land between the mean high water mark and the mean low water mark within the External Boundaries

(c) collectively the areas described at (a) and (b) above are the "Consent Determination Area".

Native title holders

2.            Native title is held by the Bandjalang People who are Aboriginal persons who are:

(a) the biological descendants of:

(i) King Harry, Jack Wilson, Susannah mother of Frank Jock Jnr, Michael “Mundoon” Wilson, George James, Eliza Breckenridge, Jack Breckenridge, Frank Jock Jnr, Ada Jock, Gibson Robinson, Grace Bond; and

(b) persons adopted or incorporated into the families of those persons (and the biological descendants of any such adopted or incorporated persons) and who identify as and are accepted as  Bandjalang  People in accordance with Bandjalang  traditional laws and customs.

Nature and extent of native title rights and interests

3.            Subject to paragraphs 4 to 9 inclusive the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests held by the Bandjalang People in the Consent Determination Area identified in Schedule One, are the nonexclusive rights set out below:

(a) the right to hunt, fish and gather the traditional natural resources of the Consent Determination Area for non-commercial personal, domestic and communal use;

(b) the right to take and use waters on or in the Consent Determination Area;

(c) the right to access and camp on the Consent Determination Area;

(d) the right to do the following activities on the land:

(i) conduct ceremonies;

(ii) teach the physical, cultural and spiritual attributes of places and areas of importance on or in the land and waters; and

(iii) to have access to, maintain and protect from physical harm, sites in the Consent Determination Area which are of significance to the Bandjalang  People under their traditional laws and customs.

AND

NSD 6107 of 1998

THE COURT DETERMINES THAT:

Existence of Native Title

1.            Native title exists in relation to each of the areas of land and waters described in Schedule One, to the extent that each falls within the external boundaries of the claim area as described in Attachment B to the Further Amended Claimant Application in these proceedings (which is reproduced as Schedule Three to this Consent Determination) ("External Boundaries") (“Consent Determination Area”). Each of the areas described in Schedule One is to be taken to include any creek occurring within its boundaries.

Native title holders

2.            Native title is held by the “Bandjalang People” who are Aboriginal persons who are:

(a) the biological descendants of:

(i) King Harry, Jack Wilson, Susannah mother of Frank Jock Jnr, Michael “Mundoon” Wilson, George James, Eliza Breckenridge, Jack Breckenridge, Frank Jock Jnr, Ada Jock, Gibson Robinson, Grace Bond; and

(b) Persons adopted or incorporated into the families of those persons (and the biological descendants of any such adopted or incorporated persons) and who identify as and are accepted as Bandjalang People in accordance with Bandjalang  traditional laws and customs.

Nature and extent of native title rights and interests

3.            Subject to paragraphs 4 to 7 the nature and extent of the native title rights and interests held by the Bandjalang People in the Consent Determination Area identified in Schedule One, are the nonexclusive rights set out below:

(a) the right to hunt, fish and gather the traditional natural resources of the Consent Determination Area for non-commercial personal, domestic and communal use;

(b) the right to take and use waters on or in the Consent Determination Area;

(c) the right to access and camp on the Consent Determination Area;

(d) the right to do the following activities on the land:

(i) conduct ceremonies;

(ii) teach the physical, cultural and spiritual attributes of places and areas of importance on or in the land and waters; and

(iii) to have access to, maintain and protect from physical harm, sites in the Consent Determination Area which are of significance to the Bandjalang People under their traditional laws and customs.

Click on maps to enlarge