There is a question Tony Abbott has never answered. Perhaps he has never been asked. I cannot find any record of an answer.
It goes back to the aftermath of the 2010 election. You might consider that ancient history, not worth going into now, but it goes to the nature of the man — and this is relevant to his turbulent federal government.
The 2010 election was brought on early after the sudden replacement of Labor leader Kevin Rudd with Julia Gillard. The election was a tie so Abbott and Gillard had to negotiate with three Independents in an attempt to form a minority government.
Abbott lost those negotiations, despite or possibly because of some outrageous promises or offers he made to the Independents. Asked about his failure, he said he felt some of the people he was negotiating with had already made up their minds.
Gillard was able to form a minority government (one that depends on the continued support of Independents). From that moment, Abbott referred to her government as “illegitimate” because it needed this Independent support to govern. This ignores the fact that his Liberal party could not govern without the support of the National party, which in Opposition and in government forms the Liberal National Party coalition.
Now, the unanswered question is: Why would your government not be illegitimate if you had won the support of Independents and depended on their continued support to govern?
Why would Abbott’s position be any different to Gillard’s? To my knowledge, no one has asked him.
That raises another question: Why has no one asked?
The situation highlights Abbott’s remarkable hypocrisy and goes to his attitude and therefore his nature.
In the years that followed the September 2010 election Abbott fought tooth and nail to bring down the Labor government. He described the Labor government as illegitimate and he twisted what Gillard said about her determination to price carbon pollution by referring to the carbon price as the “toxic carbon tax”.
Because Abbott lost the negotiations with the Independents, negotiations with minorities became anathema to him. He swore if he formed a future government there would be no negotiations with minorities to get legislation through the parliament.
The links provided above, and the daily news reports, show that the government Abbott formed in September 2013, with a large majority, has experienced constant difficulty in getting its legislation through both houses of parliament — despite, and sometimes only with, negotiations with Independents and minority parties.
He admits, on global warming or climate change: “… I’ve been a bit of a weather vane”.
He flip-flops on policies, like a weather vane.
His hand-writing looks like this:
Deciphered: Work Choices Dead buried cremated Tony Abbott 19/7/10.
We know it says that because he told a radio interviewer he would put it in writing.
Deciphered: This is a very sad day. All Australia is with the dead and the hurt. Tony Abbott
Apart from the near-illegible scrawl, the sentiment is poorly expressed: “All Australia is with the dead and the hurt” ? All Australians’ thoughts are with … perhaps.
That’s a poor effort, for the country’s supposed leader, ex-journalist, a proclaimed “good writer” and an albeit failed priest.
He is not a misogynist, according to his supporters. He is, after all, the father of three “not too bad looking daughters”.
He believes a woman’s virginity is “perhaps her greatest gift” — along with the ability to cook and do the ironing.
“I did not see any signs on that stage on that occasion.”
He is sure Australian women have a lot to think about “as they do the ironing”.
He loves women, as he loves himself, according to his favourite book’s second rule: “Love thy neighbour, as thyself.” His problem is that he “loves” women in the wrong kind of way.
Abbott checks out the “credentials” of a 2013 election candidate.
In Abbott’s seemingly confused mind, putting your hand on the backside of the Duchess of Cambridge and the wife of an heir to England’s throne is appropriate or acceptable behaviour.
We don’t know what Abbott said to the Duchess at this point, but she seems to be recoiling in surprise, or horror.
Here he goes again, “congratulating” Sussan Ley after appointing her to his cabinet, bringing the grand total of women in cabinet to two. Hallelujah!
That was a separate publicity shot Abbott requested, apparently to show women how much he “appreciated” them.
Could it all be explained by awkwardness, or clumsiness?
Some in the news media said he was trying to kiss the baby but the mother turned away, resulting in this weird kiss to the back of her head. Nonsense, his aim is off by about one-third of a metre.
He polled poorly as preferred leader during 2013 and he still does, dragging his party down with him.
The Morgan poll above appeared between Christmas and New Year, 2014. More Morgan polling.
Meme by @Tom_in_Oz Sir Thomas Wynne
I could go into the issue of broken election promises: a small matter of absolute contempt for the electorate.
I could delve into many, many instances of hypocrisy, lies and policy flip-flops.
Or embarrassing Australia with his gaffes at home and on the world stage.
But, to make a long story short:
WHY IS HE STILL THERE?
Politicians lie to avoid telling the truth.
There seems to be a consensus that politicians lie in order to get elected. Those who tell the truth tend to lose elections.
The consensus theory says the electorate wants to be lied to because it does not want to hear the truth.
I challenge this theory. I can’t imagine anyone thinking ‘I want you to lie to me. Tell me there will be no income tax increase because I’ll vote for you and if you win and then increase my income tax that will be just fine. Thank you very much.’
How has the theory arisen, evolved and been accepted as the truth? I suspect it is because – like a lot of theories – it has been adopted without being questioned, is a cliché and has passed into legend.
It is more likely that a majority of the electorate votes for one person or party simply because they are fed up with the other lot.
During my childhood and schooling the importance of telling the truth was stressed as being important and valued. Lying was a sign of weakness, cowardice and disrespect. Lying was ultimately self-destructive.
I can imagine my experience was common for children then and still is today. Why would children brought up with these beliefs expect their peers to lie – especially if those peers were politicians?
If you were caught lying as a child there was always a punishment – the naughty corner, or worse. Politicians lie because they can get away with it – there is no punishment.
Another clichéd “theory” is that used car salespersons cannot be trusted – they are liars. I have seen surveys that put politicians, used car salespeople and journalists at the bottom of the pile of trustworthiness. That may be the general opinion of the majority, but is it based on personal experience or scientific testing? Are these beliefs valid, or are they clichés?
Consumer laws have been devised to protect people from shonky business practices, such as false or misleading advertising, shoddy goods, phony guarantees and warranties and the return of goods. No such laws exist to protect voters from a politician’s false promise – or lie.
The issue of politicians’ lies has been tested in USA courts. Earlier this year a US federal court struck down a 19-year-old Ohio state law that outlawed misleading election campaign advertising. In a 5-4 decision, the bench ruled that lying was an expression of a politician’s religion. Freedom to exercise your choice of religion is protected by the USA constitution.
There are various versions of the outcome of the hearing and ruling, but it seems the judges were of the opinion that politicians have the right to lie and it is up to the voters to sort out the truth.
This puts the voters in a difficult position, especially if their only source of information is a biased news media that pushes a particular party line and denigrates the opposite point of view.
The reference to religion is interesting and absurd. A parallel would be the case of a professional house painter. Say I contracted him to paint my house and he made a mess of it. I would not be able to sue because the painter was practicing his religion and suing him would amount to religious persecution.
In Australia there is no law that I am aware of that provides relief, compensation or penalty for a politician’s lies. The only recourse is to extract revenge at the next election, three or four years away.
The situation is not good, not reasonable or fair and is in conflict with another important democratic principle, that of “misleading the parliament”. This principle is one that politicians take very seriously, or I should say once took seriously. The penalty, for a minister, is resignation and the backbench. For a member it is resignation from the party and a move to the cross bench. Today, however, it is more often steadfast denial, stone-walling and closed ranks.
The conflict in the situation is that a party or politician may freely lie to the electorate during an election campaign but, upon being elected or re-elected, is under an obligation to always tell the truth to the people’s elected representatives in the parliament.
Smith’s article includes reference to Politifact findings on promises made during the 2013 Australian federal election campaign. Look for further Browse the Truth-O-Meter links in the right-hand column.
Update, 22 November, 2014
Geoff Heriot, director Heriot Media & Governance Pty Ltd and former journalist, has written a more learned piece on the problem for Inside Story. Heriot deals clearly with the comparison of consumer protection under commercial law. He proposes a solution.
Tony Abbott’s so-called Liberal government seems determined to run Australia by fear.
For reasons it can’t adequately explain, it has begun introducing a raft of laws affecting the personal privacy of internet users and whistleblowers and raising the threat of jailing journalists who “disclose information” about special security operations.
There will soon be a new department of Homeland Security.
Why? Probably because the USA has one.
This “Liberal” government, with links to US Tea Party nutters, seems hell bent on making Australia look like the USA in every possible way.
Why? Because it can.
The Labor “Opposition” waved the Bills through before a public outcry caused Opposition Leader Bill Shorten to have second thoughts (or first thoughts maybe).
The news media is not happy about what it sees as a threat to free speech and its cherished freedom of the Press.
Why? Because the security legislation does not specifically say journalists will be liable to 10 years jail, but it does not specifically exclude them either.
Read what the ABC’s former Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes has to say about Attorney-General George Brandis’ vagueness, waffleness and hypocrisy on the subject.
Read also what Brandis had to say about the former Labor government’s restrictions on personal freedoms in a speech he titled The Freedom Wars on 27 May, 2013, when the Liberals were in Opposition. Why are the “Liberals” such liars, such hypocrites?
Rupert Murdoch’s son and heir apparent Lachlan is not happy about the new security legislation either, expressing his thoughts on the ABC of all places. His father wants the ABC defunded, chopped up, sold off and disbursed. At least half of the Western world must be hoping Lachlan’s views on Press freedom and the use of its power will be more reasonable than his old man’s.
And when a real lawyer takes a closer look at a single section of the ASIO Act, Section 35P, we get some startling clarity.
The raft of Bills restricting citizens’ freedoms were preceded by a good old fear and scare campaign, and the radical Islamic movement ISIS (or Daesh) provided the catalyst.
The former Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, pounced on pictures and videos of Islamic terrorists beheading and displaying severed heads of their victims in Syria and Iraq. Some of the terrorists were Australian citizens.
This was followed on 18 September by raids by some 800 police on homes in Sydney and Brisbane. There were two arrests and a deadly plastic sword, a child’s toy, was seized (it’s since been returned).
When it looked like the USA might act against ISIS in Iraq or Syria, Abbott couldn’t wait. He jumped the gun, sending fighter jets to a standby base in Saudi Arabia along with a few hundred SAS troops (commandos) to train or re-train Iraq’s army. The jets sat on the tarmac for weeks awaiting “legalities” and the SAS still has not entered Iraq. Some Iraqi military commanders have made it clear the SAS is not needed and not welcome.
Some may recall on election eve, 6 September, 2013, there was an embarrassing moment when it was accidentally revealed that the “Liberals” had some diabolical plan for spying on citizens who used the interwebs. Oops, that should not be in the policy statement. That’s a mistake.
Since then citizens have had to endure the farce of various government ministers trying to explain what metadata is and what it isn’t. Apparently it’s not data at all — it’s only an envelope.
Here is some clear-cut evidence of how Right-wing forces use lies, fear and smear to influence public attitudes. The speaker, Richard Berman, is a lawyer, a public relations expert, a former lobbyist and an anti-union campaigner.
Prior to all of the above we have had Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey’s campaign of fear and uncertainty, cut-backs, abolitions, new taxes and price rises all due to a “Budget Emergency!” which Hockey has since admitted was a farce.
There will be a federal election sometime in September 2016. I can’t wait for that one.
The leader of the federal Liberal National party coalition government, Tony
Abbott, has made two statements about the Liberal party in the week that marks its 70th anniversary. The statements are similar. I am going to refer to remarks he has made about families and how the party’s policies affect them.
The first statement can be found here. The parts below that appear between quotation marks have been extracted from that statement. My comments appear, in Italics, after each statement. For a main reference I have relied on a running blog being kept by Sally McManus: Tracking Abbott’s Wreckage.
“Though the times have changed since 1944, the Liberal party has had a consistent philosophy: we stand for the citizen over the official, for the community over the state and for the family over everything.
“We believe in the aspirations of people – because as Menzies reminded us, it’s families and households, small business people and tradies who are ‘the backbone of our nation’.”
The underlining in the above sentences is mine. I can find no evidence that Abbott (who is also the self-appointed Minister for Women and Minister for Indigenous Affairs) has done a single thing to benefit families. Sally’s Wreckage blog is itemised with numerous examples of the exact opposite. Families are affected by everything from delaying Indigenous recognition to cutting education programs and bodies, abolishing the school kids’ bonus, eliminating or reducing Family Tax Benefits A and B, messing with superannuation and pensions, punishing the jobless (especially younger people), sacking thousands of Public Service staff and abolishing numerous agencies. Other Abbott policies are increasing the burden on families. The fuel excise (a broken promise of no new taxes) is adding to costs. Stressful changes are being made to the school curriculum (again), to the “choice” of schools and to the cost of university education. The replacement of secular school counselors with clerical counselors is adding to stress in some families. I would not allow a cleric anywhere near my kids, if I had any.
This severe reconstruction of the fabric of Australian society is being done because the Abbott government claims (and it has been thoroughly discredited by scores of economists and other experts) there is “a Budget Emergency!”, or “a Labor Debt and Deficit Disaster”, or it’s cleaning up “Labor’s Budget mess”. One assumes that when the debt (one of the lowest in the developed Western world) has been cleared some of the abolished bureaus and cancelled programs will be restored. An enterprising journalist should ask Abbott what he will restore.
“We’re helping families to get ahead – and encouraging small business people to employ more.”
A bald statement, with no facts or evidence provided. When a politician makes a statement like that some people will be inclined to believe it. ‘Oh good, Abbott’s helping my family get ahead.’ How exactly? There is absolutely no evidence for the statement. And why is it related to the second phrase when there is no connection at all?
Small business people may be families too; I know several who are. But how are they being “encouraged to employ more” (people; they are known as people, Abbott)? One way may be by abolishing red tape — regulations and consumer safeguards. Another may be by abolishing penalty rates — more work on Sunday, for less pay. Or by removing the incentive paid to older workers who return to work and giving that money to the employer instead (Sally’s blog, item 219). Businesses are also being helped to employ more people by an increase in the number of lower paid workers on 457 visas.
Another way families and small businesses are “helped” is by delaying Labor’s planned increase to superannuation contributions. Abbott’s government claims people are better off by having spending money in their pockets now rather than putting that money, and more, into their superannuation. The money soon ends up in the pockets of small business. Right there we have the economic stupidity and the ideology of these neoCons writ large. The policy doesn’t necessarily help families, long accustomed to adjusting buying habits; it helps small business (more sales, less paid into employees’ super); it absolutely fails to address the government’s major whinge about the future sustainability of pensions. This change alone will cost families thousands and that will affect them in their retirement.
“The Government’s Economic Strategy is about giving people freedom and more incentive to make the most of themselves. This is the best way to grow our economy and reduce the cost of living burden on families and on businesses.”
Again, I can find no evidence of how the government’s economic strategy will give people freedom and more incentive to make the most of themselves. This looks like a total nonsense that sounds good providing you don’t think about it too much. I can’t think of any incentive this government has provided so that people can make the most of themselves. The freedom of people to be bigots and abuse one another (re-writing of Section 18C) fell on its face. Plans to deregulate university fees and charge commercial rates on student loans will work as a disincentive to make the most of yourself. How will that help families? How will it help business and industry already complaining about the poor educational standard of graduates?
Abbott must be referring to this statement, which is big on waffle and rhetoric but light in actual detail. It refers to Australia’s biggest ever infrastructure program (at $50 billion), but also to the clearing of a backlog of environmental approvals for projects worth a whopping $500 billion. These must be coal and other mineral projects, for a market that is suffering falling prices and a world economy that appears to be heading into recession. Whoopee for fly-in-fly-out families, if they keep their job, the nature of which is also causing stress. The same statement refers to trade deals with partners like Korea, Japan and China and the promise of more jobs. They will have to be low paid jobs to compete with those countries. Our ability, capacity and inclination to value-add has been tossed aside, mainly in favour of mining mining mining.
Abbott’s second 70th anniversary statement is framed as an opinion piece: More Freedom a Central Pillar of the Liberal Party.
“Menzies argued that a successful middle class is in everybody’s interest because it is the ‘backbone of the nation’. Hence, the party he founded is not a party of big government, or vested interest, but one that stands for the citizen over the official, the community over the state and the family over everything.”
So Menzies (who didn’t found the Liberal party, but he was chosen to lead it by the men who did form it) argued the middle class is the backbone of the nation. In Abbott’s first statement, “families and households, small business people and tradies” are the backbone of the nation. But the family is still uber alles — poor struggling family.
“As John Howard subsequently observed, in this country, the Liberal party is the custodian of both the liberal and the conservative traditions. As liberals we support lower taxes, smaller government and greater freedom. As conservatives we support the family and values that have stood the test of time.” My underlining again.
So Abbott thinks he’s liberal and conservative at the same time. That’s funny because former PM Malcolm Fraser, for whom I have some respect, says the Liberals who elected Abbott didn’t want a Liberal, “they wanted a Conservative”. Still, if you’re pumping out garbage for the consumption of the party faithful or any blockhead who’ll listen, any old garbage will do so long as it sounds good and you don’t listen too closely or stop to think about what you are hearing.
“Under Menzies, home ownership was no longer the privilege of a minority, but came within reach of most families.”
Um, I wouldn’t mention that one if I were you Abbott, especially if you are making a comparison with today and the job your mob is doing.
“Stronger alliances; more trade; better universities; more modern infrastructure; a stronger economy … ”
“… more choice in schools”. More privatised schools?
“… with a stronger middle class as the result still characterises the work of Liberal governments”.
And so the rhetoric and slogans roll on, without detail, explanation, justification and certainly without any questioning by the gutless mainstream news media (MSM).
“The Liberal party believes that empowered citizens can do more for themselves than government will ever do for them.”
Isn’t that a doozy? What does it mean? It could mean that empowered citizens could march into parliament and kick these frauds all the way over the horizon. But that won’t happen. Families are too busy trying to figure out how to pay their bills now and into this glorious future that’s supposed to be at the end of all this misery.
An empowered citizen might be fresh out of university, 23 years old and saddled with a life-long debt for a piece of paper that will not necessarily guarantee work, not even flipping flippin’ hamburgers. They might manage to pay the debt and the interest, but will they be able to save a deposit for a home of their own, even though they will be able to work until they are 70 before dropping out into a life of near poverty, with no savings and totally screwed on superannuation?
I don’t know how these present or future impoverished families will be able to afford a university education for their kids if the “Liberal” party’s policy to deregulate university fees and charge commercial interest rates on student loans goes ahead. Paying a rumoured $100,000 or more for some degrees shouldn’t bother future mothers too much because in the opinion of education minister Chris Pyne women don’t want to study law or dentistry.
And the re-introduction of the fuel excise (another broken promise re no new taxes) won’t bother poor families too much because, in the opinion of Treasurer Joe Hockeysticks “poor people don’t own cars or don’t drive them very far if they do”.
So much for caring about families. Wealthy families, maybe, but certainly not poor ones.
“Along with our Coalition partner, the National party, we understand that today’s reforms are tomorrow’s prosperity.”
Another doozy, just like the previous one. “Today’s reforms” are largely about turning Big Business loose to rape and pillage and freeing bigots to abuse and incite division and hatred. Deflections (along with another war in Iraq) to take people’s minds off what’s really going on. Ask yourself what you think will happen when the debt’s paid off. Free beer and skittles every afternoon? Not bloody likely.
“That’s why this government is addressing Labor’s legacy of debt and deficits. We must control debt before debt controls us. Already Australians are paying over $1 billion a month in interest and it will rise to $3 billion a month within ten years if no action is taken.
“There’s no fairness in increasing the tax burden and the debt burden on the next generation of Australians.”
Oh, I agree, wholeheartedly. One tiny detail is missing here. Since coming to office the Treasurer, whom I affectionately call Eleventy Joe Hockeysticks, has doubled the debt. Why have you done that Joe? Why did you scream blue murder about a “Budget Emergency!” and then quickly double the debt? Why did you tell a New Zealand audience there never was a “Budget Emergency!”?
“With more Australians living longer and healthier lives, we have to make our health and welfare systems more sustainable. This means small changes now so that the strains don’t weigh down future generations.”
Finally we have something that is close to a truthful and honest statement, except for that little phrase “small changes”. Health experts and economists, again, say Abbott, a former health minister, is wrong about the sustainability of health care and welfare. If certain companies and individuals paid the taxes they should be paying, health and welfare would be even more sustainable. Another “small change” is a tiny $7 patient payment (co-payment) out of families’ pockets when they visit the doctor, to help with Medicare “sustainability” — and another colossal lie. No one can explain how $2 of the $7 going to the doctor and the remaining $5 into a Medical Research Future Fund is going to offset the cost of Medicare — no one, not even Eleventy Joe or a professor of economics banging away on a supercomputer.
The Economics Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald, Ross Gittins, uses official figures to demonstrate that the Abbott government’s Health spending crisis is not real.
Incidentally, the family has already paid for its medical care. You would think Treasury funds were coming out of the “Liberal” party’s pocket. And that $7 co-payment — it’s part of what’s left after income tax was paid. There’ll be another charge for prescriptions and technical medical procedures, like an MRI scan — scarily expensive.
I sometimes lie in bed at night, unable to sleep because I can’t figure out why this government, which promised to do after the election what it said it would do before the election and promised to be an adult government, has to be such a devious, back-flipping, cynical, duplicitous, lying and untrustworthy mob.
I am sure there are enormous electoral advantages in speaking plainly and honestly with the electorate and telling them exactly what you will and will not do. I have a clear memory of Abbott saying there would be pain in the years ahead, but that was early in the false election campaign that began early in 2013. A focus group must have told him that he probably shouldn’t repeat it.
“Far sighted governments leave the next generation of Australians a stronger country than they inherited.”
Former Liberal PM John Howard did that, I’m told. To do it, he sold everything he could get hold of, including the gold reserve, the silverware and the kitchen sink — on the cheap too, I’m told. Another “Liberal” government, the LNP of Queensland, is determined to flog State assets even after spending millions on a referendum that turned out to be overwhelmingly against the idea. You will have the policy that ideology dictates, not the policy the majority votes for.
“From Menzies to Fraser to Howard and to the current government, the Liberal party has been the party that gives more freedom, offers more choice and tries to take the burdens off families and businesses.”
Well, you can have a lot of fun with that one. “More freedom” — how, exactly? What? “Offers more choice.” Not in school counselors, or motor cars, or job contracts, or going to war again. And after all the bullshit about families, the Liberal party “tries to take the burden off families”. For Christ’s sake Abbott, please try harder.
Liberal government leader Tony Abbott has lied in a personal letter to Australia’s 1.7 million pensioners. The mail-out cost $1.2 million.
His letter says claims that the government is cutting pensions are “… not true. There are no cuts to pensions”.
On the eve of the 2013 federal election Abbott said there would be “no changes to pensions”. But the federal budget of May 2014 revealed that future pension increases would be indexed to the consumer price index (CPI) instead of the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI), or the male average weekly earnings.
This will have the effect of reducing the rate of pension increases over time — a change to pensions and a cut in the value of the twice yearly increases.
It amounts to another broken election promise and another lie by a man who seems to be a pathological liar.
Here is the full text of Abbott’s letter, which is undated and carries his signature:
A MESSAGE TO AUSTRALIA’S AGE PENSIONERS
“In recent weeks, you will have noticed an increase in your pension.
This increase will help you keep up with the cost of living increases.
For single maximum rate pensioners, the pension will increase by $11.50 a fortnight. For pensioner couples on a maximum rate, it means an additional $17.40 a fortnight.
This is the increase for people on the maximum rate and the exact change in your own pension payment will depend on your individual circumstances.
This increase in the pension comes on top of the benefit you will receive from scrapping the Carbon Tax.
Not only are power costs falling because of the repeal of the Carbon Tax, but you will continue to keep the fortnightly Energy Supplement that was provided as compensation to help cover the costs of the Carbon Tax.
That means the Energy Supplement is now real cost of living relief, not just compensation.
Furthermore, the Pension Supplement will remain and will continue to be indexed.
There have been claims that the Government is cutting pensions. This is not true.
There are no cuts to pensions.
I want to reassure you that the pension will continue to rise in March and September every year.
In coming years, the numbers of people on pensions will increase as more people retire. Australians are living longer and healthier lives, so the Government is determined to ensure that our pension system is sustainable over the long term.
It is one of the reasons why the Government is taking steps to bring the Budget back under control.
If you need more information on pension rates and thresholds, please visit humanservices.gov.au.”
Abbott writes: “There have been claims that the Government is cutting pensions. This is not true.” But it is true! It just hasn’t happened yet. From September 2017, the twice yearly aged pension increases will be linked to the CPI — generally a lower index than either the PBLCI or male average weekly earnings. The government is doing this because it wants to reduce the size of the fortnightly pension bill.
So there it is, a CHANGE to pensions (a broken election promise) and a lower rate of increase in the future — a CUT.
Abbott’s letter also states: “There are no cuts to pensions.” That statement is true. But there will be, from September 2017 — if this “Liberal” government is re-elected in 2016.
In responding to claims that the government is cutting pensions, Abbott has missed a rare opportunity for his austerity focused administration to win some Brownie points. Because the index used for the September 2014 aged pension increase was the PBLCI, pensions rose by a greater amount than they would have if the CPI had been used.
The September increase was $11.50 for singles and $17.40 for couples. These increases would have been $9.30 for singles and $14 for couples, which is 19% less, if the CPI had been used. That potential reduction gives an idea of the extent of loss to pensioners, or savings to the federal budget from September 2017.
These details are explained in an article in The Australian Financial Review, another article in The Sydney Morning Herald and in this article and this article on the website of the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association of NSW.
Abbott’s letter refers to the Energy Supplement. This was introduced by the Gillard Labor government to compensate households for energy price and other increases due to the Carbon Price (which the Liberals insist on calling a tax).
It is peculiar that the present Liberal government promised to retain the compensation while at the same time insisting that there was a “Budget emergency”. The “tax” that provided the revenue for the compensation has now gone (an election promise kept), the compensation remains (an election promise kept), but there have been wholesale abolitions of departments, sackings of thousands of employees due to a “Budget emergency” that has been downgraded to “Labor’s debt and deficit disaster” and recently “Labor’s Budget mess” by a Treasurer, Joe Hockey, who told a New Zealand audience that there was no “Budget Emergency”. Where is the truth?
The paragraph and sentence following “every year” in Abbott’s letter provide clues to the truth. Because the numbers of pensioners are increasing and they are living longer, the government is CHANGING the pension indexing to a lower rate (a broken election promise) to make it sustainable into the future. However, it does not have the decency to make a truthful, clear and honest statement about what it is doing and why.
The government’s Bill to change the pension indexation to the CPI alone was due to be debated in the Senate on 23 September, 2014. That debate was delayed (probably due to the government negotiating with crossbench senators). However, the government’s proposed pension CHANGES were debated on that day in a Matters of Public Interest (MPI) debate. The comments of Senator Mason (LNP, Qld), parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, are either hilarious or sick, especially his claim that Labor governments wanted to “eat the rich” but have since realised there are not enough of them so they have decided to eat the children of the future instead — a metaphor, of course.
Follow the debate by clicking on next fragment in the left-hand column.
In another blog I comment on Abbott’s statement on the 70th anniversary of the Liberal Party of Australia and his references to families, family values and the reality of the impact on families of the Liberal party’s policies since its election in September last year.
Two new Progressive political parties offer hope for change in Australia’s political governance.
For too long the country has laboured under the influence of what can only be loosely described as Left and Right political philosophies. Those philosophies have never been rigidly fixed and — since the mid-’70s — have been shifting.
Today we have the Liberal Party of Australia reaffirming Margaret Thatcher’s dry economics of some decades ago while at the same time echoing the nutty and radical Tea Party faction of the USA’s Republican party and even beginning to resemble a neoFascist State with increasingly Draconian limitations on freedoms and a cacophony of dog whistling. It resembles a three-ring circus.
Then we have the Australian Labor Party, drifting further and further to the Right under the rudderless leadership of a limp lettuce leaf — to the dismay of its rusted-on Left wing who cry out for reform because they don’t have the wits to look around for an alternative.
On the ABC’s RN Breakfast show this morning former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard said for decades Australian voters had been divided about 40-40% Liberal and Labor, with the remaining 20% swinging in the breeze. This had recently changed, he said, to 30-30%, with a larger 40% of swinging voters. This 40% — some of which is taken up in a bewildering array of small and usually special interest parties — holds the keys to the outcome of future elections.
There is little hope that either Liberal or Labor are going to change any time soon.
Two new parties — Australian Progressive Party and Australian Progressives do offer hope for a significant change in Oz politics. They claim they will govern for all Australian interests. Appealing to most of that 40% will not be enough — they will have to get votes from the 60% Lib/Labor who are rusted on to their historical favourites.
And they are not the only new parties. There is the Pirate party, with a clear agenda and broad policies, but an unfortunate name choice that conjures up an image of the skull and crossbones and all that goes with that.
Two versions of the Australian Democrats are maneuvering. Australia’s greatest political tragedy, I think, because AusDems seems to be just what this country needs.
And, of course, there is the Greens. They also have a broad range of policies, much broader than most realise because most don’t take the trouble to look. Here is a list of references to the bigger political parties’ policies. The Greens probably suffer the most from a bad Press.
Indeed, the bad Press — the news media in general, commercial and public funded — is the real holder of the keys that unlock the minds of the 40% and the other hangers-on.
Without getting the news media on side, all of these new political parties stand little chance of immediate success — even if they do appeal to the disaffected inhabitants of social media, whose numbers are small.
Another problem to be overcome is recruitment. A few months ago I launched The Centre Party of Australia, initially named The Third Party as a working title. Recruitment was too slow, but I think I gave up too easily. I came to the conclusion (rightly or wrongly) that people no longer commit themselves to political parties — another sign of disaffection with existing parties.
The most active people who signed on wanted to organise the structure and the policies. That was interesting for a while, until you realise that without members — and lots of them — you are organising only to avoid washing the dishes or doing some gardening. Water under the bridge, but a useful learning exercise.
I firmly believe that the federal election of 2016 will be the best opportunity in a very long time* for any new political party to really smash through and grab dozens of seats. A solid grass roots organisation working in several dozen carefully chosen electorates will do the job. Cathy McGowan’s campaign for the Victorian federal seat of Indi provides the model. Incumbent Sophie Mirabella won the primaries by a long shot, but the campaigning of McGowan’s supporters won the preferences and the seat by a margin of about 435 votes.
* I say it’s the best opportunity because Liberal leader Tony Abbott’s ideological wrecking ball has only swung through the scenery once and there’s much more to come. I can’t see how he’ll pull the wool over the electorate’s eyes a second time (damn them to hell if he does). And Labor has allowed itself to be cuckolded to such an extent that many people I have come to know and thought were rusted on are beginning to see the light and are looking for a change.
Getting the news media on side remains the greatest challenge. It will take nothing less than an internal revolt — something like the one staged by the editorial staff of The Australian to protest owner Rupert Murdoch’s campaign against Gough Whitlam in the mid-’70s. And it’s not just the news media that needs to be tamed, woken up or pulled towards the centre. It’s the morning talk shows, the panel shows, the couch sessions and even the comedians — all capable of tearing a political party to pieces.