A Poem of Peace for the Ukraine.

Crisis

Will future generations understand

The turmoil of these days, the strain and stress,

The dawn's despair, the night's uneasiness,

The greed of itching palms throughout the land?

Will they conceive the fires fanatics fanned,

Of time the universal wastefulness,

The strange philosophies the mobs confess

That every throat cry out some new demand?

Time was when men held saner counsel here.

Will that time come again? Shall we behold

From this grim madness some new love unfold?

We pray for gentler times, when man shall cease

His brother man to bully or to fear.

Great God, among ourselves let us have peace!

                                                             Max Ehrmann  

Tony Abbott names white settlement as Australia's 'defining moment', remark draws Indigenous ire

Extract from ABC News

AM

By Sarah Dingle

Updated yesterday at 5:32pm

Sat 30 Aug 2014

Photo: Prime Minister Tony Abbott launches the Defining Moments in Australian History project at the National Museum in Canberra. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Related Story: PM's 'unsettled' comment angers Senator Peris

Indigenous figures including the chair of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council are furious that Tony Abbott has highlighted white settlement as the defining moment in Australian history.

The Prime Minister made the comment while he was launching a project on the 100 Defining Moments in Australian History at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra on Friday.
"The arrival of the First Fleet was the defining moment in the history of this continent. Let me repeat that, it was the defining moment in the history of this continent," he said.
"It was the moment this continent became part of the modern world."
His remarks drew swift condemnation from Warren Mundine, the chair of the Prime Minister's own advisory panel.

Audio: Disastrously defining: Indigenous Australians criticise Abbott's comments on white settlement (AM)

"Well it was a defining moment, there's no argument about that. It was also a disastrous defining moment for Indigenous people," Mr Mundine said.
Mr Abbott said British settlement provided the foundation for Australia to become one of the most prosperous societies on Earth.
Mr Mundine said that is true, but not everyone is benefiting.
"Does that mean that Aboriginal people have prospered from that? Of course not," he said.
"We're miles behind everyone else and in fact I wouldn't be sitting in this job if Aboriginal people did prosper. There wouldn't be a need for the chair of the Indigenous Advisory Council or the council as a whole."

PM 'not speaking for all Australians'

The head of the Stolen Generation Council for New South Wales and the ACT, Matilda House, said the Prime Minister's comments are ridiculous.
"I think politicians really don't think when they make these one-liners," she said.
"I can't fathom how a ship or a boat sailed into Sydney Harbour can overtake the 60,000 years before."
The co-chair of the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, Kirstie Parker, said the Prime Minister is not speaking to all Australians.
"I think it speaks only to a particular section of Australian society. It doesn't speak to all Australians," she said.
"That's a pity because I think it sets us back somewhat.
"This notion that the real Australia, the true Australia, the good and modern Australia, started in 1788 is, of course, offensive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people."
Six historians, including Professor John Maynard, who is indigenous, helped compile the list of 100 defining moments.
"We were a little bit disturbed to say the least by that particular comment, the way that it was framed," Professor Maynard said.
"But as I said, I mean, he's open to have his opinion."
Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said white settlement is a significant part of Australia's history but it is not the only thing to be proud of.
He said it changed the country in very dramatic ways, but he acknowledged the contribution of the Indigenous population.
"There were Aboriginal people here before. Their way of recording history was different from what there has been since there has been European settlement," he said.
"We're proud of all of our past."
Last month, Mr Abbott was criticised after he said Australia had been "unsettled" before the First Fleet arrived.
"The comments were highly offensive, dismissive of Indigenous peoples and simply incorrect," Senator Nova Peris said.
Mr Abbott also nominated the birth of Rupert Murdoch's newspaper The Australian in 1964 as another defining moment.
Professor Maynard, who is director of the Wollotuka Institute at the University of Newcastle, also does not believe the establishment of the newspaper belongs in the top 100.

"I'm sure we could all put down 100 moments and we'd all have different perspectives on what those 100 would be, but no, I wouldn't have The Australian there as one of the 100 defining moments," he said.

Longreach Town Hall Meeting March 30, 1895

*THE WORKER*

Brisbane, March 30, 1895.

Longreach Letter.

ED. WORKER – Labour members Kerr, Fisher, Turley and Hardacre held a meeting here on Friday night last. The Town Hall was packed. A good few workers from the outside were present. I am sure the Labour members have made a lot of converts here. The following resolution was unanimously carried: “That in the opinion of this meeting the Government policy of drift, coercion and maladministration of the land laws makes it desirable in the interests of the colony that its services be dispensed with at any early date.”

On Sunday evening the Labour members were driven out to the Thompson River by Mr. Dan Walters, who kindly placed his coach at their disposal. A good few unionists attended them on Sunday night. They all paid a visit to the Salvation Army barracks, and were much pleased to hear Lord Carrington hold forth. It was amusing to see one of the salvation lassies trying to get Turley converted, but without result. They next tried old Billy, but he was too deaf to hear, so they had to give him best.

On Monday the party left by train for Barcaldine, and will hold a meeting there on Tuesday night, Barcaldine shed on Wednesday night, Ilfracombe on Friday night, then on to Isisford, Blackall, and Tambo.

The Central Standard has changed hands, having been bought by the Brothers Walker. It is to be hoped the new owners will run the paper as formerly in the Democratic interest. If not I do not think they will get much support.

I am sorry to say that a large number of men have been boycotted by the pastoralists, men who have shorn in several of their sheds before, and all have first-class references. My belief is this is done to disfranchise the men.

The Government party is expected here on Tuesday, April 2, when all the toffs will don their swallow-tail coats and bend the knee to Nelson and Co.

Barcaldine is the duly shed shearing in this district as yet.

March 21, 1895. W.K.

P.S. - I am just informed that a man called at the police office, Winton, to see if he could get a pair of boots. The inspector told him if he would camp among the unionists and bring him whatever news he could he would then give him a pair of boots. - W. K.

* * * *

THE English House of Commons has carried a motion by a majority of 18 in favour of payments of members.

* * * *

National Art Gallery.

A gallery of pictures is a delightful recreation, a place of pleasurable repose for tired people and fagged brains. The National Gallery to be opened this week in the Town Hall is evidently to be a retreat of this kind. It is a very good beginning of a splendid public possession. There the visitor will find a representative collection of oil and water-colour paintings, and of engravings and etchings. The great Italian artists are there: Michael Anglo, Raphael, the Caraccis, Titian, Guercino, Veronese, Vanni, Bolognese, Testa, Della Bella, Salvator Rosa; France is represented by Poussin, Moulinier and others; Holland, by Reubens and Ruyadael. There are copies also of famous pictures including Raphael's Sistine Madonna. A number of pictures, antique in style, are from the Murray-Prior bequest. In modern art there are two beautiful water-colours by David Cox, and some good landscapes of Italy by Montaltia. Five engravings of Dore'a great pictures will be found on the walls; and local art is represented by Mr. Rivers' “Woolshed,” pictures by Rayment. No doubt the nucleus thus formed will receive many additions either as gifts or loans. The thanks of the citizens of Brisbane and the colony are due to Mr. Rivers for his untiring energy in getting the gallery open at last in the face of innumerable obstacles. The gallery is open free to all; it is public property; and it will be found to contain a collection of which we may justly be proud.

* * * *

Mr. Glassey on Tour.

At Esk the leader of the Parliamentary Labour party, addressed a most enthusiastic meeting last week. Amongst the audience were many women, who showed considerable interest in the proceedings. The chairman of the meeting was Mr. Vernon who, after introducing Mr. Glassey in a few well-chosen words, called upon him to deliver his address on “Current Politics.”

The Labour leader commenced by expressing pleasure at the presence of the ladies at the meeting, and looked forward to the time when Queensland women would have the same right to take part in the councils of the State as their New Zealand sisters had. Referring to a quotation from Thomas Carlyle regarding over-production, Mr. Glassey said: Never were truer sentiments uttered by living man and more fitted to apply to the condition of things in Queensland. (Loud cheers.) Go where one will the universal cry is poverty and want amidst plenty. (Hear,hear.) And, continued the speaker, the cry is getting louder and louder every year, and must continue to do so as long as the people submit to conditions under which they now suffer. [A Voice: “True enough.”] In the cities the terrible spectacle of a multitude of unemployed and starving haunted one, whilst in the country the farmers and agriculturists generally with their wives and families were experiencing the dire results of hard times, no markets, no prices, high freights, and high interest chargers. (Hear,hear.) And this, too, in a country whose acknowledged wealth was boundless, whose gold, cattle, sheep, horses, wool, sugar, and produce of every kind and description was in abundance, and a country which, according to that eminent statistician, Coghlan, was possessed of the most wealth in the world per head of population, a country whose exports exceeded her imports by over £4,000,000 which, of course, was swallowed by interest on loans negotiated by heaven-horn financiers, and money exacted from the people by the absentee shark.

The everlasting cry of “over-population” previously referred to reminded him of a conversation he had had with a very respected member of the Upper House (the Hon. J. C. Hucealer), who claimed that the real trouble was not over-production but under-communication. (Loud applause.) Labor statistician proved that the annual vales of production per inhabitant in Queensland was far greater than that of any Australasian colony, being £35 19s. 4d.; New South Wales showing £29. 4s. 7d.; Victoria, £25. 19s. 8d.; South Australia, £27. 6s. 7d.; Western Australia, £30. 6s. 11d.; Tasmania, £25 0s. 8d.; and New Zealand, £33. 4s.; and yet they suffered from under-consumption owing largely to the vast numbers of unemployed men and women and the large reduction in wages of those who were in work. (Loud applause.) And, again, the Colonial Treasurer's last statement revealed the facts that in 1892 the imports per head of population amounted to £10. 0s. 5d.; in 1893, £9. 15s. 10d.; whilst the exports for the same years were £20. 7s. 3d. and £20. 12s. 10d. Their worthy chairman would pardon him (the speaker) if he asked his bearers if they were free from the mortgage fiend? [A Voice: “Not much,” and cheers.] did they not sometimes entertain a feeling of despair and a desire or freedom from bondage? Was it not a fact that while the toilers wrought hard (morning, noon and night) there were those who lived on them in luxury and enjoyed all the pleasures which they – the toilers and wealth producers – were denied. He would quote to them the remarks of a man whom he regarded as one of the world's greatest thinkers. He referred to Pope Leo XIII. In his encyclical on labour he says: “The elements of conflict to-day are unmistakeable. The growth of industry and the surprising discoveries of sciences; the changed relations of employers and workmen; The enormous fortunes of individuals; the poverty of the masses and the generally moral deterioration, cause great fear to every honest and thoughtful man. The momentous seriousness of the present state of things fill every mind with painful apprehension. . . . All agree that there can be no question whatever that some remedy must be found for the misery and wretchedness which press so heavily at this moment on the large majority of the very poor, due to the concentration of so many branches of trade in the hands of a few individuals, so that a small number of rich have been able to lay upon the masses of the poor a yoke which is little better than slavery.”

(Loud cheers.) And these very same sentiments advanced by Pope Leo XIII. simply confirmed what he (Mr. Glassey) and his colleagues had for years been endeavouring to show the people, and yet they had been subjected to abuse of the capitalistic press and Parliament whilst the people still suffered. (Loud applause.) Does it seem hard – nay, cruel – that so fair a country should have its sons and daughters driven into the streets? How long was this sort of thing to last? Had the labour party been a party to all this legalised plunder? (Cries of “No,” and cheers.) Was it human that such systems should be tolerated? Surely it was the first duty of a Government to provide that the hearths and homes should be kept for the fathers, mothers, and children who inhabited them. At least that was his (Mr. Glassey's) opinion. (Loud applause.) And he would go further and fearlessly state that the vast majority of the people of Queensland shared the same sentiments. To change the present deplorable condition of affairs was the work of the future. The present party in power were there too long, and had proved themselves thoroughly incompetent to govern or restore prosperity to the people, and he advised the electors at next election to make a change.

At the conclusion of his speech three cheers were given for Mr. Glassey and the Labour Party.

The RET may be a success, but that's exactly why it's on the Coalition's hitlist

Extract from The Guardian

Dick Warburton’s review employs a peculiar form of logic to call for the abolition of the renewable energy target

• Lenore Taylor, political editor
• theguardian.com, Friday 29 August 2014 20.00 AEST

Dick Warburton who led the government’s review of the renewable energy target. Photograph: AAP

I have heard of policies being abolished because they are failing, but it is a rare thing for a policy to be abolished because of its success. Unless, of course, those recommending its abolition don’t believe in the thing it is successfully doing.
The renewable energy target (RET) – according to its official website – is supposed to “reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector, encourage the additional generation of renewable energy through financial incentives, and ensure that at least 20% of Australia’s electricity supply will come from renewable sources by 2020.”
According to the Abbott government’s review of the target, it is a roaring success on every one of those measures.
If the RET continued in its current form it would reduce emissions by an additional 299m tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030 – the equivalent of taking around 100,000 cars off the road. So that’s a tick.
And it has encouraged $20bn worth of investment in renewable energy, with $15bn more in prospect if it continued as planned. Another tick.
It was intended to meet a target of 41,000 gigawatt hours of renewable power by 2020, but because electricity demand fell in a way that had not been anticipated, this was set to represent around 28% of the Australian market.
Originally the government said the review was needed because this overshoot meant the cost of power was rising.
“We have to accept that in the changed circumstances of today, the renewable energy target is causing pretty significant price pressure in the system and we ought to be an affordable energy superpower … cheap energy ought to be one of our comparative advantages,” the prime minister said last year.
But then modelling – including for the review itself – found that this was not true. It found wholesale electricity prices would fall, and that the impact on household bills was very small.
So the review recommended the RET’s closure for different reasons.
The RET is, according to review chairman and self-professed climate sceptic Dick Warburton, a relatively expensive way of reducing carbon emissions. Hmmm, expensive compared to what? At between $35 and $68 per tonne of carbon abated (according to modelling done for the review) it is expensive when compared with the carbon price ($23 a tonne, set to fall to an international price of around $10) but the government just abolished that.
So Warburton said the RET was expensive compared with the government’s proposed emissions reduction fund (ERF).
The government has not modelled the cost of abatement under the ERF, so that assertion is impossible to check. The prime minister said that, rather than model the $2.5bn fund the government would just “have a crack”.
Rough estimates for the ERF are around $10 to $15 a tonne of carbon, but independent modelling done for The Climate Institute by Sinclair Knight Merz found the government would need twice as much money to meet even the minimum 5% target, and it is entirely unclear whether any of that abatement would come from the electricity sector, which makes up 33% of Australia’s emissions and where most abatement options cost a lot more than $10 a tonne.
And of course Direct Action has not yet been legislated. So the review is really saying the RET should be canned because it is more expensive than something that hasn’t been quantified and might not happen.
Warburton’s other argument is that the RET causes the misallocation of resources, because it is forcing the construction of generation capacity Australia would not otherwise need – he says it amounts to a $22bn cross subsidy from fossil fuel generators to renewable generators over the next 16 years.
He says it will push the construction of $15bn in new generation capacity when, without the RET, we would only need $2bn worth and he argues there is no need for that new investment when there is so much cheap coal-fired power already in the system.
Of course, in order to avoid bankrupting existing renewable investments – made on the basis of a bipartisan political commitment to the RET – a good portion of that cross subsidy is going to have to be paid anyway, in the form of grandfathering arrangements or direct compensation.
And the Climate Institute points out that this cross subsidy argument ignores the effective subsidies provided to the fossil fuel industry. Along with the Climate Institute, WWF and the Australian Conservation Foundation, it has also released modelling showing that abolishing the RET will boost the profits of fossil fuel generators by around $10bn.
But putting all that to one side – pushing investment from fossil fuel generation to renewable generation is what the RET is supposed to do. That’s the whole point of having it.
If you don’t think that a gradual shift in how we generate electricity is desirable or necessary for Australia to play its part in addressing global warming, if you think it’s fine for Australia to continue to produce electricity from our existing, old and often high emitting coal-fired power stations indefinitely, then this report makes total sense.
If you do think that shift is necessary, crashing renewable investment and possibly bankrupting some existing players in order to increase Australia’s emissions, while having no impact on electricity prices and providing an $8bn windfall to the profits of fossil fuel generators is almost the definition of crazy.

DON'T DO IT, TONY. DON'T BREAK ANOTHER PROMISE

Date:  29 August 2014

The Warburton Review into the Renewable Energy Target is just a shield for Tony Abbott to break the Coalition’s long-held commitment to renewable energy.

 “The Coalition committed to the Renewable Energy Target for the last four elections, from when John Howard was leader in 2004 and 2007 to Tony Abbott’s leadership in 2010 and 2013,” Shadow Minister for Climate Change Mark Butler said.

 “That bipartisan support saw billions of dollars invested in Australia’s clean energy industry and now Tony Abbott has walked away from the table and left the industry stranded.”

 The Coalition’s previous commitment to the renewable energy industry has been crystal clear.

Look, we originated a renewable energy target. That was one of the policies of the Howard Government and yes we remain committed to a renewable energy target … we have no plans to change the renewable energy target.

Tony Abbott, 29 September 2011

But the Opposition Leader told the party room that people saw generating renewable energy as an important issue and the Coalition had to commit to it.

The Australian, 20 June 2012

“We will be keeping the renewable energy target. We’ve made that commitment. We have no plans or proposals to change it... We have no plans or intention for change and we’ve offered bipartisan support to that.”

Greg Hunt, speech, 27 February, 2013

It has been interesting to note the claims being made about what the Coalition will or won’t do. All of it is simply conjecture. The Coalition supports the current system, including the 41,000 giga-watt hours target.

Simon Birmingham, Speech to the Clean Energy Week Conference, 24 July 2013

“The industry has grown and prospered as a result of this support and Labor’s renewable energy policies. Now the Government has torn up most of Labor’s policies, its backflip in support will destroy the industry,” Mr Butler said.

The Report said the RET scheme was attracting “too much investment” and creating “too many jobs”.

“In what warped world is Tony Abbott living, where too many jobs is something to be critical of?” Mr Butler said.

“Why is Tony Abbott the only one that doesn’t get this: renewable energy is about the future. It’s about the long term prosperity of this country.

“A growing renewable energy sector will deliver jobs for those in manufacturing, mining and other industries that are suffering a downturn, it will create export market opportunities, and it will drive down Australia’s carbon pollution in a time when we need to think about a clean energy future.

“It is astounding that the Prime Minister of Australia does not understand this.

“Tony Abbott’s ideological stubbornness has gone too far. This attack on an industry of the future is very stupid.”

Mark Butler, Renewable Energy Target

TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW WITH ABC CAPITAL HILL

Date:  29 August 2014

HOST: Welcome to Capital Hill. The RET review has found that renewable energy is providing more energy than the target, more than the 20%. Isn't that a case for scaling it back?

MARK BUTLER, SHADOW MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE AND WATER: Let's get rid of that myth first of all. The legislation doesn't talk about 20 per cent. The policy was that at least 20 per cent of electricity would be sourced from renewables by 2020. The legislation talks about a particular generation target, 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020. And that is the election commitment that Tony Abbott made only about a week or 10 days before the election.

HOST: What would be the impact if the Renewable Energy Target was scaled back in the ways suggested by the review?

BUTLER: Well, we've had four reports over the last few months, including the modelling done for the Government's own review, that indicate that household power prices will be higher without the Renewable Energy Target than they will be with the Renewable Energy Target. That's because the additional wind power and solar power in the system now is starting to drive down wholesale power prices. That's going to be particularly important when gas prices start to increase significantly over coming years. So what it would mean is higher power prices for households, but also it will mean thousands of jobs that have been created over the last several years, clean energy jobs will go. Investors from around the world will no longer visit Australia and make decisions to invest the billions of dollars that were otherwise was in the pipeline over the next several years. And the electricity sector will continue to start generating more pollution, not less pollution, which is what we've seen. All in all, it doesn't tick any box and it's beyond my imagination why the government is thinking of doing this.

HOST: It is the case, though, isn't it, that renewables are subsidised at the moment. Will there be a time when that subsidy is no longer necessary or is that time in fact still years and years off?

BUTLER: Well, this is an upfront subsidy and the report focuses significantly on that. It talks about the 4 per cent or thereabouts of the average household power bill that goes on the renewable energy certificates. What it doesn't talk about so much is the offsetting impact that this renewables capacity is having. As I said, extra wind, extra solar power in the system is depressing the wholesale price of electricity. So against the 4 per cent you've got to weigh the net downward impact. And what report after report has shown over the last several months is the beneficial impact, if anything, that it’s having on the price of electricity for households, such that if Tony Abbott gets rid of the Renewable Energy Target, household power prices will be higher, not lower than they otherwise would be.

HOST: Is the Renewable Energy Target for small-scale energy like for solar rooftops the only reason that people are putting solar panels on their roofs or do you think people would continue to do that even without the subsidy that's involved in that now?

BUTLER: Well, I think some people would probably continue to do it, but even this review suggests that getting rid of the support for small-scale solar would reduce that market by at least 30 per cent. The figures I have seen are more like 50 per cent but either way you're talking about thousands and thousands of jobs, and hundreds of thousands of households not having the opportunity to put solar panels on their roofs and get out of the spiraling rising cost of electricity; and also, we know that the additional solar capacity on rooftops is one of the very significant reasons why wholesale power prices are staying down, particularly at the peak times of the year when heatwaves hit south eastern Australia, for example, and traditionally wholesale power prices have spiked very, very high.

HOST: Any change would have to get through the Parliament, wouldn’t it, and could be stopped in the Senate?

BUTLER: That's right, but the beauty of this policy area over the last 12 years is that it's been underpinned by bipartisan certainty. Going back to John Howard's Renewable Energy Target, we’ve had four elections since then, since 2001, where the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, the two alternative parties of government, have completely agreed on Renewable Energy Target policy, including as I said shortly before the last election. We agreed on the precise generation target. And that is why billions of dollars in investment have flowed to Australia, creating thousands of jobs. In the middle of last year, Australia was rated as one of the four most attractive places to invest in renewables, along with the powerhouses of Germany, the US and China. Now, since this government came to office, and started to create uncertainty about what had been a very certain policy area, our position on that table has plummeted. Billions of dollars of investment that was due to come to Australia has simply frozen. This will cost jobs. It's going to lead to increases in our pollution levels and it's going to lead to higher power prices for households.

HOST: Mark Butler, thank you very much for your time

BULTER: Thanks Lyndal.

Tanya Plibersek, SUBJECT/S: Iraq; national security legislation; Indonesia.

THE HON TANYA PLIBERSEK MP

DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

SHADOW MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
MEMBER FOR SYDNEY

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
RADIO INTERVIEW
RN BREAKFAST, ABC RADIO NATIONAL
THURSDAY, 28 AUGUST 2014



FRAN KELLY, PRESENTER: Tanya Plibersek is Labor’s Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Parliament House studios. Tanya Plibersek welcome back to Breakfast.
TANYA PLIBERSEK, DEPUTY OPPOSITION LEADER: Thanks Fran.
KELLY: According to the Minister David Johnson, Australian forces are in “a high state of readiness”, that’s a quote. So it would seem that once again Australian forces are inching closer to a military commitment in Iraq. What is the Government considering? Have you been briefed on this?
PLIBERSEK: Well, no, we have requested a briefing from the Government that so far, that request hasn’t been granted so far. What I would say Fran is that we have to be very, very cautious when we’re talking about potential military involvement. Labor has been very supportive of humanitarian assistance in northern Iraq. It is plain that IS are on a genocidal campaign against ethnic minorities and religious minorities in Iraq. In fact, against anyone who doesn’t agree with them. That’s also true of Syria, the most recent United Nations reports about what’s happening in Syria are also shocking. So we support humanitarian assistance in Iraq. We also support greater humanitarian effort in Syria. The United Nations has requested international assistance. They launched a fund hoping to collect around $6 billion for humanitarian and reconstruction efforts and I think the Abbott Government so far has contributed $12 million to that. So we would say we can help more, although of course the way we help in northern Iraq and the way we help Syria would be quite different.
KELLY: I also guess the definition of humanitarian assistance can be as broad or as narrow as you want it to be. The Defence Minister has said if asked it would be “the right thing to do to assist the new Iraqi government”. Is it as clear cut as that in your view, that if the Iraqi Government does ask, it is the right thing for Australia to do to participate more fully militarily?
PLIBERSEK: Well we’d have to get a lot more information about what’s being requested of us. I think it’s very clear that if there is a potential genocide, the international community has a responsibility to protect. It does look as though there are potential genocides in northern Iraq and certainly, a genocidal campaign both in Syria and Iraq. But the type of any action that Australia might take – I think that is something that we need to be very thoughtful and very calm about. The war in 2003 was not just damaging for Australia, for the United States, for all of the countries that were involved, I think it’s been very damaging for Iraq as well. We need to be very cautious and not do more harm than good.
KELLY: Talking of northern Iraq, yesterday on this program we asked the Foreign Minister Julie Bishop about the Kurdish regional government’s request for weapons and ammunition. She said at that time there’d been no request for weapons but then clarified later that in fact there had been to the Government. What’s Labor’s position on Australia arming the Kurdish Peshmerga forces operating in the north where IS is, as you say, on a genocidal campaign?
PLIBERSEK: Well I will be meeting with two Kurdish groups later today, including the author of that letter to the Government. I think it’s clear that the Peshmerga are the most effective fighting force against IS in northern Iraq at the moment. If the Peshmerga have made requests of the Australian Government, it really is up to the Australian Government to tell us what they intend to do. I note that some European countries, the United States and others are supporting the Peshmerga with ammunition and so on. But it would have to again be something that we need a lot more information about and we also need to know the view of the Iraqi Government when it comes to arming a separate military force to the Iraqi Army.
KELLY: The Greens have warned of mission creep, if there is to be any additional military commitment in Iraq we need to be clear on what the aim is. In your view is it to firm up the Iraqi Government, to protect the state of Iraq against IS? Or is it to defeat the Islamic State? Is that important – that we clarify that before anything more happens?
PLIBERSEK: Well I think the first and most important thing we need to be clear about is that there is a humanitarian disaster right now. Thousands of people are dying, many hundreds of thousands have fled their homes. That’s true in northern Iraq it’s also true in Syria and as an international community we do have a responsibility to prevent genocide and to provide humanitarian assistance. Anything more than that has to be after a great deal of thought and consideration, the international community with the government of Iraq. This is something the people of Iraq need to do with international support.
KELLY: And what about debate? What about the role of the Australian Parliament? The Prime Minister Tony Abbott made it clear again this week that the Government will do what governments always have done in the past – they’ll consult, they’ll consult with the Opposition, but they will not seek parliamentary approval. Is that good enough?
PLIBERSEK: Well, I mean I was here in 2003 and I don’t recall a great deal of useful consultation at that time-
KELLY: Well the Greens want more than that, they want a vote in the Parliament, so do others.
PLIBERSEK: I think it is important for us to be very clear as Australians about what our goal is, what the objective would be, what the specific task for Australian forces would be and what the end state is, what do we hope to achieve and how do we then withdraw. None of those questions were answered in 2003 and we can’t afford to make that similar mistake again.
KELLY: It’s 22 minutes to eight on breakfast, our guest is the Shadow Foreign Minister, Tanya Plibersek in our Parliament House studios. Tanya Plibersek, the Government says its new counter-terror law will be introduced soon. The Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, clarified yesterday there is no reverse onus of proof in the new law that had been one of Labor’s complaints and complaints by others. Is that your understanding of these laws?
PLIBERSEK: Well, Fran, it’s very difficult, what we’ve seen here-
KELLY: We’re talking about people leaving or coming back from places like Syria or Iraq.
PLIBERSEK: We’ve seen a press conference. I mean, these are extremely serious matters. We’ve seen no draft legislation-
KELLY: Have you been briefed on these laws?
PLIBERSEK: Well we’ve been briefed on the intention, after the press conference was held, we got a briefing and in fact, I had two briefings and in neither of those briefings were any of the questions that we had about how these laws would operate satisfactorily answered. So we’re waiting on draft legislation. Of course it’s important to help our security agencies keep Australians safe, there is no one who would disagree with that. And frankly, there is no one who would disagree with the fact that there is heightened risk. We’ve already seen two Australians leave on family members’ passports to go overseas to fight, Khaled Sharrouf being the worst example of this. Of course we believe our security agencies need support to keep Australians safe-
KELLY: They’re already getting it, it’s already working. I mean, the front page of the Telegraph yesterday, the Prime Minister told us yesterday someone was stopped at Sydney airport over the weekend. Front page of the Tele screams “Enemy of the State”.
PLIBERSEK: I was also surprised-
KELLY: “Enemy at our gate”, sorry.
PLIBERSEK: I was also surprised to hear yesterday in Question Time that some airports, some named airports, have extra resources and some named airports don’t yet, which I thought was an extraordinary thing to do, to say if you want to come into Australia or leave Australia more easily, these are the airports that you use. But just back on these laws, Fran, you can’t make serious decisions about national security by press conference and so far we’ve had a press conference and very little extra detail. We want to support our national security agencies but it is very difficult without even draft legislation before us, to comment on the specifics.
KELLY: And yesterday at the National Press Club, the ASIO Director General, David Irvine, was asked whether there would be any, if there was a danger if Australia escalated its military involvement in Iraq that would make Australia more of a terror threat back home. He said he didn’t see any link between that escalation and Australia being a terror threat. Do you agree with that?
PLIBERSEK: Well, he’s a very experienced national security leader and I am not going to contradict him. I think it’s important that we listen to our most experienced, most expert advisers.
KELLY: Just finally, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is in Bali today. She will sign the new code of conduct with Indonesia on intelligence. This flowed from those leaks from the Snowden files that Australia had been tapping the phone of the wife of the Indonesian President and others. This new code is called a set of behaviour principles. Have you seen what’s being signed today and does it diminish our capacity to gather vital intelligence?
PLIBERSEK: No, unfortunately we haven’t seen the text of the agreement and it is disappointing that it’s taken around 300 days to conclude this matter. I’m very pleased that it’s occurred before the end of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s term because he has been a good friend to Australia and a good interlocker with Australia but it is, of course, again – unable to comment without having seen what the Government’s-
KELLY: Is that good enough, our Government signing a code of conduct that no one else in the Parliament has seen except presumably the Foreign Minister, Prime Minister and a few-
PLIBERSEK: Well that’s a question for Julie Bishop, really.
KELLY: Tanya Plibersek, thank you very much for joining us.
PLIBERSEK: Thanks, Fran.
ENDS

Anthony Albnese, Subjects: Qantas, national security, Iraq

Transcript of television interview – ABC Capital Hill with Lyndal Curtis

CURTIS: Anthony Albanese, welcome to Capital Hill.
ALBANESE: Good to be with you Lyndal.
CURTIS: Qantas has announced a big after-tax loss. Can the airline keep cutting its wages excess?
ALBANESE: The airlines has gone through the worst. And now, I think can develop quite a significantly better future. It’s made some -
CURTIS: What gives you hope? When some people say part of the problem is its decisions made on its fleet. And that’s something that takes a lot of money and a lot of planning and time to rectify.
ALBANESE: Well there’s no doubt that anyone who looks at the history of Qantas can point towards errors that have been made, commercial errors that have been made including I think its choice of fleet, and in terms of some of the arrangements that it attempted to enter into. But now I think it has certainty, it has legislative certainty, in that the Government accepted the amendments that Labor put forward to maintain Qantas as an Australian airline but to free up some of the provisions within the 49% so that’s done. What’s also done is significant international arrangements with partners including Emirates, China Eastern and that means that in terms of going forward they have significant partners in both Asia and the Middle East of course which is an entry point into Europe.
CURTIS: So if they have the ability with the changes that have been made on ownership structure, if they have international agreements and presumably a better international climate, does the only reason for Qantas not to succeed become a question of management?
ALBANESE: Well certainly I think the management will be held to account. Today’s results are certainly not good but they are slightly better than what market expectations were. A loss in the order of $650 million, the markets had expected that figure to be $700 million. They’ve made some difficult decisions in terms of writing down the value of some of the aircraft, some of the aircraft that were bought, in terms of the A380’s when the Australian dollar was around about 57c so it makes sense to write that down. But let’s put it in perspective. Qantas still has $3 billion in cash. It is still a successful company with a great safety record internationally. It’s important for Australia that Qantas is a successful company.
CURTIS: Do you have faith in the ability of the company to pick things up?
ALBANESE: Well I want that to occur. And I think that government should play its role in facilitating that. We’ve certainly done that both in government and in Opposition, been constructive. We think it’s also important that Virgin whose results come out tomorrow, I wouldn’t expect it to record a profit either. The airline industry is tough and I think what we saw with Qantas and Virgin is some of the capacity conflicts that were going on was that actions that were taking place that weren’t in the interests of either airline or a sustainable domestic aviation industry. That has improved going forward, there needs to be a little bit of common sense there going forward and Qantas is projecting a profit going forward to the next year and I certainly hope that we continue to have what is essentially a two airline situation here, two very successful airlines.
CURTIS: On another issue, do you believe as one of your senators does that the government is using national security to distract from its budget woes?
ALBANESE: I’m going to very much separate out those two issues. I thinking terms of the budget there’s no doubt that this is an extraordinarily incompetent government. It’s incompetent in terms of selling its message. But it’s incompetent in terms of selling a bad message. The way they’ve put together this government, the budget. They went out there and they spoke about budget emergencies. That had an impact on consumer confidence. It was of course nonsense. They inherited a government that had strong jobs growth, low inflation, low interest rates, a triple A credit rating, they talk the whole show down for political purposes, they then made savage and unfair cuts for which they had no mandate, and of course the Australian public have rejected many of the measures such as a new GP tax and the university changes.
CURTIS: Do you have any qualms then about the national security issue, about the government’s extension surrounding terror laws and possibly extension of engagement in Iraq?
ALBANESE: I’ll view national security issues on their merits. When we see the detail I am happy to respond. Of course at the moment we don’t have the detail. I watched an interview on Lateline last night where Senator Johnson didn’t seem to have any of the detail there so it’s pretty hard to respond. But in general of course national security must be the first order of any government, has that responsibility. Oppositions have a responsibility to act constructively where this comes. I’m certainly concerned in very real terms about the threat which domestic jihadists going over to the Middle East and fighting have. That’s something that I expressed in government and I still have that concern in Opposition. And it’s not just Iraq of course. We need to bear in mind that some of the fighters in Syria who’ve gone there, essentially fundamentalists who’ve attacked other members of the different Islamic groups that they don’t agree with and of course, and Christians and other groups as well.
CURTIS: Anthony Albanese, thank you very much for your time.

ALBANESE: Good to talk with you.

LNP GIVES GLOBAL BANKERS A MASSIVE PAYDAY FOR ASSET SALES: PITT

Media Release

29 August 2014

Shadow Treasurer Curtis Pitt said the LNP had no mandate to waste millions of dollars engaging global investment bankers to sell off Queensland assets.
“Campbell Newman, Tim Nicholls and the LNP have wiped their hands of the will of the people. The LNP is selling Queenslanders’ assets right now, they aren’t waiting for the election,” Mr Pitt said.
“The announcement today that the LNP has engaged bankers to sell off these assets shows they don’t care about what Queenslanders think."
“Taxpayers will be paying these bankers many, many millions of dollars, to sell off assets they don’t want sold."
“It just goes to show how the LNP takes Queenslanders for granted. They’re not asking for a mandate, they’re selling off the assets now.”
Mr Pitt said Queenslanders had already paid a hefty price for the LNP’s asset sales.
“Taxpayers have spent in excess of $20 million on Campbell Newman’s asset sales advertising campaign, while the LNP has refused to release the costs of the previous scoping studies they’ve conducted into these assets."
“While the Abbott Government is happy to reveal this information, the arrogant and secretive Newman Government is intent on hiding the truth from Queenslanders.”
Mr Pitt said only Labor was listening Queenslanders.
“Campbell Newman’s asset sales will lead to higher electricity prices for families and businesses, more job losses, and a massive drop in budget revenue over the next 30 years."
“Labor has listened to the people of Queensland. They do not want their assets sold."
“The choice at the next election is clear: the LNP will sell your assets, Labor will not.”

Climate Council's Tim Flannery criticises Renewable Energy Target review panel

Extract from ABC News

Updated about an hour agoFri 29 Aug 2014, 3:31pm

 

Photo: Professor Tim Flannery says scrapping the Renewable Energy Target would be short-sighted and ineffective. (AAP)

Audio: Review paves way for renewable energy overhaul (AM)

The Climate Council says the panel that reviewed the Renewable Energy Target (RET) is biased and lacks credibility, and says scrapping the target would be short-sighted and ineffective.

The panel's long-awaited report suggests the scrapping of subsidies for household solar panels and water heaters, as well as closing the scheme to new companies involved in larger renewable energy projects.
Lead author of the report, company director and former Reserve Bank board member Dick Warburton, says the RET could cost $22 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies if it continues and the money would be better spent elsewhere.
"You've got a very significant oversupply of electricity into a slowing demand of electricity and there is just no justification for spending this sort of money," he told AM.
"We don't believe that there needs to be a large scale of renewables being made into the market at a time when there is so much supply."

Have your say: What do you think of the Climate Council's reaction to the Government RET review?

But the Climate Council's Professor Tim Flannery says the authors of the report do not understand climate science.

RET change 'will impact health'

Dr George Crisp says research shows renewable energy is better for your health than coal-fired power generation.

"I'm not surprised, some of the people who've served in the review panel are notorious for their pro-fossil fuel interests," he said.
"But I am dismayed because that RET has survived five electoral cycles it's served the country well."
Mr Warburton denies the report's recommendations make gas and coal-fired electricity more attractive.
"No, I don't believe it does," he said.
"I think what it does do is just levels the playing field."
Mr Warburton has also rejected criticism from Labor and The Greens that his findings are biased because he is sceptical about the link between man-made carbon dioxide and global warming.
"My thoughts are well known to many people but they had no bearing on this report whatsoever. It had no bearing on the terms of reference and it had no bearing on the report," he said.
"We looked into this with a completely open mind, we consulted with over 200 people, stakeholders, government right across the country."

Power prices will rise in the short term: Warburton

The report found significant falls in the cost of solar panels and an increase in power prices meant that "the small-scale renewable energy industry is becoming commercially viable".
In other key points, it also found:

• renewable energy generation has almost doubled under the RET;
• the RET is exerting some downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices;
• the RET has delivered a "modest level" of reductions in greenhouse emissions but is a "high cost approach" to delivering that aim.

If the report's recommendations are adopted, Mr Warburton concedes that electricity prices will rise in the short-term.
           

Video: Explained: The Renewable Energy Target (Kerrin Binnie)

Prime Minister Tony Abbott had wanted the review to focus on pushing down power prices.
Professor Flannery says renewables will ultimately make the wholesale energy price cheaper for consumers and scrapping the RET would be short-sighted and ineffective.
"We'll damage the energy sector because we have some of the oldest and most polluting coal in any developed country, they need to be replaced within the short to medium term and the most cost-effective way of doing that is with renewables, but with the RET pulled it's going to be very difficult to see a way through," he said.
Mr Warburton says the review does not propose getting rid of the RET.

Video: RET may be switched off (Lateline)

"That would have been extremely dramatic," he said.
"One could certainly argue that and we looked at that particular case but we also recognise that there are businesses that need to be supported.
"The large scale schemes certainly have much greater difficulties because their need for the subsidy is so great.
"They need something in the vicinity of 40 to 60 per cent of the subsidies just to survive. That is not a good way to run a business."

Review could kill the renewable energy industry: Infigen

Infigen is a company that owns six wind farms in Australia. Its managing director Miles George fears the review could kill renewable power.
"It is extremely unusual for a government, particularly an Australian one to change legislation in a way that damaged existing investments," he said.
"It spells the death of our industry."

Video: Miles George says the RET options are a choice between being 'shot or hung' (ABC News)

Kane Thornton from the Clean Energy Council claims thousands of people would almost instantly lose their jobs if the RET is scrapped.
"Thousands of businesses around Australia would instantly be devastated and clearly many of them would shut down," he said.
Labor leader Bill Shorten is also concerned.
"I can't believe how the Liberal Government is trashing a multi-billion-dollar industry," he said.
The Australian Industry Group says all main political parties must work together on a long-term plan so companies can assess if they should still invest in wind and solar farms.
"Investors aren't going to put their money forward unless they know what the longer term policy outcomes will be," AI Group's chief executive Innes Willox said.
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said the Government would consider the report over the next few weeks.
But he said the RET's original aim of encouraging households to embrace solar panels has succeeded, with nearly 2 million homes installing them.

"That's certainly been achieved in spades," he said.

Barrier Reef: government MP says he 'got it wrong' on dredging spoil support

Extract from The Guardian 

Australian MP George Christensen writes open letter, saying he has started looking at options to dump dredging spoil on land

• Oliver Milman
• theguardian.com, Wednesday 27 August 2014 17.04 AEST

George Christensen’s open letter in the Whitsunday Coast Guardian. Photograph: GetUp!

The Coalition MP George Christensen has admitted he was wrong to support the dumping of 5m tonnes of sediment into the Great Barrier Reef marine park and has said he will push for alternatives to the plan.
In an open letter to readers of the Whitsunday Times and Whitsunday Coast Guardian, Christensen said: “Politicians don’t often say they got it wrong, but here it is: I got it wrong.”
The federal member for Dawson, an electorate which lies adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, said he “didn’t foresee the angst the dumping of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef marine park would cause tourism operators and the residents of the Whitsundays”.
Christensen has supported the expansion of the Abbot Point port, near the Queensland town of Bowen. The expansion, for increased coal exports, involves the controversial dredging of 5m tonnes of seabed, with the sediment to be dumped within the marine park.
It has emerged that scientists at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority warned against the dumping, only to be overruled. Unesco has also expressed concern over the dumping, which was approved in January.
Opponents of the plan claim it will smother coral and seagrasses, which are a vital food source for turtles and dugongs.
The federal environment minister, Greg Hunt, has insisted the dredging and dumping will have little impact on the reef. However, Hunt has also promised a “line in the sand” that will prohibit any further dumping within the marine park.
Christensen’s letter states the MP has “started talks with the owners of Abbot Point about land-based options for the disposal of the dredged material. They’ve agreed to re-examine all land-based options before proceeding with any works.”
He added that if a “viable option emerged, I will ensure that the spoil is dumped on land, not at sea”.
A Department of Environment assessment report released in December suggested that alternatives to offshore dumping “would involve significant expenditure”, with North Queensland Bulk Ports (NQBP), the Abbot Point project overseer, estimating that onshore disposal would cost between $120m and $460m.
Felicity Wishart, the campaign director at the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said she was happy with Christensen’s change of heart.
“I’m surprised but pleased,” she said. “George has previously dismissed the environmental concerns but he’s done a turnaround which is very welcome.
“What we’d really like to see is a commitment to ban dredging and dumping because the dredging itself will be damaging. That said, we recognise some dredging will go ahead and so we need to identify land-based sites where we can put the sediment.”
The North Queensland Conservation Council has launched a legal challenge against the sea-based dumping. NQBP has yet to identify an exact site for the dumping, despite the plan being approved by the federal government.

Joe Hockey concedes $7bn cut in pension budget under changes

Extract from The Guardian

Treasurer targeted by Labor in question time as uncertainty remains about GP co-payment and other measures

• Daniel Hurst , political correspondent
• theguardian.com, Wednesday 27 August 2014 20.09 AEST

Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey during question time in the House of Representatives on Wednesday. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

Joe Hockey has conceded the government’s planned changes to the aged pension would result in payments being about $7bn lower than they otherwise would be in 10 years, as the treasurer was the target of a parliamentary question time attack over the budget.
Hockey acknowledged the estimates but said he was taking steps to ensure spending was sustainable, while defending the expensive paid parental leave scheme as being important for workforce participation.
Labor’s series of questions sought to intensify pressure on Hockey and culminated in the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, telling Tony Abbott to “either dump his treasurer or dump the budget”. The question to the prime minister was ruled out of order.
The scrutiny on the budget comes amid considerable uncertainty over the fate of contentious measures including the proposed new GP co-payment, which the influential Palmer United party (PUP) has declared to be dead.
University vice-chancellors have stepped up their efforts to lobby crossbenchers over the proposed deregulation of fees, with the education minister, Christopher Pyne, due to present his legislation to parliament on Thursday.
Representatives of major community groups also visited Parliament House on Wednesday seeking to persuade senators to block contentious welfare measures, including the proposal to strip young jobseekers of income support for six months at a time.
The Australian Council of Social Service and more than 100 community groups signed a joint statement condemning “unnecessary and harsh proposals” in the budget, such as changes to pensions and family payments that would “erode the value of the payments over time”.
Labor took up the issue in question time on Wednesday, pointing to a parliamentary budget office (PBO) report quantifying a slowing in the growth in the age pension.
This is partly the result of a budget decision to index the age pension to movements in the consumer price index (CPI) from September 2017, ending the current practice of pegging increases to average wage growth or CPI whichever is higher.
“In 2024-25 savings measures relating to the age pension are projected to reduce spending by $6.9bn,” said the PBO report released last week.
Hockey told parliament: “I am actually advised that over the next decade the pension is going to increase by 5.1% on an annualised basis and in 2024-25, according to the parliamentary budget office, instead of being $74.8bn a year it is $67.9bn a year.”
The treasurer said the age pension would continue to increase every six months, but the move to CPI increases only would ensure spending remained sustainable.
Labor challenged Hockey over his previous comment in a radio interview that “it is strongly arguable that pensioners are going to be better off”.
Hockey told parliament the starting point was the government’s success in scrapping the carbon tax and keeping the compensation that was attached to it.
“The only way the age pension system can be affordable, sustainable and generous into the future is if you have a government that lives within its means,” Hockey said.
The treasurer accused Shorten of “crying crocodile tears” and demanded Labor spell out its plan to return the nation’s finances to surplus. Hockey reaffirmed the Coalition’s broader narrative about the need to tackle debt and deficit left by the previous government.
The opposition also targeted Hockey over another finding in the PBO report that spending on the government’s proposed paid parental leave scheme was “projected to grow in real terms by 12% annually over the medium term”.
Hockey said the policy was an important part of efforts to increase workforce participation and would be fully funded by a levy on the largest companies in Australia.
The treasurer was angered by a question from Shorten suggesting the government would force children with profound hearing loss to “get by with less support once they sell and privatise Australian Hearing”.
Hockey said the question was “complete, unmitigated rubbish” and reflected “a scare campaign against the most vulnerable in the community on the basis of total misinformation”.
Australian Hearing did “an outstanding job”, he said, but it competed with a range of other private sector providers who also provided appropriate services.
In response to a separate question about how many people would be deterred from seeing a GP by the proposed $7 Medicare co-payment, Hockey confirmed it was estimated to have a 1% impact on attendance numbers in the first year.
Labor’s treasury spokesman, Chris Bowen, said in a statement that the government should scrap the budget and “go back to the drawing board”.
Bowen said despite Hockey’s claim about workforce participation benefits, the Productivity Commission had questioned the merit of the Coalition’s expanded paid parental leave scheme.
The opposition’s spokeswoman on families and payments, Jenny Macklin, said Hockey had “finally admitted” in question time that the government was cutting the age pension.

Labor senator Sue Lines accuses Abbott Government of using terrorism fears to distract from budget

Extract from ABC News

By political reporter Andrew Greene

Updated 29 minutes ago Thu 28 Aug 2014, 6:20am

Video: Some in the Muslim community say they're being demonised (7.30)

Related Story: Forces in 'high state of readiness' for action

Related Story: Bishop moves to allay counter-terrorism law concerns

The Abbott Government is being accused of using terrorism fears to distract Australians from its contentious budget.

In recent weeks the Coalition has outlined new measures to crack down on extremist threats, including legislative changes to target Australians who travel overseas to fight with terrorist organisations.
Labor senator Sue Lines says the Government seems determined to only talk about terrorism and not its tough budget cuts.
"It's [the Government] hyping it up, it's invented the term Team Australia, you're either in the team, or you're out of the team," she said.
"And it's looking for opportunities in the media and elsewhere to try and scare the Australian public and to distract everyone from the budget," Senator Lines said.

External Link: Melissa Parke tweet 1

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has given broad support to the proposed legislative changes, but says Labor will wait to see the legislation.
"When it comes to national security, Labor sees this as a matter above politics," Mr Shorten told reporters on Wednesday.
Senator Lines says her party will take a calmer and more reasonable approach than the Coalition.
"I think Labor will be sensible in this regard, because what Labor doesn't do is we don't scaremonger," she said.
"It's not the game we play, and we are about sensible policy and so obviously we do need to see the detail of that policy."
The Government says about 160 Australians are currently fighting with, or assisting, terrorist groups in the Middle East.
In Parliament on Wednesday, Mr Abbott revealed that counter-terrorism units had arrested a "person of interest" after beginning operations late last week at international airports in Sydney and Melbourne.
Mr Abbott told Question Time the new units are part of the Customs and Border Protection Service.

Video: Defence Minister David Johnston speaks with Lateline (Lateline)

Senator Lines says she "wants to make sure that Australia is secure, but I think you can do that without grandstanding and I think responsible governments get their legislation out there and have a sensible conversation".
"What we've seen this Abbott Government do unfortunately, fairly successfully, is it's very good at demonising but it then doesn't have a plan to follow through and that's partly why it's in trouble with its budget," she said.
"It's good at the scare tactics but it's not good at good policy and that's what we're seeing now."
Senator Lines's comments have been echoed by fellow West Australian Labor MP Melissa Parke, who tweeted on Wednesday: 'Team Australia' is a moronic ripoff from 2004 'Team America: world police' parody film. Intolerant nonsense rhetoric, unbecoming of a PM.

Ms Parke was unavailable for comment.

Newman Govt confirms support for Abbott’s $7 GP Tax

Media Release

Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk said Queenslanders’ family budgets were in the firing line, with the Newman Government supporting Tony Abbott’s unfair GP Tax.
“Tonight in State Parliament Labor moved a motion condemning the Abbott Government’s $7 GP Tax and the Newman government refused to support it,” Ms Palaszczuk said.
“That can only mean one thing: Campbell Newman and the LNP support Tony Abbott’s tax on visits to the doctor."
“Whether its pensioners, students or families, everyone will feel the pain from Abbott’s GP Tax and Campbell Newman seems to think that’s a good idea."
“It’s no surprise, given the Premier admitted today he has no idea how high electricity prices will go after his asset sales."
“This Premier has no concerns for the financial pressures every Queensland family is feeling."
“The average family is already paying $1,200 more tax each year, power prices have increased by record levels, unemployment is at its highest levels in over a decade, and now Campbell Newman is wholeheartedly behind Tony Abbott’s slug on GP tax."

“While this Government is arrogantly dismissing the concerns of Queenslanders, Labor will stand up against the Newman and Abbott Government’s unfair tax increases.”

PREMIER CONFIRMS LNP SPIN MACHINE DEAL

Media Release

Southern LNP spin doctors Crosby Textor are pocketing Queensland taxpayer money as part of the Newman Government’s advanced plans to sell public assets, but the Premier has refused to reveal how much they are being paid.

Shadow Treasurer Curtis Pitt said Campbell Newman was forced during question time today to admit the LNP had engaged the PR firm run by former John Howard strategist Lynton Crosby during the asset sales process.
“The process of selling assets has already started under Campbell Newman’s LNP Government despite promises they wouldn’t,” Mr Pitt said.
“We know the LNP have already spent tens of millions of dollars preparing assets for sale but have refused to release details."
“They’ve already started the process of engaging merchant bankers and international lawyers to advance the assets sales process and they’ve already spent up to $20 million on Strong Choices."
“And now we know that Campbell Newman has engaged LNP mates Crosby Textor in the process."
“How much of that $20 million are they being paid?”
Mr Pitt said the Premier should immediately inform Queensland how much Crosby Textor was benefitting from the taxpayer purse.
“We know Crosby Textor benefitted from the lion’s share of $1.2 million in research funding during the LNP’s 2012 election campaign,” he said.
“How much are Crosby Textor getting from the public purse now?"
“It’s not good enough for the Premier to say, ‘Don’t you worry about that, I’ll tell you later’."
“Queenslanders deserve to know and they deserve to know now."
“The Newman Government claims to be open and accountable."

“If that’s true, the Premier and the Treasurer need to tell Queenslanders today who has been engaged as part of this process and how much they are being paid.”

Newman ‘has no idea’ how his electricity asset sales will impact power bills

Media Release

Shadow Treasurer Curtis Pitt said Queensland families would be stunned to hear the Premier admit he doesn’t know how his electricity asset sales will impact household budgets.
“Campbell Newman promised to lower power bills, yet they’ve gone up on average by over $440 since he was elected,” Mr Pitt said.
“Now the Premier is forging ahead with his electricity asset sales without any idea how they will impact everyday Queenslanders’ power bills."
“Why won’t the Premier be upfront when it comes to how power bills will be affected? Why won’t he admit that his plan will drive up power prices and tell Queenslanders by how much?"
“Before the last election the Premier said he would do everything he could to lower the cost of living, including lowering electricity bills. It’s patently clear he lied to Queenslanders to get their votes, and once they put their trust in him he broke those promises."
“It’s typical of the LNP to come up with a plan that benefits big business and big bankers, but abandons Queensland families."
“The LNP’s plan to sell off our assets will cost Queenslanders at least $60 billion over the next 30 years, money that will go into the pockets of big business."
“Only Labor has committed to keeping our electricity assets in public ownership, saving jobs and ensuring the dividends these companies make go back to Queenslanders."

"At the next election, the choice will be clear. An LNP Government focused on asset sales, or a Labor Government focused on jobs."