Extract from The Guardian
The PM’s line from February – ‘good government starts today’ – is a
gallows-humour joke inside his administration. Even Coalition MPs are no
longer sure what they are trying to achieve.
Saturday, 5 September 2015
Friday, 4 September 2015
Abbott's future to be decided in Canning
Extract from The Drum
Opinion
Posted
Never has a by-election been framed so
unambiguously around a prime minister - lose Canning and you're gone. It
will be a nervous time and there is no precedent for this, writes
Barrie Cassidy.
Forget all this talk of precedents around the critical Canning by-election in Western Australia. There are none.Never before has a single electorate held the fate of a serving prime minister in its hands.
By-elections like Bass in Tasmania have spelled the beginning of the end of governments; and Aston in Victoria marked the turning point for a government previously in trouble.
But neither, and none before or since, have been framed so unambiguously around the prime minister. Lose and you're gone. And that is not just accepted wisdom among most commentators; it's agreed unofficially and spoken of privately by some senior Liberals who supported Tony Abbott in the February leadership spill.
And those same people are laying down markers along the way. A swing limited to about 8 per cent would be seen as a relief. Double figures would indicate a very tough federal election and might even lead to a December party room showdown. And a loss (11.8 per cent) or worse, would be disastrous. Some of those who stuck with Abbott in February on the basis that he deserved more time had this period in mind for a review.
They argued privately at the time that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer should be allowed to bring down another budget, and then a few months would need to go by before its impact, both politically and economically, could be judged.
Abbott though has hit two major hurdles in the polls this year - Prince Phillip and Bronwyn Bishop. The controversy around those two individuals caused the Government to slide beyond the typical four-point deficit. Abbott eventually recovered from the knighthood debacle to settle back around 48 per cent two-party preferred.
But he hasn't yet been able to do that since "chopper gate". And that's because the troubles keep on coming. First the Dyson Heydon issue, then the bungled Border Force operation, and all the while constant and ill-disciplined chatter. Comments by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton this week served to underline the depth of the internal problems. If Abbott cannot regain some of that lost ground in national polls before Canning, and that seat falls to Labor, judgments will be harsh and swift.
It will be a nervous time. The Coalition has a good candidate going for it, but not much else.
At the last election, Labor, after a tumultuous time in office, was on the nose, and nowhere more so than in Western Australia.
The mood was dark, even though the economy was still booming and the steam hadn't yet gone out of state projects.
Now the economy has stalled and governments - not political parties - are feeling the pressure. The previously popular state government led by Colin Barnett, for example, is now - according to Newspoll - trailing Labor after having won the last election with 57 per cent of the two party vote.
The late Don Randall with his anti-Canberra pitch was a popular local member, so popular that Labor virtually ran dead at the last election.
Add all that to the average federal by-election swing of 5-6 per cent and you can see why the polls suggest it will be close.
Of course it's a test for Bill Shorten as well. He will need to do much better than the average to avoid criticism.
But it's not his job on the line. And it's not Joe Hockey's either. Not on his own. The spin out of Coalition ranks this week suggested that in the event of a loss, it might save Abbott if he throws Hockey overboard. The stronger view seems to be that the fate of the two is tied together.
Depending on the result, the Canning by-election might signal the beginning of a comeback for Abbott and his Government - just as Aston did for John Howard. It might mean the end of his leadership. Or it might mean nothing at all. The figures on the night will determine that. And this time if a leader falls it won't be in the dead of night leaving an electorate stunned. It will have a basis in fact, the result of a real poll.
And no precedent.
Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC program Insiders. He writes a weekly column for The Drum.
Thursday, 3 September 2015
Bill Shorten, Subject/s: Labor’s plan to support Canning residents to fight the scourge of ice; Labor’s plan to reverse Tony Abbott’s cuts to legal services; ChAFTA; Canning by election; national security
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
DOORSTOPPERTH
THURSDAY, 3 SEPTEMBER 2015
MATTHEW KEOGH, LABOR CANDIDATE FOR CANNING: During this by-election campaign in Canning, I’ve been talking to people all around the electorate. One of the things that’s been raised time and time again down in Mandurah, through Byford and up in Armadale has been crime and community safety. As part of that listening I’ve been really interested in hearing what people have to say, but I can tell you that you don’t get to learn about issues like this in just two weeks. I’ve spent my entire life, 33 years in Canning, listening to what people want. This has been a serious issue that we need to address and that’s why I was very happy that a few weeks ago we were able to announce that a future Labor Government would ensure that Armadale Police Station is going to be open to the public on a 24 hour basis.
Labor is, in this by-election, delivering what it would do in government for the people of Canning. We’re not just doing photo ops like Mr Abbott with his candidate.
One of the big parts of dealing with crime though is not just police. We also need to have a holistic solution and that means looking at the causes of crime and it means supporting communities and building communities. The key part of that is drug rehabilitation and support.
Mr Abbott has cut $800 million from the Health Flexible Funds that support critical services like the one we’re in today at Hope Community Service. Those funds support prevention and rehabilitation for people that are on drugs and that includes ice, which at the moment is seen as one of the key drivers of crime in this area. People are concerned for their safety because they are continually encountering people that are on ice, yet right now in Western Australia under the Abbott and Barnett Governments, WA has become the ice capital of the nation and that needs to be fixed. We need to be investing in services like this at Hope, like Palmerston which can help get people off drugs, because people who even want to get themselves off drugs, families who want to support their family members that are on ice can’t find available beds and support services, and they’re the sorts of things we need to be investing in.
Another key area of community safety is domestic violence. Domestic violence is a terrible scourge in our community and one that has to be stopped. We need to support victims of domestic violence, when need to support them in many ways, that includes refuges, but it also includes providing them with the legal services that they need. A critical part of all of that as well is not just funding them but it’s funding them in a sustainable way. We need to make sure that we’re providing funding not just for 12 months or for 6 months but providing funding for these services for several years into the future so that they can retain staff and provide hope for the people that they are serving in the community, so that they know these services are available on a sustainable basis and that’s why I’m really happy to be here today with Bill Shorten who’s going to be making some announcements about what a future Labor Government will be doing to help these services that are trying to clean up our streets but, more importantly, help people in their lives in drug rehabilitation and helping the victims of domestic violence and I’ll hand over to Bill to say something more about that. Thanks, Bill.
BILL SHORTEN, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Thanks very much, Matt, and good morning, everyone, and of course it’s always a great pleasure to be accompanied wherever I go in Western Australia by Western Australia’s own Alannah MacTiernan and it’s great to have Tony Buti here as well, the hard-working local State Member of Parliament.
Matt Keogh is exactly right, he is identifying one of the big issues in the Canning by-election – a sense of community safety and security for the people who live here. Disturbing numbers of criminal statistics have emerged from the year up to the end of June. It is a challenge with burglaries, with assaults, with car break-ins. One of the causes of this community safety problem is of course methamphetamines. Labor has made it clear that Matt Keogh will, if he gets elected, and Labor will, if he gets elected, be supporting the State Opposition’s push to have a 7-day-a-week, 24-hour police station manned at Armidale, but furthermore, today I’m pleased to announce, after advice from Alannah, from Tony, from Matt, that we will contribute a community safety package of $3.2 million.
Now part of that, $200,000, will be for closed-circuit television in Mandurah and Armadale because closed-circuit TV has been proven to be successful in terms of deterring crime. But as we heard from this remarkable service we’re at today, Hope Services, it’s not just a matter of trying to arrest your way out of the problem. Any seasoned police officer will tell you that the police can’t simply arrest their way out of the challenge of drug addictions and substance abuse so that is why Labor is going to reverse the cuts of Mr Abbott and his Liberals, reverse their cuts, and we will put in place $2.7 million worth of rehabilitation treatment for Palmerston and for Hope Services to make sure that families of addicts can get solutions. Any family who’s been through the terribly destructive nature of having a family member addicted to this horrible ice or other substance addictions, they need help and treatment.
So a Shorten Labor Government, if elected, will provide $2.7 million of extra support up to 2019 to help break this silly 12-month funding cycle which means it’s services such as the great place we’re in today are not spending all their time writing grant applications and they can actually form relationships with clients to help defeat the causes of addiction.
Finally, I’m pleased to be announcing we’ll provide – and again reversing some of the dreadful cuts made by Mr Abbott and his Liberals – providing $200,000 to the Peel Community Legal Service so that the victims of family violence can actually get the legal support they need to regain control of their lives.
So there we have it, ladies and gentlemen, one of the big issues in the Canning by-election is that the community want to feel safer and they want to have a holistic approach to solving some of the problems, that’s exactly what Labor’s doing today.
I have to say, though, from the railway station to the bus stop to walking through the mall in Armidale, without a doubt the biggest issue is unemployment and jobs. I’ve had people come up to me and express their concerns with the China Free Trade Agreement. They can’t understand why Mr Abbott hasn’t chosen to stand up more strongly for Australian jobs. There is concern about unemployment. There’s recognition that with the mining boom slowing that unemployment’s a real challenge in Western Australia. So the real issue here, I would submit, is the jobs of the future, jobs for people in Canning and jobs for Western Australians. But it seems that Mr Abbott and his Liberals are just focused on saving Mr Abbott’s job. Happy to take any questions.
JOURNALIST: You do seem to be isolated. A lot of other Labor leaders say get on board with the Free Trade Agreement with China but you’re digging in. So who do we believe? Who’s right and who’s wrong? The majority is certainly on the side of – the Labor leaders who seem to support the Free Trade Agreement.
SHORTEN: I’m on the side of Australian jobs. Quite frankly-
JOURNALIST: Are they not?
SHORTEN: I’ll answer your first question then I’ll answer your second question because it is an important issue you raise. Australian jobs are an obsession of mine. I’m most committed to making sure that we have jobs for Australians. Now, our position is very clear, we think that trying to secure a good trade agreement with China is in the national interest but it has to be a good agreement.
Mr Abbott and his Liberals are so arrogant they think that Australians will just cop any old stuff as good enough. Well near enough’s not good enough, Mr Abbott, when it comes to Australian jobs. Labor’s got three simple propositions and when did Parliament and politics under Mr Abbott’s Liberals become so toxic that Labor can’t propose sensible changes and we just get shouted down by some in the media and by the conservatives? Our propositions are very straight forward and we’re happy to let the Australian people be the judge of who’s right and wrong.
One, we don’t accept that for projects over $150 million there should be no requirement to have labour market testing, or put in plain English, if there’s a project which is $150 million-plus in Western Australia, say a hotel or a construction development, I want to see Western Australian riggers and dogmen get jobs, I want to see Western Australian carpenters, labourers and mechanics and designers and drafts people get those jobs. Now I think that when you’ve got 90,000-plus unemployed Western Australians, having an agreement which removes any safety net for labour market testing for projects over $150 million, it’s a dud deal.
And there’s another change which doesn’t go to the actual treaty itself, but if we genuinely had some champions for Australian jobs in Canberra, as opposed to Mr Abbott and his Liberals, I don’t see what is wrong with suggesting that if we’re going to bring in plumbers who might come and work on your house or electricians who might go into your roof, what we want to make sure of is that their skills, and training and safety knowledge are up to Australian standards. These are sensible changes all about Australian jobs. So in terms of where the debate goes, the Labor Party I lead will make sure that we stand up for Australian jobs and if it’s a choice that I have to make between Mr Abbott and his job or fighting for Australian jobs, I’m on the side of ordinary Aussies, full stop.
JOURNALIST: So to clarify, do you want to renegotiate the FTA?
SHORTEN: We want to amend the enabling legislation around the trade agreement. Let’s face it, just because Tony Abbott gives Australians a proposition and asks Australians to sign a blank cheque, who in their right mind would simply agree with Mr Abbott when he says, just trust me.
JOURNALIST: Well a bunch of Labor leaders have.
SHORTEN: I think if you actually look at their interviews in depth they haven’t actually said what you’re saying. I think what they’ve said is they like the principle of free trade but they also say they prioritise Australian jobs. What I’m doing is actually, unlike day-to-day politics and putting some meat on the bone of our concerns – what is wrong with a project which is $150 million requiring that before you bring in a plane load of people from elsewhere, that you at least see if there’s Australians who can do the work? What’s wrong with saying that we want our plumbers and our electricians or the people doing our plumbing and electrical work to be trained and accredited to Australian safety standards? These are not difficult issues. There’s a deal here to be done but let’s be clear, what sort of Opposition Leader would I be if I simply signed up to every poor deal that Mr Abbott submitted to the Parliament?
JOURNALIST: So what exactly do you want the Government to say in the enabling legislation?
SHORTEN: I just want Mr Abbott to stand up for Australian jobs not just worry about his own job.
JOURNALIST: What would he need to do to win your support?
SHORTEN: Well as you probably know, Mr Abbott hasn’t even put the legislation to the Parliament so it’s great you’re asking me questions and we’re happy to answer them but I think Mr Abbott’s got some questions to answer. Why is it that above $150 million you’re not going to require that a company tests to see if there’s Australians who can do the job. Another question Mr Abbott has to answer is what is so wrong with saying that plumbers and electricians coming in from other countries are trained and accredited to Australian standards? These are not complex issues, it’s just that Mr Abbott’s made a choice. He just hasn’t chosen Australian jobs.
JOURNALIST: The Government says provisions for senior executives in this deal are the same as the provisions that existed under Labor, is that correct?
SHORTEN: No, you’ll have to go further and just expand that question, what did he actually say?
JOURNALIST: He says in terms of the deals for the senior executives that were specified in terms of Chinese companies and Australian companies he says those provisions are the same that existed when Labor was in power, is that true?
SHORTEN: Well logically it can’t be because we didn’t have this agreement when Labor was in power. I think there was a story which you may be referring to that the Chile Free Trade Agreement, Mr Abbott and his team are saying ‘that is the same as the China Free Trade Agreement, so if it was good enough then, why not now’. If that’s what you are asking me, there’s a clear distinction.
Under the Chile Free Trade Agreement, the threshold was much, much higher. The China Free Trade Agreement opens the gates in terms of not requiring labour market testing for occupations which are not just senior occupations to use your test. No the real problem with Mr Abbott’s is as usual, he’s been in such a rush, that he hasn’t checked the fine print, he’s come up with a dud deal in terms of protecting Aussie jobs and it’s left to Labor yet again to be the custodian of Australian jobs and standards and we will.
JOURNALIST: What are you saying? Are you saying there will be a flood of Chinese workers coming into Australia working on major projects?
SHORTEN: I am saying that I want Australians to get the first chance to work on our projects. When did it become so unacceptable to stand up for Australian jobs? There are plenty of households in the Canning electorate where you have got trained construction workers, where you have got people with the sort of skills that can work on projects, they’re unemployed right now. Has anyone noticed unemployment has gone up with Mr Abbott? There are 35,000 extra West Australians in the last two years not working. We have got over 800,000 Aussies out of work. I tell you what, I’m going to fight for these Australians to get the first crack at the jobs. That’s the line in the sand and it’s a good idea. Frankly, Mr Abbott should just sit down, not shout at us or whip up hysterical arguments saying somehow we are not interested in free trade. I am and we are. We supported the Japan Free Trade Agreement, we supported the Korean Free Trade Agreement. But what I can’t do is ignore the fine print. What sort of alternative Prime Minister would I be if I closed my eyes and shut my ears and ignored the reality in front of us? What I would like Mr Abbott to climb off his high horse, start negotiating and put Australian jobs first rather than his own job.
JOURNALIST: Joe Hockey says there is no risk of recession in Australia. Does Labor agree?
SHORTEN: Listen, at the moment, Joe Hockey’s credibility is at the point that if he said it was raining outside, you would be better to going to check. We have seen quarter after quarter of below trend growth. This is Joe Hockey’s economic record. The deficit has been doubled. Unemployment is up. We see growth down to worrying levels and we also see that real wage increases are tiny compared to what they have been. Mr Hockey and Mr Abbott, the only reason Mr Hockey is still the Treasurer, is because if Mr Abbott gives up Mr Hockey, the next person to go will be Mr Abbott. But the real issue here is Australian jobs.
JOURNALIST: Are we heading towards a recession?
SHORTEN: I sincerely hope not. I’m not going to talk down the Australian economy because frankly, there are more important things than Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey and their mishandling of the economy. I think that the Australian people are resilient but the real challenge here, and we can’t deny it, is that our real growth and our nominal growth are too low. There is something not happening in Australia properly at the moment. I say that the Australian economy is wallowing in mediocrity. What we need is a Government in Canberra focused on the future of Australians. Labor started to articulate plans around infrastructure in the Canning by-election, we have proposed $170 million of overdue roadworks which will generate hundreds of jobs, make this community more liveable and help soak up some of the surplus economic effort which is now not being used because of the mining boom easing up. We need more training for our young people at schools. I’m sick and tired of the cuts that Mr Abbott is making to our schools in this community. And furthermore, we need to get rid of this notion we will charge for $100,000 degrees, we will keep undermining our TAFE system. If you want to get the economy going, you have to look at the long-term levers a Government has at its disposal: infrastructure, skills, training, getting a sense of confidence moving forward. Instead we have Mr Hockey trying to pretend there is no problem in the Australian economy.
JOURNALIST: Mr Shorten, just to clarify, which specific legislation or acts need to be changed to address the concerns you have over the FTA? Wouldn’t that contravene the spirit of the agreement that’s been struck with China?
SHORTEN: Are you saying the Parliament is no longer sovereign and we have to agree with everything that Mr Abbott presents? Are we saying it’s no longer appropriate for the Australian Parliament to stand up for Australian jobs? There is enabling legislation around the Migration Act which can with simple amendments deal with the concerns we are raising. What Mr Robb and Mr Hockey and Mr Abbott and his Liberals are saying is that there can be no changes. They know full well, if their predictions that there is no problems can simply be dealt with by sensible amendments from us, we wouldn’t be having this argument. You know the form guide of Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey. Whenever Labor has an idea, they run screaming in the other direction. They never look at the merit of the idea. This trade agreement is too important to be left solely in the hands of Mr Abbott and his addiction to politics over policy. It’s all about Australian jobs. Second last question, thanks.
JOURNALIST: Do you think Mr Abbott will still be the Prime Minister if Labor wins the Canning by-election?
SHORTEN: Let’s try and win the Canning by-election. Everyone knows that the Liberals are desperate to pretend that Mr Abbott is irrelevant to the Canning by-election, but the truth of the matter is that Mr. Abbott and his Liberals who voted to cut our healthcare budget and who voted to cut funding for hospitals. They are the ones who voted to cut pensions. They are the ones desperately trying to introduce $100,000 degrees and are cutting funding to schools. Mr Abbott and his Liberals have been in charge for the last two years and we have seen unemployment go up and up and up. So for me, I don’t care who the Liberals pick after the Canning by-election. My problem is that Mr Abbott or any of his potential replacements, none of them seem to have the answers for Australia’s future. That’s what’s important in this by-election.
JOURNALIST: (Inaudible) the campaign is running doggo in Canning so that the margin is sufficient so that Abbott can stay the leader. Can I ask Mr Keogh, have you been getting around the electorate? Have you been down to Wagerup to campaign?
KEOGH: I haven’t yet been down to Wagerup but I’ve been to Boddington recently just before the campaign started. I’ve been to Pinjarra, I’ve been through Mandurah and south of Mandurah, Byford, I went up to the Serpentine-Jarrahdale council meetings, I’ve been up to Kelmscott and Armadale, Parkdale and Karridale Waters. I’ve been going through the electorate and around the entire electorate and one of the advantages that I think I have in this campaign is that this is an electorate I’ve traversed many times before in its entirety.
JOURNALIST: Not as a candidate, though. Are you putting in an 110 per cent effort?
KEOGH: Of course I am. I am getting out there and talking to all of the people on the ground about the issues that are of concern to them. Having grown up here, I’m already aware of a lot of the issues. The things people have been talking about, the things Bill has been talking about today, are the things that the people I went to school with, my friends have been raising with me for years. It is great to be out here now and why I wanted to be a candidate in this campaign is to take those issues that have been a concern up to the national stage.
JOURNALIST: You have been to Armadale and Mandurah?
ALANNAH MACTIERNAN, SHADOW PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY FOR WESTERN AUSTRALIA: And you are going to Alcoa tomorrow.
KEOGH: We’re going to Alcoa tomorrow. I am focusing on the entire electorate; I am getting around the entire electorate. I grew up in Armadale. I know those issues particularly well. I’ve got friends that have spent time and grew up in Mandurah. I’ve been across the entire electorate and that is what I will be doing over the next few weeks. Critically, that is what the people in Canning want. They want to know their issues are going to be addressed, that they will be listened to. That is what Don Randall was good at when he was the Member for Canning. And that’s the approach I am talking and it’s on the ground.
JOURNALIST: Your opponent and Mr Abbott as well highlight his military service, his national security credentials. You are a lawyer and a former prosecutor. Is law and order what you bring – your specialty you bring to the table? You obviously don’t match him on the military service which seems to be impressing everyone.
KEOGH: What I think I bring to the table is being a strong advocate for this community, whether it’s been as a local lawyer, whether it’s been as a prosecutor, whether it’s been working in community organisations and helping the organisations that build our community, that’s what I bring to this table. The people of Canning want to know they will get a strong representative for their views in Canberra. My entire professional life has been helping those without a voice and being a Member for Canning, we will be doing that.
JOURNALIST: Do you think you are getting the same cut through as Mr Hastie? There are billboards for him across the electorate. There are none really for yourself.
KEOGH: I’m not tracking Mr Hastie’s campaign. I know he thinks in the last couple of weeks, he has got to know the electorate. I’ve spent the last 33 years of my life knowing the electorate.
JOURNALIST: How many billboards do you have up in the area?
KEOGH: I’m not running a count.
MACTIERNAN: I know you are a great advocate of equal opportunity. Our friend from Ten is keen to get a question in.
JOURNALIST: Tony Abbott this morning reiterated his preference for increasing the GST while cutting Government spending as long as other taxes do come down. Isn’t it inevitable the Labor Party is on the wrong side of this argument?
SHORTEN: There is Mr Abbott yet again, another day, another new idea but the question is do any of his ideas actually make sense? Does anything he say correspond with what he said last week or last year? 33 times before the last Federal election, Mr Abbott in return for chasing people’s votes, said there will be no change to the GST. Now he is proposing to change the GST. Is that the full extent of Mr Abbott’s and the Liberal party’s creativity for the future of Australia, that their plan is to increase the GST to 15 per cent and put it on to school fees and healthcare costs and fresh food? Mr Abbott and his Liberal team have run out of ideas. Its official.
Unemployment is up, they are not interested in defending Australian jobs. Our real growth is down, it’s worryingly down. The deficit has doubled. So what does Mr Abbott do? He says my idea for the future is to make everyone pay more money. It’s all to do with the by-election. Mr Hockey said, do you remember last week, we had another Hockey thought bubble where he said I’m going to lower income taxes. That sounds good. How? Sorry, Mr Hockey said “I’ve got a plane to catch” or something. He didn’t answer that question did he?. No, Mr Abbott wants to increase the GST and he wants to increase taxes on Australians. That isn’t the way to build confidence and help Australians meet the cost of living.
JOURNALIST: In that same radio interview, he likened IS to Nazi Germany. Can I get your thoughts on that?
SHORTEN: There is no doubt that IS is evil, bad and terrible. I am not sure I would compare it the whole Second World War. But don’t anyone think that, and I agree with Mr Abbott’s sentiment that IS is evil. Beyond that, Labor is in it together with the Liberals in terms of fighting terrorism where it appears and in whatever form it appears.
So yes, we agree it is evil and terrible, but I am not go to the Second World War analogies.
JOURNALIST: Can we get your thoughts on the claims that Labor is deliberately running dead during this campaign so that Tony Abbott does stay as Prime MInister?
SHORTEN: No, I think every day Tony Abbott stays as Prime Minister is not a good day for Australia. I say that because not about the man, but about his policies. He is taking Australia in the wrong direction full stop. Unemployment up, growth down. Cuts to schools, cuts to hospitals, increasing unfairness in our community, the diminution of social capital in our community. I don’t think Mr Abbott is doing a good job of running Australia. But the issue about Labor’s campaign; someone asked earlier how many billboards do you have? Labor doesn’t have billboards. We have ideas for the future of Canning. We are the only people who have proposed job creating programs for infrastructure. We are the people standing in Armadale talking to Hope Services about how we help families deal with the scourge of ice and substance and drug addiction. Labor is in this election. Judge us by the calibre of our ideas, not on how much money we spend on billboards. We think this by-election is tremendously important. The fact that the Liberals are somehow trying to say that their opponents are running dead is too arrogant for words. We are very serious about this because the problems and the challenges and fighting for the future is too important to be left in the hands of Mr Abbott and his Liberals. If you want to talk about running doggo, why is it that Mr Abbott makes such lightning visits in and out of the place. We know why that is because they are trying to hide Mr Abbott.
Thanks everyone, cheers.
ENDS
Earth has three trillion trees, and falling
Extract from ABC Science
(Source: STILLFX/istockphoto)
There are about three trillion trees on Earth,
roughly 422 for every person and eight times more than previously
estimated, researchers say.
"I don't know what I would have guessed, but I was certainly surprised to find that we were talking about trillions," says the study's lead author Thomas Crowther of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies in Connecticut in the United States.
But there was bad news, the researchers reported in the journal Nature.
The calculation revealed that tree cover had nearly halved since the start of human civilisation.
And the pace of deforestation has not abated: our species is currently felling some 15 billion trees every year, the study found.
The team based their research on verified tree counts from some 400,000 forest plots.
They then used satellite imagery to determine how factors like climate, topography, vegetation, soil conditions and human impact affected tree density.
Developing models to estimate tree numbers at regional levels, they then drew a global map of Earth's estimated 3.04 trillion trees.
"The highest densities of trees were found in the boreal forests in the sub-arctic regions of Russia, Scandinavia and North America," the researchers say.
"But the largest forest areas, by far, are in the tropics, which are home to about 43 percent of the world's trees."
The bad news
The team's calculations revealed that of all the factors impacting tree numbers, human activity had by far the biggest effect, largely through deforestation and land-use change.There has been in total a 46-percent drop in tree numbers since humans began to clear land to plant seeds, the study found.
"In short, tree densities usually plummet as the human population increases," the scientists say.
"We've nearly halved the number of trees on the planet, and we've seen the impacts on climate and human health as a result," says Crowther.
"The study highlights how much more effort is needed if we are to restore healthy forests worldwide."
Apart from offering oxygen, fuel and shelter, trees store important quantities of carbon, which, if released, contribute to global warming.
Canning byelection poll: renewable energy trumps national security
Extract from The Guardian
Voters in the West Australian seat say they would support a 50%
renewable energy target, in a poll conducted for conservation groups and
Solar Citizens
Renewable energy
is of greater concern to voters in Canning than national security and
two-thirds of voters would support a 50% renewable energy target,
according to a poll released on Thursday.
The ReachTel poll, conducted on Monday night for a coalition of the Wilderness Society, the Conservation Council of WA, and Solar Citizens, found that 13.4% of respondents nominated renewable energy as an issue that would affect their vote, compared with 12.8% who nominated national security.
A second poll, conducted by Essential Research for GetUp, found that 48% of swinging voters would be less likely to vote for the Liberal candidate, Andrew Hastie, if the Abbott government reduced the renewable energy target and reduced support to the clean energy industry.
Both polls put the Coalition slightly ahead in two-party-preferred terms, 51% to 49%. The late Liberal MP Don Randall, whose sudden death in July prompted the September 19 byelection, held the seat by a margin of 11.8%.
The semi-rural seat on the south-eastern fringe of Perth is shaping up to be a battleground for renewable energy – the Solar Council has already letterboxed houses in Canning to advocate against the government, arguing that the recent reduction in the renewable energy targeted rooftop solar. According to the RenewEconomy website, Canning has the 12th highest uptake of solar of any electorate in Australia, with almost half the houses sporting either rooftop solar or solar hot water.
Claire O’Rourke, the national director of Solar Citizens, said renewable energy was a cost-of-living issue, because incentivising household solar panels allowed people to reduce their electricity bill.
“Renewable energy is a huge growth industry in Canning and Western Australia, especially with the mining boom coming to an end,” O’Rourke said.
“This poll shows that the people of Canning will vote for a party that adopts ambitious renewable energy policies.”
But despite the apparent hit to former SAS officer Hastie’s main selling point of national security, the results are not necessarily a win for Labor, whose candidate, Matt Keogh, is campaigning on the ALP’s bedrock platforms of education and health. Just 8.8% of people said education would most influence their vote, while health drew rank with national security.
Managing the economy and jobs (33.1%) and the cost of living (19.1%) were the greatest areas of concern.
Liberal voters were more than twice as likely as the average voter to care about national security, ranking it as their second greatest concern behind managing the economy.
However the poll showed that support for increasing the renewable energy target was strong across all political persuasions.
Asked if they would support a proposal to increase the renewable energy target to 50% by 2030, 64.9% said yes. And 60.6% of all respondents said they would be more likely to vote for a party which set such a target. More than two-thirds of Liberal voters said they would support the proposed target or were undecided.
Potential for job creation was cited as the major reason for that support, followed by the prospect it would make battery storage for solar more affordable, and better feed-in tariffs for rooftop solar.
The federal government has already reduced the renewable energy target from 41,000 gigawatt hours to 33,000gWh, or just under 22% of national energy demand, with the target to remain fixed until 2020. The legislation passed the Senate in June and was welcomed by business groups, who said it was a “sensible reform” in reaction to lower than anticipated energy demand.
The Essential Research poll, conducted on Thursday and Friday last week, found that while 43% of all surveyed voters would be more likely to vote Liberal if the renewable energy target were cut, 48% of undecided or “soft” voters said it would make them less likely to vote Liberal.
The picture was much the same when asked if “pursuing policies that don’t meet global emissions targets to reduce global warming” would make them more or less likely to vote Liberal – 28% said it would make them more likely to vote Liberal and 39% said it would make them less likely, climbing to 50% when firm voters were cut out.
GetUp’s campaign director, Sam La Rocca, said the results showed the reduction of the renewable energy target was a “vote loser”.
Speaking in Canning on Thursday the prime minister, Tony Abbott, appeared confident of the Liberal party’s chances of holding the seat, saying: “I think we’re doing well.”
The ReachTel poll, conducted on Monday night for a coalition of the Wilderness Society, the Conservation Council of WA, and Solar Citizens, found that 13.4% of respondents nominated renewable energy as an issue that would affect their vote, compared with 12.8% who nominated national security.
A second poll, conducted by Essential Research for GetUp, found that 48% of swinging voters would be less likely to vote for the Liberal candidate, Andrew Hastie, if the Abbott government reduced the renewable energy target and reduced support to the clean energy industry.
Both polls put the Coalition slightly ahead in two-party-preferred terms, 51% to 49%. The late Liberal MP Don Randall, whose sudden death in July prompted the September 19 byelection, held the seat by a margin of 11.8%.
The semi-rural seat on the south-eastern fringe of Perth is shaping up to be a battleground for renewable energy – the Solar Council has already letterboxed houses in Canning to advocate against the government, arguing that the recent reduction in the renewable energy targeted rooftop solar. According to the RenewEconomy website, Canning has the 12th highest uptake of solar of any electorate in Australia, with almost half the houses sporting either rooftop solar or solar hot water.
Claire O’Rourke, the national director of Solar Citizens, said renewable energy was a cost-of-living issue, because incentivising household solar panels allowed people to reduce their electricity bill.
“Renewable energy is a huge growth industry in Canning and Western Australia, especially with the mining boom coming to an end,” O’Rourke said.
“This poll shows that the people of Canning will vote for a party that adopts ambitious renewable energy policies.”
But despite the apparent hit to former SAS officer Hastie’s main selling point of national security, the results are not necessarily a win for Labor, whose candidate, Matt Keogh, is campaigning on the ALP’s bedrock platforms of education and health. Just 8.8% of people said education would most influence their vote, while health drew rank with national security.
Managing the economy and jobs (33.1%) and the cost of living (19.1%) were the greatest areas of concern.
Liberal voters were more than twice as likely as the average voter to care about national security, ranking it as their second greatest concern behind managing the economy.
However the poll showed that support for increasing the renewable energy target was strong across all political persuasions.
Asked if they would support a proposal to increase the renewable energy target to 50% by 2030, 64.9% said yes. And 60.6% of all respondents said they would be more likely to vote for a party which set such a target. More than two-thirds of Liberal voters said they would support the proposed target or were undecided.
Potential for job creation was cited as the major reason for that support, followed by the prospect it would make battery storage for solar more affordable, and better feed-in tariffs for rooftop solar.
The federal government has already reduced the renewable energy target from 41,000 gigawatt hours to 33,000gWh, or just under 22% of national energy demand, with the target to remain fixed until 2020. The legislation passed the Senate in June and was welcomed by business groups, who said it was a “sensible reform” in reaction to lower than anticipated energy demand.
The Essential Research poll, conducted on Thursday and Friday last week, found that while 43% of all surveyed voters would be more likely to vote Liberal if the renewable energy target were cut, 48% of undecided or “soft” voters said it would make them less likely to vote Liberal.
The picture was much the same when asked if “pursuing policies that don’t meet global emissions targets to reduce global warming” would make them more or less likely to vote Liberal – 28% said it would make them more likely to vote Liberal and 39% said it would make them less likely, climbing to 50% when firm voters were cut out.
GetUp’s campaign director, Sam La Rocca, said the results showed the reduction of the renewable energy target was a “vote loser”.
Speaking in Canning on Thursday the prime minister, Tony Abbott, appeared confident of the Liberal party’s chances of holding the seat, saying: “I think we’re doing well.”
Economic management is now Tony Abbott's weakest claim to re-election
Extract from The Guardian
The Coalition has failed to deliver on its election pledges including
a return to budget surplus, cutting government debt and having a
pro-business strategy
If the next federal election is fought on economic management and
economic outcomes, Labor will romp in. The economy remains moribund,
with each hopeful snippet of good news quickly shot down by a flood of
mediocre or downright bad news. Consumers, and that means voters, are
starting to suffer financial hardship which is one reason the Coalition
should find any issue other than economic management to fight the
upcoming election on.
Making the issue of economic management even more parlous for the Abbott government is its abject failure to deliver on its pledges and promises prior to the September 2013 election. Those included return to budget surplus, cutting government debt and having a pro-business strategy in its economic policy management.
Indeed, on election night in 2013, prime minister elect Tony Abbott declared Australia “open for business”. Abbott has reiterated this mantra since that time with his “economic growth and jobs” theme. Even last week, Abbott said, without a hint of embarrassment, that his government “will fight for jobs, we will fight for investment and we will fight for growth”.
The inference from this powerful rhetoric is that under the Abbott government and its policies, the business sector would be strong and the economy robust. This stronger economy, it was implied, would lead to lower unemployment and prosperity would be unleashed as the economy was unshackled.
Two years on from the election and the runs on the board for the Abbott government are scarce. In fact a scorecard of key economic indicators are quite disturbing for a government that was seemingly hellbent on super-charging the private sector of the economy.
Here is a run of some economic news since the election. The starting point for comparisons is the September quarter 2013 for quarterly data and September 2013 for monthly data.
Since the election, private sector capital expenditure has fallen by a quite stunning 15%. This means that businesses have savagely cut their investment plans and undermined the growth momentum of the economy. The so-called investment expectations data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics suggests that business investment will fall by a further 20% in 2015-16. These are business investment outcomes usually seen during recessions.
At the same time, the national accounts revealed real GDP growth slowed to a paltry 2.0% in the year to the June quarter 2015. Growth is, at best tepid, at worst we are seeing a stagnation that is undermining incomes and living standards. Annual GDP growth has been below 3% for the term of the Abbott government and if anything, growth is slowing with quarterly GDP up just 0.2% in the June quarter.
According to ABS data, company profits have fallen a sharp 6% since the election. This is despite the positive cash-flow effects of record low interest rates and the competitive boost from the lower Australian dollar which today slid below 70 US cents. Simply put, firms are struggling to maintain profits whilst the economy is weak, even though there are positive factors helping their bottom line.
What is also apparent is that the business sector has responded to these economic conditions by under-hiring workers and cracking down on pay rates.
The unemployment rate has jumped to a 13-year high of 6.3% and annual growth in wages, as measured by average weekly earnings, has slumped to 1.2% which is the lowest pace of wages growth in many decades. Wages growth is accordingly less than the rate of inflation, meaning that the purchasing power for the average household is falling. These labour market dynamics mean that the number of people unemployed has risen by 114,000 to more than 800,000, a 21-year high.
Amid these poor economic indicators, the government has increased the budget deficit by about $25bn a year from the level presented to it in the pre-election fiscal outlook in August 2013. A mix of additional spending, giving up the revenue from the carbon price, the bank levy and mining tax and weaker growth have all conspired to see the budget deficit increase. Gone is any discussion of a surplus until at least the 2020s and gross government debt has risen to a record $384bn, over $110bn higher than the level inherited by the Abbott government. Government debt will soon exceed $400bn, given treasurer Joe Hockey’s inability to get government spending and the budget deficit under control.
Perhaps the most telling fact that smashes once and for all the economic management myth that surrounds the Coalition government is the weakness of the Australian stock market.
The recent market volatility has not hidden the fact that since election, the ASX200 is down about 4% (using Wednesday’s level of about 5,050 points). This lame performance sits in stark contrast with other major global stock markets. Over the same time, the US S&P 500 and German DAX indices are both up by more than 15%, the Japanese Nikkei is up by about 25% while the UK FTSE has been weaker, dropping by about 5%.
The weak economy has clearly weighed on profits and therefore share prices.
There is no doubt that the economy has not responded at all well to the election of the Abbott government. Growth is sluggish, the unemployment rate is rising and the business investment and profits are in the doldrums. This is not a set of economic conditions that would normally favour an incumbent government. With just a year until the election, there needs to be a sudden and dramatic turn in conditions if the Abbott government is to go to the polls using the economy to build its case for re-election.
Stephen Koukoulas is a research fellow at Per Capita, a progressive thinktank
Making the issue of economic management even more parlous for the Abbott government is its abject failure to deliver on its pledges and promises prior to the September 2013 election. Those included return to budget surplus, cutting government debt and having a pro-business strategy in its economic policy management.
Indeed, on election night in 2013, prime minister elect Tony Abbott declared Australia “open for business”. Abbott has reiterated this mantra since that time with his “economic growth and jobs” theme. Even last week, Abbott said, without a hint of embarrassment, that his government “will fight for jobs, we will fight for investment and we will fight for growth”.
The inference from this powerful rhetoric is that under the Abbott government and its policies, the business sector would be strong and the economy robust. This stronger economy, it was implied, would lead to lower unemployment and prosperity would be unleashed as the economy was unshackled.
Two years on from the election and the runs on the board for the Abbott government are scarce. In fact a scorecard of key economic indicators are quite disturbing for a government that was seemingly hellbent on super-charging the private sector of the economy.
Here is a run of some economic news since the election. The starting point for comparisons is the September quarter 2013 for quarterly data and September 2013 for monthly data.
Since the election, private sector capital expenditure has fallen by a quite stunning 15%. This means that businesses have savagely cut their investment plans and undermined the growth momentum of the economy. The so-called investment expectations data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics suggests that business investment will fall by a further 20% in 2015-16. These are business investment outcomes usually seen during recessions.
At the same time, the national accounts revealed real GDP growth slowed to a paltry 2.0% in the year to the June quarter 2015. Growth is, at best tepid, at worst we are seeing a stagnation that is undermining incomes and living standards. Annual GDP growth has been below 3% for the term of the Abbott government and if anything, growth is slowing with quarterly GDP up just 0.2% in the June quarter.
According to ABS data, company profits have fallen a sharp 6% since the election. This is despite the positive cash-flow effects of record low interest rates and the competitive boost from the lower Australian dollar which today slid below 70 US cents. Simply put, firms are struggling to maintain profits whilst the economy is weak, even though there are positive factors helping their bottom line.
What is also apparent is that the business sector has responded to these economic conditions by under-hiring workers and cracking down on pay rates.
The unemployment rate has jumped to a 13-year high of 6.3% and annual growth in wages, as measured by average weekly earnings, has slumped to 1.2% which is the lowest pace of wages growth in many decades. Wages growth is accordingly less than the rate of inflation, meaning that the purchasing power for the average household is falling. These labour market dynamics mean that the number of people unemployed has risen by 114,000 to more than 800,000, a 21-year high.
Amid these poor economic indicators, the government has increased the budget deficit by about $25bn a year from the level presented to it in the pre-election fiscal outlook in August 2013. A mix of additional spending, giving up the revenue from the carbon price, the bank levy and mining tax and weaker growth have all conspired to see the budget deficit increase. Gone is any discussion of a surplus until at least the 2020s and gross government debt has risen to a record $384bn, over $110bn higher than the level inherited by the Abbott government. Government debt will soon exceed $400bn, given treasurer Joe Hockey’s inability to get government spending and the budget deficit under control.
Perhaps the most telling fact that smashes once and for all the economic management myth that surrounds the Coalition government is the weakness of the Australian stock market.
The recent market volatility has not hidden the fact that since election, the ASX200 is down about 4% (using Wednesday’s level of about 5,050 points). This lame performance sits in stark contrast with other major global stock markets. Over the same time, the US S&P 500 and German DAX indices are both up by more than 15%, the Japanese Nikkei is up by about 25% while the UK FTSE has been weaker, dropping by about 5%.
The weak economy has clearly weighed on profits and therefore share prices.
There is no doubt that the economy has not responded at all well to the election of the Abbott government. Growth is sluggish, the unemployment rate is rising and the business investment and profits are in the doldrums. This is not a set of economic conditions that would normally favour an incumbent government. With just a year until the election, there needs to be a sudden and dramatic turn in conditions if the Abbott government is to go to the polls using the economy to build its case for re-election.
Stephen Koukoulas is a research fellow at Per Capita, a progressive thinktank
Wednesday, 2 September 2015
Bureaucrat advised cruise operator to 'sack crew and hire foreigners', senators told
Extract from The Guardian
North Star Cruises Australia says Canberra officials gave advice
after being told deregulation of shipping industry would hit local
companies’ ability to compete
A cruise operator has alleged a government bureaucrat advised it to
sack its Australian staff and hire foreign crew on cheaper wages to
remain competitive under the Coalition’s proposed new shipping laws.
When the North Star Cruises Australia owners’ representative Bill Milby asked transport department officials how that fitted with the Coalition’s budget message of supporting small business, they shrugged their shoulders, he said.
A spokesman for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has denied such advice was provided to NSCA.
But Milby rejected their denial and told Guardian Australia: “They did, and if push comes to shove I will say it under oath and I will take a lie detector test.”
The NSCA operates expedition cruise ships such as True North off the northern coast of Western Australia. Milby was present when the deputy prime minister and transport minister, Warren Truss, announced in May the government would deregulate shipping laws to remove “red tape”.
Under Truss’s legislation, workers on non-Australian flagged vessels will only be subject to Australian wages and conditions if the ships trade in Australia for more than 183 days, roughly six months of the yearly permits. It will also streamline requirements to a single shipping licence for boats operating between domestic ports.
Milby said in answer to his question, Truss had denied it would make Australian ships uncompetitive. He then took it up with the minister’s officials, telling them his company would be struggle to compete because foreign ships would operate with costs of between 50% and 70% lower than Australian-owned and crewed vessels.
“The [department] executive director’s advice to me during that discussion was if NSCA wanted to remain competitive with the foreign-owned and crewed ships it should – quote ‘consider taking our ship True North off the Australian Shipping Register, re-register the ship in a suitable foreign country, lay off our Australian crew and hire a cheaper foreign crew’ unquote,” Milby said in a submission to the Senate committee considering the legislation.
“When she suggested this I told her that I could not believe the suggestion she made and she said quote ‘to remain competitive in the world that is what we should do’ unquote.”
Milby was so shocked he arranged a meeting in Canberra with the department in June to further discuss the legislation, given foreign crew are paid one-third of Australian wages. The company told a departmental officer that foreign shipping firms did not have to pay payroll tax, superannuation, workers compensation, holiday pay or for seafarers insurance or training requirements.
“I asked ... how they expected Australian expedition ship owners such as NSCA to compete with the foreign-crewed ships and remain in business and they suggested the following:
“1. First take True North off the Australian Shipping Registry.
“2. Register True North in a foreign country, and, reflag our ship True North with a foreign flag.
“3. Then replace the Australian crew (apart from the captain and chief engineer) with foreign crew who would not be governed under the Australian labour laws and the Australian Fair Work Act.
“4. The foreign crew would also be trained in a foreign country – not Australia, saving more money.
Milby’s submission went on: “I asked how they could justify this course of action which will threaten not only NSCA but also all of the Australian ships and ferries that trade on the whole Australian coastline and their answer was, ‘Australia is part of the international market and we have to compete with international operators.’
“I asked them how they could justify the negative impact this new legislation will have on all of the small businesses and supporting businesses in regional Australia, especially after the 2015-16 budget announced by the prime minister and treasurer, where they both placed a big emphasis on small business being the backbone of the Australian economy and the budget measures were proof of the government’s support.
“All I got from both of them was a shrug of the shoulders.”
Truss’s department denied giving such advice.
“The department did not provide this advice,” a spokesman said. “The Australian government is working to build a more competitive and efficient shipping industry and is committed to reforming coastal shipping.”
The other concern of the shipping company was that foreign ships would not have the same respect for the pristine environment of much of the Australian coastline as local operators.
The NSCA submission said when the company had raised the environmental concerns with the department, the federal bureaucrat suggested it was a state government problem.
“So it would appear that if the new coastal trading legislation goes through, the federal government will subrogate any environment issues – of which the potential is enormous – to the states to sort out,” the submission says.
When the company raised the issue with the West Australian deputy premier and tourism minister, Kim Hames, NSCA received a letter from him suggesting the changes would result in broader economic benefits as a result of opening up regional ports to foreign vessels.
While Hames acknowledged he was concerned at the potential impact on the WA environment, he suggested a more appropriate response was to exclude “smaller passenger vessels from any relaxation of the current legislation”.
Labor, the unions and other Australian shipping companies have expressed their concern at the legislation, which is now before the Senate standing committee on rural, regional affairs and transport. The committee is due to report on the bill in October.
The ongtime Liberal party member Peter Cadwallader, of the Intercontinental Shipping Group, which operates bulk carrier ICS Silver Lining, said in his own submission that jobs and tax revenue would be lost to Australia as a result of the legislation.
“As a longtime member of the Liberal party (nearly 50 years), I am aware that the focus of Coalition policy is jobs and growth,” he said. “Both of these objectives will be sacrificed by this bill in direct contradiction of Coalition policy.”
When the North Star Cruises Australia owners’ representative Bill Milby asked transport department officials how that fitted with the Coalition’s budget message of supporting small business, they shrugged their shoulders, he said.
A spokesman for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has denied such advice was provided to NSCA.
But Milby rejected their denial and told Guardian Australia: “They did, and if push comes to shove I will say it under oath and I will take a lie detector test.”
The NSCA operates expedition cruise ships such as True North off the northern coast of Western Australia. Milby was present when the deputy prime minister and transport minister, Warren Truss, announced in May the government would deregulate shipping laws to remove “red tape”.
Under Truss’s legislation, workers on non-Australian flagged vessels will only be subject to Australian wages and conditions if the ships trade in Australia for more than 183 days, roughly six months of the yearly permits. It will also streamline requirements to a single shipping licence for boats operating between domestic ports.
Milby said in answer to his question, Truss had denied it would make Australian ships uncompetitive. He then took it up with the minister’s officials, telling them his company would be struggle to compete because foreign ships would operate with costs of between 50% and 70% lower than Australian-owned and crewed vessels.
“The [department] executive director’s advice to me during that discussion was if NSCA wanted to remain competitive with the foreign-owned and crewed ships it should – quote ‘consider taking our ship True North off the Australian Shipping Register, re-register the ship in a suitable foreign country, lay off our Australian crew and hire a cheaper foreign crew’ unquote,” Milby said in a submission to the Senate committee considering the legislation.
“When she suggested this I told her that I could not believe the suggestion she made and she said quote ‘to remain competitive in the world that is what we should do’ unquote.”
Milby was so shocked he arranged a meeting in Canberra with the department in June to further discuss the legislation, given foreign crew are paid one-third of Australian wages. The company told a departmental officer that foreign shipping firms did not have to pay payroll tax, superannuation, workers compensation, holiday pay or for seafarers insurance or training requirements.
“I asked ... how they expected Australian expedition ship owners such as NSCA to compete with the foreign-crewed ships and remain in business and they suggested the following:
“1. First take True North off the Australian Shipping Registry.
“2. Register True North in a foreign country, and, reflag our ship True North with a foreign flag.
“3. Then replace the Australian crew (apart from the captain and chief engineer) with foreign crew who would not be governed under the Australian labour laws and the Australian Fair Work Act.
“4. The foreign crew would also be trained in a foreign country – not Australia, saving more money.
Milby’s submission went on: “I asked how they could justify this course of action which will threaten not only NSCA but also all of the Australian ships and ferries that trade on the whole Australian coastline and their answer was, ‘Australia is part of the international market and we have to compete with international operators.’
“I asked them how they could justify the negative impact this new legislation will have on all of the small businesses and supporting businesses in regional Australia, especially after the 2015-16 budget announced by the prime minister and treasurer, where they both placed a big emphasis on small business being the backbone of the Australian economy and the budget measures were proof of the government’s support.
“All I got from both of them was a shrug of the shoulders.”
Truss’s department denied giving such advice.
“The department did not provide this advice,” a spokesman said. “The Australian government is working to build a more competitive and efficient shipping industry and is committed to reforming coastal shipping.”
The other concern of the shipping company was that foreign ships would not have the same respect for the pristine environment of much of the Australian coastline as local operators.
The NSCA submission said when the company had raised the environmental concerns with the department, the federal bureaucrat suggested it was a state government problem.
“So it would appear that if the new coastal trading legislation goes through, the federal government will subrogate any environment issues – of which the potential is enormous – to the states to sort out,” the submission says.
When the company raised the issue with the West Australian deputy premier and tourism minister, Kim Hames, NSCA received a letter from him suggesting the changes would result in broader economic benefits as a result of opening up regional ports to foreign vessels.
While Hames acknowledged he was concerned at the potential impact on the WA environment, he suggested a more appropriate response was to exclude “smaller passenger vessels from any relaxation of the current legislation”.
Labor, the unions and other Australian shipping companies have expressed their concern at the legislation, which is now before the Senate standing committee on rural, regional affairs and transport. The committee is due to report on the bill in October.
The ongtime Liberal party member Peter Cadwallader, of the Intercontinental Shipping Group, which operates bulk carrier ICS Silver Lining, said in his own submission that jobs and tax revenue would be lost to Australia as a result of the legislation.
“As a longtime member of the Liberal party (nearly 50 years), I am aware that the focus of Coalition policy is jobs and growth,” he said. “Both of these objectives will be sacrificed by this bill in direct contradiction of Coalition policy.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This is the point in the three-year cycle when a functional government would be finishing the hard grind of doing what it promised at the last election and beginning the task of selling those achievements, and a few new ambitions, at the next one.
Not this administration. The prime minister’s line – after the unsuccessful February leadership spill – that “good government starts today” has become a running gallows-humour joke inside his own administration. Even Coalition MPs are not quite sure what their “good government” is trying to achieve.
Its first two years have been a switchback ride of policy reversals, broken promises, foot-stomping frustrations and ideological overreach, leaving Coalition supporters despairing and voters – according to every published poll – deeply unimpressed. Instead of soothing, negotiating, persuading or explaining, the Abbott government responds to new setbacks with another whiplash of hyperbolic aggression or distraction.
When ministers dutifully recite the talking point that the leak/leadership story/scandal/side issue of the day is a “distraction”, no one knows what we are supposedly being distracted from.
Coalition MPs cling to the John Howard comparison. He had persistently bad polls in his first term and he still won a second, right? But Howard was unpopular in his first term mostly because he actually did the unpopular things he believed in – he cut government spending, he changed industrial relation laws, he forced through the gun buyback and he asked voters to give him a second term so he could introduce a goods and services tax. So when he framed the 1998 election around “economic competence” and growth and jobs (sound familiar?), he could point to actual achievements to demonstrate the “courageous decisions” necessary to achieve it, from his political perspective.
By contrast this government has kept switching its slogans and policy objectives for the economy every time the last script didn’t work out.
It began with the call to arms at the last election – the “debt ‘n deficit disaster” that was all Labor’s fault and only a new Coalition government could avoid. But the first Abbott budget didn’t even try to do all that much about it, and ambushed voters with previously unmentioned health, education and welfare changes which the public and the Senate (backed by at least three sets of modelling) rejected as inequitable and unfair.
By the Coalition’s pre-election reasoning (which ignored international forces like global financial crises or changes in commodity prices) the bigger and longer-lasting deficits and higher debt now forecast should be an even bigger emergency than the one it inherited.
So the slogan switched to “have a go” and the shiny, optimistic 2015 budget was all about getting good, honest folk back to work, primarily women – by way of a new childcare package. That was paid for by cuts to family tax benefit and a massive paring back of what had previously been the prime minister’s “signature” policy on paid parental leave. But neither have passed the Senate, so the productivity- boosting childcare plan (which isn’t supposed to start until July 2017 anyway) remains somewhat hypothetical and complicated to talk about.
So now the slogan has switched again, to “jobs and growth”. The government likes to refer to 300,000 jobs “created” during its term, but that hasn’t been enough to stop unemployment rising. Growth has slowed to a crawl.
Which brings us to “lower, simpler, fairer taxes”. Let’s put aside for one second the inconvenient facts that the government introduced a deficit levy and re-indexed petrol excise, both moves I agree with, but not exactly lower taxes.
The “lower, simpler, fairer” tax policy it will present at the next election may or may not include personal income tax cuts funded by an expansion of the GST, depending on which day it is and which member of the government is talking. But even if voters were to forget that the prime minister promised “the GST will not change. Full stop. End of story” when asked if he would propose changes in a second term, any GST expansion would require the agreement of the states and they want the money to pay for the looming (and real) “black hole” in hospitals funding. And any parent who has spent time comforting a sick and distressed child in a seething accident and emergency department is likely to be on the premiers’ side in that argument.
Meanwhile, the government’s plans for higher education policy remain in limbo. It abandoned a promise to match Labor on schools funding so we have no idea what will happen there, and the Medicare co-payment has ostensibly been shelved but the Australian Medical Association says a freeze on rebates achieves exactly the same thing over time, by stealth.
For a while the government was going to “end the age of entitlement” for Australian industry. But then (who’d have guessed) the polls in manufacturing states headed south and it suddenly found another $500m for the car industry as a kind of farewell present, and said the Australian Submarine Corporation was actually good for something other than canoe-building and might just get a look in on the $20bn future submarine contract after all.
Briefly, the G20 was pencilled in as a headline achievement, but Barack Obama turned up and had the nerve to point out that climate change might have an impact on the Great Barrier Reef – who knew? – and most of Australia’s solemn economic pledges in the supposedly growth-turbocharging “Brisbane Action Plan” were subsequently ditched.
The free trade agreements might be chalked up as one actual Abbott government achievement, although the China FTA could still fall foul of the current toxic political environment if Labor overreaches and pushes too far with the union movement’s demands or Abbott finds it impossible to make even small legislative concessions.
And having abolished the carbon price, slashed the renewable energy target, abolished the climate council, tried to abolish – or nobble – the clean energy finance corporation and insisted that wind turbines are “utterly offensive” while “coal is good for humanity”, the government said it would sign up to tougher-than-expected 2030 greenhouse gas reduction targets, but without any credible policy to achieve to them. (It then dusted off unrelated and dated economic modelling to manufacture a case that its mostly unannounced policy would be a cheaper way to reach these targets than Labor’s unannounced policy to reach its unannounced targets. Former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser, now chair of the independent climate change authority, described that particular diversionary exercise as “weird” and “misleading”).
On national security – a policy area where Labor has offered determined bipartisanship – the government has worked particularly hard to confect disagreement, and has sometimes managed to achieve it most successfully within its own cabinet – for example with the ill-considered and almost certainly unconstitutional surprise first draft of the citizenship laws and the equally ill-thought-through first shot at metadata retention.
On asylum the government has achieved what both major parties promised in 2013 – it has “stopped the boats”. But the human collateral damage is ongoing and has no obvious end – given the lack of resettlement options for those refugees left stranded and suffering on Nauru and Manus Island.
And while the government has been swerving and sliding and prevaricating on the most important areas of policy for the everyday lives of ordinary Australians it has confected “wars” on everything and everyone from Q&A, to conservation organisations to Gillian Triggs, which to anyone outside News Ltd editorial meetings appear to border on the unhinged.
The prime minister used internal processes to shut down any chance that this parliament will achieve marriage equality, was reluctantly forced to retreat on the “right to be a bigot” racial discrimination laws, and shocked his own party with his personal ideological frolic of reintroducing knighthoods and then giving one to Prince Philip.
All these “wars”, of course, have a political purpose – to silence dissent, sideline unwanted advice and distract from critical scrutiny – the same motivations for systematically removing Labor appointments from boards and advisory groups and defunding or sidelining groups that advocate for the poor, the sick, the disabled, the disadvantaged, refugees or the environment.
The government finishes its second year flailing around for a new enemy (it’s Fairfax, no – it’s still the ABC, maybe it’s those sabotaging greenie environmental vandals with the temerity to suggest the environment minister should follow environmental law) and still apparently unaware that its gladiatorial winner-takes-all style is actually adding to its dysfunction and voters’ mistrust.
Well, actually some inside the party understand this all too well but they are not heard – the February leadership spill opened the prime minister’s closed circle of advice a little bit, but not that much. Cabinet is as circumvented as ever – it recently met without a single formal submission and was not consulted before the party room debate on same sex marriage. And it’s leaking more.
This time last year voters had already lost trust in the prime minister, dating back to his first ill-considered budget. Now they are losing respect and the party is once again descending into a self-defeating cycle of instability, suspicions and second guessing of the leadership intentions of Malcolm Turnbull or Scott Morrison or Julie Bishop.
The only glimmer of hope for the Coalition is that voters also appear deeply underwhelmed by Bill Shorten’s Labor.
That’s what Howard was clinging to when interviewed on the ABC’s Insiders program earlier this year about his successor’s troubles, comparing them to his own difficult first term.
“One of the reasons we came back was that deep down, people didn’t think Kim Beazley – terrific bloke – stood for anything.
“[There] is a lot of parallels now; I don’t think Bill Shorten stands for anything. One thing that will increasingly being put in the spotlight is the policy acuity of the Labor party.”
But that logic fails if the Coalition incumbent doesn’t stand for anything either.
As the newly reinstated Kevin Rudd discovered in 2013, a government that goes to an election with nothing much to offer except a reminder of how much people dislike the other guy might find that the electorate decides the other guy is a risk worth taking.