The Abbott Government

[Smurf1976]

Contrary to popular misconception in the city,...

The big 'L' Libs (and the oft misinformed and or ignorant 'city-ites') would do well to remember the rural sector is very prone to favour moderate Labor and green philosophy in the context that farmers and rural communities generaly are more acutely aware they depend on the long term sustainability of their practices for their lifestyle and financial survival... contrary to the laissez faire Big L liberals who see everything as a financial resource, to exploit, slash and burn and move on to the next place... which brings me back to the CSG (and recourses generally) issue that Abbott should not cut and slash red and green tape too severely to appease his Big L extremists or he'll soon find himself off side with his minority but critical National party, coalition... and pop goes his tenuous thread on power.

Environmental politics has always been a strange beast.

Most of the issues people get so upset about are things which happen outside cities. Agriculture, dams, heavy industry, forestry etc - all either completely or mostly done outside the cities.

And yet it's the city "industries" which are the ultimate cause of the situation we face with sustainability in the first place. The obsession with "growth" is the crux of it, and to a large extent it's a city-centric thing. Take a look at most cities and note the names on the biggest buildings - most of them are banks or other financial services, the very heart of the growth obsession. There's an awful lot of people employed in this constant growth thing, most of them in cities. And those people are, it seems, the most likely to object to the very thing they are aiming to achieve.

Education is a big part of the problem. It seems there are quite a few people living in cities these days who've never actually been on a farm and have no idea how cement, steel or paper are produced (apart from the latter using trees). Heck, there's people in Melbourne who get upset about brown coal and yet they've never even been to the Latrobe Valley to see for themselves despite it being a fairly easy day trip by car.

We ought to go back to the days of actually educating children as part of the solution. Send them to farms, big dams, power stations, steel works or other big factories and teach them how things are done. Give them the facts, not green bias, and encourage them to think for themselves. Then we'll be rid of silly images of bucket wheel dredgers ripping through forests (yep, I've actually seen that being handed out on leaflets in central Melbourne by someone dressed as a koala opposing a factory in Tasmania) since everyone will know it's not reality. Then we'll be able to have a sensible debate about all this.

It would likewise be good to see some decent education in matters such as economics etc too. The more people know, the less likely they are to be brainwashed. Any sensible government ought to see the benefits of a broadly educated population. Uni degrees and TAFE yes, but that's not all there is to education about how the world actually works.

 

[drsmith]

So far none of the road projects Abbott wants to fund have rated as particularly well spent tax payer funds.

I don't know if that's true or not as I haven't looked at that level of detail of either party's transport infrastructure priorities. What you say is in principal correct but it would need to include the state funding components as well.

Infrastructure projects though have been used as an electoral pork barrel by both major parties. I seem to recall Labor promising big funds for a major urban rail project in Sydney at a past election and failing to deliver.

As another example, the over-engineered South Road Superway build in Adelaide is another Labor project at both a state and federal level.

The WA state election in March this year saw pork barrelling by both sides on urban rail.

 

[Whiskers]

Just to elaborate on this...

Uni degrees and TAFE yes, but that's not all there is to education about how the world actually works.

... a phenomena often seen especially in nursing in Qld is a complaint from older staff and patients, that new nurse graduates under the Uni qualified system tend to be more aloof and overly endowed with their own self-importance compared to nurses who qualified on the learn as you work model, like apprentices, who are attributed to having a less aloof and more empathetic approach and more integrated relationships with patients and other staff.

So, yes I agree... life education, as opposed to pure academic education, often produces better understanding and decision making.

 

[Julia]

In my past life I, and a board I chaired, met with Tony Abbott twice, the first time time was when he was Minister for Workplace Relations and Employment and again about 4 years later when he was Minister for Health. Included in our board at those meetings were 2 women and everybody's opinion of him was the dead opposite to that image the handbag brigade was trying to project, rather he was more engaging, forthright, open and a decent bloke than a demon.

Good to have an opinion from someone who has actually engaged with Mr Abbott, rather than just accepting the media description of him.

 

[MrBurns]

Good to have an opinion from someone who has actually engaged with Mr Abbott, rather than just accepting the media description of him.

Says more than any media commentary ever could

 

[sydboy007]

We ought to go back to the days of actually educating children as part of the solution. Send them to farms, big dams, power stations, steel works or other big factories and teach them how things are done. Give them the facts, not green bias, and encourage them to think for themselves. Then we'll be rid of silly images of bucket wheel dredgers ripping through forests (yep, I've actually seen that being handed out on leaflets in central Melbourne by someone dressed as a koala opposing a factory in Tasmania) since everyone will know it's not reality. Then we'll be able to have a sensible debate about all this.

It would likewise be good to see some decent education in matters such as economics etc too. The more people know, the less likely they are to be brainwashed. Any sensible government ought to see the benefits of a broadly educated population. Uni degrees and TAFE yes, but that's not all there is to education about how the world actually works.

+1

I'm amazed at how little practical knowledge a lot of people have these days. We might not be quite as bad as thinking milk comes from cartons and meat is something that comes from the super market in a styrofoam tray, but we're not too far from it.

But then we've moved a long way from the nostalgic farm of cows roaming the pastures with a mix of chickens and ducks and other food crops as well. Todays farming practices would probably not be recognisable to most people, especially when animals are brought into it. Farming monocultures are the norm where scale and efficiency is the top priority.

It would be good to integrate some commons maths into the issues of modern day life. Let students work out that if you have an area of x size and you are allowed y chickens in that area, how much space does each chicken get. Draw it out and actually see what that space is like. Same goes for various financial contracts. Why do you need a finance degree to understand a mobile phone contract? Even better, start getting high school students to understand the age quake rolling through the economy. Let them determine what the average taxation to each worker will be as the dependency ratio continues its relative decline over the next few decades. This kind of education might be better money spent than chaplaincy funding.

Then again, I doubt either of the main political parties wants too many of the great unwashed to understand this stuff, otherwise they might start to ask tricky questions and not be blinded by 3 word slogans.

 

[sydboy007]

Infrastructure projects though have been used as an electoral pork barrel by both major parties. I seem to recall Labor promising big funds for a major urban rail project in Sydney at a past election and failing to deliver.

The argument that's been portrayed is the Coalition are superior economic managers. If they pork barrel like anyone else, then that tends to show the argument is false.

With the lack of revenue, and the age quake starting to bite, we can no longer afford to invest in infrastructure on any basis but the greatest economic return. Well we can, we just wont maintain the high lifestyle we feel we deserve.

Abbott can show his true colours. Invest in a way that might garner less votes but provides a greater economic return, or invest for votes and not make much of a return, or even lose money on the investment. We can't afford too many more Adelaide Darwin rail links.

 

[drsmith]

The argument that's been portrayed is the Coalition are superior economic managers. If they pork barrel like anyone else, then that tends to show the argument is false.

With the lack of revenue, and the age quake starting to bite, we can no longer afford to invest in infrastructure on any basis but the greatest economic return. Well we can, we just wont maintain the high lifestyle we feel we deserve.

Abbott can show his true colours. Invest in a way that might garner less votes but provides a greater economic return, or invest for votes and not make much of a return, or even lose money on the investment. We can't afford too as many more Adelaide Darwin rail links.

As I've said a number of times before, it's a question of relative merits between the parties.

 

[sydboy007]

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/abbott-open-for-business-and-multinational-lawsuits/700/

If this is true that Abbott wants to have open slather on Investor-State Dispute Settlement, or ISDS for new FTAs (A.K.A managed trade deals where Australia generally comes off second best) we're in for a lot of trouble.

For those that don't want to read the whole article:

What this arcane phrase refers to is the right of foreign companies to sue national governments of the signatory countries, not in domestic courts, but in opaque international forums, if they think some element of that government’s policy is harming their interests.

If a mining company, for example, is unhappy with environmental safeguards which inhibit its operations, if a pharmaceutical company is unhappy with the prices it gets for its drugs, if a chemical company is upset with the banning of an agricultural pesticide, if a tobacco company does not like laws restricting cigarette sales, ISDS provisions in trade agreements give them the means to challenge government policy and to seek compensation.

And they do this increasingly often, sometimes claiming enormous amounts of money. According to a report in May 2013 by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which monitors these things, a record 58 ISDS cases were begun in 2012. In the same year, decisions were made on 42 cases by an assortment of more or less credible international arbiters. Only 31 of these were publicly disclosed, but of those, 70 per cent went in favour of the corporations, at least in part; and nine resulted in significant awards for damages, including one – to an oil company which sued Ecuador – for a record US$1.77 billion.

On the eve of the election, the Coalition released its trade policy, which includes a commitment to “remaining open to utilising investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses as part of Australia’s negotiating position” in future trade deals.

In truth, it appears gung-ho to wrap up as many free-trade agreements as possible, as fast as possible, and to strongly favour inclusion of ISDS provisions. The document cites, for example, the need to quickly complete a deal with South Korea, and blames the current impasse in negotiations on “Labor’s refusal to consider a proposal for an investor-state dispute settlement clause”.

The policy also promises to “fast track the conclusion of free trade agreements with China, South Korea, Japan, India, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Indonesia”, and to “explore the feasibility of free trade agreements with other trading partners including the European Union, Brazil, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, South Africa and Taiwan”.

And then there’s the big one, the US-driven Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), now being negotiated between the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Japan and Vietnam; countries with a combined population of nearly 800 million people and a combined GDP of almost US$28 trillion.

The irony is that if Australia does sign up, it does not gain any trade benefits with America over and above those already included in the AUSFTA deal.

The Howard government’s position was not, however, one of blanket opposition to ISDS provisions in trade deals. It maintained the previous, bipartisan position that ISDS provisions should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

This attitude changed, though, under the next, Labor government, following a 2010 inquiry by the Productivity Commission, which found few benefits and “considerable policy and financial risks arising from ISDS provisions”.
In 2011, the Australian government declared it would not agree to ISDS provisions under any circumstances. The wording of a statement from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was unequivocal.

Emerson cites an example from Canada where, in 2011, the province of Quebec called a moratorium on the controversial gas extraction method called fracking (hydraulic fracturing) while it undertook an evaluation of the possible resulting environmental damage.

Well, a United States company, Lone Pine Resources, which operates out of Calgary but is incorporated in the US tax-haven state of Delaware, decided to take action under the ISDS provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), to which Canada, the US and Mexico, are signatories. It sued for C$250 million.

Emerson could equally have pointed to a large number of other actions taken by US corporations against countries with which it has trade pacts involving ISDS. Consider a couple of Canadian cases, for example. There was a C$500 million suit by the giant drug maker Eli Lily in response to a Canadian-court-ordered invalidation of the patents of two of its drugs, Strattera and Zyprexa.

And another action by Dow AgroSciences LLC, for losses allegedly caused by a ban imposed by Quebec on the sale and certain uses of lawn pesticides containing the active ingredient 2,4-D.

Emerson points also to the problems caused by trade deals that Australia has already entered into, such as the action now being pursued by the tobacco company Philip Morris over Australia’s plain-packaging laws for cigarettes, as good reason to eschew such provisions in future.

Less publicised is the fact that having failed in the High Court, the company now is pursuing the matter via a bilateral trade agreement signed between Australia and Hong Kong in the early 1990s, which includes ISDS provisions.

In short, just about every aspect of the system was declared deficient by UNCTAD. Its report canvassing the problems and possible reform measures makes for troubling reading.

Among other things, it notes: “In many cases foreign investors have used ISDS claims to challenge measures adopted by States in the public interest (for example, policies to promote social equity, foster environmental protection or protect public health).”

“A very topical example at the moment is coal seam gas,” the Institute says. “As new information is collected and disseminated governments may want to act to control that activity. Governments would be loath to act if they were liable for massive payouts to foreign companies.

 

[Whiskers]

+1

I'm amazed at how little practical knowledge a lot of people have these days.

Definitely, in the basics of sustainable lifestyle. You just have to look around when there's a disaster that cuts transport and electricity for a few days at how many people are completely flabbergasted trying to get hold of some basics that they have come to depend on getting from the supermarket shelf.

How many would know or even consider to hang out a tarp for some fresh water, how to make their own bread or damper, or think of milking a cow, goat, sheep etc that might be around the neighbourhood somewhere.

Todays farming practices would probably not be recognisable to most people, especially when animals are brought into it. Farming monocultures are the norm where scale and efficiency is the top priority.

Yes, monoculture is still far too perverse. Many 'family farms' tended to be diversified industries (often more than farming) with mixed cropping, integrated mixed livestock, by-products and things like sustainable timber cutting.

While a certain amount of monoculture was driven by ignorance and misplaced government subsidies such as back when people were encouraged to open up the vast plains to grow wheat etc, the Big L liberal mantra has dominated the business psyche, encouraged and supported the current mega monoculture and monopoly enterprises.

Abbott has talked a lot about supporting small business, but we need to not just support small business as a feed source for big business, but modify the way bid business operated... so, give moderates like Barnaby Joyce a bit of support to reign in these perversely unsustainable practices. It will take legislation to reverse some of these monoculture and monopoly cultures before they do too much damage.

The damage goes beyond financial and lifestyle to even our health. Consider the flow on effects of mono pest and disease plagues, extra antibiotics in our food, the unbalanced nutritional value of the food produced etc.

On that note the criteria for "free range" labelling of chicken and egg farming in Qld has recently been sensibly redesigned to, while not appeasing the extreme 'Greens', it increased the density of chooks allowed per hectare on a rotational basis which makes it more financially viable to get chooks out of cages and onto real soil in the day while returning to undercover at night.

Then again, I doubt either of the main political parties wants too many of the great unwashed to understand this stuff, otherwise they might start to ask tricky questions and not be blinded by 3 word slogans.

Yes indeed... a favourite tool of advertising that tend to numb our sensitivity.

 

[Whiskers]

Abbott has talked a lot about supporting small business, but we need to not just support small business as a feed source for big business, but modify the way bid business operated... so, give moderates like Barnaby Joyce a bit of support to reign in these perversely unsustainable practices. It will take legislation to reverse some of these monoculture and monopoly cultures before they do too much damage.

It's worth highlight a point about why Abbott (and many politicians) get labelled 'tricky' and dishonest etc. Too often because we very easily cling to the three word slogans and punch lines when they relate to a topic that resonates strongly with us, we often assume that advocating for small business implies some sort of equilibrium, at least curtailing the power of big business. Not so.

While I'm not quite sure where Abbott personally stands on the scale of big L to little l liberal... probably we need to keep a close eye on what he does, or does not do, regarding monopoly dominance by big business in Aus.

 

[IFocus]

Elsewhere I posted for those people who were not aware of "Emily's List"



The handbag brigade and the Labor movement has spent 3 years trying to demonise Abbott as some sort of neanderthal trying to make him unelectable.

In my past life I, and a board I chaired, met with Tony Abbott twice, the first time time was when he was Minister for Workplace Relations and Employment and again about 4 years later when he was Minister for Health. Included in our board at those meetings were 2 women and everybody's opinion of him was the dead opposite to that image the handbag brigade was trying to project, rather he was more engaging, forthright, open and a decent bloke than a demon.

In fact, to me he came across more as the character portrayed by a friend of his in the "Conversations with Richard Fidler" program of a few days ago.

The extract where Cate talks about Abbott's reaction is on Michael Smith's website.

Cheers
Country Lad

An interesting point on insiders today

The Coalition has quotas for the Nationals, States for ministerial selection not on merit thats right quotas, for women its only ever merit not quotas!

Looks like a boys club to me.

 

[drsmith]

An interesting point on insiders today

The Coalition has quotas for the Nationals, States for ministerial selection not on merit thats right quotas, for women its only ever merit not quotas!

Looks like a boys club to me.

You better be careful what you ask for.

Adam Bandt would have been Prime Minister after the 2010 election if that was based on merit.

 

[McLovin]

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/abbott-open-for-business-and-multinational-lawsuits/700/

If that's correct then it is pretty alarming. The idea that we should even contemplate allowing any other body to usurp the power of our own parliament and courts is scary. I'm surprised this isn't getting more traction in the media.

 

[sydboy007]

I don't know if that's true or not as I haven't looked at that level of detail of either party's transport infrastructure priorities. What you say is in principal correct but it would need to include the state funding components as well.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/09/questioning-the-coalitions-infrastructure-priorities/

…the Abbott government seems to be even worse than the former government in letting politics – rather than proper cost-benefit analysis – dictate where the money would best be spent…

For example, the Abbott government’s three most expensive promises – for Melbourne’s East-West Link, Sydney’s WestConnex, and Brisbane’s Gateway – are all road projects, which are not among the most justifiable in these states according to Infrastructure Australia’s (IA) latest priority list.

According to IA, while the $8 billion East-West Link has “real potential” as a project, it is not yet deemed “ready to proceed” as it has not yet established itself on cost-benefit grounds as the best solution for the problem it is trying to address – namely transport congestion in this part of the state. Instead, IA judges Melbourne’s Metro Rail as having stronger grounds to proceed, placing it in the “threshold” funding category. Yet strangely, the Federal Government’s funding for that project has been axed.

Similarly, the Coalition is helping fund Queensland’s Gateway Motorway upgrade, and has axed funding for the Brisbane Cross River Rail – even though the latter project is rated by IA as more clearly justifiable and ready to proceed.

…why the Abbott government so prefers road projects over urban rail projects – contrary to the view of infrastructure experts – is strange, and seemingly reflects an ideological bias against promoting public transportation.

 

[sydboy007]

If that's correct then it is pretty alarming. The idea that we should even contemplate allowing any other body to usurp the power of our own parliament and courts is scary. I'm surprised this isn't getting more traction in the media.

Seems like Abbotts Operation Sovereign Borders is not about protecting us. When he's seriously giving up that much sovereignty to the large Multinationals it's rather scary.

To think the Nationals haven't cottoned on to the fact that a lot of the biosecurity laws we have are likely to be challenged at considerable cost to the public. When making any restrictions on cigarettes or alcohol could be challenged. pretty much any decision we take in our own interest could end up in some foreign court. Whether we win or not, the costs are going to be quite large, and once the Govt has to start second guessing if a new law will be challenged we'll be in even a worse situation in terms of anything being done.

Get ready for a massive increase in CSG if Abbott is stoopid enough to allow this with the USA. get ready for more expensive pharmaceuticals as the PBS is challenged.

 

[drsmith]

why the Abbott government so prefers road projects over urban rail projects – contrary to the view of infrastructure experts – is strange, and seemingly reflects an ideological bias against promoting public transportation.

Any objective analysis of the priority of major infrastructure projects would have to include the state government transport infrastructure funding components as well. It's not just up to the federal government.

As I said before, both sides pork barrel infrastructure projects. I do think though as a matter of principal that it's better to spend on our infrastructure than increasing foreign aid but I can't comment on the relative merits of the projects you mention because I know nothing about their detail.

 

[Whiskers]

If that's correct then it is pretty alarming. The idea that we should even contemplate allowing any other body to usurp the power of our own parliament and courts is scary.

I'd go further, it's crazy to allow multinational organisations to dominate the world.

Multinational companies sole existence is to make as much profit as soon as possible for their shareholders.

Governments have an inherent obligation for the social and environmental preservation of their people. Just look at countries like Italy and Greece, once considered the eptimany of contemporary thinking and where laxed government infected with corrupt officials whose loyalties are based in 'private enterprise' eventually led them.

I'm surprised this isn't getting more traction in the media.

Not surprising when you consider the media is increasingly owned and influenced by corporations bigger than many governments. That fact alone should concern people. Even our local country or suburban paper is now more often than not part of a conglomerate.

From sydboy's post...
On the eve of the election, the Coalition released its trade policy, which includes a commitment to “remaining open to utilising investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses as part of Australia’s negotiating position” in future trade deals.

Pay close attention to any talk of free trade deals. The US has screwed us down too much already in the name of free trade.

 

[13ugs13unny]

Any objective analysis of the priority of major infrastructure projects would have to include the state government transport infrastructure funding components as well. It's not just up to the federal government.

Strange that transport infrastructure funding using tax payer dollars, to sell to private operators for tolling, to make us pay again & again & again & again to use it is truly remarkable.

Even if the duplication spending on outer city limits roads is free to use, as many clearly are designed as feeders to the tolled structures.

 

[sydboy007]

As I said before, both sides pork barrel infrastructure projects. I do think though as a matter of principal that it's better to spend on our infrastructure than increasing foreign aid but I can't comment on the relative merits of the projects you mention because I know nothing about their detail.

The issue is we can no longer afford pork barrelling. We no longer have the economic base for it. We are facing the steady decline in those paying taxes. We have the erosion of the tax base from too many income tax cuts spending the transitory mining boom. Any spending on infrastructure that does not increase economy wide revenues by at least as much will cause further harm to the country.

If the Liberals are truly better economic managers, then they should be listening to IA and getting the politics out of these decisions that are worth billions. From what I've been able to learn about IA they seem to be fairly non partisan. It's certainly a step in the right direction to have them highlight what will provide the best return for scarce $$$. The Government of the day can ignore their advice, but hopefully the public will at least start to see how politics is distorting the decision making process. It's no longer an excuse that both sides do it. It has to stop

So far the runs on the board are not looking good. Sub economic infrastructure investment is bad for the economy, and it's bad for all of us as we will suffer the reduced standard of living from it.