The Abbott Government

[Whiskers]

Is this serious? No Minister for either Resources and Energy or Tourism? In a country where natural resource extraction and tourism are key exporters and employers of national importance?

This seems akin to an airline deciding not to have pilots or a concert without anyone playing music. It's so ridiculous as to be almost unbelievable.

A concert without a conductor maybe. Not the best way to conduct business.

Ian Macfarlane had Industry, Tourism and Resources under Howard... and while I can't see any mention of tourism or resources elsewhere in the outer ministry or secretariat, are we to assume Macfarlane has the same duties again?

I have to agree, it's not a good start to not have the signage for two of your biggest industries up on the front door... even if only as a sub title.

Exactly. And it's very deliberate, making clear that the new government will prioritise what it believes is most important.
Good for them. An excellent way of making their point even more clear.

Interesting to note...

Usually allocated to the outer ministry, Minister for Sport Peter Dutton will be sitting on the frontbench in the Abbott government.

"It's good that sport is represented by a cabinet level minister just as a I think it's good that arts are," Mr Abbott said while announcing his ministry in Parliament House on Monday.

When asked if he was looking to make more changes to the law following match-fixing concerns in soccer and AFL, Mr Abbott said he would ask Mr Dutton to seek an urgent briefing into the matter.http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/16/abbott-unveils-his-frontbench

Not what I was expecting as one of the higher priorities for a new government.

Even though there is not much science required in his main policies... not much of anything actually, just literally to do nothing or toss out... to dump the carbon tax and stop the waste. The boats have largely stopped if he can hold the PNG deal together and not offend the Indonesians too much.

But surely Science has to be integrated into the forefront of cabinet thoughts for improving and modernising our development, manufacturing and energy infrastructure in particular.

The worse situation than Labor would be for Abbot to turn a blind eye, to revert (backwards intellectually) to open slather uncontrolled mining and industry development, cheap and nasty, for maximum short term revenue. We'll be watching closely to see if this is what he meant by cutting red and green tape.

A hot topic even within his own ranks is largely unregulated CSG for example, that could destroy significant amounts of our water and agricultural resources for a number of lifetimes longer than the CSG development itself. He'd better take notice of Barnaby on this one and other Agriculture issues if he wants to maintain the monopoly on non urban seats and maintain government for more than one term.

Science is such an important aspect of our other historically important rural industries as well if we are to maintain a quality clean, reliable food supply for ourselves and export.

While the minimalist approach (as indicated for cabinet numbers) is good to a certain extent for efficiency and savings, overdone it will have a suppressive, even retardant effect on our prosperity in the future.

 

[moXJO]

No science minister what a drop kick Abbott is 1st time since 1931 great we still have a sports minister FFS

Oh the outrage

Clearly Abbott needs to set up a minister for tissues.
Labors six or seven ministers for small business over six years was a massive fail. I mean why even bother. Hell if we needed a minister for $hitting your pants at the slightest problem then labor has them by the dozen. Imo wait at least three months in before your leftie brains make up scenarios of doom under Abbott. The amount of labor tantrums being thrown online over Abbott is kinda funny. Someone even made a tshirt 'eat **** abbott' or something and was selling them. I think she was a fairfax jorno.

 

[wayneL]

Re - The much ado over nothing:

Chief scientist unfazed by cabinet lineup
From: AAP September 18, 2013 12:11AM

AUSTRALIA'S chief scientist Professor Ian Chubb has played down concerns about the incoming coalition government's failure to appoint a dedicated federal science minister.
The move by prime minister-elect Tony Abbott, which will see some areas of science come under the industry portfolio, has drawn community and Labor criticism and even sparked outcry from within the Liberal Party.

But Prof Chubb said supporting the future of science was about more than a ministerial title.

"If you look at the federal budget, science is spread over 14 portfolios already, so putting another one in there doesn't really make a huge amount of difference," Prof Chubb told ABC TV.

He said Aust



Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...up/story-e6frfku9-1226721383949#ixzz2fB4eg8kq

 

[sydboy007]

Well, with Policy like this from the resource minister we know the Coalition means business.

“We've got to make sure that every molecule of gas that can come out of the ground does so."

Could be a bit tricky in NSW with the closing down of the CSG industry.

 

[Whiskers]

Re - The much ado over nothing:

Maybe... it may be that he will upgrade and revitalise the status of science after the 'Climate Change' and Carbon Tax and their extremists have been whittled away, BUT...

"The real benefit is when you have a senior minister with influence and a bit of power, who's passionate about science and whether they carry the title or not is a separate issue," Prof Chubb said.

and...

The chief scientist's response was less passionate than that of Western Australian Liberal Dennis Jensen, who said "science is in crisis" and needed expert decision-making at a federal government level.

"We've got a minister for sport, for God's sake, but we don't have a minister for science," he told ABC TV, taking a swipe at the decision of his own party. Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...up/story-e6frfku9-1226721383949#ixzz2fCVpM8Dl

...suggests concern about his priorities and that if he does have a plan to revive Science post the Climate Change obsession, he appears not to have let even his own party in on it.

I'm a bit loathe to be too critical at such an early stage, but is it more of jobs for the boys in the guise that his mates from the Howard era are more experienced and capable of 'fixing' Australia's woes!? Not a good look Tony!

Dr Dennis Jensen MP, BAppSci, MSc, PhD, FAIP is the most (scientifically) qualified of all LNP politicians and a climate sceptic to boot. So, it tends to beggar belief why Abbott has not at least maintained the traditional status of science, but curiously why the most capable person in the LNP isn't heading it or apparently not even involved in the ministry at all.

Dr Dennis Jensen seems the ideal person with experience working with the CSIRO to revive and redirect it back to it's former glory and future potential.

Dr Jensen has made headlines by questioning the scientific consensus that humans are contributing to global warming.

Dr Jensen believes carbon dioxide is contributing somewhat to global temperatures, but not as much as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is suggesting.

Moreover, Dr Jensen does not think governments should be taking urgent action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

"In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all," Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday.

"Scientific reality doesn't give a damn who said it and it doesn't give a damn how many say it."

It was wrong to accept the view of the 97 per cent of climate scientists who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely caused by human activities, because "the argument of consensus . . . is a flawed argument," Dr Jensen said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ce-minister-20130912-2tltt.html#ixzz2fCi1mVYl

From the little I know about Jensen, he seems a straight talking, logical and personable bloke... maybe he just doesn't get along with many of the old guard... or allergic to people pissing in his pocket.

 

[drsmith]

Where's the Ministry of Rudd ?

We can't possible have a future government in Australia without a Ministry of Rudd.

 

[sydboy007]

Where's the Ministry of Rudd ?

We can't possible have a future government in Australia without a Ministry of Rudd.

Only available to fully ordained members of the Roman Catholic Church via Pontifical appointment.

Don't worry. Soon the GG will be replaced by a cardinal or bishop with the full blessing of his holiness George Pell.

 

[drsmith]

Only available to fully ordained members of the Roman Catholic Church via Pontifical appointment.

Did you watch the Kitchen Cabinet episode on ABC in the week before the election that featured Kevin Rudd ?

He believes in Darwinism, but............

 

[drsmith]

Now, we might finally get some long awaited adult government.

Ten days since they were elected, the Coalition government officially begins work today.

Mr Abbott says he will immediately instruct the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to prepare legislation to repeal the carbon tax and Treasurer Joe Hockey will also instruct the board of the Clean Energy Corporation to cease operations.

The Immigration Department will be told to stop granting permanent protection visas to asylum seekers who arrive by boat and begin reintroducing Howard-government-style temporary protection visas instead.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/tony-abbott-sworn-in-as-australian-prime-minister/4965104

 

[Whiskers]

Now, we might finally get some long awaited adult government.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/tony-abbott-sworn-in-as-australian-prime-minister/4965104

Yeah, some electorally justified cut and burn there... but, maybe it's just me, but I'm a bit curious why he hasn't demonstrated a more proactive, than reactive, potential particularly in the selection and make up of the cabinet.

It doesn't take much to cut and burn the rubbish, but I'd have thought a mature adult that he is, would have made provision in the structure of his government for more ingenuity as opposed to old traditions.

 

[drsmith]

Yeah, some electorally justified cut and burn there... but, maybe it's just me, but I'm a bit curious why he hasn't demonstrated a more proactive, than reactive, potential particularly in the selection and make up of the cabinet.

It doesn't take much to cut and burn the rubbish, but I'd have thought a mature adult that he is, would have made provision in the structure of his government for more ingenuity as opposed to old traditions.

I'm more interested in what they do than the names of the individual ministries.

 

[IFocus]

That posting which shows the Ministries that have been removed versus the single new inclusion is very telling as far as what the new Government sees as significant - and not significant. The whole point of establishing particular ministries is an acknowledgment that a particular issue is worth a particular focus rather than just being part of a super ministry which takes care of everything.

Having a Minister with focused responsibility for an area gives it a far greater likelihood of attention and action.

So starting with Climate Change going through the Status of Women and finishing with Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research we can see just how many facets of our society will be effectively downgraded or ignored.

Welcome to the 1950's.

My point exactly but I didnt want to go into as much detail Basilio anything past a three worded slogan and the Abbott cheer squad here go into a spin reduced to scripted name calling but agree re the 50's.

 

[Julia]

I'm more interested in what they do than the names of the individual ministries.

+1. Anyone would think that, because no individual actually bears the title "Minister for Science" the government has no policies on science.

As already stated above from Ian Chubb:

But Prof Chubb said supporting the future of science was about more than a ministerial title.

"If you look at the federal budget, science is spread over 14 portfolios already, so putting another one in there doesn't really make a huge amount of difference," Prof Chubb told ABC TV.

The reduction in ministerial titles seems to me to be in line with Tony Abbott's general approach of simplifying and paring back. I'm all for it, until such an approach is demonstrated to be wrong, after the overblown, rhetorical flourishes of Labor.

 

[drsmith]

Out comes the broom,

The ceremony had barely finished when the Prime Minister's office issued a press release, announcing three departmental secretaries had had their contracts terminated and the Treasury Secretary would stand down next year.
.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/abbott-sacks-three-public-service-bosses-as-first-act/4965690

Paul Kelly's view on the new Abbott government,

TONY Abbott has signalled a new style of Coalition government based on collaborative ties with business, a clearer set of priorities, less frenetic, more predictable and geared to stability, not fashion. For Abbott, the Rudd-Gillard years are his anti-model. He aspires to deliver what he calls "adult government". This is Abbott's version of conservatism. He is not interested in running an exciting, dramatic, high-expectations government, lurching into dysfunction and promising to improve every second aspect of your life. Abbott sees this style as immature and ineffective. In the end, he wants government to do less and people to do more. He believes the public is tired of Labor's egoism, boasting and endless self-obsessions. Announcing his ministry, Abbott said the people wanted a government that was "upfront, speaks plainly and does the essentials well". Decoded, this means cutting the spin, delivering his promises and getting the economy ticking in the teeth of rising unemployment. The challenge in delivering this brand of governance is a long row back. Abbott is going to face fierce opposition from special interests and causes that view him with suspicion at the outset and are sure to have those suspicions confirmed. His values, style and substance are different from Labor. The test is how they translate in practice and how the public responds. Abbott is a modest man but he must deliver more than modest government. He hates embroidery, loathes long ministerial titles, says he won't be talking to the media unless he has something to say and will recall parliament only when the carbon pricing repeal bills are ready. In totality, this outlook is a shock to the system. Abbott should have promoted another woman into his cabinet where Julie Bishop is the only female in 19 ministers. That he declined reveals a stubborness to do things his way. In this case it is counter-productive. While he has five women out of 30 ministers overall, it was a further mistake to have only one woman out of 12 parliamentary secretaries, the typical escalator for promotion. Abbott also is in trouble over contrasting optics: nominating a minister for sport but not a minister for science. The pivotal issue is whether the "back to basics" government he plans is compatible with the noisy, trouble-making real-time media cycle that now drives our politics. It is the clash between Abbott as conservative warrior and the anarchic modern media with its thirst for drama and obsession with gesture. In opposition Abbott was astute in setting the agenda; it is impossible to believe he will abandon this tactic. But he must learn how to set the agenda from office. The heart of this government is its economic team. Abbott is convinced Labor stumbled because of its obstructionist attitude towards big, small and resources-based business. Hence his "open for business" mantra, a message he will sell locally and globally. The team is Joe Hockey as treasurer, Mathias Cormann, a worthy promotion as finance minister, Andrew Robb in his sideways move to the new trade and investment portfolio to sell a pro-foreign investment message and Arthur Sinodinos, promoted into the ministry as assistant treasurer but lacking the immediate higher influence many expected. This is an economic team that is close to Abbott. Its values are pro-market, deregulatory reform and cutting Labor's red and green tape. The aim is to confirm established figures in jobs they have done where they are known to their business constituencies. This is typified by having Bruce Billson in cabinet with exclusive responsibility for small business. Note that Jamie Briggs, a dedicated economic dry, cracks the ministry and Mitch Fifield has an immense job dealing with disability and ageing. Abbott has signalled his pro-foreign investment disposition despite friction with the Nationals. In announcing the appointment of Nationals deputy Barnaby Joyce as agriculture minister, Abbott said his task was to "fulfil Australia's potential as the food bowl of Asia", a brief that demands an outward-looking mindset and close dealing with Hockey and Robb. A looming test is Hockey's decision as treasurer on the proposed foreign takeover of Grain Corp, Australia's largest listed agribusiness. Any flat rejection would ruin the credibility of Abbott's foreign investment message. Environment minister Greg Hunt, highly regarded by Abbott, will be pivotal to the government's early standing. His task is not just the huge job of legislating direct action but overseeing critical reforms - the abolition of Labor's climate change agencies, approving a backlog of resource projects and implementing the highly contentious "one-stop shop" state-based system of new project approvals. These decisions will be vital for Abbott, showing whether he is serious in moving to a more pro-development profile. Failure on this front would be disastrous. Abbott has followed John Howard's technique of a strong balance between conservatives and moderates. The moderates are prominent; witness Bishop, attorney-general George Brandis, education minister Christopher Pyne, communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull among others. It reflects a deeper trend: the unity of the party under Abbott and weakening of once deep divides, a factor vital to his success. Abbott is serious about valuing experience. Consider three familiar faces from the Howard era: Kevin Andrews in social security, Peter Dutton in health and Ian Macfarlane in industry. Abbott expects them to be safe and reliable. But Labor's critique is obvious: stability doesn't necessarily equate with dynamism. Abbott's internal authority is immense. While valuing experience he has been prepared to take tough decisions, demoting a number of people, sending a message of perform or else. The incoming prime minister has assumed within his department responsibility for deregulation and indigenous affairs. Abbott has been far-sighted in some of his parliamentary secretary slots, appointing those two Harvard postgraduates Josh Frydenberg to work with him on deregulation and Alan Tudge, experienced with Noel Pearson in Cape York, to work with him on indigenous issues. Their housemate, Columbia postgraduate Paul Fletcher, becomes parliamentary secretary to Turnbull. The backbench remains flush with potential: Christian Porter, Kelly O'Dwyer and Angus Taylor among others.

The first comment from the article is also a good read,

Abbott has had to choose from the halls of experience, irrespective of gender. VanStone and Bishop have supported the notion of defying tokenism for stability through experience. Buttrose has described her disgruntlement with the lack of female choice, and extrapolates to broader perceived discrimination on the basis of gender. Abbott would have been damned if he had chosen a candidate based predominantly on gender, and not on experience. Many women would have found this abhorrent in and of itself. We are currently coming to terms with the unfortunate legacy left behind by the Gillard-Wong style of representation. This should not daunt women seeking front bench representation, providing incentive to demonstrate individual experience and capability over gender stigmatisation. Abbott is clearly attempting to restore dignity to government, and faces the gauntlet of societal, opposition and media criticism for his gutsy choice. I concur with "Gimme a break" in that gender is an irrelevant parameter. Tokenism is offensive, as is discrimination. Ken Hay appeals for patience whilst the new government settles into responsibility and deliverance. The rise of the individual is celebrated.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-back-to-basics/story-e6frg74x-1226721246569#

 

[IFocus]

Things have changed IF, specifically, the purported science for a catastrophic warming scenario has fallen off a cliff.

Any workable policies to deal with the likely effects of any modest warming will not include a tax on CO2, and will deal with mitigation.

I was trying to argue case Abbott hasnt a mandate in the senate just like he argued Labour didnt under Rudd.

As for the world warming it dosent matter just been to Borneo.......we are all well and truey Fu(ked

 

[drsmith]

On science and sport,

The Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott announced today during his cabinet unveiling that the science portfolio would be shared between the Industry and Education ministries.

"Science, as in the CSIRO, will be with industry," Mr Abbott said during the press conference, which means the minister overseeing the sciences will be Ian McFarlane.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...r-in-new-cabinet/story-fn5fsgyc-1226720375674

Sport became a stand alone portfolio under the prime-ministership of Kevin Rudd (Wikipedia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_for_Sport_(Australia)

 

[Whiskers]

I'm more interested in what they do than the names of the individual ministries.

Yeah, me too... but from an analytical psychological perspective, eg like conducting an interview of a job applicant, one can usually get a good insight into what their main interests and motivations are and what they are capable of achieving.

To put it another way, the resume of the collective cabinet seems to be lacking for some key qualified and experienced potential, as I mentioned earlier, to transition from a can-do traditional (now getting antique) Howard style as opposed to more innovative and contemporary qualifications and outlook on life for the future.

This is one of the caveats the election result implied in the result, by routing the greens by 1/3 in the senate, but replacing with arguably less principled 'others' as a consequence of the 'traditional' often abused (now better by minority interests) than ever before optional above the line preferential vote.

So, you can see that "tradition", while usually espousing predictability, is often retrograde in terms of contemporary managerial and policy requirements.

Likewise, a poorly articulated resume with ambiguity easily leads to uncertainty and disappointment on perceived policy and managerial style.

While he tactfully made himself a small target during opposition, Abbott could have done much better in the cabinet selection to more quickly and completely shed his traditional persona of 'shifty' an 'head kicker' and transition to a contemporary leader.

To echo and re-apply the logic of the sentiments of Dennis Jensen MP, appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, especially in the absence of potential for the most qualified and contemporary management is not sound, scientifically, psychologically or administratively if you expect to be respected or more importantly, better respected than the alternative, as a leader of better government. He has to remember he didn't gain the voter support near as much as they chose to protest support the minors against Labor.

In a nutshell, he needs to get it... that he's been put on probation and needs to shine not only up to expectations, but above the alternative to maintain his job.

The danger he faces is if Labor re-unifies under probably Albanese, (less likely from a voter perspective for Shorton) he will face a tougher job trying to win over the 'Other' 7 in the senate to achieve anything (including abolishing the carbon tax) than if he stole the march with a smart, progressive and contemporary cabinet in the meantime. It appears the other 7 are probably more inclined to Labor philosophy and a re-unified Labor is more likely to entertain at least some of their key policies... thus providing all the ingredients that started the roundabout leadership uncertainty with Rudd and his frustration with not being confident in winning a DD.

Abbott needs to earn the maximum voter respect he can asap in the event a DD becomes inevitable.

 

[Whiskers]

+1. Anyone would think that, because no individual actually bears the title "Minister for Science" the government has no policies on science.

That wasn't my belief. As I suggested it was implied that Macfarlane had the job (based on tradition)... but perception while not paramount, is important in the absence of clarity of the importance of science in a contemporary context.

The reduction in ministerial titles seems to me to be in line with Tony Abbott's general approach of simplifying and paring back. I'm all for it, until such an approach is demonstrated to be wrong, after the overblown, rhetorical flourishes of Labor.

I think there are three key points I would make here summarised from my rationale above.

Firstly, It's unwise to gauge your bar standard against the low standard of the opposition. The voter expects the bar to be as high as possible all the time.

Small government is generally perceived and accepted as a good thing. However, Small and traditional does not fit well for many contemporary voters bearing in mind contemporary has become trendy atm in terms of unfounded extreme beliefs such as climate change. The Cabinet needs to be very capable and effective as well. In the ministry there is an apparent lack of credible and capable scientific expertise to counter the significant climate change (attitudinal) tend perpetuated by elements of Labor. This is probably the most significant deal breaker in terms of which party people believe and respect atm.

Finally, Abbott has won the voter belief for now. He now needs to win their respect as well, hard, right off the bat, so to speak, to maintain his position and spare us more leadership changes. Repeating, the senate may be more difficult to negotiate than previously thought, and more likely to lean to Labor and welcome a DD... or even succeed in a vote of no confidence.
​

Abbott needs to very clearly demonstrate an appreciation of what is his Achilles' heel... voter dissatisfaction with the prospect of retrogate leadership... not just going back to divided labor, but also ultra conservative LNP trying to force in new laws that have not been fully or accurately presented (eg workchoices).

PS: It would be dangerous to presume the new minority senators would not force a DD this time. It's a very different scenario this time and some of the newer parties in the senate probably fancy their chances of increasing their representation with continued efficient lobbying.

...as a result of all seats being contested, it is easier for smaller parties to obtain election to the Senate under the Senate proportional voting system: the quota for the election of each senator in each Australian state in a full Senate election is 7.69% (1/(1/(12+1))), while in a normal half-Senate election the quota is 14.28% (1/(1/(6+1))). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution​

 

[wayneL]

As for the world warming it dosent matter just been to Borneo.......we are all well and truey Fu(ked

Totally agree. My consistent point here. And that nonsensical climate alarmism detracts from that demonstrable reality.

 

[drsmith]

Abbott needs to earn the maximum voter respect he can asap in the event a DD becomes inevitable.

That specific point is true, but overall you might be overanalysing.

Give them a chance and see what they do.