Whiskers
It's a small world
- Joined
- 21 August 2007
- Posts
- 3,266
- Reactions
- 1
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.
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.
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
No science minister what a drop kick Abbott is 1st time since 1931 great we still have a sports minister FFS
Re - The much ado over nothing:
"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.
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
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
Where's the Ministry of Rudd ?
We can't possible have a future government in Australia without a Ministry of Rudd.
Did you watch the Kitchen Cabinet episode on ABC in the week before the election that featured Kevin Rudd ?Only available to fully ordained members of the Roman Catholic Church via Pontifical appointment.
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.
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
I'm more interested in what they do than the names of the individual ministries.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.
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.
+1. Anyone would think that, because no individual actually bears the title "Minister for Science" the government has no policies on science.I'm more interested in what they do than the names of the individual ministries.
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.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/abbott-sacks-three-public-service-bosses-as-first-act/4965690The 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.
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As for the world warming it dosent matter just been to Borneo.......we are all well and truey Fu(ked
That specific point is true, but overall you might be overanalysing.Abbott needs to earn the maximum voter respect he can asap in the event a DD becomes inevitable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?