This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Abbott Government


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...


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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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...


...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.



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.
 
Where's the Ministry of Rudd ?

We can't possible have a future government in Australia without a Ministry of Rudd.
 
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.
 
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............
 
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.
 
I'm more interested in what they do than the names of the individual ministries.
 


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.
 
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:
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.
 
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,


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


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

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
 
On science and sport,


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)
 
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.
 
+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.


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
 
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.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...