The South Australian man who got more votes than the entire Labor party

Perceived as genuinely independent

INDEPENDENT Senator Nick Xenophon says he's humbled by the staggering support he received from voters at the weekend, but he still has one regret.

The South Australian stunt master has polled more senate votes than the entire Labor Party, a whopping 25.8 per cent, and took to Rundle Mall in his sandwich board to thank voters.

As sweet as the victory is, Senator Xenophon says he's disappointed that fellow independent and running mate Stirling Griff won't be joining him in Canberra.

He blamed a series of "bizarre and spiteful preference flows" for denying Mr Griff a spot, including the Greens' preferencing of the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics.

"I don't get any advantage from anyone. I had to win basically two full quotas (a third of the total vote) in order for my running mate to get up," Senator Xenophon said.

The Xenophon phenomenon has caused pandemonium in the SA senate race, peeling votes off both the Labor and Liberal parties and contributing to several surprise results.

With Labor's vote down to 22.7 per cent and the Liberals' reduced to 26.6 per cent, the door has been opened for the likely election of both a Family First and Green candidates.

Senator Xenophon said he was prepared to mend fences with Greens Senator Hanson-Young, with whom he had a torrid campaign battle over preferences.

"The first thing is to unequivocally fight for South Australia," Senator Xenophon said. "I understand that an enormous vote like this brings enormous responsibility.

"If there's more of a target (on my head), that means I'm hitting the mark in terms of issues that resonate."

As the shape of the new Senate slowly emerges, it appears Senator Xenophon could again emerge as a powerful player in the corridors of Parliament House in Canberra.

With the Greens and Labor on track to lose their blocking majority from July 1, Senator Xenophon is likely to have a conga line of Liberal ministers at his door seeking support to pass key legislation, including repealing the carbon tax and expanded paid parental leave.

He says the reinstatement of $500 million in industry funding for Holden, which the Coalition plans to axe, and continued support for the River Murray will be his key issues.

The new Senate will take its seats on July 1 and appears likely to contain a ragtag group of independents who the new Coalition government will negotiate with to pass legislation.

SOURCE






Abbott to tackle rogue unions in Victoria

PREMIER Denis Napthine plans to team up with Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott to tackle the upswing in "union thuggery" on building sites as business leaders call for the speedy scrapping the carbon and mining taxes.

The return of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, abolished by Labor, to reduce problems on worksites was the only major promise made by Mr Abbott on industrial relations.

Union leaders yesterday vowed to fight the Coalition's plans for the ABCC, while defending existing penalty rates and battling to lift the minimum wage.

But Dr Napthine said the return of the ABCC would allow more competition and deliver lower costs.

"There has been an upsurge of union thuggery in a lot of our building sites," Dr Napthine said. "We will work with them on that."

Big business yesterday demanded the Abbott Government put repairing the Budget bottom line and cutting red tape at the centre of the Coalition's to-do list.

Business leaders said scrapping the carbon tax and mining tax were also key reforms that would boost productivity.

Business Council of Australia president Tony Shepherd yesterday admitted the Government faced a "tough task" to lift growth in the face of a volatile global economic and political outlook.

He called on Parliament and the Senate, in particular, to respect the clear mandate for reform, saying "The result demonstrates overwhelming support for policies to lift productivity and competitiveness."

Retail magnate Solomon Lew said the new government must be given the support it needed to pursue its mandate to reduce taxes and ease cost-of-living pressures.

"If these initiatives were to be blocked by the Senate, I think there would be a big impact on confidence," Mr Lew said.

Myer chief executive Bernie Brookes said the certainty of the clear election result should flow back into business confidence to drive investment and job creation.

But the union movement is adamant the Coalition's low-profile on industrial relations issues during the campaign meant there was no mandate to roll back the Fair Work Act or reduce penalty rates.

ACTU president Ged Kearney also warned the Coalition's $5.5 billion paid parental leave scheme might never come to fruition because of its high price tag.

The Coalition's planned inquiry into union financing was also branded as a "waste of time" by Ms Kearney.

"We will work with the new government to ensure our two million members are not left worse off," she said.

After each of the last five elections, the Australian dollar and share market climbed in the following three weeks.

"There are good reasons to expect a stronger Australian economy as the election uncertainty is resolved," CommSec chief economist Craig James said.

SOURCE






Campbell Newman welcomes Tony Abbott election victory as 'freeing him from shackles' of federal Labor

QUEENSLAND is set to get a $6.7 billion boost to the Bruce Highway and a "resurgence" in jobs under an Abbott Government, Premier Campbell Newman says.

The Premier - who spent the first 18 months in the top job feuding with federal Labor over major projects - has welcomed the return of a conservative government to Canberra, declaring he has been freed of the "shackles".

He immediately called on Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott to move quickly to scrap environmental controls to allow the state to expedite its own projects.

Mr Newman insisted the state would still protect the environment.   "We will protect the environment, I promise Queenslanders that, but we need to see the federal government's green tape removed so we can get on and take this state forward and create jobs and generate investment," Mr Newman said.

"(Mr Abbott's) made financial commitments as well, and I know he will honour those, commitments to things like the Bruce Highway and the Toowoomba Range crossing."

Mr Newman said the changes would lead to new jobs and opportunity.   "It's going to be a great state with great opportunity, we just need the federal shackles taken off, and if Tony Abbott delivers that as he's committed to do, then I promise Queenslanders the next six to nine months will see a real resurgence in business and jobs growth," he said.

But the Premier conceded the state would need to go it alone to deliver the unfunded Cross River Rail project.  The underground rail scheme was to be partly funded by federal Labor - a promise the Coalition never matched.

Before the election Mr Abbott made it clear his government would not fund "urban public transport projects", saying they were the responsibility of the states.

Despite Transport Minister Scott Emerson insisting he would continue to lobby the federal Coalition for funding, Mr Newman said yesterday it was now up to Queensland.

"Cross River Rail is something we're working on, it is our responsibility to come up with the revised project that minimises the capital expenditure and delivers the most benefits," he said. "At the moment we're still working on that. We're still totally committed."

However Mr Abbott has promised $300 million to get the inland freight line between Brisbane and Melbourne under way, including a new rail tunnel to the Port of Brisbane.  It would include 1800km of track.

The $5 billion project, which is due to be completed by 2026, includes updating existing train tracks and building three new rail tracks from Yelarbon to Oakey, Rosewood to Kagaru and Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane.

SOURCE





As Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott will be true conservative in every sense

By Alexander Downer



It's over for another three years! Aren't you relieved? Well, maybe not because the State election is just six months away! But that, at least, will be a lower key affair with less at stake.

For the winners, the drama isn't over yet. For the next few days, Coalition MPs will have their mobile phones firmly at hand. Every time it rings they'll wonder...is this Tony Abbott offering me a job? It isn't, its a message you've forgotten to collect the dry cleaning. The disappointment will hurt! Coalition MPs will constantly phone each other trying to get the tiniest hint of what may be happening to colleagues.

The day will come - around mid week - when the incoming prime minister rings those colleagues and offers them jobs. At the top of his list will be the fifteen or so MPs who will be offered Cabinet positions. For those who have never served in the Cabinet before, this will be one of the most exciting moments of their lives. To be a member of the country's most powerful boardroom is a privilege first and foremost. But it's also exhilarating. Add to that the huge responsibility of running a major portfolio of State and those lucky men and women can justifiably claim they've made it.

Then the junior ministers and parliamentary secretaries will get the good but less joyous news. But spare a thought for the third category of Coalition MPs. The ones who cling to their phones for two days but no one calls. The backbenchers for whom Saturday's joy has turned within a week to disappointment. That's politics.

My guess is there will be some surprises in the new ministry. But as prime minister, Tony Abbott will be a conventional conservative. He will be cautious and pragmatic not zealous and reckless.

This will manifest itself in a number of ways. For a start, Abbott will work very closely with the public service. He will listen to their advice, he will check things with them and new proposals will be considered and costed before announcements are made. So government will work more slowly and cautiously than the breathtaking initiative a day style of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government. Abbott will be in a phrase an administrative conservative. He'll even start meetings on time so if you go to see him, don't be late!

Secondly, Tony Abbott is no economic radical. He will be an economic pragmatist unlike John Howard and his key Cabinet allies who could be described as economic liberals or rationalists. Abbott will gradually reduce the deficit and pay down debt but there will be no radical spending cuts - as Kevin Rudd claimed during the election campaign. Nor for that matter will there be radical reform of the industrial relations system. Work Choices won't be brought back. You may not know this, but the two members of the Howard Cabinet who were the least enthusiastic about Work Choices were Abbott and Kevin Andrews.

It's on economic issues that Abbott and Howard are most dissimilar: Howard was an economic rationalist, a neoliberal, whereas Abbott is an economic conservative. He wants the economy to evolve driven by the private sector. Howard wanted a Thatcherite revolution in taxation, privatisation and labour market reform.

So the Abbott government won't be the fifth Howard government. But Abbott will approach social issues in the way Howard did. He won't support gay marriage and while the Liberal Party probably will have a conscience vote on gay marriage, expect only about one-fifth of Liberals to favour "marriage equality". The republic, which doesn't have much public support these days anyway, will barely be discussed. Tony Abbott ran Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy for a while and he won't be changing his mind on that issue. Indeed, Tony Abbott is a traditionalist who values are existing national symbols and institutions. Don't be surprised if he does what the New Zealand prime minister did three or four years ago...brings back knighthoods.

Abbott will have to appoint a new Governor General early next year. It will be an interesting appointment which will reflect Abbott's conservative instincts. The current favourite is Peter Cosgrove...John Howard doesn't want the job!

An Abbott government will invest politically, intellectually and financially very heavily in indigenous affairs. For Abbott this is core business. He has a huge interest in indigenous affairs, has studied indigenous issues intensely and wants to introduce a totally new approach to lifting indigenous Australians out of relative poverty. Success will take time but my guess it will be much more a hallmark of the Abbott prime ministership than just abolishing the carbon tax and turning back the boats.

By the way, the boats will gradually stop, helped by the Papua New Guinea solution as it happens. And Abbott will say relatively little about fashionable issues like climate change. The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology will brief him about climate science but this just won't be high on his agenda.

And finally, what about Tony Abbott and the world. Contrary to the rumblings of the Canberra Press Gallery, Abbott has a deep intellectual interest in foreign affairs. He's for the American alliance but Abbott is no neo-conservative. He has a deep affection for Great Britain and his cultural instincts are more British than American. So don't expect Abbott to be a slavish follower of Washington, just a reliable ally. But this week President Obama is planning to call Abbott. And he'll do two things. Ask for diplomatic support on Syria and support for Obama's free trade initiative, the Trans Pacific Partnership. Abbott will give him both those things.

As for Asia, Abbott will enjoy close relations with President Yudhiyono of Indonesia who he already knows and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. He'll be pragmatic in his dealings with the new Chinese leadership and friendly with the New Zealand and PNG PMs. But don't expect Abbott to throw all his energy into multilateral institution like the UN. We may be on the Security Council but that won't be front and centre of our new prime minister's thinking.

And finally Tony Abbott will be a low profile PM. All that Twitter, Facebook, daily press conference stuff will go. Ministers will do most of the talking. The prime minister will think, read and plan.

SOURCE

The Australian election -- with some U.S. comparisons

Conservatives have just had a huge win in Australia's Federal election.  Romney would have had a similar win but for the rusted-on vote of America's two big minorities.  There are no such big minorities in Australia.

The picture below shows voting in Australia.  Australians just use pencil and paper in temporary carboard cubicles.  No voting machines so no hanging chads, no accusations of the machines being "fixed" and easy recounts.  And results were known within a couple of hours of the polls closing.



Elections in Australia are also less hectic.  They are on Saturdays (Tues. in U.S.) when most people are not working.  And if you turn up to vote mid-morning there are usually no lines of people waiting to vote.  I had no wait at all.





A difficult Senate

A double dissolution was always on the cards  -- JR

TONY Abbott seems set to face an uphill battle steering his agenda through the Senate.

In upset results, Clive Palmer's Palmer United Party may have taken Senate places in both Queensland and Tasmania.

Independent Nick Xenophon appears sure to be returned from South Australia, while Family First's Bob Day may well have claimed the final position from the state.

The Palmer win in Tasmania and Mr Day's victory have robbed the Coalition of third Senate spot wins they hope for in the two states.

In a surprise outcome Green Sarah Hanson-Young may be returned in South Australia at the expense of "faceless man" and giant of the Labor Right Don Farrell.

The Greens may also have increased their representation with a second senator in Victoria.

Early results suggest one of the micro-parties, the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts, may have won the last position in Victoria.

Another micro-party that almost broke through at the 2010 poll, the libertarian Liberal Democratic Party, could take a seat.

Results were not available from Western Australia at the time of writing, but they are expected to split three to the Coalition, two to Labor and one to the Greens.

This scenario would put the Coalition with 33 votes in the Senate, short of the 39 needed to control the 76-member chamber.

Labor would have 26 and the Greens nine, also denying them control of the upper house.

That will make the crossbenchers - John Madigan from the Democratic Labour Party, not up for re-election at this poll, Senator Xenophon, Mr Day, David Leyonhjen from the LPD, the Palmer candidates, former rugby league great Glenn Lazarus and Tasmanian Jacqui Lambie, and Motoring candidate Ricky Muir - key to controlling the Senate.

Mr Day is a former Liberal Party officeholder and donor who defaults towards economic rationalists. Mr Leyonhjen will swing the same way. This could open conflict between the more populist crossbenchers.

But while the process may be tortuous, the way is open for the new prime minister to negotiate his platform through.

SOURCE






Childcare move: Coalition to push for less qualified staff

A Coalition government would seek to slow or abandon requirements for childcare centres to lift staff to child ratios and employ more highly qualified workers.

The Coalition posted its childcare policy on its website late on Thursday, without issuing a press release or making an announcement.

In a shift from the their previous public position, the document says it would work with state and territory governments to slow down implementation of changes which require centres to lift the ratio of staff to children.

It would also seek state and territory agreement to pause requirements for higher staff qualifications.

Under the National Quality Framework, centres are required to have a worker for every four children under two years of age, every five children aged two to three, and every 11 children from three to preschool age. The timeline for implementation of each requirement varies between states.

By January, the framework also requires half of all staff to have or be working towards a diploma level qualification, with remaining staff required to have or be working towards a certificate III qualification. Centres with 25 children or more must have at least one degree-qualified early childhood teacher.

The Coalition document says it supports the National Quality Framework "in principle" but is concerned by reports that its implementation is causing staffing and administrative problems which are pushing up fees. The document also floats a proposal to allow Family Day Care providers who have had no serious incident for five years to take an extra child under preschool age.

It also states it will not approve any further spending from the $300 million Early Years Quality Fund, set up by Labor to provide pay rises for childcare workers.

The document says the Coalition would honour contracts already made, and remaining funds would be retained in the childcare portfolio.

The Coalition's aged care policy makes clear it will take a similar approach to wages, ending a $1.2 billion Labor scheme to lift wages in that sector.

Early Childhood Australia chief executive Samantha Page said the organisation was "very sad to see the Coalition wanting to … water down those reforms".

SOURCE






Academic ridiculed by Coalition, says Sydney University vice-chancellor

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney has told staff he was "distressed" to see the work of a renowned philosophy academic from the university unfairly ridiculed by the Coalition as an example of "ridiculous" and wasteful government spending.

The Coalition announced on Thursday it would audit and redirect funds from the Australian Research Council (ARC) in an attempt to curb government "waste", with opposition treasury spokesman Joe Hockey singling out certain projects during a press conference.

Among the projects highlighted by the Coalition is "The God of Hegel's Post-Kantian idealism", a research project being led by Professor Paul Redding from the university's Department of Philosophy.

In a private email to staff on Thursday afternoon, obtained by Fairfax Media, Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence expressed his alarm at the Coalition's actions. "I was personally distressed to see that the work of one of our academics was on a list of topics unfairly criticised today in a Liberal Party press release, which has been reported in the media," he wrote. "The academic is globally recognised as amongst the very best in the world in his field."

"I want to reassure you that we will do all we can to help the federal government understand the importance of university research across all academic disciplines, and the value of the robust peer-review process at the heart of our research funding system."

The Coalition's media release vowed to "crack down on Labor's addiction to waste by auditing increasingly ridiculous research grants and reprioritising funding through the Australian Research Council (ARC) to deliver funds to where they're really needed".

"The Coalition would look to targeting those ridiculous research grants that leave taxpayers scratching their heads wondering just what the government was thinking," it said.

"Taxpayer dollars have been wasted on projects that do little, if anything, to advance Australians (sic) research needs." Coalition costings released on Thursday showed $103 million would be "reprioritised" from the ARC and put towards health spending.

The union representing university staff said the Coalition's actions were an attack on academic freedom.

"Institutional autonomy and academic freedom are the essential characteristics that define what it means to be a university," said Jeannie Rea, president of the National Tertiary Education Union.

"To suggest that any research projects which have been through a rigorous, competitive, peer-reviewed application process could in any way be described as 'wasteful' is an insult to the hundreds of senior researchers who give freely of their time to assess the thousands of research applications the ARC receives each year." According to the ARC website, "funding recommendations are made to the minister responsible for research by the CEO following independent and extensive competitive peer review by Australian and international experts".

SOURCE

My Sabbath ... but

I generally keep the original (Jewish) Sabbath..  St Paul was a wimp in allowing the day of the Sun as holy to Christians!

But the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, as a certain wise teacher said.

So since today is a big day of decision in Australia, I am putting up something.

Below are three articles from CIS -- a market-oriented Australian thinktank

In addition, there is a comment from an American friend on the carbon tax:




An economic rationalist's guide to the election

Just as the truth is the first casualty of war, principled policy is the first casualty of election campaigns. Even in Australia's era of 'economic rationalism' that ended a long time ago, the economic dries took a back seat role during election campaigns (the Hewson-led Liberal campaign of 1993 being the exception). In the 2013 campaign, however, the dries are not just in the back seat but locked away in the boot, and it is not at all clear that they will be allowed out after the election regardless of who wins.

Economic rationalism cannot be tightly defined, but broadly speaking it is a set of beliefs in free markets and the price mechanism; a minimum of regulation; openness to trade and investment; raising government revenue through broad-based and neutral taxation; subjecting public investment proposals to rigorous cost-benefit analysis; and wrapping all of this in fiscal discipline.

Working from this definition, it is easy to demonstrate with examples that economic populism, not rationalism, has dominated the 2013 campaign.

In industry policy, while Labor upped the ante on subsidies to vehicle manufacturing and then pledged $25 million for the SPC fruit canning operation in Victoria, the Coalition came out with its own plan to 'co-invest' $16 million of taxpayers' money in an expansion of the Cadbury factory near Hobart. These are egregious departures from liberal economic principles.

Next we have both sides promising a plethora of small, local grants for things like sports fields and facilities, surf clubs and security cameras. These grants will not bust the budget, but they have nothing to do with the national government. The principle being violated here is that we have three tiers of government for a reason, and federalism works best if each tier sticks to its knitting.

'Think Big' projects have been constrained by fiscal realities in this campaign, but that has not stopped Prime Minister Kevin Rudd from offering up distant visions of northern development, super-fast trains and a brand spanking new navy base somewhere north of Tweed Heads. The problem is that none of it is supported by rigorous analysis that says it would be a wise use of resources (which the government doesn't have anyway).

Both sides have dipped their toes in the waters of foreign investment xenophobia, particularly when it involves agricultural land.

Taxation is always a fertile field for populism, and taxing 'big business' is an old favourite. Tony Abbott's scheme for funding his pet parental leave scheme springs to mind - a 'levy' (aka increase in company income tax) on big business.

Not only does this attempt to side-step the reality that businesses one way or another pass taxes on to people, it also creates a messy two-tier company income tax system - something that was done away with decades ago. Into the bargain, double taxation of dividends makes a reappearance via the non-franking of 'levy' payments. This is nothing but opportunistic revenue-raising.

Many more examples of economic populism have come from the lips of the Queensland populists, Bob Katter and Clive Palmer, but at least they won't be sitting in the Cabinet room.

If the economic dries are allowed out of the boot, they had better hope that whoever wins the election didn't really mean a lot of what they said to win.

SOURCE







Crushing red tape for charities

The number of not-for-profit (NFP) sector workers reporting a negative view of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC) tripled in 2012, as more details of its precise nature became clear.

The difference between the two parties on this new NFP regulator is simple: Labor wants to keep the ACNC, which it created last year, and the Coalition wants to abolish it.

Both major parties claim that their top priority for the NFP sector is reducing red tape.

So why the black-and-white difference in platform?

It's a matter of faith versus evidence. Labor puts its trust in the ACNC's statements, which are full of promises of reducing bureaucratic meddling. The Coalition looks to its actions, which thus far have confirmed the sensibly skeptical view that the best way to reduce regulation is not to create a new $15 million regulator.

A major blow to the ACNC's credibility came just last week when the massive charitable organisation UnitingCare Australia released a report saying that if the ACNC were up for review right now, they would, based on their experience so far, lean toward recommending it be abolished.

UnitingCare's main complaint was that in its first six months the ACNC has saddled their branches with more paperwork, not less.

Referring to the new Annual Information Statement (AIS) that the ACNC has made mandatory for Australian charities - some of which have never been required to submit such detailed information to a regulator - UnitingCare explained that 'much of the information required in the AIS has already been provided to government, often several times in different formats.'

'A significant opportunity for the ACNC to reduce red tape from the beginning of its operations has been missed.'

The ACNC had a chance to demonstrate its seriousness about streamlining the charity bureaucracy, and it did not take it.

The hostile UnitingCare report was followed a few days later by a statement from another large NFP, Catholic Education Melbourne. In it, executive director Stephen Elder criticised the ACNC for 'providing no additional transparency to the way Catholic education reports to government, only duplication of existing regulation.'

Elder estimated that new reporting requirements could take Victoria's Catholic schools 45 working days of 'unnecessary pen pushing' to fulfill.

Tony Abbott says his government would replace the ACNC with a slimmed-down version that, instead of regulation, focuses on providing support, information, and consultative services. The NFP sector itself has expressed a strong desire for better coordination of professional expertise and best practices.

A national body like the one the Coalition has proposed would meet the needs of NFPs and charities. The ACNC, if kept, looks poised to serve the needs only of federal bureaucrats.

SOURCE





You get the politicians you vote for

 'If you don't understand ... don't vote for him.' With those words Kevin Rudd tried to channel Paul Keating, whose cynical assassination of John Hewson in the "unlosable election" is frequently cited as the genesis of the current obsession with small target politics.

But Fightback! is not the only example of political vision being smacked down by the electorate.

In 1998, a first term Howard Government was almost toppled because it took a substantive tax reform agenda to the election. In 2007, Howard lost not only the election but his own seat due, in part, to Workchoices.

In 2010, Julia Gillard pledged she wouldn't implement a climate change package including a carbon tax - breaking this promise significantly contributed to her losing the Labor leadership. Pledging action on his climate change vision caused Malcolm Turnbull to lose the Liberal leadership in 2009.

Contrast the failure of vision-based campaigns with the most successful election campaigns of the last two decades - Howard's 1996 small target campaign that relied on the fatigue from a long-lived Labor government; a theme which also featured strongly in Kevin Rudd's win in 2007.

Yet time and again we hear the lament that there are no politicians with vision. Does no-one else remember the story about Pavlov's dogs?

The 2013 election campaign has largely been devoid of serious policy discussion (like our looming fiscal crisis or how our health system is collapsing) and has instead focused heavily on personalities and banalities. Both parties are trying to reassure the public that nothing will happen to their entitlements, that they won't have to pay more tax and can have everything they want.

How about this for a snappy slogan? 'No vision, just more entitlements.' The best thing is that it works for every political party. It was also the right answer to a slew of questions posed to Kevin Rudd on Monday's Q&A.

Voters have the power to change the political environment. We can demand better from politicians because they need our votes. It is not the media alone who should be expected to hold the blow torch to politicians; it is the job of voters to demand accountability of politicians.

You cannot complain about politics being empty rhetoric devoid of vision if you do not use your vote to punish politicians who mislead voters, misuse legislative power or misappropriate taxpayer money.

If you give a particular party your vote no matter what they do, then you can expect them to do whatever they want. If you are not engaged in policy debate (supporting the CIS is a great start!) then don't whinge when politicians treat voters with contempt by indulging in empty sloganeering.

SOURCE






Will Australians Vote to End the Carbon Tax?

By Alan Caruba

There’s an election in Australia on Saturday, September 7, and while the economy is of the greatest concern, it is a carbon tax that has driven up costs and put businesses into closure that is the issue that will determine the outcome. Meanwhile, in the U.S., imposing a carbon tax remains a top priority of the Obama administration.

A carbon tax is really a tax on the use of energy. Diehard environmentalists oppose any form of energy use. The code words are “greenhouse gas emissions”, meaning carbon dioxide (CO2) that the Greens constantly tell us will cause the Earth’s temperature to rise, but the Earth is not cooperating, having been in a natural cooling cycle going on 17 years now. Nor are the apocalyptic predictions about CO2 anything more than lies given the fact that it is a minimal element of the Earth’s atmosphere. That said, without it, all life on Earth would die because all vegetation depends on it.

In “Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change”, Bob Carter and colleagues dismember green claims and, addressing Australia’s carbon tax, note that “price increases will cascade through the economy, and for most of them no compensation will be proposed. At the bottom of the pile, to whom the accrued costs will be passed, lies the squashed citizen and consumer.”  Those citizens will be voting on Saturday.

As an article in The Guardian, a British daily, noted, a conservative coalition led by Tony Abbott is likely to win, ending six years of Labor (socialist) rule that included a battle within the Labor party for its leadership, the result of its having passed a carbon tax after the then-Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had promised not to impose it. Kevin Rudd challenged and replaced her. Now he and the Labor party are expected to be defeated.

“Having built his standing as opposition leader on the contention that Labor’s carbon tax would destroy jobs and hurt households,” the Guardian article noted, “Abbott has promised his first legislative act as prime minister will be to repeal it.”

What has occurred in Australia is a case history example of what happens when greens get their way. They always manage to destroy the economy. A recent study of Australia’s carbon tax by the Institute for Energy Research yielded the following findings:

# In the year after Australia’s carbon tax was introduced, household electricity prices rose 15%, including the biggest quarterly increase on record.

# Currently 19% of the typical household’s electricity bill is due to Australia’s carbon tax and other "green" programs such as a renewable energy mandate.

# The job market had previously been stable, but after Australia’s carbon tax, the number of unemployed workers has risen by more than 10%.

# Because Australia's exports are relatively emissions intensive, the practical result of the Australian carbon tax serves as a tax on exports and import-competing industries.

# Australia’s carbon tax was accompanied by income tax increases for 2.2 million taxpayers.

# Due to fiscal gaps that exist between carbon tax revenues and increased government spending that accompanied the scheme, Australia's budget bottom line will worsen as higher deficits and greater public debt increase.

# Carbon dioxide emissions have actually increased, and will not fall below current levels until 2043, according to the Australian government.

Viv Forbes, chairman of the Carbon Sense coalition in Australia, an opponent of the carbon tax and other green proposals, says “The growing failure of green energy in Europe should warn Australia to abandon bi-partisan policies dictating targets, mandates and subsidies for ‘green’ energy.”

This mirrors the same problems here in America where billions in loans to so-called green energy companies can be added to the list of Obama administration scandals as one after another went out of business. Solar and wind power is proving to be as great a hoax as “global warming” and a very costly one at that. How long has it being going on? Jimmy Carter had solar panels placed on the roof of the White House. Ronald Reagan had them removed. Barack Obama has had them installed.

Fifteen million registered voters in Australia will go to the polls and render their judgment on September 7. It is a vote that should be reported upon in the United States, but it more likely to be ignored or buried.

SOURCE

Australians deserve a government they can trust

Wonder of wonders!  The heading above and the text below are a prominent editorial from the Sydney Morning Herald, which in its "news" pages has been campaigning heavily for the ALP, consistent with its usual Leftist slant.  Is Darren Goodsir, their new editor, heading the paper off in a new direction?  He spent many years working for Murdoch so he may have learned something  -- that balance sells papers

Australia is crying out for a stable government that can be trusted to deliver what it promises. The Herald believes only the Coalition can achieve that within the limited mandate Tony Abbott will carry into office should he prevail on Saturday.

Abbott does not so much deserve the chance to do what Labor could not do in the past six years. Nor has he earned the right to govern with a clear, articulated vision, as the Herald has sought from him during the campaign. But the party he leads is untainted by scandal and infighting, and therefore has the best chance to unite a tired and despondent electorate.

Labor will not be able to do this until it is stripped of corrupt rules that have rewarded those who value power more than the public interest.

Abbott needs to be true to his word. As he says, ''No surprises, no excuses … No more, no less.''

The Coalition has put to the people some aspirations of which the Herald approves if applied fairly: value for taxpayers' money, greater workplace flexibility and ending the age of entitlement. It has aped good Labor policies and banked sensible savings.

Notably, Abbott has also signalled policies the Herald considers unfair and a threat to national progress: slower broadband, his paid parental leave scheme, turn back the boats, and education inequity. And we will, as many Coalition figures privately do, continue to rail against these populist and frivolous indulgences.

A Coalition government will be entitled to pursue any elements of its agenda that have been detailed to the public. Then voters can judge Abbott on delivery in three years or, should he prove unable to manage a democratic parliament, much sooner.

Abbott will be free to conduct his commission of audit on government spending and implement recommendations within his pledge of no cuts to education, health or frontline services. He should conduct the promised reviews into workplace relations, industry assistance, regulation, legislation, competition law and tax. That will help him develop the sort of detailed policy reform agenda he has failed to flesh out in the past three years for fear of a political backlash. Australia needs to debate new ideas and better ways to ensure the economy is flexible enough to survive the end of the resources boom.

But the Herald will scrutinise a first-term Abbott government with the same independent eye that has exposed Labor graft and attacked Coalition policies. Too often Abbott has asked voters to buy his plan sight unseen; to believe his numbers even though they have emerged at the eleventh hour. They still omit key assumptions and have no independent analysis of broadband, refugees and climate change plans. Then there is a surprise reduction in foreign aid and water buybacks as well as an extra efficiency demand on the public service. Abbott's mandate will be weakened as a result of this opacity.

When John Howard claimed the right to implement the GST after winning the 1998 election, he defined the preconditions for a mandate: ''We were upfront, we were unashamed, we were forthright, we were open, we were honest, and we didn't hide anything about it.''

Abbott has hidden much and, as such, much must be taken on trust, just as Gillard Labor had to be taken on trust at the 2010 election. Labor then was a party that had corrupted the NSW government and allowed faceless men to unseat an elected prime minister.

Before the last election the Herald editorial said Abbott had not proved his case so Julia Gillard deserved a chance. After that election produced a hung parliament, the Herald recommended Abbott be prime minister because ''stability is more likely''. But Gillard retained power by, it emerged later, breaking her promise of ''no carbon tax under a government I lead'' in a deal with the Greens. Labor betrayed the voters.

While the Gillard government achieved important national reforms in trying circumstances and kept the economy strong, it squibbed tax reform, skewed taxes, overspent on optimistic revenue forecasts and did nothing to remedy Labor's fatal flaws.

All the while, Rudd remained a destabilising force; a reminder of betrayal - and an even bigger one when he retook the leadership just over two months ago.

Rudd Mark II has presented some laudable policy reforms on boat people and emissions trading. He talks of Labor's big ideas so Australia can rise beyond our station. But reformers must take the people with them - and reformers must be trusted to deliver.

Rudd has struggled to outline how Labor would strengthen the economy, beyond relying on its worthy record during the global financial crisis. Faced with shrinking budget revenues, Labor did well to outline a plan for a return to surplus, yet lost the moral high ground over Coalition costings.

It wasn't until his official launch that Rudd pushed Labor values based on a fair go for all. The Herald shares many of those values but believes Labor was a broken party in 2010 and is even more broken now. The Herald believes Australian democracy needs Labor to modernise and prove it respects the privilege of power. It cannot be supported for abusing that privilege.

Voters should not reward Labor before redemption, nor reward those who owe their influence to factions and betrayals of trust that have marked the past six years.

Labor under Kevin Rudd in 2013 is not offering a stable, trustworthy government on which Australians can depend. The Coalition under Tony Abbott deserves the opportunity to return trust to politics.

SOURCE






Abbott the father deserves more respect

I'll tell you what's creepy: journalists and media taking an everyday comment from the probable next leader of our country about his daughters being "not bad-looking" and sexualising it like a pack of sticky schoolkids who can't watch a deodorant ad without sniggering.

There are many subjects upon which I do not agree with Tony Abbott but his decision this week to appeal to Big Brother's household of twenty-something fame whores while standing beside his daughters wasn't a bad one.

Did we really expect a policy pitch in 24 seconds? Why not try to manufacture some semblance of empathy with young Australians by showing he also lives and regularly talks with other young Australians - his children?

Yet a father saying his daughters were "not bad-looking" was immediately translated as ''vote for me because my daughters are hot" by one reporter. Even more vile was the characterisation by another writer, for an esteemed masthead, likening the appearance as a "man flanked with babes like an oily ganglord entering a nightclub".

Politicians have long decided it's acceptable to put words into people's mouths, invent motivations for others and just plain make up stuff when they feel like it. But we're truly lost if this has become the accepted method of operation for our media.

Words, as we're constantly reminded by Abbott's critics, matter. "Not bad-looking" has no sexual connotations, particularly when said by a father, while "hot", a word never uttered by Abbott, implies sexual arousal in the observer.

Motives, as we're constantly reminded by Abbott's critics, matter. Standing beside your children in a political campaign is as old as politics. Abbott has gone out of his way on many occasions to describe the intelligence, opinions, aptitude and energy of his three tertiary-educated daughters, yet it is a gender-aware media-writer that diminished them as "babes ... entering a nightclub".

Abbott, certainly, has perception problems when it comes to his attitudes to women, but to suggest a man complimenting the looks of his children is sexist or reduces them to ornamentation is just crude, offensive barrow-pushing.

The innuendo the comment was somehow, vaguely incestuous - and let's not kid ourselves this wasn't one of the snide implications of this piece - should be met with contempt and illustrates the lengths so many sulking reporters will go to to tarnish a politician they do not agree with.

I can't say I'm overly excited about the prospect of Abbott as our next PM, but I am looking forward to seeing the father-daughter relationship given some prominence and respect over the next three years.

If you watched Annabel Crabb's excellent Kitchen Cabinet interview with Abbott and two of his daughters on Tuesday night, what you'll plainly see is a 55-year-old man who has raised bright, opinionated 20-something children who respect and actually like being around him.

How many parents can make that claim?

SOURCE






Tony Abbott has forgiven Julia Gillard's misogyny speech

TONY Abbott and Julia Gillard are on track to revive their famous friendship, after their first "reasonably warm conversation" in more than three years took place at an airport lounge a few weeks ago.

The Opposition Leader and former prime minister once enjoyed a mutual affection for each other, but as Mr Abbott told the ABC's Kitchen Cabinet, this was set aside in the "rugged contest" of three years of a hung parliament.

"I'm sure the day will come when we can be genial and respectful again," Mr Abbott told host Annabel Crabb.  "In fact we had quite a genial and respectful exchange in an airport lounge a few weeks ago."

When it was pointed out that if making a Google search of the terms "Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard and flirting you get a 2.5 minute YouTube video of just extraordinary mutual affection", Mr Abbott agreed the pair had once been close.

"Well, we had a pretty rugged contest, particularly from the start of the carbon tax period and that obviously did a fair bit of damage to the degree of mutual respect which had existed beforehand," Mr Abbott said.

When they happened upon each other at the airport lounge, Mr Abbott said to Ms Gillard, "You've been through a pretty tough time" and "she agreed that yes, it had been a pretty tough time but that was the kind of thing that tended to happen in the rough and tough business we're in".

He said he was willing to put behind him Ms Gillard's infamous misogyny speech, which she made during a fiery parliamentary debate about then-Speaker Peter Slipper, who had been accused of sending sexually explicit text messages, and which went on to make international headlines.

"It was a very unfair speech, I thought, and it was a completely invalid speech in terms of responding to the issue of that day it was just an invalid thing to say," Mr Abbott said.

"But look, politics is about theatre and at the time I didn't think it was very effective theatre at all, but plainly it did strike a chord in a lot of people who had not followed the immediate problem that had brought on that particular parliamentary debate."

SOURCE






Collapse in youth workforce participation rate

With so much information being circulated during an election campaign, sometimes important facts go missing in action, such as the fact that Australia's youth participation rate is at its lowest ebb in recorded history.

In January 2008, the participation rate for 15 to 24 year old Australians was 72.1% and it has been going downhill ever since.  By March 2013, the rate had hit a rock bottom of 66.8% - the lowest youth participation rate ever since the Australian Bureau of Statistics began collecting the data in 1978.

To compound the problem, the government has been bragging about how it has managed to keep the youth unemployment rate at relatively low levels. The Minister for Youth, Kate Ellis, for example has said, 'Average youth unemployment under Coalition with no GFC - 12.6%. Under us with GFC - 11%.'

A review of the Minister's claim by the website Politifact gave it a rating of 'mostly true', because it didn't take into account the fact that under the Coalition youth unemployment fell from 16% in April 1996 to 10% in November 2007; an average rate of 12.6%.

Whereas under Labor, it started at 9.4% in December 2007 and has increased to 11.8% as of June 2013; an average over the life of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments of 11.1%.

The record low youth participation rates can be partially explained by the findings from my recent report Not Looking for Work which show that the government has been pushing young people out of the workforce and into education and training. As a result, from July 2009 to June 2012, there was a 200% increase in the number of people on Youth Allowance (other) classified as 'non-jobseekers' and a 229% increase in the number of people in education and training on Youth Allowance.

With so much attention directed at budgetary black holes and boatloads of asylum seekers, it is important not to forget some of the smaller issues like the collapse in the youth participation rate, because at the end of the day we are talking about a generation of Australians who are simply not engaged in the workforce.

SOURCE

2013 Election Special Video - know whom you are voting for!



In this special episode of Global Warming Revisited the Galileo Movement takes a closer look at the Politicians and Scientists playing a role in the 2013 Australian Federal Election.






Tony Abbott, the all-rounder

As well as being a former Rhodes scholar with a degree in economics, he is super-fit and community-involved

HE already has a reputation as an action man but Tony Abbott's cycling routine has his police bodyguards struggling to keep up.
The Opposition Leader has barely been able to ride during the election campaign because the Federal Police assigned to him were unable to follow on two wheels.

Instead, Mr Abbott has substituted his gruelling regime on his bike, which is still being carted around the country with him, for running and gym workouts.

When he is in Canberra, Mr Abbott cycles up and down a hill near Parliament House four to six times around dawn and follows his morning routine with about 40 minutes in the gym after Question Time.

The workouts keep him fit for the annual MP's ride, the Pollie pedal, which has raised $2.5 million for charity and this year began in Adelaide and finished in Geelong.

Mr Abbott declared yesterday he would keep up his workout schedule and his commitments as a volunteer firefighter, declaring if ordinary Australians could donate their time for their community, a potential Prime Minister could.

He said volunteering and the Pollie Pedal "keeps you grounded and keeps you in touch with the people of your community in a way that driving from event to event in a government car just can't replicate."

"Regardless of the outcome on Saturday, I will still be a firefighter, I will still be a surf lifesaver, I will still do my annual Pollie Pedal and I will still spend time in remote Indigenous communities every year because I want to keep these important community connections," Mr Abbott said.

"Sure, if the Coalition is elected, my volunteer time will become a little more limited but I will still ensure I'm fulfilling my duties.

"If hard working mums and dads find time to volunteer as lifesavers, fire fighters and for charities then surely a potential prime minister can find the time too."

The Federal Police declined to comment on security arrangements for Mr Abbott or why the officers on his detail were unable to accompany the Opposition Leader on bike rides.

On the few occasions he has been able to ride during the campaign a back up car has followed.

"We don't comment on protection matters involving the Prime Minister or the Tony Abbott," an AFP spokesman said.

It is not the first time police have been unable to accompany Mr Abbott on his rides.

In Nauru two years ago two local officers failed to keep up with Mr Abbott's pace on the island nation's 17km ring road and held onto a follow-up car to be towed along.

The Federal Police said Opposition Leaders were provided close personal protection during election campaigns.

SOURCE





Tony Abbott turns climate sword back on Kevin Rudd

IN the last week of the campaign, Tony Abbott has deliberately returned to where he began five weeks ago - the carbon tax.

It is also where he started his first destruction of Kevin Rudd and where he achieved his final defeat of Julia Gillard.

And Labor is doing everything it can to assist the Opposition Leader make it dominate the final campaign days and sear into the national psyche that the election is a referendum on the carbon tax, which guarantees his mandate to repeal it in government.

What's more, Labor is shaping, in Abbott's words, to "commit political suicide twice" by pledging to use the Labor-Greens control of the Senate to keep the carbon tax and force voters back to the polls next year for a double-dissolution election on the tax.

After using a five-year campaign against "a great big new tax" to weaken two prime ministers and bring himself to the cusp of prime ministership, Abbott isn't missing the final opportunity to stick with his most successful strategy and present Labor in opposition with an insoluble dilemma.

Abbott's last pitch on the carbon tax is that it costs jobs, has cost Labor support and probably cost it government. For Labor in opposition, the carbon tax threatens to split its support and further antagonise workers who felt betrayed by Gillard's deal with the Greens and remain concerned for their jobs and living costs.

Yesterday Abbott was again telling blue-collar workers in a Labor stronghold not that he expected them "to break the habits of a lifetime and suddenly love the Coalition" but that repealing the tax was "one thing we will do which is real, which is concrete, which is easy to understand and which is going to make it easier for the manufacturing workers of our country". "A Labor Party which persists in support of the carbon tax is just setting itself up to lose not one election but two," he said.

"If we win the election which is a referendum on the carbon tax, the last thing that the Labor Party will do is set itself up to lose a second election by continuing to support a tax which has become electoral poison."

While refusing to entertain "hypothetical" questions about Labor's attitude in opposition to the carbon tax Rudd made it clear he thought Labor was on the "right side of history" and would remain so into the future.

Deputy Labor leader and potential opposition leader Anthony Albanese was even blunter about not changing, and Environment Minister Mark Butler entrenched Labor's refusal to repeal the carbon tax.

Rudd's claims he "terminated the tax" by bringing forward the move to a market system a year earlier are long gone as Labor digs in behind the carbon tax in government - and in opposition.

SOURCE




Zeitgeist shifts again, but this time nation turns to the right

The lithe figure of a runner approached along the banks of the Yarra, silhouetted against the rising sun. But this time, perhaps the third such morning, I was ready with a fellow jogger's wave for the uber-fit Julie Bishop.

It was November 2007, and given that we were in the latter stages of an election campaign, where leaders, and the travelling media pack, frenetically lace the continent in the hunt for votes, it was unusual that there was time for the establishment of any such pattern.

Yet here we were in Melbourne, again. John Howard was going down. He knew it and his Melbourne-based campaign brains trust knew it too. It was evident in their own research, from the published polls, and simply, from the atmosphere - the Zeitgeist if you will. Voters were calling time on the nearly 12-year-old government, and by extension, they had warmed to the idea of Kevin. Rudd had successfully given them permission to switch, convincing them of his ''fundamental'' economic and social conservatism.

Scroll forward six tumultuous years and that feeling is there again. This time, however, they have warmed to the idea of Tony, and that, in essence, is the story of the 2013 poll. When this election campaign started, nearly five weeks ago, a narrowly trailing Rudd wanted as many election debates as he could get and Abbott wanted as few as he could get away with.

They were both wrong. Abbott's team angled to minimise the risk. Rudd's team figured, on past performance, that he would easily defeat the aggressive Abbott in head-to-head encounters. Rudd's working assumption was that the more voters saw of the unpopular Abbott, the more they'd shy away.

In fact, the opposite has occurred through the course of this campaign. By the third debate, the two leaders had more or less switched roles and it was Abbott who appeared calm and reasonable defending foreign investment, and imparting a general sense of assuredness.

In short, the more voters have seen of Abbott during the hyper-exposure of the campaign, the more their historical objections have softened. Voters, it appears, have got used to the notion of Tony Abbott occupying the Lodge.

It was said of Howard's win in 1996 that the times eventually came to suit him - that in a sense, he was the rock, and voters moved to him. The parallel with Abbott is apparent. But politics is a binary business and Abbott's rise is corollary of Rudd's disastrous campaign. Indeed, history is likely to be very hard on Rudd given that his relentless siege of the Gillard leadership carried with it the singular responsibility to do better than she would have. Late into the final week of his frequently shambolic campaign and that is by no means clear. Labor's polling is as bad as it was under Gillard earlier this year. And the Gillard camp has given Rudd the clear air so obviously denied to her.

Rudd mark II's rapid fire ''solutions'' regarding faction reform, scrapping the fixed carbon price, and the asylum seeker deal with PNG, implied he had been thinking long and hard about a re-election strategy.

Yet it has failed to materialise beyond his fourth big announcement: calling the election itself. It turns out, he had a plan to beat Gillard, and not much beyond it.

On Wednesday morning, reporters on the Rudd campaign again found themselves in Melbourne, and again found themselves in the middle of a disorganised Labor campaign.

Warehoused for hours as Rudd (somewhere else) made unheralded appearances on TV and radio, there was an unmistakable sense in the travelling media pack that the time spent in Melbourne is more about sandbagging Labor seats rather than winning Coalition ones.

SOURCE

Rudd committed to climate change policy

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd says Labor will never "pull up the white flag" on climate change and it is the wrong time to change direction on the issue.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has vowed to repeal Labor's carbon tax, which is now transitioning to an emissions trading scheme, if the coalition wins Saturday's election.  But Labor says it won't back away from this policy.

The coalition has hinted it may resort to a double dissolution if Labor and the Greens thwart their mandate to axe the tax.

Mr Rudd says Labor remains committed to its course of action on climate change, including the emissions trading scheme. "If we in Australia turn our back on it, it licenses everyone around the world to do the same," he told the Nine Network on Wednesday.

"You can do the easy thing and pull up a white flag on climate change.  "We'll never do that for the simple reason that our actions are part of responsible global action to bring down the impact of global warming."

He says climate change and global warming aren't going away and voters who have doubts about the coalition's direct action plan shouldn't vote for them. 

Mr Rudd later said voters unsure about action on climate change should think about the world they want for their grandchildren.

"Look in the eyes of your kids and through them see the eyes of your grandkids, ask yourself this question: which side of history do you want to be on when it comes to the future of climate change and global warming," he told Gold FM in Melbourne.

"If you don't act now, 50 years time it's too late."

Mr Rudd said some of Labor's measures had been controversial, but they had been working.

"To give your listeners a sense of encouragement, in the last five years we've actually brought down the level of carbon emissions from electricity generation in Australia by seven per cent, we've now got more than a million solar panels on roofs across Australia - when we started in office there were 7,500.

"So big changes are occurring but we've got to keep making them in order to have an effect in the future."

SOURCE




Tony Abbott willing to break emissions pledge over funding hole

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has branded the election a referendum on the carbon tax and said it would be “unimaginable” for a defeated Labor Party to stop him repealing the tax.

Mr Abbott also confirmed categorically – for the first time – that he would break the Coalition's pledge on greenhouse reduction targets if it cost more money than he had budgeted for.

The Opposition Leader spent about 15 minutes of a 20 minute address to the National Press Club hammering Labor on the carbon tax. If elected the Coalition would repeal the tax within its first year in government, Mr Abbott promised.

“A Coalition victory, should it happen, will be a warning from alienated Labor voters to their leaders,” Mr Abbott declared. “Never again sell Labor's soul to another party.”

But when asked how he could repeal the carbon tax without calling a double dissolution election – given Labor and the Greens would likely block his repeal – Mr Abbott said he thought Labor would accept his “mandate”.

“It's unimaginable that a defeated Labor Party would persist with a carbon tax,” Mr Abbott said.

“Having lost one election through support for a carbon tax, why on God's earth would you lose a second supporting the same failed policy?”

Mr Abbott confirmed he was prepared to break the Coalition's pledge to cut Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 (on the levels recorded in 2000). Estimates by Treasury and independent modelling companies suggest that the Coalition's $3.2 billion Direct Action policy will fall several billion dollars short of reaching the targets.

“The bottom line is we will spend as much as we have budgeted, no more and no less,” Mr Abbott said.

“We will get as much environmental improvement, as much emissions reduction as we can for the spending that we've budgeted.”

During a wide-ranging question and answer session following his speech, Mr Abbott waded into the culture wars over the national curriculum; the privatisation of Medibank; commitment of troops in foreign wars; and whether he would encourage his daughters to pursue careers in public life.

Last week in launching his education policy, Mr Abbott's statement said the national curriculum had been “politicised”. Asked what he meant by that, the Opposition Leader said the Coalition was mostly referring to the history curriculum.

The national history curriculum lacked references to “our heritage, other than an indigenous heritage” and had too great a focus on “issues which are the predominant concern of one side of politics”.

“I think the unions are mentioned far more than business,” Mr Abbott added. “I think there are a couple of Labor prime ministers that get a mention, from memory not a single Coalition prime minister.”

But Mr Abbott assured educators he would not “directly dictate” his views to them, but would simply offer his advice.

Responding to other questions, the opposition leader said he thought any decision to send Australian troops into battle should be debated by Parliament, and he confirmed the Coalition would sell Medibank Private.

Given the prominent role of his daughters in his campaign, Mr Abbott was asked whether he would encourage them to pursue careers in public life, given the sexist taunts directed at Australia's first female prime minister, Julia Gillard.

Mr Abbott said it was a “tough call”.  “If they showed an interest, obviously I would give them as much encouragement as I could.”  "[But] I would also want to warn them that it is a pretty tough field, and if you're going to go into it you're going to cop a lot of barbs," he said.

"That's why in this business you've got to have a thick skin as well as a strong ego."

SOURCE




Gay marriage may hurt Labor: Beattie

LABOR'S star candidate Peter Beattie admits the prime minister's support for gay marriage may hurt the party's vote in some key marginal seats including Forde, which he is trying to win from the LNP.

Mr Rudd is the first Australian prime minister to go into an election supporting marriage equality.  He has promised that if Labor is returned to power on Saturday, it will introduce within 100 days a bill to parliament to legalise same-sex marriage.

A number of conservative religious groups have been dismayed by his stance.

Mr Beattie says many people with strong religious beliefs oppose gay marriage, but many others respect Mr Rudd's decision to stand up for what he believes in.  "In politics you have to have the guts to stand for something and the PM has," he told the Nine Network on Wednesday.  "I've explained this to people, this is a difficult issue."

Mr Beattie says he's a Christian, but: "Why wouldn't we want two people who are in love to actually enjoy that relationship."

Mr Rudd in the same interview said he was "just concerned about doing what I believe to right, whether people think it's popular or not".

He said the churches would "forever" retain the right to conduct marriage ceremonies exclusively between a man and a woman, but the secular state was separate.

"A secular state should not be sensitive to questions of sexuality and they should be able to conduct secular ceremonies in the manner in which the state chooses, and that is not discriminating against same-sex couples."

SOURCE




Scripture is simply all Greek to Rudd

RELIGIOUS leaders have sharpened their attacks on Kevin Rudd, citing his hamfisted attempts to argue the biblical case for same-sex marriage in a spirited shellacking of a Christian pastor on Monday night.

Broad views abounded but one of the most prominent Anglicans in the country and Old Testament scholar, the Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, said the Prime Minister was "profoundly wrong" and alleged he had actually quoted Aristotle when he suggested that "slavery is a natural condition" was in the Bible.

"I was disappointed by Mr Rudd's comments last night in the same way that I was disappointed by the position he announced in May despite, as he said, much reflection," Dr Davies told The Australian.

"Unfortunately in my view, he has not been reflecting on the teaching of scripture. He misquoted the Bible and attributed to the Bible something that Aristotle said."

Dr Davies said the Bible was perfectly clear on both the subject of slavery -- on which it documents many observations -- and same-sex marriage.

"The Bible sees slavery as the result of fallen and broken relationships in society and it is crystal clear in its condemnation of the slave trade,"he said.

"The Bible views marriage as an institution that God has created. Jesus brings clarity to the nature of marriage by saying that it is an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman, for life.

"Although there are many kinds of relationships in our society, to describe the relationship between two persons of the same sex as marriage is contrary to the Bible's teaching."

In the Greek philosopher's book Politics, Aristotle wrote: "For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule."

Former prime minister John Howard yesterday backed a conscience vote for the Coalition on same-sex marriage, but added his own view that the matter was "nonsense".

"The present (law) doesn't discriminate against people, it just recognises not only a long-standing attitude and custom but also recognises that anything we can do to preserve current notions of marriage are more likely on balance to provide the best environment for raising children," he told reporters in Adelaide yesterday.

Australian Christian Lobby managing director Lyle Shelton said Mr Rudd's tone in responding to pastor Matt Prater was a portent of things to come.

"You need only look at his tone on (the ABC's) Q&A to realise he will really clamp down on freedom of speech and freedom of religion if he is elected again," he said. "What Mr Rudd is saying is there is no place for you in Australia if you hold these views."

SOURCE

Ruddy gestures

Kevvy is a prolific user of gestures in his many speeches.  And someone at the ABC was so amused that they created the gifs below to illustrate his repertoire  --together with mocking captions

Cut & Zip
 

Locomotion
 

Cat Paw Double Swipe
 

Fling
 

AFL Goal
 

Cut, Cut, Cut
 

Blessing
 

Big Fish
 

Boom, Boom, Boom
 

Bommyknocker
 

Casual Darts Throw
 

Destroy The Evidence
 

Double Dead Spider
 

Jazz Hands
 

Pinch
 

Prices Are Down
 






People smugglers to defy  Kevin Rudd's stance on asylum seekers



KEVIN Rudd's Government says it has beaten the people smugglers, but it's not what this man and many like him think.

Smuggler Amir Shojaei took this selfie after collecting $35,000 to take eight members of the Sakhravi family, from Iran, to Christmas Island by boat.  Two days later, Shojaei's phone went dead and the Sakhravis lost every cent.

Immigration Minister Tony Burke yesterday claimed Labor had "broken the back of the people-smuggling trade", but Java's smugglers are now offering massive discounts to poor asylum-seekers or, for the wealthy, express speedboat rides to join bigger boats north of Christmas Island.

And whoever wins Saturday's election will have a new problem, with a wave of Syrians expected to start filtering, and then rushing, to Indonesia, any time now.

Amir Shojaei and his like will be ready.

SOURCE





Coalition government to review unions and ALP presence in history curriculum

TONY Abbott has rebooted the history wars with a warning too much emphasis on left wing politics in the national curriculum will be reviewed by a Coalition government.

The Opposition leader told the National Press Club the curriculum lacks focus on Australia's past, "other than indigenous heritage" and has "too great a focus on issues which are the predominant concern of one side of politics".

"I think the unions are mentioned far more than business," Mr Abbott said.  "I think there are a couple of Labor prime ministers who get a mention, from memory not a single Coalition prime minister. So I think it is possible to do better."

The only Prime Minister mentioned by name in the foundation to Year 10 curriculum is John Curtin, who led the Labor Party from 1935 to 1945.

Mr Abbott said any changes to the curriculum would be guided by "professional educators", but it is unclear how this will happen, given that the Coalition school's policy, unveiled last week, reveals plans to "refocus" the body that implements the curriculum.

"I think we're entitled to say (we) could do better. I think we're entitled to say maybe you ought to have a rethink about this, but what actually happens is ultimately a matter for them," he said.

The move comes after News Corp reported earlier this year the "black armband" view of how the Anzac legend is taught would also be changed by an incoming Abbot government.

Shadow education spokesman Christopher Pyne said in April one of the first education priorities of the Coalition would be restore Anzac Day to its "rightful" place of respect.

Critics of the curriculum say a trend towards political correctness means history classes are placing undue emphasis on indigenous culture, Asia and sustainability, with Anzac Day mentioned in the context of other national days such as Ramadan and Buddha Day.

Labor introduced a national curriculum in 2011 for English, Science, Maths and History, with the remainder of the syllabus scheduled to be implemented by 2016.

Australian Education Union Angelo Gavrielatos said the Coalition's claims of a left wing bias in the curriculum were incorrect.

"We certainly hope that this is not an indication of an intent to reinstate the culture wars of the past," Mr Gavrielatos said, referring to heated debate during the Howard government years over the emphasis of England's role in Australia's history.

The "history wars" were a feature of the Howard government, with the then Prime Minister in 2006 calling for changes in the way children were taught about Australia's past and an end to the "divisive, phony debate about national identity".

Mr Howard used his Australia Day address to the National Press Club on the 10th anniversary of his leadership to call for a "coalition of the willing" to promote changes to the teaching of history, which he said was neglected in schools, slanted towards apologising for the past and questioning national achievement.

"Too often, it is taught without any sense of structured narrative, replaced by a fragmented stew of 'themes' and 'issues'," Mr Howard said. "And too often, history, along with other subjects in the humanities, has succumbed to a postmodern culture of relativism where any objective record of achievement is questioned or repudiated.

"Part of preparing young Australians to be informed and active citizens is to teach them the central currents of our nation's development."

NSW Teacher's Federation president Maurie Mulheron said Mr Abbott was seeking to "politicise" the curriculum.

"It's a shame because of the extraordinary work of so many teachers involved in writing the syllabus, and now they are going to start questioning the professionalism of those teachers," he said.

Mr Pyne said the Coalition would take away ACARA's assessment role, which has been increasingly controversial in the wake of criticism of the NAPLAN regime - which an Abbott government would also review.

"We will refocus the Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, to ensure that it is focused on developing the highest standard curriculum documents," Mr Pyne said.

"It will become the Australian Curriculum Authority, but the agency will retain its existing responsibility for drafting the national curriculum documents on behalf of the Federal Government and the States and Territories."

Mr Pyne said the Coalition had been calling for the curriculum "to give appropriate weight to our western and Judeo-Christian heritage as a nation" since it was first drafted.

A spokesperson for ACARA said "ACARA, as an independent authority, would not comment on statements made in the lead up to the election. The F-10 history curriculum approved by the Council of Federal, State and Territory Education Ministers is available on the Australian Curriculum website."

SOURCE





Liberal candidate links asylum seekers to traffic jams and hospital queues

A Liberal candidate in western Sydney has said she believes asylum seekers are contributing to outer-suburban traffic jams.  "[Asylum seekers are] a hot topic here because our traffic is overcrowded," Fiona Scott, the Liberal candidate for the seat of Lindsay told the ABC's 4 Corners program.

When asked to explain her view she said: "Go sit on the M4, people see 50,000 people come in by boat - that's more than twice the population of [western Sydney suburb] Glenmore Park," she said.

Ms Scott also suggested asylum seekers were exacerbating hospital waiting queues.

Ms Scott is challenging Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury in the September election. She came to prominence last month when Tony Abbott controversially described her as having "sex appeal".

While visiting western Sydney earlier in the election campaign, Mr Abbott was asked what Ms Scott had in common with the former Coalition MP for Lindsay Jackie Kelly.

"They've young, they're feisty," Mr Abbott said. "I can probably say they have a bit of sex appeal. And are just very, very connected with the local area."

His comment resurrected debate about Mr Abbott's perceived "woman problem", however Ms Scott defended the Opposition Leader saying there was no need to apologise. She said his comment was "an absolute charming compliment between friends".

4 Corners also revealed that Kevin Rudd, though critical of Mr Abbott's remark, had apparently given Fiona McNamara, candidate for Brisbane, advice on how to wear her hair.  "I don't think I've ever said anything to Fiona about the way in which she presents," he told the program.

But this was contradicted when Ms McNamara, days earlier, had relayed a conversation with the Prime Minister.  "He likes me to have it pulled back a bit, so people can see my face," she said.  "There is a problem sometimes with women's hair in their face, and it's probably a bit neater."

But Ms McNamara said she had herself initiated the conversation about her hair, over a cup of tea.  "I said, 'Oh, I'm not sure about how I should be wearing my hair."'

SOURCE

Another so-called Aborigine


Aborigines are black.  Is this young woman black?  Hardly.  I'll happily call her an opportunist, though.  Why can't she simply be called "part-Aborigine"?


Some real Aborigines, including a gorgeous little boy

An Aboriginal girl who grew up in the Australian foothills says she wants to expose the 'mindblowing' racism in her home country, having become the first indigenous Australian to graduate from the University of Cambridge.  [Mindblowing racism sent her to Cambridge?]

Lilly Brown won a scholarship to the highly competitive Trinity College, where she completed an MPhil in Education.

The 27-year-old, from the Gumbaynggirr tribe of the mid-north coast of eastern Australia, was also offered a place at the University of Oxford - something she says she never expected.

She has now returned to teach at the University of Melbourne.
She says she hopes to increase awareness and change common perceptions of her ancestors.

Her success makes her the first in her extended family to complete an undergraduate degree.

Miss Brown said today: 'I would hope that my success would inspire young Indigenous Australians to chase their dreams, and all young Australians in general. 'I feel absolutely blessed by this opportunity as I did not expect that one day I may undertake study at one of the most prestigious learning environments in the world.

'It’s about telling my story, and the struggle I went through in getting to where I am and then making it that little bit easier for other to follow in my path.

Miss Brown, who grew up in Western Australia, said she was proud to have English and Scottish ancestry mixed with her Gumbaynggirr background.

As a child, she said, she learned about the history of her ancestors from her grandmother - and the discrimination they faced.  'My Nan was taken away from her mother, and like many Aboriginal people during this time, raised as a ward of the state,' she said.  'Government policies aimed at the assimilation and absorption of Aboriginal people into the mainstream Australian community sanctioned my Nan’s removal.  'They have since come to be known as the Stolen Generations.'

She was horrified to discover that, in Western Australia, just 15 Aboriginal students graduate high school each year who are eligible for university.

She has now researched her ancestors to help her build her indigenous studies course at Melbourne.

'One of the primary motivations behind my aspirations to attend Cambridge was so my perspective would be respected and my voice would be more readily listened to.

“I also felt that it would be useful to learn more about the theory and philosophy that underpin the education system within much of the Western world, and that perhaps this would also contribute to furthering my understanding of why the exclusion of Aboriginal people continues to occur within this space.”

Lilly was awarded the Charlie Perkins scholarship, named after Australia’s first Aboriginal university graduate who finished his degree in 1966.

SOURCE





Labor flags post-election ban on cosmetics testing on animals

Labor is pledging to conduct a national consultation to phase out the importation, manufacture, sale and advertising of cosmetics or cosmetic ingredients that are tested on animals.

The European Union has already issued a complete ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing.

That ban took effect earlier this year and applies to all new cosmetics and their ingredients sold in the EU, regardless of which country in the world the animal testing was carried out.

Although animal testing on cosmetics in Australia stopped some years ago, it is not illegal.

Health Minister Tanya Plibersek says most Australians would be surprised to learn that some companies test their cosmetics or their ingredients on animals overseas before selling them here.

"Some companies manufacture cosmetics in Australia using ingredients tested on animals overseas, even though the finished cosmetic products are not tested on animals domestically," Ms Plibersek said.

"Animals shouldn't suffer in the quest for better mascara or lipstick."

Ms Plibersek says the national consultation will go ahead if Labor is a re-elected.

"Continuing to import cosmetics or cosmetic ingredients tested on animals is out of step with current community expectations," she said.

"Over 10 years, the European Union phased out the importation and marketing of cosmetic products and their ingredients tested on animals.

"I believe Australia needs to play its part in the international movement against animal testing."

SOURCE





Australia on top of World Giving Index

DONATIONS to charities have risen 11 per cent since January 2010, despite the cost of living being the greatest cause of consumer anxiety.

Australia was ranked at the top of the 2012 World Giving Index ahead of Ireland, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

Robert De Iure, senior economist with the National Australia Bank, is not surprised.  "Our studies of wellbeing show it is not all about money," he said.

According to NAB's Charitable Giving Index, published in April, Australians each donate $291 to charities each year.

And IBISWorld reports that along with corporate and government support, charities and not-for-profits are now a $112.2 billion industry.

IbisWorld predicts this will increase to $140.8 billion in 2017-18.

Social analyst David Chalke believes our charity has been growing over that past 20 to 30 years.  "It's at the absolute heart of being Australian," he said."It's all part of fair go, mateship and giving a helping hand."

According to the Charities Aid Foundation, more than two-thirds of us donate to a charity or help a stranger each month.

But Mr Chalke added that "we don't give willy-nilly." "Australians give to a cause with a purpose. Charities need to be showing they are doing something good."

Charity groups agree.  "We survey our donors every year to find out their reasons for supporting cancer research," said David Brettell, CEO of the Australian Cancer Research Foundation.

"The priority for them is understanding where money is going and what the outcomes are."

With 45,000 charities and not-for-profit organisatioss operating in Australia, smaller charities are finding innovative ways of developing their profile.

Australia's army of 6.4 million volunteers is also critical in making charities successful.  "We couldn't do our work without volunteers," said Karen Hayes, CEO of Guide Dogs Victoria.  "It costs $30,000 to breed and train a guide dog and all of our services are free."  "Our volunteering spirit comes from our heritage of helping our mates," she said.  "It's part of our DNA."

SOURCE





West Australian builder of big cats triples profit


The second Austal-built Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV), USNS Choctaw County (JHSV 2), was officially delivered to the United States Navy on June 6

SHIP building and maintenance company Austal has more than tripled its annual profit due partly to its growing work with the United States Navy.

Austal made a net profit of $35.9 million in the 2012/13 financial year, more than triple the previous year's $11 million.

It achieved record revenue in the year of $903 million due to growth in its construction of vessels for the US Navy.

Austal is targeting revenue of $1 billion in the 2013/14 financial year, chief executive Andrew Bellamy said.

Its shares rose by four cents to 84 cents.

The company is also building patrol boats for Australian Customs, and owns a shipyard in the Philippines.

SOURCE

Rudd will be the loneliest politician in Australia next Saturday night

THE mandarins of Australia's public service are naturally silent creatures, at least in public. The idea of taking sides in a political argument is anathema to them.  That is especially the case during an election campaign. They understand they have a duty to behave in a nonpartisan way and they are serious about it.

But sometimes senior bureaucrats can be pushed too far by politicians. That happened on Thursday.

Kevin Rudd and his two most senior economics ministers crossed the line by trying to use the reputation of Treasury, the Finance Department and the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) in a bit of political trickery. Treasury head Martin Parkinson and Finance Department secretary David Tune cried "Enough!" .

The Government's aim was to damage the Coalition campaign. Instead, by provoking the bureaucrats, it knocked the stuffing out of its own remaining election hopes.

It was possibly the biggest blunder in a bloody awful Labor campaign. Small wonder talk in the ALP has already turned to who might lead the party in the coming wilderness years.

Frank Sinatra used to sing "Saturday night is the loneliest night of the week".  Next Saturday night Rudd is likely to be the loneliest politician Australia has seen for a long time.

Treasury undermines claims of $10bn black hole

The Government claims now that it did not suggest the three departments had costed Coalition policies. Readers can judge for themselves.

A day after the Coalition unveiled what it claimed were cuts and savings that would total $31.6 billion during the Budget forward estimates period, the Prime Minister strode into a news conference with Treasurer Chris Bowen and Finance Minister Penny Wong.

"There is an error of $10 billion in the claimed $30 billion of savings the Opposition released yesterday," the Treasurer said.

"This is based on advice from the departments of Treasury and Finance and the Parliamentary Budget Office, which we are releasing today."

Mr Rudd chimed in that the allegation of a $10 billion hole was "based on the most basic analysis driven by the advice of government agencies". The shortfall, he said, "is clearly identified in the table circulated to you now". The table, looking very official, was part of an ALP press statement.

It began: "Treasury, Department of Finance and PBO figures released this morning have exposed a $10 billion hole in the savings claimed by the Coalition yesterday."

Attached were a Treasury Executive Minute classified "Protected", a two-page Finance Department memorandum and several pages of costing advice from the PBO with the name of the person who had requested the information blacked out.

Sure, the departmental documents were dated prior to the calling of the election.

And Mr Bowen told the news conference: "This is advice given to the Government prior to the caretaker period."

But presumably we were supposed to believe the costings they contained were based on accurate information about the Coalition's proposals. Otherwise, what was the point?

There is no avoiding the conclusion that it was all calculated to create the impression that what Mr Rudd, Mr Bowen and Ms Wong alleged was backed by the authority of the top economic experts in the bureaucracy.

Mr Rudd's fatal mistake was to use what he claimed was Treasury, Finance and PBO advice to justify an accusation of fraud against the Coalition.

Liberal leader Tony Abbott, shadow treasurer Joe Hockey and shadow finance minister Andrew Robb - likely to be the mandarins' new bosses after next Saturday - were furious.

Mr Parkinson and Mr Tune, presumably believing they and their departments had been compromised, decided not to cop it and put out a statement - brief, but more than enough to have a significant impact on the election.

At no stage, they said, had either department costed Opposition policies. In other words, the information and assumptions for any costings they had done came from the Government. In other words. In other words, he so-called costings of Coalition policies put out by Labor were so iffy they could not be taken seriously.

The mandarins' intervention was, as far as I can recall, unprecedented. And it was a body blow for Labor.

Back at the start of the campaign, Mr Rudd had cast the election as a test of who could be trusted by voters. The unravelling of Thursday's exercise played right into that central issue of trust - and not to Mr Rudd's advantage.

And it will be much easier for the Coalition to get away with keeping its planned cuts secret until the campaign's dying days.

SOURCE







The enemy within NSW child protection

Social workers ideologically opposed to adoption are the real problem

The NSW Minister for Community Services, Pru Goward, is under pressure to resign for allegedly misleading the parliament, the public and the media about the number of child protection caseworker in the state.

The Minister's office had said that 'more than 2000' caseworkers were employed by the Family and Community Services Department when in fact 300 less than budgeted (around 1800) were employed.

This followed reports that only a quarter of children reported to be at significant risk of harm were seen by a caseworker to check on their welfare.

Departmental workers took industrial action last week in protest and to demand that vacancies be filled. There is more to this than the standard public sector union attempt to boost membership numbers.

The strike – together with the confected outrage over staffing levels – is part of a political campaign designed to discredit a Minister determined to change the NSW child protection system.

The shortage of caseworkers (a perennial problem under both Labor and Liberal administrations) is superficially significant. Even 300 more staff is unlikely to significantly dent the number of children who caseworkers never see.

The opposition is calling for the minister's head even though the 2008 Wood Commission established that under the previous Labor government just 13% of reports that warranted further assessment received a detailed investigation involving a home visit and sighting of the child.

None of this stopped the ABC's Quentin Dempster from spending most of Friday night's Stateline interview focusing on the relative minutiae of caseworker numbers and 'transparency'. The bigger picture, involving departmental opposition to planned changes to child protection practice in the state, was only briefly mentioned in passing towards the end of segment.

Minister Goward will soon introduce a reform package designed to increase the number of abused and neglected children who are adopted.

There are many arguments in favor of increasing adoptions to better protect children (detailed here). One is that adoption will make it easier to ensure that risk reports are properly investigated.

The huffing and puffing about caseworkers shortages endangering children, which all sides of politics engage in, needs to be viewed in the proper context. The real and systemic problem with child protection in Australia concerns the large number of children who are re-reported because of unresolved safety concerns.

Approximately half of all reports of child harm in NSW concern a hard core of around seven or eight-thousand frequently-reported, highly dysfunctional families. Many of these children have a long history of risk of harm reports stretching over many years, and end up being damaged by prolonged exposure to parental abuse and neglect.

Too little is done to rescue these children because child protection authorities in NSW (as in all Australian jurisdictions) believe in 'family preservation' at nearly all costs.

Many of these children would be much better off if they were removed earlier and permanently, preferably by means of adoption. This would significantly reduce the number of reports and, by making the caseload more manageable and alleviating staff shortages, would ensure a higher percentage of reported children (ideally 100%) could be seen.

It would also significantly reduce the amount of often catastrophic abuse and neglect experienced by the most vulnerable Australian children.

Despite this, adoption is 'taboo' in child protection circles, and most caseworkers (due mainly to what social workers are taught during their university training) are ideological hostile to any moves to increase adoptions for child welfare purposes.

The institutionalised opposition to adoption inside the agencies responsible for child protection is the reason that in 2010–11, fewer than 200 children were adopted in Australia. This was despite more than 37,000 children being in government-funded out of home care placements, and more than 25,000 of these children having been in care continuously for more than two years.

Stopping Goward's push to turn these figures around is the real objective of the 'caseworker shortage strike'. It is a pre-emptive public relations hit job on a minister who it is hoped will have diminished credibility in arguing the case for adoption when the memory of her 'lies' and alleged failure to ensure there are sufficient staff to see abused children is fresh in the public's mind.

Doubling or even tripling the number of caseworkers won't keep more children safe if family preservation remains the orthodox practice . The tail should not be allowed to wag the dog and subvert the democratic process. Politicians are elected to make the policies that public servants are obliged to implement.

This episode will be instructive for the new Family and Community Services director-general, Michael Coutts-Trotter, who has taken charge of a rogue department. The enemy of better protecting the children of NSW lies within.

SOURCE





Tony Abbott stands by MP in burqa row

BURQAS are confronting and should never be widespread on the streets of Australia, Tony Abbott says.

The Opposition Leader was responding to comments reportedly made by McMahon Liberal candidate Ray King that burqas are a "sign of oppression" and can be linked to criminality.

Mr Abbott described Mr Ray as a decorated police officer and "outstanding" candidate.

He said he understood Mr King's comments to be more about identifying people in policing situations, given their attire.

"I've been asked about the burqa on lots of occasions and whenever I've been asked about the burqa I've said that I find it a very confronting form of attire," he said.

"Frankly it's not the sort of attire that I'd like to see widespread in our streets.  "But this is a free country.  "Everyone's entitled to make their choice and if people want to wear a burqa, it's ultimately their business."

Earlier, Mr Abbott said he expects Labor to ramp up a "smear campaign" against the Coalition in the next week.

And it comes as a Newspoll published today in The Weekend Australian predicts a wipe-out for Labor.

He said polls would tighten sharply in the final week as politics got ugly.  "Mr Rudd is a very clever politician and the Labor Party are ruthless politicians ... and we're going to see plenty of low politics in the last week,'' Mr Abbott said this morning.

Ray - former Liverpool police commander - is standing against Treasurer Chris Bowen who has called for him to answer questions, including explaining his links with disgraced detective Roger Rogerson, who reportedly attended the launch.

Mr Abbott said Mr King was an "outstanding" candidate.

"We've already seen a nasty smear campaign against all sorts of our members and candidates including that outstanding policeman Ray King in Sydney," he said.

"It's just contemptible the way the Treasurer of this country, who is constantly demanding honesty and integrity when it comes to budget figures, is making unsubstantiated smears against a great servant of the people of NSW."

SOURCE





Aussie students excelled as "all rounders" but still beaten by  East Asians

Australians helped by the fact that  40% of them go to private High Schools.  Asians helped by their higher IQs

HIGH school students in Australia have entered a rare category - they are among the world's best academic all-rounders.

OECD data shows that more students in Australia achieve high levels in maths, reading and science than their counterparts in most other countries.

On average across OECD countries, 16.3 per cent of students are top performers in at least one of the subject areas of science, mathematics and reading but only 4.1 per cent are top performers in all three.

In Australia however more than 8 per cent of students are high-achieving all-rounders.

The OECD analysis was based on international tests among 15 year-olds across 65 countries.

It showed that Shanghai-China had the highest numbers of academic all-rounders at 14.6 per cent, followed by Singapore with 12.3 per cent.

New Zealand is ahead of Australia with 9.9 per cent. In Hong Kong and in Japan 8.4 per cent of students are good all rounders.
In Australia 8.1 per cent of the students tested were top performers across all three subjects.

This puts Australia ahead of the UK where just 4.6 per cent of of students were considered all-rounders - just slightly higher than the OECD average.

A briefing note published by the OECD says that academic all-rounders are rare.  "To satisfy the growing demand for high-level skills in knowledge-based 21st-century economies, school systems need to increase the proportion of their students who are top performers," it said.

SOURCE