Australian Politics
Anthony Albanese fires off a VERY cranky tweet as he's hit with a list of 15 questions he 'must' answer about the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has slammed Peter Dutton after the Opposition Leader sent the PM a list of questions asking for detail about his proposed Aboriginal Voice to Parliament.
Mr Albanese is hoping the country will support Labor's proposed parliamentary advisory body at a referendum later this year, but the plan has come under fire for lacking an explanation of just how it would work.
On Sunday, Mr Dutton accused the PM was treating Australians 'like mugs' and demanded Labor flesh out its plan by answering 15 questions about the make-up of the proposed Voice and its function.
Mr Albanese issued a furious tweet late on Sunday fuming about how Mr Dutton published his questions in an open letter to the media, when the pair had caught up and privately chatted at the cricket last week.
'So even though I talked with Peter Dutton on Friday at the McGrath Foundation event, he gives a letter to multiple media outlets as 'exclusive' on constitutional recognition and the Uluṟu Statement- a letter I still haven't seen,' Mr Albanese tweeted. 'People are over cheap culture war stunts.'
Mr Dutton hit back several hours later. 'You’ve had 7 months to answer questions. Friday at the McGrath Breast Cancer fundraiser wasn’t the place to discuss. Happy to talk anytime when you have the detail,' he replied.
Mr Dutton said his letter was issued on behalf of millions of Aussies 'who just want the detail'.
He claimed his rival was 'making a catastrophic mistake' by not providing 'accessible, clear and complete' information on the proposed Voice.
Mr Dutton added the government risked losing the referendum should they not let the public know exactly what it was voting for and believed the proposed voice will fail if questions aren't answered.
'People have got reasonable questions. There are many Australians if they had detail in front of them about a particular model, they could support the voice,' Mr Dutton told reporters on Sunday.
'You can't just say to the Australian public as the prime minister, 'you vote at an election ... on a Saturday and we'll give you the detail on the Monday'. It's a very serious decision to change our Constitution.'
************************************************
Liberal review heads in the Right direction
After considerable media teasing, the-anticipated report into the Liberal Party’s electoral failure last May has finally been released.
Conducted by former Liberal federal director Brian Loughnane and current federal frontbencher Jane Hume, the report exposes the ugly reality of what the Liberal party has become: a valueless, directionless, rudderless political and ideological ship.
Most of the pre-release commentary focused on the leaked findings: the election was a referendum on Scott Morrison and the Liberals failed to counter Labor and the Broad Left’s defining of him (although, admittedly, on Morrison the Left pretty well got him right); the party is too pale, male, and stale; there are too few women and ‘ethnic’ candidates for preselection and party leadership roles; that state divisions of the party are unfit for purpose and can’t organise a knees-up in a brewery; that targets for greater female representation be set, but not mandatory quotas.
But the really significant recommendations don’t relate to the media fodder.
Instead, they hone in on what is the Liberal Party’s fundamental weakness: it has forgotten what it stands for.
Hume and Loughnane highlight how the Morrison government tossed Liberal values and ideology to the wind in the face of responding to Covid in 2020 and 2021. They stress how important it now is for Liberals to rediscover and return to the party’s intellectual roots – not simply pay lip service to Menzies and his ‘forgotten people’ broadcasts – and once again become a party of the centre-Right. They rightly advocate the Liberals giving Australians a viable and reliable alternative to an increasingly hard-Left Labor.
If anything, however, Hume and Loughnane underestimate the magnitude of the Liberal challenge to resist the Left elite zeitgeist.
The Broad Left – Labor, Greens, Teals, like-minded independents, and loony-Left micro-parties – now constitute a strong and near-permanent electoral majority. That ugly reality is highlighted by Anthony Albanese becoming Prime Minister on a Labor primary vote of 32 per cent. In two-party preferred terms, in the May federal election preferences flowed to Labor two to one, compared to the Coalition. The electoral numbers are stacked against parties of the Right generally.
If the Liberals are ever to be in federal government again, they must do two things above all else. First, they must redefine their traditional liberal-conservative values in a mid-21st century context. Small-c conservative values, notably smaller government, market capitalism, and promoting individual freedoms in exchange for individuals taking personal responsibility for their choices and actions, are timeless and enduring, and remain as relevant now as they were in the time of Burke and Mill. On this, Hume and Loughnane have outlined a path ahead.
Second, and far tougher, is instilling and promoting traditional Liberal values in the generations that will dominate the electoral calculus until mid-century: the Millennials and Generation Z.
Millennials, especially, are the best-educated generation in our history. Until Covid struck, they lives in period of seemingly perpetually prosperity and affluence. They were too young to remember the Keating recession, and near 20 per cent interest rates. They never had it so good, one might say.
Ominously for the Liberals, they are also proving to be the most solidly, and stubbornly, Left generation in our history as well as the best-educated, a contradiction more sensible Boomer minds find hard to fathom.
Instead of growing more conservative as they go through life, as older generations including Boomers have, Millennials are clinging to the Left shibboleths of their youth. On climate change. On trendy social issues like transgenderism. On Big Brother, big taxing, anti-free market government. Demonstrating unabashed admiration for that naïve, Chauncey Gardner-like prophet of doom, Greta Thunberg.
Unless the Liberal party can find a way of translating the traditional and timeless values of the centre-Right into a form that Millennials and later voter generations can embrace, the Liberal goose may well be cooked. This isn’t to say it must accept the Broad Left reality: rather the Liberal challenge is to understand the Millennial mindset, and marry Liberal values to it.
Younger Liberals like new Victorian state MP, Institute of Public Affairs alumnus Evan Mulholland, have put their finger on a possible Millennial touchpoint. Mulholland urges a focus on helping younger voters getting a firm place on the housing ownership ladder, giving them a greater stake in their own lives and their own communities.
But that’s only a start if the Liberal party is to survive long-term as a part of government.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the Hume-Loughnane report is sunlight for the Liberal Party. It is a big step in the right direction, and the Right direction. The risk is, however, that factional warlords, careerists, and blowhards in both the parliamentary party and party organisation do their level best to hang on to their internal influence and shut the window to the sunlight.
They must not be allowed to prosper. If they do, the Broad Left will dominate our politics for a generation or more
https://spectator.com.au/2022/12/liberal-review-heads-in-the-right-direction/
*******************************************************The death of the presumption of innocence
The year 2022 may be behind us but the appalling circumstances surrounding the Brittany Higgins affair remain unresolved. From the moment news of the alleged rape of Ms Higgins became public, the presumption of innocence was sacrificed on the ‘believe-all-women’ altar. That the allegation was announced twelve months out from a federal election, that the alleged rape took place in the Parliament House office of a Liberal party minister and that Ms Higgins and the accused were Liberal staffers, provided a golden opportunity for base political instincts to override any statutory obligation or sense of duty.
No doubt conscious of heightened political and media interest and, seeking maximum publicity, two years after the alleged event occurred, Ms Higgins and her media-savvy boyfriend, David Sharaz, timed an interview with Network 10 broadcaster, Lisa Wilkinson, to coincide with the sitting of federal parliament. They got the response they wanted.
Then shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus, now the nation’s chief law officer, was quick to see political mileage. In his adjournment speech, he praised ‘demonstrations across our nation, (where) tens of thousands of women and their supporters marched and spoke for justice’. He referenced some of the placards, saying ‘on one, were the stark words, “Stop raping women,” on another, “Enough is enough”’.
‘It’s very clear the Prime Minister has made looking after Liberal party mates his main focus, – not looking after women…’.
The accused was plainly guilty, a conclusion endorsed by 2021 Australian of the Year, Grace Tame, who declared Brittany Higgins a ‘survivor’.
And if that wasn’t proof enough, former prime minister Scott Morrison, demonstrating his contempt for the presumption of innocence, brought the full authority of his office to bear by offering a fulsome apology to the alleged victim saying, ‘I am sorry. We are sorry. I am sorry to Ms Higgins for the terrible things that took place here’.
Despite the popular ‘guilty’ narrative, the federal police advised the director of public prosecutions there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. DPP Shane Drumgold ignored this advice, arguing, ‘there is too much political interference’. So a trial ensued. Then, with the criminal case in full swing, Lisa Wilkinson felt the need to maintain the lynch-mob rage by using an address at a Logie awards night to praise Brittany Higgins. So contemptuous of the court proceedings was she that ACT Supreme Court Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, ‘regrettably, and with gritted teeth’, postponed the trial by several months saying, ‘What concerns me most… is that the distinction between an allegation and a finding of guilt has been completely obliterated…. The implicit premise of (Wilkinson’s speech) is to celebrate the truthfulness of the story she exposed.’
After the trial was aborted and before the re-trial commenced, Mr Drumgold announced that he would no longer prosecute the case, even though he clung to his belief that there was a reasonable chance of conviction, as he had to weigh the effects of a second trial on Ms Higgins’s poor mental health. Presumably, in forgoing a conviction he took into consideration the risks to other vulnerable women.
And while the DPP judged Ms Higgins not well enough to continue with the prosecution, five days after abandoning the case Higgins declared she was willing to appear as a witness ‘to defend the truth’ in any defamation case brought by the defendant.
This calls DPP Drumgold’s judgement further into question and whether he himself was politically influenced.
In an address to graduates at the University of Canberra in April 2021, he wore his heart on his sleeve when he referred to Aboriginal people as ‘currently amongst the most imprisoned and disadvantaged people on the face of the planet’. Perhaps, given his own underprivileged background, he instinctively aligns with alleged victims regardless of evidence.
And in dropping the case, was he aware that nine days later, the Albanese government, having eschewed proper mediation procedures, would settle Ms Higgins’s claims against the Commonwealth and former ministers Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash for a rumoured $3 million?
Incredibly, in consideration for taxpayers meeting their legal expenses, neither former minister attended the mediation, notwithstanding both hotly contest Higgins’s claims of mistreatment while in their employ. And, disregarding taxpayers’ right to know, at Ms Higgins’s request, settlement details remain confidential.
Where is the outrage? The opposition remains conspicuously silent. So too most of the media and the legal profession.
So, while the accuser pockets millions of dollars, the accused remains presumed guilty by the federal parliament and the media and, is denied the opportunity to clear his name in court. What of his future?
To manage political fallout, the ACT government will hold an inquiry which will investigate the conduct of the prosecution, the defence and police, to ‘ensure the ACT justice system was robust and fair after both parties made allegations’.
Meanwhile, the Australian Federal Police Association accuses DPP Drumgold of attempting to ‘smear’ the AFP while the DPP alleges that police engaged in ‘a very clear campaign’ to pressure him not to prosecute. Without the case continuing, we will never know whether the DPP’s initial decision to proceed was sound.
No doubt the inquiry will find that the ACT justice system is fair and robust. The terms of reference will ensure that. But it will shine little light on the true state of justice in the ACT or, for that matter, Australia. Contempt for the constitution and human rights during the pandemic and the trials of Cardinal George Pell are more reliable indicators.
Indeed, the cynical forces behind party and identity politics which captured the Brittany Higgins case, clearly demonstrate that modern day authoritarians, guided by their ideological preferences, are prepared to bastardise the faithful application of objective laws.
Which begs the question, is the political-legal-media class now so captured that it is prepared to idly watch as the application of the rule of law and the pursuit of justice without fear or favour – the cornerstone of democracy – are effectively consigned to the dustbin of history?
As we enter 2023, if silence is any guide, the answer is ‘yes’.
https://spectator.com.au/2023/01/me-too-justice/
***************************************************Australia's carbon credit scheme is controversial
An official review of Australia’s $4.5bn carbon credit market has rejected allegations the scheme was a rort, concluding the system was “essentially sound” but needs an overhaul across regulation and transparency to boost public confidence.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen appointed former chief scientist Ian Chubb in July 2022 to carry out a review of Australia’s carbon credit scheme following allegations by whistleblower Andrew Macintosh that a majority of credits issued by the Clean Energy Regulator were flawed.
The Australian Carbon Credit Units scheme has attracted considerable criticism from environmental groups and others associated with the program, who say it is wasting taxpayer funds without cutting carbon emissions.
However, the official Chubb Review released on Monday found the ACCU scheme was essentially sound and it had not found evidence of widespread problems in the sector.
“In recent times, the integrity of the scheme has been called into question – it has been argued that the level of abatement has been overstated, that ACCUs are therefore not what they are meant to be, so that the policy is not effective,” the Review found.
“The Panel does not share this view. While the Panel was provided with some evidence supporting that position, it was also provided with evidence to the contrary.”
The Review found there may be several reasons for the “polar-opposite” views.
“One is likely to be a lack of transparency, meaning that third parties cannot access the relevant data and so different conclusions can be drawn, and all genuinely held.”
Still, the review led by the former chief scientist has suggested breaking up the powers currently managed by the Clean Energy Regulator in order to boost the effectiveness of the scheme with separation of governance, ACCU purchasing and method development functions.
The Australian Government purchasing of ACCUs “should be moved out of the CER and into another Australian Government body to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest,” the Review found.
“The multiple roles of the CER, in developing methods, regulating projects and issuing ACCUs, and administering government purchase of ACCUs, results in potential conflicts of interest and risks reduced confidence in scheme arrangements and governance.”
It also called for legislative changes to maximise transparency, data access and data sharing “to support greater public trust and confidence in scheme arrangements.”
Among 16 recommendations made in the Review are for no new project registrations be allowed under the current avoided deforestation method and the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee should be re-established as the Carbon Abatement Integrity Committee “as soon as practicable” with adjusted terms of reference, membership and functions.
The federal government has accepted in principle all 16 recommendations and said it would consider funding arrangements to implement the changes through the 2023-24 budget.
The Carbon Market Institute said it was critical to “align and escalate public and private investments” in industrial decarbonisation and emission reductions across the economy.
“This is a scheme that has developed and evolved over more than a decade, and investors and the community should be encouraged by the Independent Review Panel’s findings that its framework is sound, and the proposed improvements can also now be embedded to ensure a more transparent, robust system that can be scaled up,” CMI chief executive John Connor said.
The review followed criticisms by Mr Macintosh, an academic at ANU and the ex-head of the government’s Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee. Professor Macintosh has described the carbon market as “largely a sham” and said the majority of carbon credits did not represent real cuts to emissions.
More recent analysis by investment house Allan Gray concluded concerns about the integrity of the ACCU scheme were “valid and warrant further investigation”.
Some 30 per cent of ASX 200 companies use carbon credits to reduce their emissions – almost half specifically note their use of ACCUs, Allan Gray found.
************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment