ABBOTT "TEA PARTY" CONSERVATISM: March 2014

Sunday 30 March 2014

Who writes this stuff?

By Kaye Lee on March 30, 2014 •

Chris Berg

It is becoming increasingly obvious that Tony Abbott’s plan for
governing is to work his way through the IPA’s wish list of 75 (+25)
“radical ideas”.

Since these people seem to be determining the direction our country
will take I thought it worth investigating the qualifications of the
authors of the paper, John Roskam, Chris Berg, and James Paterson.

John Roskam is the institute’s executive director. Prior to his
employment at the IPA, Roskam was the Executive Director of the Menzies
Research Centre in Canberra. He has also held positions as an adviser to
federal and state education ministers, and was the manager of
government and corporate affairs for the Rio Tinto Group.

The other two young men, Berg and Paterson, seem to have no relevant
qualifications or experience other than appearing on the Drum and
writing for publications like the Australian.

Relevant experience is not a prerequisite to get a gig at the IPA.
Focusing on the National Curriculum, we have Stephanie Forrest who just
finished her BA with Honours last year. In her Honours thesis, she
reconstructed a previously lost Byzantine chronicle dating to the period
of the early Islamic conquests (7th-8th centuries AD), and included a
translation of the entire chronicle from early-medieval Greek into
English. From what I can see she has no education qualifications or
experience other than as a student, most recently in somewhat esoteric
classical history.

In the article preceding the 75 points, the authors warn that “the
generous welfare safety net provided to current generations will be
simply unsustainable in the future….Change is inevitable.” It’s
interesting that they do not mention the generous tax concessions for
the wealthy and subsidies for the mining companies and banks who are
making superprofits.

They then outline the game plan.

“But if Abbott is going to lead that change he only has a
tiny window of opportunity to do so. If he hasn’t changed Australia in
his first year as prime minister, he probably never will.

Why just one year? The general goodwill voters offer new governments
gives more than enough cover for radical action. But that cover is only
temporary. The support of voters drains. Oppositions organise. Scandals
accumulate. The clear air for major reform becomes smoggy.”

We are halfway through that year. The honeymoon period vanished very
quickly, no major reform has been achieved, and the support of the
voters is fading. Whilst the Labor Party may not yet have found a clear
direction, the opposition of the people is organised and growing, and
the scandals are emerging. The only “radical action” has been the
reintroduction of knighthood which has been rightly ridiculed.

They go on to talk about “culture wars” and the “Nanny State”, the
mantra of all Young Liberals, most of whom have no idea of the meaning
of what they are repeating. It is so predictable – you cannot have a
conversation with a Young Liberal without them using those phrases
endlessly in what reeks of indoctrination.

Apparently we should be more concerned about the Australian National
Preventive Health Agency introducing Nanny State measures than the
culture wars promoted by academics and the bias at the ABC. We should be
worried about the “cottage industry” of environmental groups. We should
be more concerned that senior public servants shape policy more than
elected politicians do, regardless of them being experts in their
fields.

Describing their 75 points the authors say

“It’s a deliberately radical list. There’s no way Tony
Abbott could implement all of them, or even a majority. But he doesn’t
have to implement them all to dramatically change Australia. If he was
able to implement just a handful of these recommendations, Abbott would
be a transformative figure in Australian political history. He would do
more to shift the political spectrum than any prime minister since
Whitlam.”

Do we actually want to “dramatically change Australia”? The
authors suggest that just a handful of the proposed changes will cause
that change. Reading through the lists here (75) and here (+25) shows that many of them are either underway or under discussion, the latest being

42 Introduce a special economic zone in the north of Australia including:

a) Lower personal income tax for residents

b) Significantly expanded 457 Visa programs for workers

c) Encourage the construction of dams

The IPA is supported by people who think that money and power are the
most important things and that the world should be run to facilitate
them accumulating more of the same. The IPA 70^th birthday in
April last year saw Cardinal Pell sitting with Gina Rinehart and Rupert
Murdoch being courted by Tony Abbott and a bevy of Liberal MPs with
sycophants Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones watching on. George Brandis and
Tim Wilson also obviously had a fruitful conversation.

The connection between Murdoch, Rinehart, ANDEV, and the IPA shows
whose interests they are being paid to represent. To think that our
government is doing the same is truly frightening.

Tuesday 25 March 2014

Tony Abbott's Bunyip Aristocracy: arise, Lord Clive and Lady Gina

Date: March 26, 2014 - 6:57AM
Category: Opinion

Tony Wright

National affairs editor of The Age

Knights and dames return

Tony Abbott announces that the Order
of Australia will again contain knights and dames, beginning with the
outgoing and incoming Governors-General.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has announced that up to four
Australian knights or dames will be created each year, reintroducing an
honours system that was abandoned in 1986.
Governor-General designate Peter Cosgrove will be the first
knight in the Order of Australia, and will be known as Sir Peter, and
outgoing Governor-General Quentin Bryce will be the first dame.

Illustration: Ron Tandberg.

The special recognition, approved by the Queen on Mr Abbott's
recommendation, would be for Australians ''of extraordinary and
pre-eminent achievement'', and each successive governor-general would
receive the title of knight or dame in the Order of Australia.
Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart, you'd imagine, would be
holding their breath for the announcement that His Grace Tony the
Abbott, Duke of Australia, has quietly decided there should be a new
title for Lord and Lady Wardens of the Iron and Coal Ports.
The new Bunyip Aristocracy - only four knights or dames a year - seems a trifle limited.

Why, back in 1965 when Sir Robert Menzies, having already
received the Order of the Thistle, donned the fabulous gold-embroidered
costume and silk-lined cocked hat of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports,
you could hardly move in the Melbourne Club or one of Abe Saffron's
speakeasies in Sydney without bumping into a brace or two of knights,
and there were dames a-plenty at the better garden parties of Toorak and
Vaucluse.
Alas, there has been a lamentable lack of new Australian sirs
and dames - let alone Orders of the Thistle - since Gough Whitlam
introduced the Australian honours system in 1975, tossing knighthoods
and the like aside.
Malcolm Fraser bravely introduced knights and dames of the Order of Australia in 1976, but only
12 chaps and two dames got the metaphorical sword on the
shoulder before the Hawke government gave the whole idea the shove 10
years later.
Since then, the blessed have had to be content with the
chance at a mere medal and tiny lapel button declaring them an AC or AO
or suchlike, with not a gorgeous robe nor a cocked hat in sight. Now
even those high honours are to be devalued, though His Grace tried to
reassure them that the new knighthoods and damehoods ''will not affect
Companions, Officers or Members of the Orders of Australia''. Haw. Try
selling that in the members lounge of the finer clubs!
The four knights and dames announced by His Grace Tony the
Abbott will pretty clearly ace them all. ''Ah, you have a nice little
badge. Very jolly. Sir Peter's the name.''

Triply galling to the newly downgraded, surely, is that the
first dame is Quentin Bryce, vice regal for only a few more hours. Dame
Quentin mused only recently that she dreamed of the day an Australian
child could imagine becoming Australia's first head of state. Good lord,
the dame is a republican!

But then, even Sir Robert Menzies once opined that it would be improper for a serving prime minister to accept a knighthood.
David Flint, surely near apoplexy, must be considering an appeal to the Privy Council.

Mr Hawke did away with appeals to the Privy Council in 1986,
too, but a bit of a chat between Sir Peter Cosgrove and His Grace could
put that to rights in this new age of the bunyip aristocracy, you'd
think.

Mr Hawke, as it happened, was the recipient of a knighthood
himself. King Bhumibol of Thailand invested him as a Knight Grand Cordon
of the Most Exalted Order of the White Elephant in 1989.

Meanwhile, Lord Clive and Lady Gina, Wardens of the Iron and
Coal Ports, has a certain ring to it. And the Senate? About time it
became Australia's House of Lords. His Grace may be on to it already.

Monday 24 March 2014

Chinese journalists say they are being ''locked out'' of AMSA media briefings

Date: March 25, 2014

97 reading now

Heath Aston

Political reporter

View more articles from Heath Aston

Follow Heath on Twitter

"This wouldn't even happen in China": George Yang. Photo: Andrew Meares

Chinese journalists covering the missing Malaysia Airlines
flight MH370 from Canberra are furious at what they see as Australian
government control of the media.

On Sunday, two Chinese crews decided to chase Deputy Prime Minister
Warren Truss into a car park at the Australian Maritime Safety
Authority after being denied access to an AMSA briefing attended by
Australian media.

The crews held an impromptu interview with Mr Truss but have complained
at being ''locked out'' of any chance to put questions to AMSA boss John
Young. On Monday, AMSA posted a security guard at the front of its
headquarters.

George Yang, the chief correspondent for Hong Kong's Phoenix Satellite
Television, said he had been asked to prove his credentials while he
prepared to do a cross from public land. ''This wouldn't even happen in
China,'' Yang said.

''It's been very frustrating, there seems to be a Chinese media
blackout. It is unbelievable that this is happening in Australia. There
are relatives in China who are devastated and looking for answers.''

In a statement, AMSA said the security guard had been posted ''to
prevent media vehicles from blocking access to the building and to
prevent unauthorised access.

''AMSA rejects any claims that we are treating members of the Chinese
media any differently to others. Yesterday's media event was a pool
arrangement organised in conjunction with the federal press gallery
committee to allow access to the Rescue Coordination Centre whilst
minimising disruption to the operations.

''Chinese media requested to join the pool but the request was declined
by AMSA and they were advised to contact the press gallery committee to
arrange access to the pool content, which was also made available on our
website.''

AMSA said it had been ''inundated'' with media requests. ''We have
taken the view that it would not be fair to give selective interviews.
That is why we have given two press conferences and provided multimedia
content freely to all media. Chinese media outlets were present at both
press conferences.''

Wednesday 19 March 2014

Union bashing for the new curriculum.

By Kaye Lee on March 18, 2014 •

Senator Eric Abetz gave a rather disturbing speech to the Young Liberals (aged 16 to 31) national conference in Perth on 25 January this year.

He told them that, over the Christmas break, he had watched American political tv series House of Cards.

“Whilst it was a good watch, the moral bankruptcy, the crass manipulation, the cynicism, were for me all turn-offs.”

I know how he feels, though he apparently assured his son that
Canberra politics wasn’t quite as portrayed in House of Cards. He also
assured him that:

“Congressman Frank Underwood engaged in all his unsavoury
intrigues in the House of Representatives, and that such things could
never happen in the Senate. I also pointed out that the US Democrats
were the equivalent to Australia’s ALP”.

Right. Did you also remind him, and your audience, that it was a
fictional tv show, or are you preparing them for the “we good them bad”
indoctrination where fiction will be accepted as fact?

Speaking of which, Senator Abetz also read a book by Hal Colebatch
called “Australia’s Secret War” which he described as “a thorough,
detailed exposition of how individual unions and their leaders acted to
sabotage our nation’s war efforts in World War II.” He went on to say:

“Hal Colebatch has recalled this painful chapter of
Australian history which saw Australian unionists engage in a range of
sabotage actions that were utterly unconscionable.

That systematic campaign of sabotage criss-crossed the nation, from
Townsville to Fremantle, and cost the lives of countless Australian
diggers and allied soldiers.

Their actions included deliberately damaging planes, removing valves from radio transmitters that made them inoperative.

Packages and parcels for our service personnel were pilfered.
Coalminers and munition factory workers went on strike prejudicing the
war effort, costing lives, leading to unnecessary loss and increasing
the length and cost of the war.

Australian women were needlessly widowed. Australian children were needlessly left fatherless.”

These are very damning accusations to make, but he doesn’t stop there.

“So I do ask: where was the moral outrage of the ABC and
Fairfax commentariat when Hal Colebatch exposed all this in his
groundbreaking work?

People killed, people injured, the war effort severely compromised –
murder, grievous bodily harm and treason, all at the doorstep of the
union movement and all largely ignored.

Talk about a topic for inclusion in the national curriculum!”

And so it begins. The history curriculum rewrite starts with a
union-bashing book published last October from “a secret history rescued
from ‘folk memory’ – and one previously suppressed by leftists.”
Anyone who was 20 years old at the start of the war would now be about
95. I’m not sure we should be basing the curriculum on their anecdotes.

Rowan Cahill points out that:

“Colebatch has form, as they say in the classics. He is
the third son of the short-term (one-month) twelfth premier of West
Australia, who accompanied strikebreakers onto the waterfront during the
bitter Fremantle wharf crisis of 1919, an inflammatory action which
contributed to the death of trade union loyalist Tom Edwards following a
police battoning.”

Needless to say, Alan Jones gave it his immediate ringing endorsement
and, when that other expert journalist, Miranda Devine, pre-reviewed
Colebatch’s book in November, a contributor to her blog posed the
question:

“Where is the media campaign pushing for the unions to
abase themselves and seek forgiveness for the very real harm they did to
Australians? Unfortunately in Australia in 2013 that seems too much to
ask.”

Abetz echoes this cry saying:

“The union movement must provide a national apology for
prejudicing the nation’s war effort, remembering those families who
needlessly lost loved ones because of their treasonous activities.

Instead the MUA is currently funding a hagiography about the refusal
by wharfies in 1938 to load pig iron destined for Japan – an incident
the Left is still milking for indignation.”

They apparently want the unions to say sorry for the actions of
people who, 76 years ago, refused to send iron to aid Japan’s gearing up
for war, but John Howard had nothing to say sorry for because the
Stolen Generation never existed?

The Senator then goes on to praise Cory Bernardi’s book and his
comments about non-traditional families. He responded to the offence
taken by step-dad Bill Shorten this way:

You know the trip; “I claim victimhood. I declare that I
have taken offence. So you cannot question me or assail me with
undisputed, objective studies”… studies which actually tell us time and
time again that the gold standard for the nurturing of children is a
married man and woman with their biological children.

He gives a quote from Senator Bernardi’s book about the likelihood of
girls from non-traditional families ending up promiscuous and boys as
criminals.

“we know the statistics – that children who grow up
without a father are 5 times more likely to live in poverty and commit
crime; 9 times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more
likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioural
problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves.
And the foundations of our community are weaker because of this.”

He claims the source of these statistics was President Barack Obama’s
Father’s Day address of 2008. I know the Liberals would like us all to
emulate the Tea Party but thankfully, Australian society is still a lot
different to the US. Medicare, the PBS, minimum wages, penalty rates,
all contribute to making life just a little easier for our low income
earners compared to their US counterparts. Gangs don’t have the same
hold here (yet) and we have strict gun laws. We do have problems with
housing affordability and youth unemployment but comparatively, our
safety net is better.

Abetz then sinks even lower in my mind by saying to the kids:

“So can I say to those who in turn might say they were
brought up by a single parent, or in a blended family, and turned out
okay, take pleasure in this, but ask, was it the ideal?

Would life have been even better if, all things being equal, you had
been brought up with your other biological parent coming home every
night to provide an even more nurturing environment?”

I wonder if anyone had the courage to stand up and say “It was better
than watching my father continually humiliated or seeing my mother get
hit or watching two desperately unhappy people drift ever further
apart”. I wonder if anyone talked about the love and support their
adoptive parents gave them, something their “biological” parent/s were
unable to do. How dare he make these children feel their lives were
less than “ideal” because of decisions made by others when he has no
knowledge of their circumstances.

Speaking of criticism from within his own party which dismissed Bernardi’s as a minority view, Senator Abetz said:

“I have no doubt that for centuries it has been the
majority view and that only in the last thirty or so years has this view
come to be questioned by a number of social theorists, commentators and
interest groups.

I am delighted that reputable commentators like Piers Akerman, Andrew
Bolt and Paul Sheehan exposed the hollowness of many of the criticisms
of Senator Bernardi’s book.”

Because they would know better than “social theorists” I presume.

And of course, he couldn’t finish without reference to our Christian heritage:

“A study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences of
about 20 years ago to ascertain the reasons for the dominance of what we
refer to as our western civilisation concluded that

“in the past twenty years we have realised that the heart of your
culture is your religion, Christianity… the Christian moral foundation
of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of
capitalism and then the transition to democratic politics. We don’t
have any doubt about this”.

If communist academics from China can get it, I would’ve thought it
would be a no-brainer for say Senator Lee Rhiannon and the Greens, who
are pushing to remove reference to our Christian traditions by expunging
the Lord’s Prayer from Parliamentary proceedings.”

As he was concluding, I finally found myself surprisingly in agreement with Senator Abetz when he said:

“I believe that the Liberal Party too often has sold
itself short by over-concentrating on matters economic, vitally
important though they be – vacating the ground when it comes to our
society’s actual foundations.

As we restore our economic fortunes, let us also remember that to
succeed in that task we need to restore the societal capital, the values
and the foundations of our nation’s non-economic features. To ensure
the social legacy we leave future generations will determine the
economic foundations and structures that we also leave behind.

Australia’s economic security will ultimately be a reflection of its societal security.

Can I also encourage you, in your discussions with family, friends
and colleagues, to respectfully remind people that the future well-being
of our nation is not wrapped up in the economic management of our
nation, but ultimately in maintaining the social and cultural values and
traditions that have in fact given us the unparalleled personal
freedoms and wealth which makes us the envy of the world.”

It scares me when he says stuff like that. What does he really mean?

Saturday 15 March 2014

The neoliberal hypocrisy over 'market forces'

Tony Lewis 11 March 2014, 5:00pm

Economics Politics

310

Add

(Image via borisanisimov.blogspot.com.au)

While many people proclaim neoliberal ideals, no-one
actually lives by them, because neoliberal ideology is hollow and
hypocritical at its core, writes Tony Lewis.

This piece is written as an extension to Dr Geoff Davies’ excellent recent article 'Countering neoliberalism: A new life for Labor?' (IA, 10/3/14), as there is much more to say on this topic.

The truth is that while there are many people out there who proclaim
the neoliberal ideals, there are very few ― if indeed any ― who actually
live by them. Most people who proclaim these values are the first to
turn against them in particular circumstances — those circumstances
being quite simply the moment they feel themselves threatened by the
real forces of the market.

Have you ever noticed the less well intellectually endowed
politicians and commentators speak, almost in the same breath, of
“deregulation” and “law and order”?

If so, you have witnessed the seeding of this neoliberal hypocrisy over market forces.

The less well intellectually endowed politicians and commentators
deceive themselves with tricks of language and usually manage to
entirely believe that they are speaking of different things. But they
are not.

Law and regulation are the same thing. Law is regulation, and regulation is law.

If they were in any way equipped to articulate their real position,
the less well intellectually endowed politicians and commentators would
understand that they are using the term “regulation” to refer to law
they do not like, and they are using the term “law” to refer to
regulation that they do like. But by separating the terms in vocabulary,
they are able to sustain the fantasy that these are different things,
and so they are able to continue to argue mutually opposing positions.

Let’s look at some examples of how they do this.

If the Abbott Government, for example, genuinely believed in market
forces, then they would legalise the trades in heroin, guns and child
pornography. After all, there are proven markets for these things.

They do not legalise these things because they do not see these factors as working in their own interests.

In these instances, therefore, they do not argue for market forces
because they do not really believe in market forces. They believe in
regulating market forces, so they argue for law and order.

As an aside here, I do recognise that the neoliberals will willfully
misconstrue the above argument as me advocating the relaxation of
regulation on these issues. The neoliberals will do this as a diversion
from the real issue — they would much rather attack the messenger rather
than confront the uncomfortable reality of the message.

Watch them do it.

For the record, I state here unequivocally that I do not advocate the
relaxation of regulation on these issues. I’m really very glad that we
live in a regulated society and I fully support the regulation of these
market forces — and others.

Returning to the main argument, perhaps the Abbott Government’s
crowning glory in its tacit anti-neoliberalism is in its handling of the
asylum seeker issue, particularly with respect to people smugglers.

Because the people smugglers operate outside Australia’s
jurisdiction, Abbott cannot directly “regulate” them, so he goes to the
next logical step — he compares the situation to warfare, and behaves as
if he were really at war.

If Abbott truly believed in market forces then he would acknowledge
that people smugglers are merely small businesses generating supply in
order to meet a significant demand. This is how market forces work — and
this instance is a textbook case of market forces at work. If Abbott
truly believed in market forces then he would deregulate and welcome the
enterprise of these small businesses.

But he does not. And this clearly exposes the lie that is at the heart of the neoliberal ideology.

What the less well intellectually endowed politicians and
commentators really mean when they argue for both deregulation and law
and order is this: they argue in favour of all laws and regulations that
protect themselves and their interests from you, but they argue against
all laws and regulations that protect you from them.

We live in a highly regulated society and personally I’m glad that we
do. The regulation limits my capacity to do certain things, but it also
limits other people’s capacity to do certain things that impact
negatively upon me. In other words, I trade the right to do “whatever I
want” for the right to be protected from other people doing “whatever
they want” to me.

I’ll buy that. And the truth is that every neoliberal ideologue buys
it too. Well actually, the real problem is that they only buy half of
it.

The less well intellectually endowed politicians and commentators are generally either not intelligent enough to recognise the hypocrisy of their position, or not honest enough to acknowledge it.

The debate we should be having, therefore, is not about “whether or
not” we should regulate — because even those who claim to champion
deregulation will regulate when it’s in their interests to do so. In
fact, it’s about how, when and why we regulate.

As Dr Davies says, this is not a matter of 'left versus right', it is a matter of truth and untruth, fact and fantasy.

Thursday 13 March 2014

Dog Whistle | Shaun Micallef's MAD AS HELL | Wednesdays, 8pm, ABC1

)

Shaun Micallef take on Eric Abetz and Scott Morrison and their view of Asylum seekers ( they have true Fascist minds )

Friday 7 March 2014

Internet heavyweights oppose plan to force social media sites to pull harassment posts

Internet heavyweights oppose plan to force social media sites to pull harassment posts

WHERE DOES THE ABBOTT GOVERNMENT FASCISM STOP ?

REMOVING ANYTHING DOES NOT AGREE WITH THEM AS WELL?

Digital giants Facebook, Twitter and Google have united to
reject an Abbott government proposal that would force social media
companies to remove content deemed harmful to young people.
The government has proposed appointing a children's e-safety
commissioner with the power to force sites to take down posts containing
bullying or harassment.
The Australian Interactive Media Industry Association -
representing the major social media companies - says the proposal is too
cumbersome and would not cover popular messaging services such as
Snapchat and Kik.

''A policy that clamps down heavily on the things that young
people can say to each other on larger responsible sites has potential
to drive young people to engage in risk-taking behaviour on services
that have less well-developed protections in place and are not covered
by the legislated scheme,'' the association said in its submission to
the government.
Facebook argues the definition of harmful content is too
broad and could be used to target, for example, photos of children
''planking'' with their friends.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Communications, Paul
Fletcher, has repeatedly said the current system of self-regulation was
not sufficient to protect children against online bullying.

''[If] you're a child who is a victim of cyber-bullying, or a
parent or a teacher wanting to assist that child, if the site doesn't
respond when you notify a concern, you really have no redress at all,''
he said last month.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/internet-heavyweights-oppose-plan-to-force-social-media-sites-to-pull-harassment-posts-20140307-34crj.html#ixzz2vJ5hxZcY