Mr. Abbott says he is going to be methodical, steadfast, careful mature adult and all the similar words one can think of.
Maybe one could say that is admirable. Why an adult, that is taking on the role of PM keeps telling us he is going to be adult and mature puzzles me. One would think that would be taken as a given. Has he been acting in an immature manner up to now?
Now, Mr. Abbott, what is more important, that one carries out each talk in the correct order? I feel, from what you have told us, you intend to put the cart before the horse.
Yes, doing things arsehole about. Yes, doing things back the front.
You seem to have lost the way, in your haste, in demolition of all that your arch enemy Julia Gillard built.
Has it entered your head, or of those about you, that’s for you to put your proposals in place? Yes, you do not have to demolish the house, in most cases; the renovation could get you what you want.
Mr. Abbott, you say you want to save the taxpayer money, yet you are setting out on a path that will create waste and cost us more. Yes, not save as you say you desire.
You say your first action is to cut the carbon tax. Not sure what you mean, but what do you mean? You are aware that there is a suite of CEF legalization that goes to reducing carbon emissions.? It is all of these measures you are removing, along with the price on carbon emissions. Mr. Abbott, you are out removing a tax. A Carbon tax does not exist.
I suggest that instead of wholesale demolition that you reconsider your actions, by introducing your Direct Action legalization, with the aim of it making the present legislation redundant. At the same time, there are many similar schemes within the CEF legalization that could be changed to fit in with DA. This would lead to less disruption to staff and those already receiving assistance. The main difference in the two schemes apart from planting millions of trees is the way you are funding the operation.
The present scheme is funded with a fixed price being put on carbon emissions, moving to a market based price. The funds for Direct Action, I believe, will be provided out of general revenues. Mr. Abbott, it will still come from taxes paid by the taxpayer. What we need to know, what are you going to cut to find the money? What is wrong with the polluter pay? This is the case now. Is not there penalties hidden away in your scheme which business will have to pay?
I believe you need to have Direct Action before the parliament, before you rescind the CEF legislation, so, we the public know what it is about. This would make it more seamless to move between the two schemes.
Mr. Abbott, I say this, as I do not trust you. I feel that many in your government do not want any action taken at all and Direct Action will be abandoned. This would help you to keep your promise to be open and transparent.
There is nowhere that I have seen that there is still a majority who believe that carbon emission harm the atmosphere and needs to be addressed. Why are you insisting on rescinding agencies that assist in assessing carbon emissions? Why are you turning your back on the science?
One could say the same about your grandiose PPL scheme which many consider too expensive, and unnecessary. Why not just rejig the Labor scheme? Why does the whole package have to be sent to the trash bin? This costs money. Just change the benefit and eligibility to be paid. Why do you have to restart from the beginning again?
As for the NBNCo, I suggest before wasting money sacking everyone, that you get Mr. Turnbull to find out how much copper wire will need to be brought up to standard and how much it will cost. You did intend, down the track, to move to fibre to the home.
What will become of the technology you will have to use with copper to the node, plus the cost of the nodes? I believe this will have no further use. I for one do not want to see Telstra bought back into the picture. I believe they should join the same level playing field as all other ISPs. If necessary, I suspect you could quickly find any waste within the system. Yes, once again, renovation is the name of the game. There is no need to pull all down. Take into account what the long-range cost will be. Yes, you need to compare what the cost of taking it to the premises, of yours and Labor’s scheme. We like to see this when comparing.
Fibre to the home is the superior technology. It will be needed in the long term.
Mr. Abbott, all I ask is that you reconsider your plans for demolition and consider renovation where necessary. This will lead to less waste.
We have Operation Sovereign Borders, which many fail to understand what you are about, Mr. Abbott. Please explain how replacing the present practice of only allowing bridging visa as is inferior to the TPV you are restoring. It might have missed your notice, but bridging visas have fewer rights, than TPVs. Yes, they are stricter, and scare the boat people more.
Mr. Abbott, what happens to those who marry here, or have the children? How long do you expect people to remain on your TPV? From what you have written, it will be forever. Mr. Abbott, are you dismantling the “NO ADVANTAGE” test.
Mr. Abbott, maybe it would have been more prudent to talk to Indonesia and others in the region before rushing off to promote an army man. Maybe there are other more humane options. Maybe, a trip to PNG, to give that country’s scheme a chance to work.
Mr. Abbott, the biggest question I ask, is why most of your election campaign, was identical to the one you used in 2010? Yes, the same, with no more detail, I am afraid. You do not wonder that maybe things have changed since then, and maybe new policies were needed.
Mr. Abbott, why is your new front bench made up of yesterday’s men. Men from Mr. Howard’s failed government that was thrown out in 2007.