Mr Abbott’s witch hunt

What a pathetic little man Tony Abbott is. Driven by populism, not policy, he has promised to hold a judicial inquiry into Julia Gillard’s actions as a lawyer should the Coalition win the next election. Not content to simply ‘ditch the witch’ he wants to conduct a witch hunt into irrelevant matters that were played out almost twenty years ago; matters that will mean absolutely zero to the country should Julia Gillard lose the 2013 election. Some of us would argue that those matters mean absolutely zero in this present day, but that’s another story. Twenty years later on this irrelevant issue:

Mr Abbott insisted again that Ms Gillard had committed a crime in her role of providing legal advice to incorporate an association for her then boyfriend and Australian Workers Union Victoria state secretary Bruce Wilson.

Abbott has no doubt been buoyed by a recent poll showing that voters question Ms Gillard’s explanation of the matter, hence his further drift towards tacky populism.

It is my guess that he’ll do absolutely nothing. He runs the risk of being exposed as an utter fraud if the judicial inquiry turns up nothing to support his current exercise in fear and smear. And he knows it, but it doesn’t deter him from practicing current day populism.

Given that Mr Abbott wants to exert his “future government’s” time and money on witch hunts judicial inquiries, I have a handful of instances from where he might want to hold judicial inquiries witch hunts on whose episodes are more recent than the Prime Minister’s alleged criminal behaviour 20 years ago and whose outcomes are more in the national interest.

Here are some of the witch hunts Mr Abbott might want to pursue.

Our illegal war

Mr Abbott, please take a look at John Howard’s lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We entered into an illegal war based on that lie. We ordinary Australians are more interested in the lie that cost this country billions of dollars and which tarnished our national pride. We, as a country, are still associated with that war, whereas Ms Gillard’s alleged actions were almost 20 years ago. Let’s have some priority.

AWB

The AWB Oil-for-Wheat Scandal refers to the payment of kickbacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein in contravention of the United Nations Oil-for-Food Humanitarian Program. AWB Limited is a major grain marketing organisation based in Australia. For much of the twentieth and early 21st century, it was an Australian Government entity operating a single desk regime over Australian wheat, meaning it alone could export Australian wheat, which it paid a single price for. In the mid-2000s, it was found to have been, through middlemen, paying kickbacks to the regime of Saddam Hussein, in exchange for lucrative wheat contracts. This was in direct contradiction of United Nations Sanctions, and of Australian law. Mr Abbott, please take a look into how the Howard Government – of which you were a member – were entangled in reprehensible act. Please also ask your former Foreign Minister, who knew ‘nothing’ of the affair, if it is true that his staff removed 11 wheelie bins filled with shredded documents from his office the morning after losing the 2007 election. Perhaps you could put an end to the rumour that circulated Canberra about the contents of those mysterious bins.

Dodgy deals – Malcolm Turnbull

Mr Abbott, do you remember this?

In a speech that Mr Turnbull gave in Perth it was reported he “ . . . decried the state of political discourse in Australia, saying it had deteriorated to such an extent that the nation suffered “a deficit of trust” and there was an urgent need for honesty in politics.”

Before Malcolm starts preaching he needs to have a good look at himself . . . having refused to answer a number of questions in relation to a grant he gave when he was Enviroment Minister in the Howard government to his friend Matt Handbury. Mr Hanbury, co-founder of the Australian Rain Corporation and nephew of the News Corporation chief, Rupert Murdoch, you might recall, contributed to Mr Turnbull’s electorate fund-raising machine (which was set up in 2007).

Mr Abbott, do you remember Mr Handbury’s company receiving a $10 million grant from Mr Turnbull when he was Environment Minister not long before the 2007 election? $10 million of tax payer’s money.

A witch hunt my jog your memory.

Dodgy deals – John Howard

Mr Abbott, in 2000 your old boss decided to help the retrenched workers of National Textiles to recover their entitlements after the company, of which Mr Howard’s brother Stan was Chairman, was placed in the hands of an administrator.

It was reported at the time that it was Prime Minister Howard:

. . . who proudly announced that the cash-strapped National Textiles’ workers would receive their full entitlements. It was the Prime Minister who said they would be the first to recover wages, leave and a redundancy payout under a new National scheme and it was the Prime Minister who urged the creditors to accept a Deed of Arrangement so that the $6 million in State and Federal funds would flow.

. . . the Australian newspaper claimed that acceptance of the scheme would prevent an inquiry into National Textiles’ management and Directors, of which Mr Howard’s brother, Stan, is one. The editorial was scathing, raising questions about the government’s probity and calling the taxpayer funded bail-out improper, and policy on the run.

The Opposition called for an inquiry but it went nowhere. Mr Abbott, given your promise of a witch hunt to dig up Julia Gillard’s past perhaps you’d be moral enough to do a bit of digging dig into this shady deal as well.

Or perhaps the current Government could do their own digging. Ouch, won’t that hurt?

An apolitical observation

I generally don’t believe anything that comes out of the mouths of members of the Coalition so I haven’t given much credence to whatever they say. But this latest babble of bullshit has stirred me:

The federal opposition has accused Labor of ordering public servants to create political material to attack the Coalition.

Amid business calls for public servants to be allowed to do their jobs, opposition treasury secretary Joe Hockey has lodged an official complaint alleging “potential political interference” in the public service by Treasurer Wayne Swan’s office.

Tony Abbott said it was not the number of advisers that was the problem, but the way in which they were used by the government.

The Opposition Leader said the Coalition would review the entire bureaucracy but “I think it’s the misuse to which political staffers have been put, with dirt units and so on, rather than the fact that there are political staffers as such”.

As a former Federal Public Servant may I protest that this is a load of absolute and utter rubbish? It’s clearly just another fabricated  “look over there” moment to deflect media and public attention away from a very damaged Tony Abbott.

But if they want to pick on the Public Service with bizarre claims then I take the liberty to throw back a few observations of my own.

I worked as a Public Servant under the Howard, Rudd and Gillard Governments. As a Public Servant I was apolitical, working for the government of the day while casting aside my own political preferences and I performed diligently and loyally to all three. Of those three governments it could be considered that the behaviour of several Howard Ministers only was questionable. I am not at liberty to expand on this.

However, I am at liberty to provide my observations, whether they be correct or not. Neither might they agree with the observations of other Public Servants. But here they are:

  • I didn’t consider that John Howard or Joe Hockey were honest politicians
  • Tony Abbott was very unpopular with a former department due to his alleged nastiness
  • Kevin Rudd drove people fairly hard
  • The Liberals when in government appeared to politicise the Public Service
  • There were rumours that members of the Howard Government attempted to obtain information off public servants for political advantage
  • The Rudd Government acted far more professionally than the Howard Government
  • Julia Gillard was very popular and respected by her departments
  • Many of Howard’s policies in the employment area did not appear to be working
  • The Labor Governments were more concerned with helping society’s needy
  • The Labor Governments had more of a focus on education and job training than Howard’s
  • I did not consider Joe Hockey a competent Minister
  • Labor made more cuts to the Public Service than Howard
  • There appeared to be a greater emphasis from the Howard Government on misleading the electorate
  • The Howard Government did not appear genuinely concerned with the plight of minority groups, in particular Indigenous Australians

What have you good people observed from the boundary line?

Photo courtesy of blog.publishingtechnology.com

Policies on the run

There’s no doubt about the Abbott Opposition: they are all over the shop when it comes to policy-making. Policies are written either on the run or on the back of an envelope.

Take their latest thought bubble.

In a discussion paper released today the Coalition proposes the sale of farmland and agribusinesses be examined particularly closely, suggesting the Foreign Investment Review Board scrutinise all foreign acquisitions of agricultural land valued at over $15 million. The current threshold is $244 million.

As an aside, the wording in the ‘supportive’ Murdoch media is a bit misleading. See if you can spot the difference.

. . . the release of a Coalition discussion paper that suggests slashing the foreign investment threshold to $53 million from $244 million for offshore buyers wanting to acquire agricultural assets.

Maybe the Murdoch media needed to leave out a ‘minor’ detail in order to sell the proposal, which, incidentally, will save the country from the great ruin the Gillard Government has deviously planned for us. Please try not to laugh at this from the above link:

South Australia’s food supplies will be increasingly at risk unless Julia Gillard adopts the Opposition’s new measures on the sale of farms to foreign investors, farmers warn.

Yes, the sky is still going to fall in.

Yet most people think the sky is going to fall in on this proposal. Take, for example, the views of David Farley, the chief executive of Australian Agricultural Company:

“The Coalition partners, the Nationals, should actually study agriculture a bit more closely and understand what is needed to develop the industry in Australia.

“I am concerned that it is shouting out a xenophobic view rather than an informed view about what is best for the local industry,” Mr Farley said.

Mr Farley said there were was “plenty” of capital available to invest in Australian Agriculture, both through the trillion dollar domestic superannuation system and foreign investors.

“There are already enough hurdles to agricultural development in Australia, why put further barriers in place?

“If the pathways for Australian capital into agriculture are not attractive enough we definitely need to make sure that it is for international investors.”

Mr Farley said that as a major agricultural producer Australia had “big job to do’ over the next 20 years to meet the food needs of a global population tipped to reach nine billion people.

It does appear to be policy on the run. Populist policy it so appears. Just another thought bubble policy. A policy so bad that not even Joe Hockey could defend it, let alone explain it.

As at 2010 foreign ownership of agricultural land in Australia was a mere 6 per cent. If the Gillard Government don’t do anything about this then the good folk of South Australia will suffer from the affects of malnutrition and possibly scurvy. Last month only Whyalla was at risk. Now it’s the whole state. The people should leave now. Get out while you can!

Now here is something to consider: The Coalition have been predicting that the Mining Resources Tax (MRT) would deter foreign investment in Australia? And isn’t it a surprise to learn that the mining industry in Australia is 83 per cent foreign owned.

What isn’t surprising is the Opposition’s hypocrisy.

On the run they are producing policies that are promoted with the prediction that the country will be ruined if foreign ownership isn’t controlled, yet they oppose Government policies that they predict – unfounded – that will deter foreign ownership.

This latest policy, as the above links show (with the exception of the Murdoch sources), is a dud. Hypocrites and policies don’t marry up too well.

What more can I say?

The Fool on the Hill (part 3)

So far in this series Fool on the Hill (aka Tony Abbott, the Fool on Capital Hill) I’ve had the pleasure to demonstrate how Abbott displays the intellect of a moron when it comes to the important political and environmental issue of climate change, and the social issue of gender roles. In both, it appears that he expects the whole country to warm to his outdated ideologies. Fortunately we are a bit more switched on to national and global issues, mainly because we move with the times and aren’t locked in a cocoon. We are willing to embrace change. Tony Abbott wants nothing changed. He wants us to journey in his time tunnel to the long gone era where profits were more important that people, the working class were the servants of the elite, women were the servants of men and the planet was the servant of ruthless industry.

Not everyone has an interest in climate change or gender issues so those people have been spared the indignity of sitting through an Abbott brain fart, however, the issue in this post affects everyone: economics. Here he is a fool too. For a person who has an economics degree Tony Abbott exhibits a fluency in economics akin to a gorilla trying to play a violin. He puts on a woeful performance. With a skill level of zero he can’t be trusted to take the helm of the nation’s economy.

Says who?

Just about anybody who knows how to add up, but more significantly, the nation’s leading economists and analysts.

Continue reading