The love that dare not speak its name: Kathy Jackson, Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party Tony Abbott today launched another politically motivated
witch hunt into supposed union corruption yet seems to have deliberately
excluded any investigation into his former hero, Kathy Jackson. Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks reports.
WE USED TO BE FRIENDS!
HOW THE LIBERALS FELL OUT OF LOVE WITH KATHY JACKSON
This morning Tony Abbott launched his latest stunt — a joint police taskforce to investigate alleged corruption, violence and organised crime connections in the construction industry.
Announced in a press conference this morning with Victorian Premier
Denis Napthine, the taskforce between the AFP and Victoria Police serves
the dual purposes of again kicking the union industry as well as
attempting to win votes for Napthine’s Coalition Government.
Allegations about so-called union corruption are seen as a sure vote
winner in Liberal circles because of the union movement’s close links to
the ALP. With the Liberals trailing Daniel Andrews’ ALP 44-56 (two party preferred) and the election set for November 29, Napthine will be hoping the taskforce uncovers some serious dirt — and fast.
Of course, it is interesting that this new dirtdigging unit is only
interested in looking into the construction industry union, the CFMEU.
It wasn’t so long ago, during the term of the previous government,
that the Health Services Union was portrayed as being the worst of the
worst by Abbott and co — yet it seems to have been deliberately excluded
from this latest witch hunt.
Could this have anything to do with the fall from grace
of brave Joan of Arc-like whistleblower Kathy Jackson — a name that
formerly could not be said enough times for the Coalition’s liking; a
name that, in Coalition ranks, once seemed to be synonymous with
everything the Liberal Party claimed to stand for?
This, of course, was back in the days when the HSU saga was working in the Liberal Party’s favour and they felt comfortable
hitching the Coalitions credibility to Kathy Jackson’s integrity —
blithely ignoring the mountain of allegations against her, even then.
Back then, current Employment Minister Eric Abetz couldn’t find
enough glowing words to say about her — in fact every time he spoke of
her it looked like his head was going to explode with pride and he even
had her name on his telephone’s speed dial.
George Brandis too, as Attorney-General and as Shadow AG has spoken about Jackson with admiration and a glint in his eye many a time.
Jackson was lauded by the shock-jocks, hailed a hero by right-wing
commentators and was even the guest of honour at an event at the home of
union hatred, the HR Nicholls Society, which she happily attended as the guest of the lovable architect of WorkChoices, Peter Reith.
Yes, not so long ago, in the eyes of the Coalition and its many one-eyed camp followers, while she was piling allegation after allegation on Craig Thomson and running down the Labor Party, Jackson could do no wrong.
Moreover, back then Jackson was engaged to be married into a clan considered Liberal Party royalty — the mighty Lawler family. Her fiancé Michael Lawler was the Tony Abbott appointed Vice President of Fair Work Australia, his brother John Lawler was then CEO of the Australian Crime Commission and their father Sir Peter Lawler — a senior staffer to PM Robert Menzies and Australia’s first Ambassador to the Holy See (The Vatican). Like the Abbotts, the Lawlers are said by some to have strong ties to the shadowy arch-conservative Catholic sect Opus Dei, as well as the Liberal Party.
But now, sadly for Jackson, things appear to have changed. The
Coalition have seemingly turned on Kathy quicker than you can say “James
Ashby”.
In Question Time on the 28 October,
Christopher Pyne was attempting to besmirch Bill Shorten and Victorian
Opposition Leader Daniel Andrews by linking the Victorian ALP to the
CFMEU, when Labor MP Rob Mitchell made a comment about the Liberal’s friendship with Kathy Jackson, at which point the Speaker Bronwyn Bishop intervened.
The SPEAKER: Whoever made that comment will withdraw.
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: in what way is the name 'Kathy Jackson' unparliamentary?
The SPEAKER: Because it was reflecting on another member. I said: whoever made the comment will withdraw the comment.
I spoke to Rob Mitchell about this comment as well as its context.
Christopher Pyne had been trying to portray the Labor Party as corruptly linked to the CFMEU, so Rob retorted with:
"Thanks, Kathy Jackson"
Speaker Bronwyn Bishop was having none of it.
Apparently, the same Party that could not align themselves with
Jackson enough now think it is a huge insult to be linked with her.
In Victoria, as part of their campaign, the Liberal Party have launched a new website called:
‘Which Dodgy Character Will Turn Up At Labor’s Launch’.
It features a number of people the Victorian Liberal Party apparently view as dodgy.
One of those on the Coalition’s “dodgy” list is none other than their former Joan of Arc hero — Kathy Jackson.
The Victorian Liberal party describe her thus:
‘Health Services Union Secretary, Kathy Jackson, is alleged to
have grossly misused union credit cards, cash cheques and general
accounts and made unauthorised payments of over $1 million which workers
are now trying to recover. These funds belonged to low paid,
hardworking health workers.’
So, since the mainstream media started seeing Jackson’s true colours,
the Liberal Party have tried to distance themselves from her — first by
ignoring anything to do with her, then making mention of her name
“unparliamentary”, and then in Victoria even labelling her
“dodgy”, seemingly accusing her of being a crook.
However, despite it being suddenly open season on Jackson, the man
supporting and advising her ‒ someone allegedly heavily involved in the Jacksonville saga ‒ has so far been given a free pass while the taxpayer continues to pay his hefty wages.
One of the last people to receive a knighthood before they were abolished was Sir Peter Lawler, who is said to be a close friend of Tony Abbott’s father. I wonder if this had any bearing on Abbott’s decision.
Sir Peter and Lady Mary LawlerSir Peter is also a founder of the Australian Family Association, a far right-wing Christian lobby group and, in 1986, was given the papal honour of Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Pius IX, a papal knighthood.
Currently, Sir Peter Lawler’s prospective future daughter-in-law
Kathy is in a psychiatric hospital and, when she emerges, will face
Federal Court for around $1.4 million in member’s funds she is alleged
to have misappropriated, and will then likely face criminal charges.
I wonder if she’ll refer to Sir Peter and Lady Mary as Mum and Dad.
The terrorism scare isn’t going very well for the Abbott
Government lately, with people more worried about the cost of living
than ISIL, writes Bob Ellis.
THE HOME-GROWN ISIL BOGEYMAN isn’t playing very well for the Liberals lately.
The boy they shot dead was seventeen. The boy in the recruiting video
was a teenager too — red-haired and blue-eyed and clearly naive. It
seemed wrong he should go to gaol for twenty-five years, or be targeted
for assassination by drone in Iraq or Syria. And the Australian master
terrorist Mohammad Ali Baryalei, now reportedly dead – killed perhaps by a fighter bomber ASIO gave information to – didn’t kill any of us, though he probably wanted to.
So the score, thus far, is two of them dead, none of us.
And yet no Australian on Australian soil has died of ‘terrorism’ since January 1915 — three months before Gallipoli, 100 years ago.
And so little is the issue resonating that a rise in the price of petrol of 40 cents a week has overwhelmed it.
People feel safe enough with the Muslims they know and they’d rather gripe about petrol prices.
In Queensland, where it should be playing up big (APEC, old white Christians, and so on) Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk has overtaken Newman for the first time as preferred Premier. In New South Wales, a by-election occurred which, if duplicated federally, would leave the Abbott-Truss government with one seat, not their own. In Victoria, a poll out this morning shows Labor gaining a majority of twenty-five seats.
It’s usually thought a national security scare helps the leader then
in power. And it usually does. But Abbott is so creepy and sneaky and
malodorous (would you buy a used pregnant bride from this man?) that
anything he says is now suspected.
We have found MH370. Putin is behind the shooting down,
and I will shirtfront him and say so. I broke none of the eighteen
promises you mention, you just didn’t hear them right.
And none of the narrative is working very well.
No Australian troops are in Iraq yet and half the army there is AWOL,
or buying their way out of battle, as rich young men did in Lincoln’s
time. We are defending crooks and cowards against people we call ‘terrorists’.
There will be minimal precautions at the Whitlam funeral,
which everyone famous is going to. There are no body-searches, none, on
suburban trains. In October, 500 million train journeys occurred
unpoliced. We are hysterical about the Cenotaph, where an attack is
unlikely, and blasé about trains, where most terrorist acts,
historically, occur.
One of the problems about the whole thing is that ‘terrorism’, lately, has either no meaning, or too much.
A divorced husband who holds his wife and children at gunpoint in a
siege while police bellow at him with loud hailers is, logically, a
terrorist. A papparazzo with nude photos of a princess he proposes to
sell back to her is a terrorist. A U.S. drone bombing a village
containing ‘suspected militants’ in Pakistan is practising terrorism.
Everything Israel does in Gaza is terrorism. Most of what the CIA does
in Homeland is terrorism. Most of the debt-collecting industry is a form
of terrorism — inciting fear in a chosen victim, the fear of a worse
lifestyle than the one now enjoyed.
And to call a terrorist someone who has merely talked about blowing
things up, as most young men do in their adolescent years, and to put
them away for twenty-five years if they do, is to take on the colouring
of a South American police state, or Putin’s Russia, or a harsh,
provincial, peasant religion punishing women for wearing lipstick, or
men for swearing, by flogging them or putting them in the stocks.
There are already laws against killing people. There are already laws
against conspiracy to murder. There are laws against attempted murder.
There are laws against causing grievous bodily harm. There have been no
deaths caused by Muslim ‘terrorism’ on our soil in a hundred years —
except the boy we shot in the head three weeks ago.
The Government’s capacity to prosecute a reform agenda will be
undermined by the way it has squandered trust and goodwill in the
electorate.
As plenty of observers have noted, Tony Abbott’s hypocrisy
in calling for a “mature debate” on tax reform and federalism is almost
palpable.
Speaking last night to those noted advocates of economic
reform, the Business Council of Australia, he laid it on still thicker.
Among the reforms he nominated as demonstrating his government’s
commitment to getting the budget under control was “changing social
welfare indexation means that we avoid saddling the next generation with
this generation’s debts”. That was a reform that was “too hard for the
Howard government”, he said, but “one charge that can’t be made against
this Government is that we’ve put short-term politics above the
long-term national interest.”
Of course, in 2011, when the Labor government proposed to stop indexation of family tax benefit payments, Abbott called it “class war”
and Joe Hockey called it “politics of envy”. The Coalition’s cuts to
family tax benefit payments go beyond a pause in indexation to include a
cut to the access threshold to $100,000. But that’s not “class war”,
that’s “avoiding saddling the next generation with this generation’s
debts.”
But Abbott went further last night, suggesting that failing
to join in his “mature debate” on tax and federalism was somehow
unpatriotic, saying he was “inviting the Labor Party, the state
governments to join Team Australia and think of our country and not just
the next election.” So, it’s “class war” when a Labor government seeks
reforms, but a failure of patriotic feeling when Labor fails to support a
Coalition government.
But hypocrisy is one of the great lubricants of politics.
Yesterday’s cynical opportunist is frequently today’s statesmanlike
mature debater, before transforming into tomorrow’s grubby hypocrite as
the cycles of electoral fortune carry people back and forth from
government to opposition. Labor, which continued to oppose a GST even
after John Howard took it to an election and won, doesn’t have an
especially strong case to complain about opportunism in opposition. And
just because Abbott is being profoundly hypocritical doesn’t mean he’s
wrong in suggesting that Australia could benefit from politicians of
both state and federal level being a little less, well, political about
tax and federalism.
The more substantial problem for Abbott is that, for all
that he is correct to seek to initiate such a debate, he comes to it
without any goodwill or trust, and that is likely to cruel whatever
chances he has of success. The opposition of Labor is virtually a
given — and from Labor’s perspective, an entirely rational decision.
But the government needlessly upset the states with its unilateral $80
billion budget funding cuts in health and education in May, and it has
given Labor oppositions in Victoria, NSW and Queensland another issue to
campaign on with a possible GST rise. Goodwill at the state level is
going to be hard to come by for a time.
Similarly, voter goodwill on reform might be hard to come by
after the government’s budget debacle, which damaged voter perceptions
of both Abbott and Treasurer Joe Hockey, although Abbott has managed to
recover some ground with voters by emphasising national security. Reform
is only successful if voters trust the political leaders implementing
it, in the way they trusted Hawke, and trusted Howard, for a time. The
budget has badly damaged voter trust in the Coalition. Nor will last
night’s speech help things. Abbott used his address to the BCA last
night to call for it to lead the charge for economic reform, similar to
the way he has repeatedly tried to outsource the prosecution of the case
for industrial relations reform to business. But business is not
particularly well regarded by voters — the main fiscal reform most
voters, including Liberal voters, want to see is businesses paying more
tax. And voters already think the Coalition’s economic management is
primarily aimed at benefiting business rather than voters. Getting
business to lead your campaign for economic reform is akin to putting
Jacqui Lambie in charge of outreach to the Muslim community.
The lack of voter trust in the government will also increase
the risks around its decision to index fuel excise regardless of Senate
opposition. The government is well within its rights to implement the
increase without legislation, and previous governments have done the
same. But the idea that Labor and/or the Greens will somehow feel
pressured into supporting legislation for it next year is an eccentric
one: the rise will be hated by motorists, remind them of the
government’s broken promises, and give non-government parties the
opportunity to establish their credentials for reducing the cost of
living for motorists by blocking it.
In a rational world, of course, this trivial increase in
excise would occasion little comment, given it is so small as to be
barely noticeable amid oil price and currency volatility, and it would
be Labor and the Greens being criticised for undermining revenue and
preventing a carbon price signal for fossil fuel use. But in Australia
all politicians genuflect to the Motorist — just as the Coalition did in
opposition when it tried to link the carbon price to fuel price
increases. Worse, there is no trust or community goodwill for the
government to draw on in arguing its case for indexation (which it has
never done, beyond Joe Hockey saying poor people didn’t drive). That
goodwill has been consumed in less than a year through political
maladroitness and zealotry, and it will undermine all government
attempts to argue for reform henceforth, until it can somehow recover
it.
Pantomime villain (Image via keoghcartoons.com.au) The Abbott Government has finally revealed what it has long denied: the Plan B to its savagely unfair Budget — raising the GST.
As I predicted in what now looks like a remarkably prescient piece written within three days of the Abbott Government being elected, a rise in the GST
was always coming. Despite being a clear broken election promise and
still a vicious attack on the poor and underprivileged, it will
nevertheless be used by Abbott as political camouflage as he works
towards being re-elected in 2015.
In a way, having the Government change its tune ‒ even in such a
predictable way ‒ is rather a relief, especially if you are one of the
masochists inclined to suffer through Parliamentary Question Time.
That’s because every day Parliament has been in session since Treasurer Joe Hockey danced
to ‘Best Day of My Life’ in May, Question Time has been a pantomime. A
very bad pantomime — with the same script, choreography and cast of
cartoonish villains every performance.
Here is the plot.
Firstly, the Opposition will ask a question of the prime minister
about some aspect of its “unfair and inequitable budget”, to which Tony
Abbott will stand beneath his heroic combover, with an oily unctuous
look on his heavily polished face,
smack his lips together a few times and talk about how the Budget for
this or that is going up blah per cent this year, blah per cent next
year, blah per cent the year after that and then another blah per cent
in the year after that.
He will then sit down with a content look and lean over and talk to
Manager of Government Business Christopher Pyne while the next question
is being asked.
This question will be from some anonymous Liberal Party MP in the
cheap seats, who will haltingly read a Dorothy Dixer ‒ or should we
say a Peta Credliner ‒ directed at Joe Hockey on the subject of "fixing the budget".
Hockey will rise and, with an insincere smile half mooned over his
full moon head, lambast the Opposition and the previous Labor Government
for its incompetence, hypocrisy and reckless spending. Often, he will
regale his braying backbenchers with a personal anecdote — perhaps a
tale he concocted about some imaginary old age elderly pensioner whom he
says he met or wrote him a letter; or some reminiscence about his
family's small business; or some incident involving Bill Shorten in the
last term of Parliament. He will mock, he will point at the Opposition,
he will chuckle at his own jokes; he will, in short, ham it up like he
is playing Ali Baba in a Christmas panto at Drury Lane.
At around about this time, the grim, scowling, beehive hatted Speaker will eject the first of many Opposition MPs under “Standing Order 94A”, which these days will pass by with barely a murmur.
The Opposition will then direct another question to the prime
minister about the Budget, which he will answer after selecting the
second page from his folder of Credlin cheat sheets. Abbott’s answer
will consist of supporting Coalition policy by deriding some figure from
the Opposition over their alleged previous support for the same, or a
similar, policy position. For instance, should the question be about
universities, Abbott will read something allegedly written by Shadow
Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh
when he was an economics professor to suggest he supported university
fee deregulation. If the question happens to be about health, Tony will
read something apparently said by Nicola Roxon during the Hawke
Government a few decades or so ago. And so on.
Once he has completed this ritual, Abbott will John Wayne walk back
to his bench, a familiar smirk plastered all over his sand-blasted face —
the sneer he can’t resist revealing when he feels he has done something
especially clever and sneaky.
Later in the day, after Question Time has been completed, whoever
Abbott has so verballed will arise to correct the record with the
Speaker, claiming to have been “grievously misrepresented”. This,
however, will make absolutely no difference, because Abbott will
similarly traduce them or their colleagues in exactly the same way the
next day, and the next, and the one after that, and the one after that —
and so on, and so on, and so on, and so on.
And Question Time will also follow precisely the same pattern every
mind numbing, fist clenching, television screen endangering day.
The Opposition will ask its questions and Abbott and Hockey will
answer them in the exactly the same way ‒ virtually word for word ‒ each
and every time. Meanwhile, the most blatantly partisan speaker in
Australian political history will rule innocuous questions out of order,
make bizarre rulings to defend Government ministers and eject ALP MPs
for fictitious infractions.
In between this, the Government will task backbenchers apparently
possessing only a cursory understanding of the written English language
to read out embarrassingly banal and/or asinine questions to other
cabinet ministers in order of seniority.
Morrison will get his question on “border security” and “Operation
Sovereign Borders”, to which this fine Christian fellow will spit and
scowl his response to the “incompetent” Opposition like some mentally
deranged demon.
Then Christopher Pyne, with a mock serious expression overlaying his
habitually smug schoolboyish visage, will talk about how raising
university fees will somehow magically open up universities to poor
people.
Lord Malcolm Turnbull will arise and, holding his right hand across his stomach like Napoleon on Elba addressing a few passing goats, wax grandiloquent about how copper wire is the shiny future of telecommunications.
Other ministers will then arise in the same order each day to give
their same stock speech — Julie Bishop with her clipped hostility;
metronomic Peter Dutton; bumbling Barnaby Joyce; fidgety, frightened Bruce Billson; tense, theatrical Sussan Ley. And others too uninteresting to mention.
Always the same. Always in the same order. The repitition of the same
vacuous spin and dissembling, day after day after dull, intelligence
insulting day.
It can only be designed to make people turn away from politics,
because it does nothing to inform or illuminate our "democracy". It is
enough to bring tears to a stone.
But now Credlin has, almost mercifully, added a new act.
Now, in response to questions about the Government’s obvious plans to
raise the GST, Tony Abbott has this week arisen to intone solemnly
about the need for a new debate about “reforming the Federation”.
Something this 56 year-old man child says should be done
“constructively”, in a “mature and measured fashion” and in a “spirit of
bipartisanship”.
Yes, anyone who saw Abbott as Opposition Leader knows just how constructive, mature and bipartisan he can be.
It is a bad joke, naturally, but of course our mainstream media are accepting Abbott words credulously — some idiot at Crikey even praising Abbott for launching this debate.
The truth is, this has nothing to do with the “future of our
Federation” ‒ Abbott couldn’t give a rat's clacker about states’ powers,
except insofar as they limit his own ‒ but rather is a cynical ploy to
raise revenue and put pressure on the Opposition.
It is passing ironic that a PM who, as opposition leader, derided the then Government for a carbon tax, which he described as a “great big tax on everything”
‒ and which was anything but, given it only applied to big polluters ‒
to hike up an actual great big tax on everything that was implemented by
a government in which he was a cabinet minister.
To raise the GST, Abbott will first blame the Opposition for not
passing the Budget. He will then gain the rubber stamp approval of the
states – who will, of course, jump at any proposal to rescue their
uniformly parlous financial positions – and which he will hide behind,
claiming the decision was an act of inclusive “federalism”.
This proposal he will take this into the next election, claiming it is necessary to solve the debt that is ballooning under his profligate, war-hungry Government — but which he will, of course, all blame on the Opposition.
The tactics are fairly obvious.
And the electorate may well buy it at the next election, because a
2.5% rise may not seem to them so much — not when compared, say, against
losing their dole, or paying a GP tax, or losing their disability
support. And it will be accepted by Australia’s dull, complicit
mainstream media and policy commentariat as the “least of all evils” and not a broken election promise at all.
The pantomime goes on. The act changes slightly, but the chorus line stays the same.
And the public shuffle out of the theatre vaguely dissatisfied, but none the wiser.
Though on the same side
of politics as the Abbott Government, Lord Deben's urgent message about
climate change action was utterly disregarded by the PM and his fellow
travellers The Abbott Government has cleared out any advisors who
might provide it with critical advice and replaced them with sycophants,
flatterers and ideological fellow travellers. Ian McAuley from the University of Canberra comments (via The Conversation).
IN A DEMOCRACY governments cop criticism — that’s a rule of politics.
Opposition parties and politically-aligned organisations will always
exploit opportunities to have a go at the government. But it is
particularly irritating for a government when criticism comes from
institutions noted for their political independence, and when some of
its own agencies don’t seem to be fully on message.
It is tough for a treasurer, intent on talking up the economy, when the Reserve Bank issues a subtle warning that Australia’s policy settings could necessitate higher interest rates to head off a housing bubble.
It is tough for the whole government, so committed to supporting the
coal and iron ore industries and so hostile to action on climate change,
when knowledgeable investors start selling down shares in resource
companies. They can’t do much to hit back at the Rockefeller family’s
decision to sell its oil investments in favour of renewables but when the ANU makes a similar move with its modest portfolio Jamie Briggs is able to hint that such disloyalty to the official line could jeopardise university funding.
Joe Hockey was quick to dismiss the Reserve Bank’s warning
about a housing bubble, and as doubts about the future of the coal
industry intensified, Tony Abbott, at the opening of a coal mine, took
the opportunity to announce that
“... coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future."
When treasurers and prime ministers talk up particular sectors and
industries, they risk misleading naive investors, particularly on
housing. And, unwisely, they put their own credibility on the line.
But there are greater risks when governments react negatively to
reasoned warnings and criticism. It’s unwise to damage the credibility
of a nation’s economic institutions, and bypassing them in favour of
other (often partisan) sources of advice is politically risky for the
government itself.
Don’t trash our institutional capital
If Australia is to be “open for business”, local and foreign
investors need to have confidence in a nation’s economic institutions –
its central bank, its statistics office, its economic management
departments, and its public auditors, to name the main players.
Beyond these central institutions, at greater distance from
government, there are universities, think tanks, and even a few
investigative journalists, analysing the flow of communication from
governments. Their job is delve into the sources behind the carefully
spun ministerial press releases, to dig deeply into statistics, to
cross-check official data with data from other places, and to clarify
issues.
It would indeed be worrying if their findings always reflected the government’s line, and wouldn’t do much to help investors.
It’s not clear, however, that the Abbott government fully appreciates
the value of such institutions, or the political danger it faces when
it draws only on those who share its views.
Just 12 days after being elected to office, it announced the abolition of the Climate Commission,
a body established in 2011 to communicate “reliable and authoritative
information” about climate change. Publicity around that abolition and
Tim Flannery’s successful campaign to resurrect it with public donations
distracted us from other moves, such as the government’s decision to abolish 20 advisory bodies, and to absorb others into portfolio departments.
It is easy to see how some business lobbies would be pleased to see
the departure of such bodies. The coal industry was no friend of the
Climate Commission, and the fast food and alcohol industries must have
been happy to see the demise of the Australian National Preventative Health Agency, which had made its first task an examination of the causes of obesity.
The ostensible reason for these cuts was to save fiscal outlays. Less
evident, however, is the cost of the loss of sources of objective
advice.
Having abolished a number of analytical agencies, the government appointed a Commission of Audit,
to report on “the performance, functions and roles of the Commonwealth
government”. The Commission was headed by the President of the Business
Council of Australia, which also provided the head of its secretariat.
The Commission has been criticised for its narrow terms of reference,
its tight time frame, and for its lack of public consultation. And in
appointing such a body the government passed over its own organisation
with an international reputation for sound economic advice, and with a
repository of knowledge and experience, the Productivity Commission.
Be mindful of political risks
A view based on crude military strategy rather than practical
politics is that the Coalition, having been elected, was entitled to
enjoy the spoils of victory, and to clear out those who had been serving
the previous administration.
But have these moves really served the government well?
Heavily influenced by the Commission of Audit, this year’s Budget Paper 1,
which in past years has contained a wealth of objective economic and
fiscal information, reads like a political tract. Gone are figures
showing Australia’s government debt position in relation to other
countries, but there is room for optimistic figures on economic
forecasts for economic growth, inflation and commodity prices.
It is possible an enquiry conducted by more trusted agencies would
have charted more publicly acceptable ways to reduce the budget deficit.
Even if there are to be some tough recommendations, a more open process
helps a government to make hard decisions. Before appointing the
Commission of Audit, the government would have been well-advised to
consider opinion polling showing that the public trusts the Commonwealth Public Service far more than business groups.
In devaluing public institutions and in trying to quell voices of
dissent, the government does itself no favour. It is tempting for
Treasurer Hockey to take a swipe at the Bureau of Statistics
when it’s rethinking seasonal adjustment. It would be so much more
comfortable for the government to see the ABC reduced to broadcasting
BBC crime dramas on TV and reports of livestock auction prices on radio.
But cutting off bearers of bad news and dissenting voices provides a
government no more than a short-term benefit, while entrenching a
culture of “groupthink” and an overconfident feeling of infallibility.
Around now the processes leading up to the May 2015 budget will be
cranking up. It may be a good time for Abbott and his ministers to get
out their copies of Machiavelli’s advice to the Medici Princes. Don’t
populate the court with flatterers; rather, listen to your critics —
they may help you avoid making stupid decisions.
This article was originally published on The Conversation as 'Abbott’s court is full of flatterers, and it’s a recipe for groupthink'. Read the original article.
Australia is once again a laggard in its global responsibility. As he
has done with climate change inaction, Tony Abbott is failing
Australians and failing the world.
What do AIDS and Ebola have in common? They share a capacity and potential to be a runaway scourge due to ignorance, complacency and bigotry. The response to both has been plagued with hysteria, misinformation and head in the sand denial.
In their manifest epidemiological stupidity, former U.S. President
Ronald Reagan and Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott share the
podium. Reagan delayed any concern about HIV until the toll of the epidemic had soared. Tony Abbott has seemed unmoved by the plight of Africans and has been missing in action on Ebola and declared unequivocally no teams of Australian medical experts and personnel will be deployed to West Africa.
As with AIDS in the 1980s, the current plague of Ebola is being underestimated and ignored.
Tony Abbott has pledged a meager $18 million to assist West Africa.
This is puny when compared to the recent estimates of the current deployment in Iraq are expected to soar to $400 million dollars. It fades to insignificance when compared to the $1 billion spent to provide offshore detention this financial year.
In summary, Australia’s contribution to fighting Ebola is spectacularly insignificant.
Had strong global action been taken to contain Ebola in March, we could have contained the epidemic. So says Laurie Garrett winner of 1996 Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of the 1995 Ebola outbreak in Zaire.
The death toll in West Africa is estimated, by the World Health Organization, to be near 4,500 and climbing daily. And by Christmas, the death toll could be rising by 5,000 to 10,000 per week, warns the WHO.
Denial
is a defensive coping mechanism. It is life saving. It can mute
unbearable reality until we can muster the strength to cope. It can keep
hope alive against the odds, enabling us to strive to survive, or wait
for help. But like the minor tranquilizer Valium, it is best used in moderation. Denial can worsen any catastrophe that humans or fate can construct. The ‘unsinkable’ Titanic ignored iceberg warnings and had insufficient lifeboats. Science warned of global warming decades ago, when action would have saved dollars and lives. Denial has meant little to no effective action has been taken.
Abbott is waiting until things get worse — until it reaches our region. He is keeping his powder dry until it reaches Papua New Guinea or the Solomon Islands.
That is a mad attitude. It’s like waiting for a small brushfire to turn into a mega conflagration.
The New York Times reports
prompt responding has paid off for Nigeria so far. Once a case of Ebola
was diagnosed, protective nursing processes were instigated. All those
in contact with the patient were tracked down, isolated and monitored
through the incubation period.
The WHO has declared
this a success, declaring Nigeria Ebola free, with the proviso that
Nigeria must remain vigilant as Ebola continues to spread rapidly in
Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia.
In contrast, by the time Ronald Regan had even acknowledged AIDS, many potentially preventable infections and deaths had occurred.
So what are the similarities between AIDS and Ebola?
AIDS and Ebola do not stay within borders and are global phenomena.
Both impact directly initially on groups seen as less important by western white leaders — Africans and homosexuals.
Most likely rate and toll of infection
could have been restricted and contained with strong early action.
Issues related to this are complex and cultural, but developed countries
could and should, lead the way.
The poor in poor regions with poor health systems are most affected, but the affluent west is not immune.
Pharmaceutical companies are less engaged to find cures or vaccines due to lack of profitability — chronic illness pays best.
AIDs and Ebola can wreak huge havoc on communities for generations.
Reagan and Abbott have exhibited an appalling lack of leadership regarding AIDS and Ebola respectively. Both leaders kept an eye on the voting constituency.
The reluctant
‘mission lag afflicted’ Tony Abbott has refused to send health workers
to help. Gays didn’t vote for far right Christian Republicans and West
African brand compassion is apparently not a vote catcher.
At least the Ebola crisis has roused the Federal Opposition from its ‘we agree with everything’ torpor. Deputy leader and foreign affairs spokesperson Tanya Plibersek
has called on the Australian Government to send in medical teams,
declaring that the best way to protect Australians is to contain Ebola
in West Africa.
This, like other calls, have gone unheeded.
President Obama has committed troops on the ground to construct hospitals and assist aid workers.
Médecins Sans Frontières project manager Brett Adamson returned recently from Liberia to strongly denounce Tony Abbott for his weak response to the Ebola crisis.
“It ‒ Ebola ‒ is the worst thing I’ve ever seen. Even a small
team from Australia could protect communities. Excuses about wanting
‘iron-clad’ guarantees of evacuation are absurd. The Health Minister
says that people would die on the 30-hour
journey. He- the minister- obviously has not seen a case of Ebola. You
don’t die in 30 hours. Meanwhile the death rate has doubled while they
do nothing.”
Aid organizations, including Save the Children, along with the Australian Medical Association and other health experts, are calling for Tony Abbott to do more.
Tony Abbott, who was more than ready to send troops into dangerous
zones in Ukraine and Iraq wants a no risk guarantee for “our people”,
saying it would be
“… irresponsible of an Australian government to order Australian personnel into this very dangerous situation.”
Beyond the obvious hypocrisy, Abbott is either callous, ignorant, or just not up to the job.
What is needed is not just a token donation of money, but people on the ground.
Also needed is the provision of expert training and (even simple)
equipment — including protective gear, spray bottles, chlorine and
logistical support.
The letter to the world
from Liberia’s President sums up the perfect storm that has fostered
the flood of contagion of the Ebola virus — years of war, civil unrest,
weakened infrastructure, an exodus of health specialists, overwhelmed
health services, sheer poverty and lack of world support.
Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf writes about Ebola:
'This fight requires a commitment from every nation that has the
capacity to help – whether that is with emergency funds, medical
supplies or clinical expertise''
She continues:
'From governments to international organisations, financial
institutions to NGOs, politicians to ordinary people on the street in
any corner of the world, we all have a stake in the battle against
Ebola. It is the duty of all of us, as global citizens, to send a
message that we will not leave millions of West Africans to fend for
themselves against an enemy that they do not know, and against whom they
have little defence.'
As Ellen Johnson Sirleaf says, ‘we all have a stake’. Put simply, Tony Abbott’s message of mean spirited disinterest and misguided self-protection is costing lives.
Surely, we can do ‒ and are ‒ better than that.
You could do worse than to follow Lyn Bender on Twitter @Lynestel.
