BigBlog

There is nothing like the 30 year abuse of a daughter bearing children/grandchildren to focus the government on allocating more resources to child protection. But was there any less of a need last week before the story came out?

Last week we had people victimising a paedophile who has served his sentence. It is understandable people fear an offender in proximity with their children, but it also seems wrong victimising a person who has served his sentence. While it’s easy to focus anger at the paedophiles, the vast majority of abuse is by people known to the victim.

The government is arm-twisting Telstra to split into separate retail and infrastructure companies.

While this is not in my interest as a Telstra shareholder, I totally agree with what the government is doing. I think the Howard government stuffed up by not separating Telstra before the sale aided by a then inept ALP opposition who if they wanted to argue for national ownership should have supported at sale of the retail arm only and retention of the infrastructure.

I applaud the Communication Minister for not playing party politics on this issue. (KRudd must be livid).

KRudd is filtering our future by legislating what we can access on the Internet.

KRudd is filtering the present by ensuring the public is not exposed to balanced arguments, but just the spin to his benefit. For example. KRudd wants us to believe his government is progressively addressing Climate Change but KRudd manipulates the media to avoid any scrutiny on his policies.

KRudd is now filtering the history, extolling the virtues of previous Labor governments while ignoring the achievements of Liberal ones. KRudd even tries to re-write history. After inheriting a strong economy that has enabled Australia to avoid a recession, he is now trying to label the previous government as mis-managers and claim the glory himself. If anything KRudd brought the GFC to Australia with eagerness to be seen to be proactive.

Rudd cannot say he wants the stimulus to continue because it would help him politically in the lead to the next election, so he is trying to justify continuing the wasteful spending on that the US unemployment rate of 9.7% and that the G20 supports the continuing of stimulus packages for G20 countries.

If Australia was the only country in the G20 in recession, it would be ludicrous to follow the G20 consensus of countries not in recession. It is equally ludicrous for Australia to follow the desperation of countries deep in recession, when with our resources based economy we are not.

Rudd is now even quoting the IMF response to the G20 of which 19 are in recession as being advice for Australia. When the IMF explicitly advised Australia not to give Cash Away, Rudd chose to ignore the IMF.

It is widely thought that “Work Choices” costs jobs. The union and ALP scare mongering at the last election was extremely successful. In reality Howard’s work place reform has actually saved jobs and lessened the impact of the would be recession.

In all prior recessions there was big jump of unemployment. Union dominated work places were constrained by archaic and inflexible awards so when the employer struck hard times they had to lay employees off.

In the recession unemployment is still low, this is not because businesses are not having tough times, they are, but employers have a greater flexibility in how they employ. Unlike what the unions and ALP says, the Howard work place reforms were intended to give greater flexibility to both employee and employer to improve productivity. With this flexibility, employers instead of laying off employees have where possible reduced hours and got staff to utilise leave.

Had Howard not reform Work Place relation, instead of facing under employment, Australians would have far greater unemployment. This would have reduced confidence and make the recession even worse.

It is ironic that the Rudd government that is claiming credit for the shallow recession is now reducing the work place flexibility by reintroducing union Awards.

I don’t know about you, but I would prefer to be under employed then unemployed.

I fully support the government goal of reducing the hundreds of Pay Awards to the bare minimum. It is ludicrous having so many Awards.

While I agree with what Rudd is doing, his rhetoric is downright dishonest.  Rudd&Gillard are telling the public that no business or employee will be worse off, this is blatantly false.

If Rudd had honour, he would plainly explain that rationalising the awards will benefit some and disadvantage others, but this would be minimalised as much as possible and the new awards will be introduced over 5 years to alleviate any negative impact.

I was amused when Rudd accused Howard of never having the guts to address Awards. Had Rudd not heard of Work Choices which eliminated Awards, if anything Howard went too far.

The Australian speculated that the government is positioning itself for a stimulus election. I have no doubt.

While the stimulus measures have some benefits to the community, in my view the stimulus measures have always been primarily political. The timing and size of the stimulus was to maximise political return not to maximise the benefit to the community.

The "Cash Spashes" helped to artificially avoid a technical recession, but was this for our benefit or so the government could have bragging rights.

Much of the stimulus has gone to way overpriced Julia Gillard memorial school halls complete with plaques. The schools also are forced to place a highly visible sign praising the government which will need to kept in place until at least the election where voters see this just before they vote.

One positive outcome of the stimulus was additional community housing, but alas the funding ending up funding more Gillard memorial halls.

The government is claiming their stimulus is the primary reason our economy avoided the worst of the global recession, and continually recites comparisons with other developed countries. This is deceitful. Australia had no debt, high interest rates, strong bank system and a high dependence of export to China which is still growing at 8%. Comparison to Europe and the USA is nonsensical.

The reserve bank is indicating that interest rates will like rise in the foreseeable future as our economy strengthens. Infrastructure spending is the best kind of stimulus but has longer lead times, if interest rates are on the rise then it makes sense that the infrastructure spending should also be scaled down (not stopped). But the government is determined to spending up big. Why wouldn't they? The government has a licence to pork barrow. Rudd will want to go around the country in his hard hat showing how much he has achieved for us in the lead-up to the next election.

It seems to me a huge opportunity has been lost. State Labor governments are laughing they now do not need to build any school halls/libraries.

If you have a spare $450 million, you could buy this Cubbie which includes huge cotton plains and a water storage dwarfing Sydney Harbour.

Some are suggesting the federal government should purchase Cubbie station, not to get into cotton farming but to free up the water to the Murray-Darling.

I don't think buying Cubbie is the best use of the $10 billion set aside by Howard for the Murray Darling. The government would need to buy the land to get water rights; the government would be better off buying the water rights only.

The state Labor governments created this mess by greedily selling more water rights then there is available water, something that would have been criminal if done by private industry.  Rudd needs to pull his finger out and establish the Authority looking after the whole of Murray Darling and take a holistic approach to water rights and usage.

If the price is set appropriately, the inefficient users of water would be encouraged to swap to a more appropriate and viable crop.

Australian Story had a guy promoting an alternate natural method of managing water on rural properties through the use of dam like barriers to slow the water flow reducing corrosion and planting ground coverage to reduce evaporation. While this has been proven to be successful the government is preventing this style of water management.

I am not convinced that the government is doing enough, quick enough.

In the past week the media had a break from Turnbull bashing and queried government ministers as to why the Renewable Energy bill was being lumped in with the ETS that was clearly not going to get passed. The answers were pathetic but they all insisted that the bills could not be split.

Low and behold the government attempted to blame the defeat of the renewable energy bill on the opposition, but more and more people are seeing this for what it is. A political stunt. Even the unions were demanding the bill be split as the delay in passing the bill is costing jobs.

Now after every minister said the bills cannot be split, the government is now splitting the bills. Of course they are blaming the opposition for rejecting the ETS and is now trying to take credit for splitting the bills.

At the last election both major parties committed to a 20% renewable target and the Greens wanted a 30% target but will accept a 20% for now. The renewable energy bill could have been introduced anything in the last 20 months and passed and apparently it was been ready for many months now. I find it totally despicable how the Rudd government can play politics with the renewable energy industry.

One has to think that had the media been doing its job better the public could be making a more informed decision on government policies. I think more people know Turnbull poll rating then knows what the ETS is and how it will affect them.

Recently a judge declared that a quadriplegic with a sound mind had the right to refuse food which would eventually cause his death.

It is sad that someone needs to go to such extremes to avoid a life of pain.

It seems such a contrast to how we treat race horses. They are forced to race and jump hurdles so that we can gamble on them. When they get hurt in a fall we "put them down".

It seems we have different standards, but which is more humane?

Yesterday we had all non-government senators block a dud ETS and in Victoria all the non-government senators blocked a dud water scheme.

The Victorian government spin is that if they make water saving in the Goulbourn, the water savings can be shared by Melbourne, environment and the local irrigators, and that Melbourne deserves its share as it is footing the funds. If one listens to the Victorian government this all sound good, but this is only part of the picture.

Successive Victorian governments have failed to maintain the irrigation servicing our food bowl. It is wrong to now only address this because the government now wants to siphon water to Melbourne.

Melbourne needs to be self sufficient on water. The desalination plant may be required as Melbourne's population increases but it is not an ideal solution as it consumes massive of energy.

While there is a rebate for water tanks, I do not think the Victorian government has done anywhere near enough is maximising the water we have. Higher water prices, rain harvesting, water recycling etc.

Rudd's politics is proceeding as planned. Rudd's dud ETS policy as expected has been defeated by The Greens for locking in very low targets, Fielding and Nationals because they are sceptics and the Libs and Nick X as the ETS is costs too much and achieves little.

Normally a government would compromise to get the bill through as what Howard had to do to get the GST passed, but Rudd is not one for compromise, everything has to be his way.

The defeat of the ETS bill is just what Rudd wants.

Rudd as predictable as ever has hit the media today with his prepared spin. In nice sound bites for the news Rudd intimates the opposition is putting at risk Australia future which as he planned got played in the news. The irony is that it is Rudd who has prevented a renewable energy bill being passed, it is Rudd who ensured the ETS with its weak targets failed, it is Rudd putting up an ETS for 5% reductions when the opposition are calling for 10% reductions and the Greens 25%+.

Rudd is gambling on being able to enough pressure on the opposition that the opposition will buckle and support Rudd's dud ETS which will give Rudd all to kudos, opposition further scorn and Australia a dud ETS.

The majority of Australians want the government to do something to address "Climate Change" but most Australians don't follow politics. Rudd is playing on this to give the Australian public the sound bites to give the impression he is fighting the good fight for Climate Change when in reality he is doing any but.

While the opposition would lose seats at an early election, I don't think an early election on Climate Change will actually help Rudd. I predict coalition and Fieldings seats in the senate will go to The Greens. The Libs past an election can stand on principle and The Greens will end up with a greater say.

The worst outcome for Australia is for the opposition to cave in and back Rudd's dud ETS. Turnbull needs to stand steadfast despite the crap he is copping from all quarters.

"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Burma has trumped up charges against Aung San Suu Kyi.

Malaysia trumped up sodomy charges against the opposition leader.

Singapore sues opposition leaders into Bankruptcy making them ineligible to run.

China backdates laws and then arrests supplies and declares as terrorists political leaders.

Iran arrest opponents as traitors.

North Korea makes oppositions disappear.

Zimbabwe beats and arrests opposition.

Etc.

Our would be dictator Rudd brilliantly uses the media to manipulate the public against the opposition. Today Rudd set a senate committee to investigate senate privileges. This has absolutely no purpose but for Rudd political gain. Rudd uses the power of government to squash unfavourable media eg. Explosion of refugee boat, and leak information when it suits eg. Budget and then gets the police to investigate leaks when it does not suit.

 Rudd's power play is clear. Drive down the opposition, the media will get focused on the opposition low rating which will cause infighting and all the by Rudd can ram through dud policy through parliament with minimal critic and leaving the public to believe what he tells them.

In comparison, a strong leader like Obama works with the Republicans to pass laws for the betterment of the country. Obama has achieved way more, including innovative programs like "Cash for Clunkers".

Australia is losing out with Rudd focused on spin then policy.

Rudd minimalist ETS scheme has been criticised by all interested parties. It will cost jobs, increase prices, reward polluters and only achieve a minimal reduction in emissions.

You would think with such significant legislation Rudd would have a massive media education campaign and do the rounds of the serious interview programs so that Australians know what he is proposing.

Rudd is clever, he realises that with his 65% approval rating and the oppositions manufactured 17% approval rating he does not need to sell policies on merit, he can simply con his fans and put public pressure on the opposition to pass his legislation no matter how bad it is. The way he does this is avoiding programs as 7:30 report, Lateline and Insiders and instead Rudd goes on Rove and acts "cool" and answers probing questions like "Who would you turn gay for?".

Turnbull has revealed an alternate economic model using the governments own figures. This alternate model showed that by applying a best practice cap on the energy sector instead of trading it would reduce price increases, increase emission reductions and save jobs.

I would prefer the Greens proposal of even higher targets, but surely reducing emissions by 10% is better than 5%.

Now you would think if the Rudd was actually interest in Climate Change he would treat every proposal seriously especially if it could deliver greater benefits for less, but no, Rudd and co just criticise the alternate plan without even reading what the proposal was.

The following are some of the lame excuses by Rudd and W(r)ong.

• 1. The proposal is not yet Liberal policy.
  The government has made a couple of amendments proposed by business which were not Liberal policy. If Rudd wanted good policy it would not matter who or what suggested a good idea. I can't recall at the 2020 summit, Rudd saying he would only consider ideas that were Liberal policy. This is Rudd cynical way to put aside any coalition amendments because he knows the coalition view on ETS varies widely. In practice, Rudd does not need all the coalition to vote for the ETS, he know the ALP sheep will all vote for it, all he needs is a few of the coalition. There are some in the coalition with far greener views then Rudd and other who are pragmatic.

•2.       Business need consistent rules

Yes they do. But consistent good rules are better than consistent bad rules.

•3.       This was proposed before and rejected

This was not the case. The new proposal is a hybrid of 2 other schemes which have been reviewed separately but never as is now proposed.

•4.       The former Howard government increased emissions

The Howard government met Kyoto targets which reduced the rate of increase and offset by reduction in land clearing. The previous Labor government in 13 years continually increased emissions. This has no bearing on whether the current proposal has merit or not.

•5.       The opposition can't agree in ETS

This may be so, but this has absolutely no bearing on whether an alternate proposal by an economics firm has merits or not.

I yearn for the time where policy is again debated, rather than dictator Rudd ramming policy through that serves his goals rather than Australia's goals.

Can you imagine a football match with a huge a strong wind favouring one team.

In a way this is what Australian politics is like at the moment. For the last 2.5 years team Rudd has a strong media wind going his way. Every small kick Team Rudd makes get blown into the goals. Ratifying Kyoto protocol an insignificant act gets taken as a goal for Climate Change. Saying Sorry gets taken as a huge goal for Aboriginal welfare. As 2020 summit is get a goal of public support. A self-stimulus package gets a goal of recession beating.

Team Turnbull is kicking into the strong media wind. From 20m out directly in front of goal, Turnbull kick a goal for cronyism, but with the strong media wind ends up scoring a home goal. Team Turnbull are in chaos, every attempt to move the ball forward is thwarted and end up continually turning the ball over.

Team Rudd has had 65% of the play and Team Turnbull only 17%.

The crowd has lost interest in the game and is only occasionally watching in 20 second sound bites, which they are impressed how Team Rudd can kick the political ball the length of the field and how Team Turnbull just cannot win the ball no matter how desperate they try. Those up high in the ALP stand laugh away, saying they wish the opposition was more competitive but cheer their team no matter how dirty they play. Those in the right stand have started brawling in the stands.

Team Rudd are getting so up themselves, because all the media wind is going their way, Team Rudd is demanding the captain of Team Turnbull should resign.

While it is all a spectacle the strong media wind favouring Team Rudd is doing absolutely nothing for the political game and just resulting in poor scrappy play.

With many Pacific Islands directly affected by Climate Change they are keen that developed countries like Australia taking meaningful reductions in emissions in the order of 40%.

Our conman Mr Rudd has all the talk. He gives the impression he is a leader in taking action and the one stopping everything is Mr Turnbull.

In reality Mr Rudd is only going 5% reductions a fraction of what Europe and Pacific Island are after, although Mr Rudd made a hollow indication of a little higher reductions if other countries.

Turnbull has public stated multiple times that he is prepared to support the legislation, he is just after it to be improved to match what the US are do.

The Green will be rejecting Mr Rudd's ETS because it will lock us to pathetically low targets and he is just rewarding polluters.

If Mr Rudd was more serious about Climate Change then sticking the steal capped boot into the opposition, he could tomorrow.

Turnbull was doing his job when he questioned whether Rudd was favouring his mates.

Rudd lucked out that the email central to the claim against him was fraudulent, and has attacked Turnbull relentlessly.

Rudd relentless attack of Turnbull has been way over the top.

The media is also having a field day at Turnbull's expense. When Grech gave evidence of the email from the PM all the media said Grech's testimony was so believable, but now the media accuses Turnbull for being naïve for having believed Grech. The media victimise Turnbull for having not revealing his sources, yet the media and government do not reveal theirs. The media criticises Turnbull for not verifying the email, but Turnbull got the email from the head of the department concerned, there was nowhere else Turnbull could have gone to verify the email.

Rudd intent on destroying Turnbull, is not wanting the senate to investigate if there was any breach of privileges by Grech suggesting what question to ask. This is what Rudd does each question time in the House of Reps, he tells the backbenchers what question that are to ask him.

Turnbull was doing his job and identifying a case of cronyism.

Rudd is just being a bully, out to victimise Turnbull to give himself an easier ride to the next election.

This morning on AM, Rudd was barely interested in the terrorism arrests, but UTEGATE, Rudd went on a 10 minute rant and rave.

Who is surprised that another group has been arrested for allegedly planning a terrorist attack?

Here we have people who have come to Australia to escape the religious based violence in their home countries, just to embrace the religion that caused the conflict and wage violence against the countries and peoples giving them safety.

Muslim community groups have yet again claimed these youth are a minority and every community groups has their fringe element, but there are around the same number of Buddhists in Australia and Buddhist fringe elements do not set out to murder people.

Islam brings with it an extreme sense of family between all Muslims and a huge responsibility to protect Islam at any cost. This is an simplistic explanation as to why a Muslim can be convinced that they are doing Allah's will by killing non-Muslim countrymen for a perceived cause of Muslims somewhere else.

I don't believe terrorists are evil people as such, but more someone who has been given a mindset that they think they are doing Allah's divine will by killing unbelievers (infidels). It is the beliefs of Islam that provides the mindset and radical clerics that tip believers over the edge. Had a suicide bomber been born as a JW they would likely be knocking on doors, or a Buddhist be chanting in some monastery.

Ignorant people label all Muslims as terrorists, this is clearly not so, but their religion Islam is what underpins terrorism.

While the vast majority of Muslims are terrorists, Muslims do sympathise with terrorists and continually deny the role the religion played. Often we are told the terrorists have mis-interpreted Islam, but the terrorists claim they are following the true Islam.

Australian governments have put a lot of effort into legitimising Islam. There is rarely a community publicity shot without a head scarfed Muslim in the photo. Rather than promoting Islam in light of terrorist attacks, Islam should be treated as just another irrelevant religion.

With education I am hopeful that Muslims here will moderate their views and in coming generations an increasing number will choose a different path.

I would also like new citizenship be provisional. If new Australians wish to fight against Australia's interests at home or abroad they maybe their citizenship should be cancelled.

Australia needs a total reform of political donations. While all politicians are publicly in support, the government will only make minor changes to the fringes that hurt the coalition, but true reforms that curtail the government's donations will never see the light of day.

NSW Labor had instances where developer's mates got preferential treatment.

Rudd's mate being given favouritism after donating a Ute to Rudd's campaign.

Brimbank council is a cesspool of Labor deals.

Qld Labor MP found guilty on improperly taking money.

Party fund raisers raising between $5,000 and $20,000 per person.

But what has brought the political donations and cronyism to a head is Tony Fitzgerald statement 20 years on from his Corruption Inquiry indicating the culture of political donations and cronyism of long term governments is an environment for corruption.

Peter Beattie was defending his former government, but is currently reported to be earning $500,000+ pa (more than PM) in a trade job using his government links. No wonder he handed over the reigns.

Anna Bligh facing a fall in opinion polls has taken a strong stance to end political donations for access to politicians.

Both federal leaders are claiming the moral high ground. Rudd claims he has initiated real comprehensive reforms and it was the opposition who are blocking the bill. This is pure deceit aimed to paint the government as saints and the opposition as the cause of all evil. Basically it's just the PM usual spin.

Labor historically has derived a lot of its funds from unions and Liberal from small businesses. Large businesses tends to support the side of politics in power and a smaller donation for the otherside.

Howard increased the level of political donations before they needed to be revealed up to $10,000. Rudd attempted to reduce this back to $1000. While reducing the limit makes political donations more transparent, don't any be fooled that Rudd is doing this for transparency sake, he is doing it as it provides additional leverage against the opposition.

While Rudd was riding his moral high horse, we had the ALP conference being funded by business being charged $7,500 entrance to get access to government power brokers. This is a misuse of government position to fund a party political conference.

Turnbull is crowing that he was actually the first MP to call for a reform of political donations. This may be true, but Turnbull would like to stop the funding of political parties from unions and business like Rudd not for transparency but for political advantage. Labor is the beneficiary of unions donations and in power likely to get the bulk of big business donations for access to MPs.

If Rudd was looking out for the interests of Australia, he would ban all political donations. The government could funds smaller election where all major parties had equal media access in a way form that electors could vote based on merit of ideas, not an on parties ability to buy votes.

But Rudd will not reform political donations and cronyism because simply it is not in his interest to do so, but no doubt the spin will have it that only he is trying to make political donation more transparent.

Wow! 50,000 new Green Jobs. Oh how wonderful is Mr Rudd.

This is the sort of headline Rudd was going for. This would have countered any argument that the government's proposed ETS will cause job losses in an economy where unemployment is already rising.

It now appears that the green jobs are either not new or not actually a full time job at all.

One example of dodgy accounting, Rudd included the jobs previously created with the introduction of the insulation rebate, but neglected to include the jobs lost when the solar rebate was canned. This is like an accountant doubling the assets and leaving out the liabilities. It makes Rudd's record on jobs look good, but it is just bogus accounting.

I am waiting for Rudd to announce a review into Green Jobs was would employ a few more of his Labor mates.

If Rudd was actually concerned with Green jobs, maybe he should not have just doubled the compensation of the coal industry that was reported to have been increased from $1.5 billion to $3 billion (ie, $3,000,000,000). Had this money been put to new renewable energy, then Rudd claims may have a semblance of truth.

I don't think Rudd is serious with the ETS. It is a minimalist solution that he feels he can get away with. I think the half hearted approach will produce some pain in jobs with little gain in emissions.

I would respect Rudd is he made a seriously attempted to modifying industries and households to maximise usage of renewable energies and if Rudd made the account of the unemployed and under-employed more transparent.