Electorate, Would I Lie to You?

ELECTORATE Would I Lie to You? AAP http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/06/24/pm-says-shorten-caught-lying-on-medicare.html PM says Shorten caught lying on Medicare  Published: 12:09 pm, Friday, 24 June 2016 PM Malcolm Turnbull says Bill Shorten has been 'caught out lying' on his Medicare scare campaign. Malcolm Turnbull insists Bill Shorten has been 'caught out lying' over Labor's Medicare scare campaign. The opposition leader, appearing on the ABC's 7.30 program, was not prepared to put hand on heart and repeat his claim the coalition had a plan to privatise Medicare.  [comment:  what are they, 5 years old?  It doesn't matter where their hands are, these tossers aren't to be believed.] Instead Mr Shorten told host Leigh Sales: 'I can say to the people of Australia that this election and their vote on July 2 will determine the future of Medicare'. He also took the opportunity to argue the Liberal plan, which included a freeze on indexed Medicare rebates, was 'scary'. The prime minister, campaigning in Launceston on Friday, seized on Mr Shorten's apparent change of language. 'He was asked to put his hand on his heart and repeat his lies and he wouldn't,' Mr Turnbull told reporters. 'He has been lying about Medicare and he's been caught out.' Mr Turnbull accused Labor and trade unions of calling older voters at night and 'frightening them with lies'. 'Now if somebody is running for prime minister and they're prepared to lie about something as important as that to vulnerable Australians, how can you trust anything else he says?' Mr Shorten, for his part, accused the prime minister of having 'his hand in the policy cookie jar'. 'It is not what Malcolm Turnbull is saying now about a particular privatisation task force that's got me worried, what it is piece by piece, if given the chance, he will dismantle Medicare,' he told reporters in Darwin. Labor campaign spokeswoman Katy Gallagher denied Mr Shorten was softening Labor's line of attack. 'There hasn't been any change to Labor's position at all,' she told reporters in Canberra. 'We are continuing to talk about our concerns about Medicare and potential privatisation.' AAP http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/06/24/pm-says-shorten-caught-lying-on-medicare.html LABOR PSEUDO LEFT BILL SHORTEN RE:  DONALD TRUMP REPUBLICAN, USA Australian Financial Review " ... Mr Trump reached the number of delegates needed to secure his party's presidential nomination on Thursday. He has vowed to break the North American Free Trade Agreementand the Paris climate agreement, does not support the Trans Pacific Partnership and said he would slap a 20 per cent tariff on imported products." Bill Shorten ... saying US Republican candidate Donald Trump's views are "barking mad" ...  Shorten feels free to hurl insults Malcolm Turnbull hit out at Mr Shorten over the comments on Friday, despite two of his ministers raising serious concerns about a Trump presidency. AFR COMMENT The Shorten pseudo 'left' politician, from a party that wants wants to give their country away, has the nerve to be critical of Trump, while he and his Labor party parrot Liberal party policies, having abandoned Australian working classes, as far back as the late 1960s. Notice that both Liberal and Labor capitalist serving & nation screwing assh*les are at one when it comes to slagging off an American patriot that's opposed to trade agreements. Is there any actual material distinction between these two capitalist serving Australian political party assh*les?   Donald Trump, US Republican, position sounds more my idea of the left than anything the Australian Labor Party lowlifes stand for. The Australian Labor Party & its union buddies ought to be challenged by forming alternative authentic left political parties and unions that represent socially conservative Anglo-Australian / European working-class interests ... assuming there still remains anything left of an Anglo-Australian or European working class in the country.   COMMENT Medicare is destined to be privatised when the politicians sign up for the US 'free trade agreement' (Transpacific Partnership (TPP)), which is a corporate free for all, in which national sovereignty, democracy, the welfare and the will of the people, will mean jack sh*t, on signing up for this American corporate rort. I don't see that Shorten Labor tosser opposing the free trade agreement. All his political party opposes is the ISDS clause. While that's a positive, the entire free trade arrangement is sh*t and would be opposed in its entirety by any genuine left party that had national (and, particularly, mass, working-class) interests as a concern. Both the Liberals and Labor are sh*t.  Greens are even sh*ttier. I wouldn't vote for any of these assh*les. ONLY VOTE WORTH MAKING IS A NATIONALIST VOTE COMMENT  Labor's refugee/immigration policy negates any reason whatsoever to vote for this capitalist serving, working-class undercutting and working-class resource redistributing, fraud of a 'left'. CORPORATIONS GET THE TAXCUTS ... Prime Minister used similar rhetoric in Sunday night’s debate against Bill Shorten to make the case for his plan to cut taxes for firms with revenue of more than $2 million. ... look at how far, or how low, Labor has drifted since Keating’s time. Shorten described the Turnbull government’s plan to cut company tax as “useless and hopeless”. It went largely unreported, although for a leader to describe a tax cut as useless and hopeless in an election campaign sounds like news to me. Next day when he was quizzed about it, Shorten back-pedalled slightly to say “the truth (or troof if we are to be strictly accurate) of the matter” was that it was the wrong time and the wrong priority, despite the fact after last year’s budget he chided the government for not providing small business with an even bigger tax cut and invited it to work with him to take the rate down even further. ... Shorten also told the Australian Council of Social Service that “corporate tax reform helps Australia’s private sector grow and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder”. Under Shorten, after prodding from the unions, Labor baulked at the free-trade deal with China and equivocates over the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. The Australian Australia Foreign Policy http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/06/12/australias-uncertain-election-season/ Australian election offers few choices on foreign policy 12 June 2016 Author: Russell Trood, Griffith University Australians will go to a federal election on 2 July 2016. At first glance the 19 seats in the House of Representatives that the Labor Party — the current Opposition — needs to win to take government seems a heroic undertaking. Yet, if the early polls are any indication, this may not be too far beyond its reach. There are several dimensions to the 2016 election that add to the mystery of the result. The leaders of Australia’s mainstream political parties have only held their positions for a relatively short period of time. Neither has led his party through the gruelling demands of a federal election. And this year the election campaign period will go for around two months, nearly twice as long as usual. But perhaps the greatest challenge is that this is a ‘double dissolution’ election — meaning that all 150 seats in the House of Representatives and 76 in the Senate will be up for grabs. It is the first time in nearly 30 years that Australians have experienced a double dissolution election. Predicting the result will be especially difficult. To form government the winning party will need to secure a majority of seats on the floor of the House, but to be confident of providing stable, effective government and to pass its legislative agenda, it will also need to have a reliable coalition of supportive senators in the Upper House. This has been wanting in recent Australian parliaments and partly explains the rationale for a double dissolution election. That said, this will likely be a very orthodox election with domestic political issues dominating the agenda over any significant international or foreign policy change. The Labor Party is making its pitch on increasing education funding, sustaining Australia’s high-class health care system and protecting the social security interests of its low-to-middle-class constituency. For Bill Shorten, the Opposition leader and former president of Australia’s trade union movement, this is the heartland of Australian politics. In contrast, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s national economic plan of ‘jobs and growth’ draws on his more eclectic life experience, including as an international businessman. Since becoming prime minister in September last year, Turnbull has consistently emphasised the great economic opportunities offered to Australians by the transitions (and disruptions) now taking place in the global economy. He has stressed that there has never been more exciting time to live in a world of change and transition where enterprise and innovation can flourish and underpin significant domestic economic gains. Against this background, it is unlikely that the election will provide much guidance on the future direction of Australian foreign policy. There is already a high degree of consensus, at least among Australia’s mainstream political elites, about foreign policy priorities. These include sustaining and deepening Australia’s security relationship with the United States, engaging with the Indo-Pacific, countering radical extremist terrorism and protecting homeland security. During his three years as opposition leader, Shorten has done little to embellish this agenda, being content to respond to international issues as they emerge. And while the election will demand a more comprehensive statement of policy, it will likely be well within the parameters of the liberal internationalism that has long been the cornerstone of Labor’s foreign policy. By contrast, the Turnbull government has already clearly marked its foreign policy ambitions. It will seek deeper engagement with the global economy through comprehensive free trade agreements and partnerships with Indonesia and India. Turnbull will also press hard, though perhaps unsuccessfully, for the Trans-Pacific Partnership to become a reality. Perhaps most notably, and with a significantly higher degree of emphasis from previous  statements on the subject, the Turnbull government’s recent Defence White Paper gives high priority to working with all countries to ‘build a rules based global order’ which incorporates agreed rules of international law and regional security arrangements. Once settled, the victor will have to face up to the pressing issues on Australia’s foreign policy horizon. In Japan, the Abe government was widely reported to have been disappointed, if not stunned, when Australia failed to award the contract for the development and manufacture of its new generation of conventional submarines to the Japanese contender. The decision raised doubts in Japan as to whether Canberra was seriously interested in developing a deeper strategic partnership. The answer is almost certainly yes, but rebuilding trust and confidence will demand some assiduous diplomatic attention. Likely to be of a more enduring difficulty for Canberra is China’s determined push to expand its maritime boundaries in the South China Sea. Australia shares widespread regional concerns about the destabilising consequences of these actions. But Canberra is wary of being drawn into confrontation with Beijing and will need to strike a finely tuned policy balance — especially with the United States — which protects its own national security interests. Finally, Australia has to address the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court’s decision to close the refugee detention centre on Manus Island. The decision punches a large hole in Canberra’s elaborately conceived regime to deter people smugglers and asylum seekers from looking to Australia. The issue resonates deeply within the Australian body politic and is highly controversial among wide sections of the community. The bipartisan consensus between the government and Labor on the issue is a further complication. Labor is struggling to hold together a febrile internal policy consensus against left wing opposition. The government will certainly exploit this split within Labor to its political advantage. At the start of the campaign, opinion polls indicated that the election could hardly be closer, with one predicting a Labor victory of 51 per cent to the Coalition’s 49 per cent, while another reversed these results. Over the coming weeks, the polls will no doubt fluctuate as Australian voters wrestle with the choice they have to make on 2 July. At this stage it is almost impossible to say that either side can be confident it has a clear path to success. Russell Trood is Director of the Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/06/12/australias-uncertain-election-season/ Free Trade Agreements http://www.law360.com/articles/804406/australia-s-labor-party-wants-isds-nixed-from-trade-deals Australia's Labor Party Wants ISDS Nixed From Trade Deals By Caroline Simson Law360, New York (June 7, 2016, 7:54 PM ET) -- Ahead of a July federal election, Australia's shadow minister for trade and investment and member of the country's Labor party said Tuesday that a Labor government would oppose investor-state dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements and work to remove them altogether from existing deals. Speaking at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Trade Forum, Sen. Penny Wong, an opposition leader in the Australian Senate, said that a Labor government would not accept ISDS provisions in any proposed trade agreements. Previous trade deals signed by Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott contain ISDS provisions, including the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, despite concerns about the mechanism that have occurred in the country for years, she said. In addition, she noted that there are ISDS provisions in four of Australia’s earlier free trade agreements and in 21 bilateral investment treaties. "Some of these provisions were drafted many years ago and do not contain the safeguards, carveouts and tighter definitions of more contemporary ISDS provisions," she said. "A Shorten Labor government will develop a negotiating plan to remove ISDS provisions in these agreements. Where this is not possible we will seek to update the provisions with modern safeguards." Bill Shorten is the leader of the opposition for the Australian Labor Party. Concerns over the way ISDS provisions are being used to challenge public policies have been raised by economic and legal experts, including the government's Productivity Commission and the chief justice of the High Court of Australia, she said. Australia's minister for trade and investment, Steven Ciobo, is a member of the Liberal Party and has come out in favor of the TPP, calling it "very good news for Australia" in a February interview with Australian media transcribed on the trade ministry's website. He accused Wong of continuing to "fuel misinformation in relation to the impact of ... the [TPP]." "[ISDS] is a feature that has been in trade agreements ... for something like 30 years. In 30 years we've had one issue come up, and guess what? Australia won on that one occasion it came up," he said. "The Labor Party runs around and says they're going to tear up all of our trade agreements, that they want to renegotiate them all. It's just a really bad approach from Labor, so my criticism is actually directed towards Penny Wong and the Australian Labor Party." In December, Australia defeated a claim over its plain packaging legislation for cigarettes lodged by Hong Kong-based Philip Morris Asia Ltd., which is the Asian regional affiliate of the Philip Morris International group of companies.  [comment:  as if this is reason enough to ignore the future costs.  it looks like it's a win on a technicality specific to this case:  Philip Morris restructuring to take advantage of a treaty.  it's not exactly protection against future claims by companies.] The company claimed in the arbitration that the 2011 law, which imposed a sweeping ban on trademarks of any kind on cigarette packages, violated its rights under a 1993 bilateral investment treaty between Hong Kong and Australia by substantially diminishing the value of its investments in Australia. But a tribunal for the Permanent Court of Arbitration rejected the claim during an initial jurisdictional phase, ruling that the arbitration was an abuse of right because Philip Morris had restructured itself to take advantage of the Hong Kong-Australia treaty when it knew that a dispute was on the horizon. --Editing by Aaron Pelc. http://www.law360.com/articles/804406/australia-s-labor-party-wants-isds-nixed-from-trade-deals http://archive.is/rDPxt This was a bastard to edit.  Don't know why.  It was all over the shop.  I'm so sick of looking at this.   No matter how many times I look, it looks wrong to me ... as wrong as those mainstream Australian politicians.  LOL Blogger throwing up unwanted code is sending me mental.  When I look at the back end, trying to edit things, I see a gazillion unnecessary font and like codes it's easier to leave in than edit out.  But when it later comes to editing specific portions, it's a nightmare of picking through vandalised code because of the automatic Blogger unwanted insertions EVERYWHERE.  Blogger, please don't help.  LOL

Australia: Border Force Union Stunt

Australia: Border Force Union Stunt http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/border-force-accused-of-wearing-fake-uniforms-to-campaign-against-turnbull-20160516-gow3aq.html Border Force accused of wearing fake uniforms to campaign against Turnbull May 17 2016   |   Noel Towell  A senior Immigration Department manager issued the warning after Border Force public servants, angry about their two-year pay dispute, rallied at Sydney Airport last week to kick off their campaign to have the Turnbull government voted out. The event was the launch of a union-led campaign to put the wage dispute between Immigration and Border Force public servants and the Coalition government on the election agenda and featured unions members wearing black pants and T-shirts clearly marked with the Community and Public Sector Union's logo. But according to senior Immigration official Jill Charker, the protesters' clothes "simulated" the controversial border agency's official ensemble and she wants them to cease and desist, pointing out that the public service is supposed to be "apolitical". "Some of our employees chose to participate in a rally, which actively promoted voting against a political party," Dr Charker wrote to staff. "These employees chose to wear clothing that simulated the Australian Border Force uniform, which included the words 'Border Protection Officer' on the back and 'Protecting our Community' on the front. "This type of action has the potential to associate the official activities of the department with the rally in the eyes of the public and undermine the community's perception of the department. "The Australian Public Service is apolitical. "As employees of the APS we have a responsibility to maintain the confidence of the community by being professional and impartial." Dr Charker pointed to her department's guidance for employees undertaking political activities that clearly states workers should not wear anything to such events that might identify them as Commonwealth public servants. "We hold a privileged position in the community and it is our obligation to maintain the professional image of the department at all times," she wrote. "I remind all employees of their obligations as public servants." http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/border-force-accused-of-wearing-fake-uniforms-to-campaign-against-turnbull-20160516-gow3aq.html [source] COMMENT More money?  It's not like they're not paid well. Having harassed state authorities for more money like nagging, spoiled brats these last two years, Border Force are now trying to extort a wage increase by exploiting the run-up to elections,  and by trying to direct votes away from the only sensible mainstream political party in the country. It's a union stunt. The same unions that are in with the Labor opposition that punishes the Australian working class and aims to demographically destroy the country. The dispute isn't with the Liberals; it's a dispute with the taxpayers of Australia, who pay public service wages. Public servants who publicly tarnish the reputation of the Australian public service. Don't worry, I've got a plan ... Sack the lot of the bloody Commies, Turnbull. Hey ...  hire a batch of immigrants with combat experience in their place.  And give them the pay-rise.  C'mon, it'd be a pisser. Then produce an indoctrination reality TV series, that's a hybrid of hardcore multikulti adulation, integraton Liberal-style & putting a 'human face' on the dedication of the newly minted border patrol that's sorting out the salami smugglers, big time.

David Hicks - Howard Government Acknowledged Hicks Wasn't Guilty of Any Crime / Proof of US-Australian Collusion

ꕤ Info/Reference SOURCE http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/hicks-claims-proof-howard-govt-interfered-20110302-1bdy0.html David Hicks Source http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/hicks-claims-proof-howard-govt-interfered-20110302-1bdy0.html Hicks claims proof Howard govt interfered March 2, 2011  AAP Former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks says US documents have been released that prove the Howard government interfered in his terrorism case. Mr Hicks, who pleaded guilty to a terrorism-related charge in the US in 2007, says newly released US State Department documents show that members of the Howard government acknowledged he was not guilty of any crime and tried to think of ways to "pin him with something". He says the 50 to 60 pages of documents record "private conversations" between Howard government MPs and US State Department officials. The documents were provided this week to American journalist Jason Leopold by State Department employees. "They're private conversations ... between Australian politicians, the Liberal Party and the US State Department officials, people in the Pentagon and whoever was involved in that process in Guantanamo Bay, and it discusses my treatment and it discusses about the need to pressure me to say `guilty'," Mr Hicks told ABC Radio. Mr Hicks, an Australian citizen, was detained in Afghanistan in 2001, handed over to US authorities and detained for five years at Guantanamo Bay. In March 2007, he pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism and was sent to Adelaide's Yatala Prison to serve the remainder of a seven-year sentence, before being released in December of that year. On Wednesday, Mr Hicks said he "folded" to pressure to plead guilty and that the new US State Department documents showed Howard government officials acknowledged he had not committed a crime. "There's also acknowledgments from our government, the Australian government, I should be more specific and say the Howard government, acknowledgments from them and even from the US, that I'd never breached any law, I hadn't committed a crime," he said. "And there's conversations between Australian politicians and US politicians of how they can handle that: `What can we do, how can we pin him with something?'." Mr Hicks said that was when "they invented the charge `material support for terrorism'," which, he said, was not a valid crime under any legal system. Mr Hicks says he wants the Australian government to investigate his case, but adds he does not want compensation. "No, what I would really like is for the government to acknowledge that what was done to me was wrong, that my conviction in an illegal military commission is null and void and the plea agreement goes along with that. That's all I'm asking for," he said. Mr Hicks said the content of the US State Department documents would be released by Leopold in about a month's time. © 2016 AAP http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/hicks-claims-proof-howard-govt-interfered-20110302-1bdy0.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT I'm confused.  I thought the plea bargain was a positive event, as it got Hicks released ... and cleared the path to no election problems for the Howard government.  As in, a:  win/win. But it doesn't look like it is the positive I thought it was, when Hicks maintains he is innocent, he was pressured to plead guilty, he has documents that show the Liberal government of Australia knew he wasn't guilty of any crime, and that the Liberal government and the US colluded to find something to 'pin' on him, while US appears to have made up laws as it went along ... and Hicks spent 5 years in a US prison without charge. That means the Liberal government colluded with the Americans, to deprive an Australian of liberty -- and is party to depriving an Australian of liberty -- even though the Liberal government knew and stated in conversations with the Americans, that Hicks was not guilty of anything? Wow, this is sounding a lot like the Julian Assange (WikiLeaks publisher-journalist) scenario, where the Labor government in Australia was making false public statements about Assange's 'guilt,'  where the Australian authorities have subsequently had to acknowledge that Assange has broken no laws, where Assange (political persecution target) has been detained in Britain without charge for over 5 years now (without Australian government support), and where the US is desperate to make up some twist in the law (in this case, revising laws to redefine elements of journalism as 'espionage', I think it was) to pin something on Assange, while the US government is working towards extradition of Assange to the US ... as Britain, Sweden & Australia aid and abet the Americans. Challenge:  say above in 140 characters ... [CLICK image to enlarge] [CLICK image to enlarge] [CLICK image to enlarge] Therefore, the governments and judiciary of Sweden and Britain collude with one another to commit undemocratic & unlawful political persecution on behalf of their American 'co war criminal' ally, along with both the Labor and Liberal the governments of Australia -- his homeland. How can this be repeating itself? If I were the Hicks guy, I'd want compensation -- and plenty of it. ____________________ On Day Assange Arrested 2010-12-07 Statement by Civil Liberties Australia http://wlcentral.org/node/541 Hey, look who's Australia's High Commissioner to UK, London ...  It's the former Liberal Party Foreign Minister (1996-2007), Alexander Downer: [CLICK image to enlarge] [CLICK image to enlarge] ꕤ

Australia: Turnbull Rising

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://newmatilda.com/2015/09/19/rise-malcolm-turnbull-staggering-wealth-surprising-aggression-substantial-intellect Summary Malcolm Turnbull wealth from:  stake in local ISP OzEmail / sold lawyer investment banker co-chairman of Goldman Sach’s Australian unit from 1997-2001 Matt Taibbi on Goldman Sachs: "world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid"  ... "relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money" ... ... financial crisis ... "a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates" HIH "Australia’s then-second largest insurance company, HIH" "HIH took over FAI for $300 million, but its assets were “grossly misstated”  "HIH would become the largest corporate collapse in the country’s history, with liquidators estimating losses of up to $5.3 billion.” "Turnbull, in his capacity at Goldman Sachs, was the “primary adviser to FAI”, whose chief executive was Rodney Adler." "Turnbull was accused of concealing from the FAI board that he was working with Adler to take the company private. Adler was later jailed, but the Royal Commission cleared Turnbull and Goldman Sachs of any wrongdoing." Wentworth Electorate eastern suburb - Sydney Of 10 richest suburbs in Sydney =  5 postcodes were in Wentworth Of 10 most expensive suburbs in Australia =  5 are in Wentworth Turnbull resides = “vast waterfront estate” in Point Piper, similar to a nearby mansion which sold for $52 million Turnbull = only politician to make the BRW Rich 200 in 2010, with personal wealth of $186 million {  next wealthiest at the time was Kevin Rudd and his wife Therese Rein, at $56 million } Wentworth = safe Liberal seat = reason: voters in Wentworth vote in support of their own financial interests Wentworth =  large Jewish population =  Turnbull has represented an electorate with “the largest Jewish community in New South Wales” Turnbull = staunch defender of the Israeli government = strong relationship with many elements of Jewish community, & its major organisations Censorship 'Hate speech' reform = killed off by Abbott and Brandis duo = Turnbull likely to back Brandis’s attempt to: more strictly regulate racist speech which appears to have been driven by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies concern at a speech made by Hizb ut-Tahrir = Turnbull - will be careful not to antagonise the Jewish community Israel Turnbull competed every election with Labor candidates = by promising to be the most loyal to the interests of the Israeli govt = as PM,will need to temper his advocacy for Israel Foreign Minister Julie Bishop = on pro-Israel extreme side of spectrum = opposition unlikely to challenge Turnbull on this, esp. 'Shadow Foreign Affairs' spox Tanya Plibersek = biggest challenge re Iranian govt: selling outreach and rehabilitation, under Julie Bishop to Liberal party's Jewish supporters Turnbull Profile by John Lyons Good Weekend - 1991 'threat' appears x10 'fear' appears x6 Abbott embarrassingly gauche vs Turnbull recipient of proper class training David Hicks 2005 - Turnbull address, Amnesty International (in Paddington) =  great charm and persuasion =  coupled with: "Turnbull wouldn’t commit to saying or doing anything" Turnbull speech - 7 July 2015  -  *worth checking out http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/speech-to-the-sydney-institute-magna-carta-and-the-rule-of-law-in-the-digit Policy led campaign for Australia to become a Republic support for gay marriage climate change - watered down version of Rudd’s plan Climate Change “We cannot be seen as a party of climate sceptics, of do-nothings on climate change." [Turnbull] = "Howard’s obstinacy on the issue helped pave the way for the election of Kevin Rudd in 2007." {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} = Turnbull negotiated "a watered down version of Rudd’s plan on climate change action" ... committed to no more than cuts of 5 per cent of emissions below 2000 by 2020" / described as inadequate {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} "attack on public opinion from both sides of the political spectrum played a major role in destroying public faith in the urgency of political action on climate change" {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} "Abbott’s gambit of fiercely opposing action on climate change was seen by many as a risky, if not foolish ..." {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} Turnbull =  lost the leadership of Liberals by x1 vote "... rebuke and overthrow of Turnbull for his position on climate change can be seen as the lesson to him in his second run as leader."   {Michael Brull, New Matilda - source article} Immigration 2009 Turnbull warned Australia a “soft target” by Rudd’s reforms to Howard’s policies Turnbull =  “The object of Australia's border protection policies should be no boats.”" Turnbull 2009 = said Rudd has “lost control of our borders”, with the arrival of a new “people smuggling boat with illegal immigrants”. Turnbull = favoured - reintroduction of: Temporary Protection Visas Offshore processing Video linked in Article (quote from audio, not article) Muslim Schools 1:15 "It is important for us that we promote and encourage Islam and Islamic traditions which are moderate, which support freedom, which support democracy, and which support Australian values -- not in the sense of 'Aussie values' -- but in the sense of democracy, rule of law, tolerance, freedom.  That's what we're talking about."[Malcolm Turnbull] Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgTcwWOscqc&feature=youtu.be Jewish organisations =  thrilled by Turnbull’s promotion Muslim leaders = cautious optimism re rise of Turnbull Business =  very excited by the rise of Turnbull = business lobby is excited, & have good reason to be =  Turnbull might be able to push through their favoured measures: reforms to laws - currently preventing media monopolies = Turnbull:  "only way, we can ... remain ... first-world society ... if we have outstanding economic leadership, if we have strong business confidence" *But:  WorkChoices and Joe Hockey’s first budget have shown, these are areas where Liberal govt must tread lightly Right-wing 'low-brow conservatives' = not so keen on Turnbull & elitism Murdoch press right-wing pundits = not fans of Turnbull Murdoch = but Rupert Murdoch  appears to have rallied behind Turnbull to beat the ALP Murdoch Press =  Murdoch press may well be able to turn away many of the Coalition’s voters from Turnbull {but, why would they?} MEDIA Turnbull = favourable coverage from: Monthly ABC Fairfax LEFT Not much reason for leftists to be optimistic = different rhetoric, but same sell CONCLUSION Turnbull =  liberal instincts, tempered by the same ruthlessness he showed in his business dealings =  commitment to liberal values - outweighed by commitment to pursuing power when he led the Opposition source https://newmatilda.com/2015/09/19/rise-malcolm-turnbull-staggering-wealth-surprising-aggression-substantial-intellect ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Summary, as I see the article.  Best to go to article for the full deal, as this is just what caught my eye ... and what I've understood, which isn't necessarily 100%.  Very good article.  Really enjoyed checking that out. So somewhere between being in defence of freedom of speech, Brandis has back-flipped and now wants tighter censorship of speech / expression that might cause 'offence'? That's rather confusing.  Can't Brandis make up his mind? Any chance of legislating against the passage of politically suppressive bullsh*t? Just did a catch-up on the Brandis back-flip, which is really also a Liberal party election promise back-flip: Brandis Backflip On Hate Speech http://markdreyfus.nationbuilder.com/brandis_backflip_on_hate_speech Laws restricting freedom of speech don't merely apply to the occasional 'genocide advocate' or whatever that guy is that's supposedly a catalyst for the Liberal party back-flip. Suppressive laws of this kind affect everybody, across all manner of political and historical debate -- or lack thereof. Other Mark Dreyfus QC MP Attorney-General of Australia 4 Feb 2013 – 18 Sept 2013 Preceded by:  Nicola Roxon Prime Ministers Julia Gillard Kevin Rudd Australian Labor Party Promoted to Attorney-General - after resignation of Nicola Roxon / reason cited:  Roxon wanted to be with her family https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dreyfus Assange Transnational Security Elite, Carving Up the World Using Your Tax Money London  OCT8 Antiwar Mass Assembly (2011) Link  |  here ꕤ

Australia - Liberal Leader, Malcolm Turnbull

ꕤ Article SOURCE #1 http://stopturnbull.com/ #2 http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/gw-classics/raging-turnbull-20140904-10c7ye.html #1 Why Turnbull is a Labor Stooge The Liberal Party is supposed to be the custodian of Classical Liberalism and Conservatism. Malcolm Turnbull is neither. He is a leftist-progressive and secular humanist, who wants to take Australia in the same general philosophical direction as the Labor Party and the Greens. [ ... ] UPDATE #2 [19th Sep]: The ABC appears to have deliberately taken down some pages I have linked to on their website as references, in some futile attempt to stifle me. I have therefore replaced some of these links with the Google cache versions. I will try to find any others.  [ ... ] 13th April, 1991 – In a Good Weekend magazine feature article, Turnbull’s acquaintances are quoted calling him “a prick”, “a turd”, “offensively smug”, “easy to loathe”, “cynical”, “overbearing”, “chilling”, “unnecessarily aggressive”, “vicious”, “nasty”, “savaging”, “abrasive”, “breathtakingly arrogant”, “a good exploiter of publicity”, someone who “will do anything to get what he wants”, and someone who would “devour anyone for breakfast”. The article notes Turnbull’s hypocrisy in proclaiming to support free speech, but silencing his critics with fear via threats of litigation. Indeed the Good Weekend journalist writes that, during an interview, Turnbull threatened to take out an injunction to prevent his story seeing the light of day, and gave a mini-lecture on the Defamation Act. This sort of hypocrisy squares perfectly with Turnbull’s contemporary lip service in support of free speech, whilst strongly supporting draconian restrictions on free speech under the Racial Discrimination Act. [ ... ] It is also revealed that Turnbull nicknames himself “Satan” and there are accounts of Turnbull verbally abusing journalists and trying to get them sacked for supporting an opposing point-of-view to his own. source http://stopturnbull.com/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- #2 Raging Turnbull September 16, 2014  -  originally published on April 13, 1991 John Lyons In his dual careers as lawyer and merchant banker, Malcolm Turnbull has earned a reputation that inspires a mix of awe, fear and, among some, downright loathing. John Lyons subjects both the facts and the hearsay to cross-examination. source http://www.smh.com.au/good-weekend/gw-classics/raging-turnbull-20140904-10c7ye.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Australia's switcheroo Liberal Party leader and newly minted prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull ...  "... Justice Hunt who said he had managed "to poison the fountain of justice"." "Turnbull's scorched-earth use of the media made him unpopular with elements in the NSW Bar and was a factor in his leaving. He later moved fulltime into merchant banking." "Packer once quipped to a friend that Turnbull frightened even him. (He told the same person he would never stand between Turnbull and a bag of money.)"  [SMH] "... l have always taken the view that loyalty is a very important virtue " [ Malcolm Turnbull ]  [SMH] Buckle your seatbelts, Australia ... this has the makings of a potentially fun ride. Liberal Loyalty ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. ꕤ

Australia: Malcolm Turnbull the fourth PM since 2013

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1473 Liberal Party Leadership source https://twitter.com/DunkenKBliths source https://twitter.com/DunkenKBliths Australian PM Tony Abbott Toppled By His Own Former Communications Minister Replaced swiftly by his former communications minister Malcolm Turnbull in a 54-44 vote, making Turnbull the fourth PM since 2013, Sharmini Peries speaks with Dr. Binoy Kampmark about the current political juncture in Australia -   46 min ago    Full Episode Australia Australian PM Tony Abbott Toppled By His Own Former Communications Minister Audio Transcript Australian PM Tony Abbott Toppled By His Own Former Communications Minister SHARMINI PERIES, EXEC. PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. Tony Abbott, who was Australia's prime minister until Monday, was ousted by Malcolm Turnbull and his own party members. Here's what Abbott had to say on his departure. TONY ABBOTT: The nature of politics has changed in the past decade. We have more polls and more commentary than ever before. Mostly sour, bitter, character assassination. Poll-driven panic has produced a revolving door prime ministership, which can't be good for our country. And a febrile media culture has developed that rewards treachery. PERIES: Mr. Abbott, who has been weathering a series of poor opinion polls, charged with mismanagement of the budget, received 44 votes in a leadership challenge by his former communications minister Turnbull, who got 54 of the votes. Upon taking office, this is what he had to say. MALCOLM TURNBULL: The Australia of the future has to be a nation that is agile. That is innovative. That is creative. PERIES: Under the Australian system, as in the UK, the prime minister is not directly elected by voters, but the party leader is selected by the party that commands most of the seats in parliament. Now joining me to tell us more about what's happening is Dr. Binoy Kampmark. He's a senior lecturer at the School of Global, Urban, and Social Studies at RMIT University in Melbourne. He ran on the senate ticket with Julian Assange for the WikiLeaks Party in the Australian federal election in 2013. Binoy, good to have you with us at the Real News Network. BINOY KAMPMARK: It's a pleasure being with you. PERIES: Binoy, give us a rundown on what's going on in Australian politics, particularly with the Liberal party, in the recent weeks. KAMPMARK: Well, I think for your listeners and your viewers, I think a very important thing to remember is that the Australian system is based on what is called the Westminster model. The Westminster model is a very strange one. It means that the leader of the country and the leader of the party is not directly elected by the people. So what effectively this means is that the prime minister in office can potentially be deposed. Can potentially be overturned, you name it, assassinated, whatever sort of exciting term you'd like to use there. And interesting enough, in the caption that you mentioned there, Tony Abbott's remarks, this is exactly what's been happening in Australia since 2008. Prime ministers have been surprisingly mortal in their positions because of party opinion rather than public opinion because the party membership have gotten very worried about the elections, the result being that they get rid of the prime minister and they replace the prime minister with their favorite. And that's what we've been seeing lately. PERIES: And I understand that Turnbull is the fourth prime minister you've had since 2013. KAMPMARK: Yes. It's too many, as far as I'm concerned. They all, these characters who are filling the ledgers and filling the accounts. The reality of it is, and this is something that I've conversated about extensively and I've written about, the idea about having a prime minister through the revolving door, as Mr. Abbott himself said, irrespective of whatever political belief you might have, there is no fixed term in Australia. There is no fixed prime ministerial term. There is a flexibility there about calling elections and there is a flexibility there about leadership. And it may be also something to consider in a broader reform for the system. But that's the nature of the Australian political system. PERIES: Now, both of these men are part of a Liberal party that is actually far from liberal when it comes to issues such as gay marriage and addressing issues of climate change. And in this particular case Turnbull seems to be more on the right side, at least, of history moving forward. KAMPMARK: Well, yes. Again, for those who are not familiar, the reality is that in Australia there is a term used, liberal. It is not the term, of course, that is accepted in the United States. The term liberal is associated usually with the progressive side of politics. Liberal in Australia has a specific classicist association with Sir Robert Menzies, who was the leader of the party from the '40s, and was the leader of the party throughout the early stages of the cold war in Australia. So the reality is that we're dealing with a conservative party with conservative values. Now, historically, Malcolm Turnbull is not perceived to be that conservative, and that is one of the problems. He's been accused by his own party members as being a progressive in some sort of clothing of another conservative variety. So the question is, will he be a true conservative member on the liberal side in the Australian context of politics, or will he actually do something different? And that is something that people are waiting for, and we'll see what happens. PERIES: And what are the opinion polls in Australia like in terms of some of the more liberal issues? What are the people thinking, in other words, about climate change and issues of gay marriage, for example? KAMPMARK: Well, in terms of gay marriage the opinion polls suggest an overwhelming acceptance about the acceptability, as it were, of the institution. And that Australia has been lagging behind other countries, and that Australia effectively should, as it were, take a position on this more firmly and reform the law accordingly. That's one thing. It depends which issue, of course, we're talking about. If we're talking about, for example, refugees, the Australian electorate is rather conservative. The reason why, for example, the opposition leader of the Australian [inaud.] party and the, in fact, numerous parties with the exception perhaps of the Greens in Australia believe that refugees should be kept out of the country. Well, that's something that we'll have to see whether Mr. Turnbull changes it. In terms of climate change, Mr. Turnbull has shown amenability towards changing that platform, and I think he's going to budge on that. But when it comes to refugees and those broader issues, I'm not entirely sure whether he will change that. PERIES: But at the same time, Abbott's leadership came to a head, I think, particularly when he took such a harsh position, a reaction to the refugees and indicated that they've managed to stop boats from coming to Australia. Is that the political climate that he reflects? KAMPMARK: Sadly I do think it is. You have to remember, if you look carefully at the speeches being given by the new Australian prime minister, he's very careful not to mention the refugee situation too much. With the exception of this, that Mr. Abbott before he as deposed did make the concession that there would be the acceptance of 12,000 refugees from Syria. But with the exception of that, the hardline is fundamental. The Australian body politic, as it were, the suspicion about people arriving on boats is a very strong one. I'm not suggesting that it's a very good idea at all. I think in many ways it's an absurd thing. But it has been built into the political culture which has made politicians constantly build their political careers on being strong on preventing people arriving on boats to Australia. And I am interested to see whether Mr. Turnbull will change this. My feeling is he's not necessarily going to change this at all. PERIES: And where is the Labour Party in all of this? We of course saw this week in the UK the Labour Party electing a much more radical leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to head the party. Is there any such possibility in Australia? KAMPMARK: The individual who's currently leading the Labour Party is what I would call a conventional technocrat. Tony Blair would be very proud of him. The old, of course, the former British prime minister who was speaking about stakeholder economies was talking about a labor movement, if you like, that was more connected to the market. This individual, namely Mr. Shorten, is not in the Corbyn mould. Corbyn is the exception to the rule. I will tell you an example in terms of what happened recently in terms of Labour Party politics in Australia. At the Labour Party conference they accepted turn back the boats as a policy. They accepted that people should be detained in camps, and they accepted that there should be no resettlement in Australia for refugees. And if that's not a defiance of traditional Labour Party principles in what we would think about that, I don't know what is. PERIES: And a very curious note on your bio was that you along with Julian Assange ran for the WikiLeaks party in Australia in federal election in 2013. Tell us a sense of where the WikiLeaks party is at and your role in Australian politics at the moment. KAMPMARK: Well, my role in Australian politics is as an annoying scribbler, at the moment. I dabble and I engage in as many things as I can on the ground. In terms of the actual WikiLeaks experiment it is I suppose, to put it lightly, dormant at the moment. Julian Assange has many things to deal with in captivity, so to speak, pseudo-captivity in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, and I have various things I need to do in the context of broader political issues. But when it comes down to it the ideas still prevail, but the political structure, of course, is something that's become a bit hard to sustain. But that's the nature of these things. It's an incredible effort, as anyone who knows how to run a party knows. So when it comes down to it, happily engaged politically with pen, not perhaps so much with paper in the actual sense. PERIES: Dr. Binoy Kampmark, I thank you so much for enlightening us with Australian politics today, and we hope to have you back very soon. KAMPMARK: Anytime. It's lovely speaking with you. PERIES: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network. EndDISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy. source http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14735 ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Some interesting commentary on the recent Australian Liberal Party leadership switch. I'm conservative in my outlook, so I would support most socially conservative positions - as well as firm control of borders. But that conflicts with opposition to: eg. censorship, mass surveillance etc, and economic punishment of the unemployed, elderly, and working classes, as well as privatisation of public assets & services, and entry into American 'free trade' agreements. So there's no right mix of positions, from my point of view. ꕤ