Queensland health payroll enquiry: A political witchhunt

Today (13/12/12) the Queensland government announced an enquiry into the Queensland health payroll debacle.  While this is truly a disgraceful series of events and probably led , inter alia, to the downfall of the Bligh government do we really want a $5 million dollar political slogfest.  How many public servants would that money have kept in a job?

This enquiry will only provide the government ample fodder with which to fire at the severely depleted opposition.  This isn't about seeing if they can recover money. The legal advice says as much.

This is politics pure and simple.

You won the election Premier. Move on and govern!

* The title in no way suggests that the Honourable Justice Richard Chesterman will conduct this enquiry in any way other than with propriety.  He is a respected jurist.  The motives are all that I question.

Qld LNP views on women

#auspol

It is disgusting generalisation that women only care about what clothes their female leaders wear.  Does this show the LNP attitude towards women in general?

The Liberal National Party's former state secretary says women need to change their attitudes if they want to be taken seriously in politics.

Michael O'Dwyer made the comments during a Queensland University of Technology seminar about campaign strategies used during the state election campaign, which gave his party a landslide win.

Mr O'Dwyer said the LNP had mainly male candidates because they were chosen on merit rather than a gender quota system.

He said women were often their own worst enemy when it came to politics because they were more concerned about what shoes leaders wore than what their policies and issues were.

"So something, I'm sorry ladies, needs to be done from your perspective to try to build women up to look and sound like leaders and talk about the attributes of a female being a leader rather than talking about their appearance," he told the crowd about 100 people.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/women-their-own-worst-enemy-odwyer-20120622-20ryh.html#ixzz1yUCJuDYV

Qld LNP mounting right wing social change after years in the wilderness

#auspol

In 2012 the Liberal National Party took to the Government Benches after a comprehensive election defeat of the longstanding Labor Government. 

So far the major issues being handled by the new Government appear to be driven by an extreme Right Wing agenda.  The issues that seem to be taking up most of the focus are civil unions and surrogacy.

Premier Campbell Newman removed a State Sanctioned ceremony for Civil Unions and after great backlash from the right wing loonies in his party it is now to be called the Relationship Registration Act.  As if it wasn’t degrading enough for same sex couples to have to attend the registry, presumably during business hours, to register their union like they were attending Queensland Transport or registering their dog.  Now the symbolic step towards gay marriage was taken back with a symbolic name change in the Act.

Now the Government has removed the ability of same sex or single persons to access altruistic surrogacy.  Is it to be removed for hetero-sexual couples?  Oh no, just the gays and singles!  Because gay people and singles couldn’t be good parents. 

After years in this wilderness the LNP is clearly spewing out legislation to fix all those social policy changes they didn’t like over their years in opposition.  They now feel the need to instil their right wing religious orthodoxy on Queensland. 

And what of the pressing issues such as cost of living pressures --- ah they’re working on it. Apparently.  Not sure how they have time.

CSG populism at odds with his Party’s approach

I recently watched an episode of Landline where the competing interests of Farmers and CSG Miners were highlighted. There is a great divide between the Miners belief in the science and the Farmers scepticism. And as much as I understand the principle that we don't own the minerals beneath our land I still have much sympathy for the farmers. This not an easy issue. The Miners and Government's say that CSG mining is safe and doesn't affect water stores. Many don't believe them and argue that we wont know the affects for many years and perhaps when it is too late.

I don't know the answer. Hopefully some independent research

Campbell Newman however has accused the Queensland Labor Government of "allowing CSG projects to grow at break neck speed to prop up their budget without concern for farmers and the environment."

But he fails to mention that this industry has had bi-partisan support.

But Campbell left himself a back door from which, when in power, he will miraculously step when he fully supports the CSG industry. He said:

"We will only allow CSG to go forward where it clearly doesn't affect the water resources under the ground that are so vital for future generations."

Isn't that the position already held by the Queensland Government? This is also the position now decried by the two great populists Tony Abbott and Campbell Newman.

Voters should be able to expect the Leader to enunciate a clear policy position which isn't at odds with the Party's actual position.

(Via http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/newman-vows-to-protect-farmers-against-csgs-spread-20110813-1irp6.html)

JPL’s promise at odds with LNP actions?

Queensland Opposition Leader John-Paul Langbroek did what all Opposition Leaders do and pledge a new style of politics and clean up the obviously broke Government.  He calls it truth in politics.

‘‘We will introduce truth in political advertising laws that will ensure Queenslanders get a fair-dinkum choice between the policies,’’ he said.

‘‘Our plan to clean up government will stop once and for all the lies that Queenslanders were exposed to at the last state election.’’

But how will he deal with service contracts?  Hopefully not the same way the LNP does.

Queensland's Liberal National Party paid almost $250,000 to companies owned by senior party officials in the first six months of the year.

The LNP last night defended the payments, saying high-ranking party figures were paid via their companies on a contractual basis rather than being employed.

…

An LNP spokesman said party members should not be concerned about the payments, as the relevant officials were not employed but instead contracted through their companies.

Will we really see a new era of truth in politics, or just that same old deals for mates mantra?

Talk of an illegitimate Gillard Government is just not legit!

#ausvotes

The Liberal party, distraught with the decision of the Independent's on who should govern Australia, are telling anyone that will listen that the Gillard Government is illegitimate and unstable.  George Brandis claims that the "most Australians wanted a change of government. Your government has as much legitimacy as the Pakistani cricket team."  A very funny comment but it’s not accurate.

Talk back radio is also in uproar.  Former Howard Government Minister turned fill in talk back host Gary Hardgrave told listeners last week that more people voted for the Coalition and that they should be in power.

But is this actually true? 

The arguments for these assertions are:

1. The ALP received less first preference votes than the Coalition
2. The ALP are losing the two party preferred vote (or at least they were last week)
3. The Coalition won more seats in the House of Representatives

 

Based on these three criteria the arguments made by the Coalition and their supported are right and also wrong. 

It is true that that the Coalition received more first preference votes than Labor.  However, when you break it down, the Coalition is made up of four separate groups.  The liberal Party, the National Party, the Queensland LNP and WA National (who claimed to be independent) Tony Crook.  The Coalition believe they are one group based on their Coalition agreement.  I guess that is fair.  But why then aren’t Labor and The Greens allowed to do the same.  Labor and the Greens have now formed an alliance not based solely on preference deals at election time.  Looking at the figures (which are not yet complete):

	First preference Vote
Australian Labor Party	4,711,369
The Greens	1,459,002
	6,170,371
Liberal	3,777,391
Liberal National Party of Queensland	1,130,525
The Nationals	462,391
	5,370,307

As at 15/9/10

Based on this Labor/the Greens have it won hands down.  But this doesn’t even take into account the 861, 724 people who voted for one of the other parties/independents at this election.   This is why the 2PP method is employed in Australia.  (Incidentally the UK is talking of introducing this method rather than their first past the post method)

On the second point, the 2PP vote is fluctuating daily.  Just last week the Coalition were ahead, but now Labor is back in front.  But the AEC website still doesn’t provide a clear picture of where the 2PP will land once counting stops. 

Paul Howes commented in the Sydney Morning Herald that:

The Australian Electoral Commission has the two-party vote neck and neck between Labor and the Coalition, but this count doesn't include the eight or so seats that are not contests between the major parties - those between Labor and the Greens or the Liberals and an independent.

The bulk of these seats are Labor, and once they're added to the final two-party vote when the counting is finished, Labor will have a clear majority.

Don't just take my word for it; just about every electoral expert, including Antony Green, agrees.

Antony Green makes his assessment of the AEC 2PP figures here.

That the 2-party preferred total displayed on the AEC's website is meaningless can be seen if you tally the members elected in these 142 electorates. You get Coalition 72, Labor 70. Missing are four Independents, a Green, a WA National and two Labor MPs.

The reality of forming government in the newly elected House of Representatives depends on those eight elected members, but the AEC's total of 2-party preferred vote currently excludes all votes cast in these eight electorates, the eight electorates whose elected members will determine who forms government.

Which illustrates why the AEC's incomplete 2-party preferred vote is pointless.

 

The third argument that the Coalition won more seats than Labor is true.  But this is not the basis on which elections in Australia are won or lost.  It is a complete distortion of how our system of Government is constituted.  Our system is one where the party who controls a majority of the votes in the House or Representatives forms Government.  This is the system and it may seem to have flaws at times, but generally the people who think it is flawed are on the losing side of a close election.  One like we saw this year. 

There is no easy way to decide on who forms Government.  No way that everyone will agree on.  The only way we can do this is by electing representatives who then vote according to their own beliefs at the time.  That may be along party lines or if independent this may be which ever way they choose.  That is what the Greens and the Independents did.  If there respective communities disagree with their choice I guess they will lose their seat at the next election.  That is the basis of our democracy.

To float statements like “utterly without mandate” or “illegitimate” are wrong and contemptuous of our entire system of Government.  The Gillard Government was formed according to the correct principles and conventions of the Westminster system.  They have a mandate to run the country.  If the Australian people disagree, they will surely change it at the next election.  That’s democracy!

What’s $10.6b between friends?

#ausvotes #auswaits

The Australian public learned today why the coalition failed to release their election commitments to treasury prior to he last election.  Because their figures were bogus.  All the shadow boxing about treasury leaks was a great diversion for the real fact that while they claim to be the best economic managers, without the treasury holding their hands, they are incompetent and reckless and will, like the Howard Government before them, spend to win office.  Here is what the couriermail reported today:

TONY Abbott's budget credibility was under fire last night with Treasury saying there was an error of up to $10.6 billion in his election promises.

Tony Windsor, one of the three independents who asked for the costings, last night described it as "a black hole''.
But Mr Abbott stood by his election costings and insisted he would improve the Budget bottom-line by more than $11 billion.
The Treasury documents released at 10pm by the independents found the Coalition would improve the Budget bottom line by $863 million over the next four years - well below the $11.5 billion improvement predicted by the Liberals.
The Liberals would deliver a Budget bottom line that was eight times better than Labor, but only a fraction of what they had promised.
The Treasury's five-page report on the Coalition's costings suggested the bottom-line could rise from $863 million to $4.5 billion if other assumptions were made. Mr Abbott said those other assumptions could be "responsibly achieved through prudent economic management''.

The Treasury said Labor would improve the bottom-line by $106 million - double its prediction of $44 million.

Mr Abbott refused to submit the Coalition's costings to the Treasury during the election campaign.  "I think we understand now why he wasn't interested in releasing the numbers," Mr Windsor told the ABC's Lateline program.

"(It's) what I call a black hole anyway of probably somewhere between 7 and 11 billion in terms of difference between what the Coalition said their costings were and what the Treasurer would suggest in terms of an incoming government for their bottom line."

Read more here

Coalition running scared on policy costings

Andrew Robb the Shadow Finance Minister, today announced that the coalition would not release a further set of policy documents to Treasury for costing until it was known who leaked a policy costing document to the Fairfax newspapers earlier this week. 

You can listen to the interview with Andrew Robb:

I smell a rat. 

The Coalition probably have every right to be upset that this damning assessment of their spending promises was released to the newspapers but they still haven’t explained the real issue - Why are their costings not backed up by Treasury.  Why is the an $800 Million+ hole in their estimate of one policy.  They aren’t claiming that this document is false, they just demand that the leaker should be found and arrested.  On this basis they are confirming that there is a hole in their assessments. 

And now the clincher.  They aren’t going to release any more costing documents to Treasury until the leaker is found.  What spin.  They are now terrified that the rest of their policy costings are grossly underestimated that they do not want Treasury to review them.  This si the easy out.  They know that the leaker will not be found.  At least not in the next ten days.  They can try to walk the high moral ground while at the same time withholding from the Australian people vital information with which they can use to assess the truthfulness of their promises.  The Coalition (and all other parties for that matter) should be forced to release the costing documents to Treasury for analysis when they release the policy.   This would ensure that we have more than just  a politicians word that the figures are right.  That would be a true ‘Charter of Budget Honesty’

Abbott does the Time Warp!

This is a very funny advertisment produced by the ALP. 

 

My only question is why they don’t release ads like these on mainstream media.  This would have people talking and produce a much more favourable result than the typical ad with a horrible black and white picture of Tony Abbott and a large stamp across his face with slogans like “Don’t risk him”.  Here is an example of the later advertisement.

 

GetUp!’s latest ad: Tony Abbott’s archaic views

GetUp! have created a new advertisement creatively showing us the old world views of Tony Abbott.  Peter Black commented today:

I think this is one of the more effective negative ads we have seen in the campaign so far, and reminds people that the very measured, restrained Tony Abbott we are seeing throughout this campaign, is not the Tony Abbott we have seen over the past few years.

(Via Election Blackout)

Newspoll: 50/50 – But scary for the ALP

According to the latest Newspoll the two party preferred is 50/50.  But the ALP would be very worried by the primary vote.  The primary vote is nearly back where it was when Julia Gillard took over the top job. 

Kevin Rudd was at 35% primary vote on 18-20 June 2010.  Julia is now on 37% and heading downward.  There needs to be a massive shakeup in the ALP camp and not just by throwing more money at the electorate.  I think next weeks Newspoll will be the most telling and politically terrifying for Julia Gillard and the ALP. 

I want both parties to engage, make some hard decisions, give us a point of difference and stop being small targets.

 

PRIMARY VOTE+ 

IN THE FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY, THE 21ST OF AUGUST, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WILL YOU VOTE FOR? IF “UNCOMMITTED”, TO WHICH ONE OF THESE DO YOU HAVE A LEANING?

		COALITION %	LABOR %	GREENS %	OTHERS %
Election	24 November 2007	42.1	43.3	7.8	6.8
Newspoll	28-30 May 2010	41	35	16	8
Newspoll	18-20 June 2010	40	35	15	10
Newspoll	25-27 June 2010	40	42	10	8
Newspoll	16-18 July 2010	38	42	12	8
Newspoll	23-25 July 2010	42	40	12	6
Newspoll	30 July - 1 August 2010*	44	37	12	7

*4 per cent “uncommitted” and 2 per cent “refused” excluded.

 

 

TWO PARTY PREFERRED+
Based on preference flow at November 2007 Federal election 

	COALITION	LABOR
Election 24 November 2007	47.3	52.7
Newspoll 28-30 May 2010	49	51
Newspoll 18-20 June 2010	48	52
Newspoll 25-27 June 2010	47	53
Newspoll 16-18 July 2010	45	55
Newspoll 23-25 July 2010	48	52
Newspoll 30 July - 1 August 2010	50	50

Nielsen: 52-48 to Coalition

The election seems to be turning and the latest poll seems disastrous for Labor.  Perhaps Julia Gillard will now come out of her shell and stop the one line, focus group tested answers and show us some of the spark she has in Question Time in the Parliament.    Or she could become the fifth shortest serving Prime Ministers.

Courtesy of the always reliable GhostWhoVotes, we are informed of a bombshell Nielsen poll which puts the Coalition at an election-winning 52-48 lead, from primary votes of 45 per cent for the Coalition, 36 per cent for Labor and 12 per cent for the Greens. More to follow.

UPDATE: Michelle Grattan reports “the gender gap on voting intention has disappeared, with primary and two-party-preferred votes now little different” – which frankly doesn’t seem likely. Julia Gillard’s approval rating is down five points to 51 per cent and her disapproval up six to 39 per cent, while Tony Abbott is up six points on approval to 49 per cent and disapproval down six to 45 per cent. Gillard’s lead on preferred prime minister has narrowed from 55-34 to 49-41. The poll was conducted from Tuesday to Thursday from a sample of 1356.

Via The Poll Bludger

The Abbott Family: Viral Video

This is the AWU's viral video of the Abbott Family which is doing the rounds this morning.

Some facts on benefits paid to Asylum Seekers: A good blog from Kochie

The below is a post from David Koch’s blog on the actual benefits paid to Asylum Seekers.  It dispels the popular email about how Asylum Seekers get paid more than Australian pensioners!  Worth a read to find out some of the facts. 

The Real Benefits For Asylum Seekers In Australia

Jul 14|07:09

…

If you’ve received an email which looks like this you should delete it, tell whoever sent it to you that they’re an idiot, and learn the facts…

• First of all, refugees are not illegal immigrants. It has never been illegal in Australia to arrive on shore without a visa seeking asylum. In fact it’s one of the rights within the UN’s declarations on refugees which Australia helped to write.

• When an asylum seeker arrives in Australia, they do not get any Centrelink benefits. While their status is being processed, and if they meet certain criteria, they can be eligible for financial support from the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, administered through the Red Cross. This amount is 89% of the basic Centrelink allowance. This means approximately $405.84 per fortnight – over $260 less than a pensioner.

• Once an asylum seeker is recognised as a genuine refugee, after a long and highly scrutinized process, they are given permanent residency and are then entitled to the same Centrelink, schooling and health benefits as anyone else. No more, no less.

• The normal Centrelink welfare payment is $456 per fortnight, for a refugee with permanent residency and an Australian-born person. A pensioner in Australia receives $671.90. Over $200 more each fortnight. Even with family/parenting benefits, a refugee’s benefits would still be less than a pensioner’s income.

• For an asylum seeker to qualify for any payment under the Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme, they must have lodged an application for a visa 6 months before, not be in detention, and not get any other payment or benefit.

• To get a permanent residence as a refugee, the person has to prove they are a genuine refugee fleeing persecution, go through character, security and medical tests, and sign an Australian Values Statement.

• ‘Boat people’ are asylum seekers. Refugees are asylum seekers who have been approved and given a visa. None of them are ‘illegal immigrants’.

The above facts come from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Refugee Council of Australia, and from the Red Cross. A lot more reliable than a random email from a friend of a friend.

Before you make a judgment on asylum seeker policy, know the facts.

For more info, have a read of these:

- Myths about refugees and asylum seekers: the answers

- Response to lies and hoax emails – Refugee Council of Australi a

- Media Blunders on asylum seeker claims

- Assistance for Asylum seekers in Australia - DIAC

- Related articles: Avoid the Political Spin - Some Facts About Asylum Seekers

Work Choices: dead or alive?

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has, since becoming leader, struggled with the notion of what to do about Work Choices.  This policy was central to the Howard Government and has been at the core of Liberal values for decades.  Abbott was a key member of the Government that implemented Work Choices and has long been an advocate of it. 

Earlier this week just prior to the election being called he spoke to the LNP Qld State Conference and said that Work Choices was not only dead but it had been cremated.  A strange line lacking wit, but it got the point across.  It was certainly better than his earlier statement that “the name Work Choices is dead.”

Tony Abbott then announced that there would be a 3 year moratorium on changes to Industrial Relation laws.  They would work within the laws and go to the umpire to settle any disputes.  But then came the startling admission from Senator Eric Abetz that they plan tweak the laws which means that through changes to the Regulations, which only require Ministerial consent, they can effectively do what tony Abbott said he would not do. 

Tony Abbott when question on the Today show seemed to indicate, what many people fear, that he will say on thing and do another.  He answered a question on whether he will bring back Work Choices after his first term by saying to Lisa Wilkinson, “Well, well Lisa, I've got an election to win”.  Later he spoke with Neil Mitchell where he hardened his position, presumably after speaking with his minders, and said that he would not be changing the legislation “not now, not ever”. 

The fear I have is that these statements fit into one of three Liberal election promise categories:

1. Non core promises
2. John Howard’s GST “never ever” promise
3. Tony Abbott’s make sure you get it in writing

But the startling part of Tony Abbott’s IR policy moratorium is that he freely admits that in 3 years time he will look to advance an agenda that would return some aspects of Work Choices.  Tony Abbott is looking for some fresh air between the Howard and (presumably) an Abbott Government with which to kill off public sentiment towards Work Choices. 

Tony Abbott is, as I blogged previously, more interested in winning elections and leaving wiggle room to change his policies.  He will say and do anything because he’s “got an election to win”.

What I find amazing about Wyatt Roy

Wyatt Roy is the LNP candidate for the seat of Longman and he was profiled in the QWeekend magazine on Saturday 10/07/2010. 

He is just 20 years old and has become something of a spectacle since being preselected at the age of just 19.  But it is not purely his age that I find amazing about him, it is his grasp of the political lines and snipes at such a young age. 

He takes his first swipe at the ALP by saying,

“I don't think I would have been the candidate in the Labor Party.  The ALP is faceless men in smoky rooms in Canberra pr Brisbane saying to locals here’s the candidate you’re going to have. There’s no way I could be a part of the political party that does that.”

He then proves his skill as a politician through his rehearsed lines on policy areas:

 

 

Roy has the lines polished like he has been watching Tony Abbott on re-run since being preselected.  Although he does tend to differ from his leader on Climate Change where he suggests an insurance policy is needed.  (Is he suggesting the ETS as an insurance policy perhaps? I doubt it)

So should we look at Wyatt Roy as a 20 year old kid who is looking to break the mould and give us “hope and honesty.”  Or is he just another political hack who is willing to rehearse the lines the leadership set and do anything to gain power. 

Time will tell. 

QWeekend article on Wyatt Roy: 20 Year old candidate for Federal seat of Longman

Here is the full article from the QWeekend on Wyatt Roy.  Very supportive and little critical analysis. 

LNP sends printing to political friends: my problem with it.

My problem with the below story in today’s Courier Mail is is not so much that Michael O’Dwyer’s company is involved in printing LNP materials but the time when he set up the company.  If he was in the printing business before he took over as State director (or in the hierarchy of the party) then I have no problem with it.  If he set up the business after taking on his role as an opportunist to take advantage of his position then I do have a problem with it. 

A LIBERAL National Party heavyweight has been accused of benefiting from campaign expenditure from his own printing companies.

LNP MPs and candidates for the upcoming federal election have been encouraged to buy their election posters from companies owned by state director Michael O'Dwyer.

Company searches show he is the sole director, secretary and a shareholder in Modcons Marketing Services, which owns Phoenix Graphics and Vivid Prints.

Some of the party candidates told The Courier-Mail the LNP head office had arranged the printing of posters, or "corflutes", through Mr O'Dwyer's companies on their behalf.

"What they do is they give you a budget and on the budget line items, they say 'corflutes covered off'," said one candidate.

…

Mr O'Dwyer and LNP president Bruce McIver last night rejected allegations of a conflict of interest, saying a "protocol" was in place.

…

When asked if head office had handed out Phoenix's number to candidates, Mr O'Dwyer said if it had, he "had nothing to do with that at all".

Mr McIver said candidates were given the option of three companies to print corflutes and

Mr O'Dwyer was not allowed to "pay bills or place orders" with his own company. "He has nothing to do with it," he said.

…

Mr O'Dwyer said he was not aware of these complaints, saying he was "at arm's length from it, I don't handle that in here".