The Refugee Crisis

We have been told for years by the Liberal Party that we have a refugee crisis.  They blame the Labor Party for "rolling out the welcome mat" and "being a people smugglers best friend".  All of this rhetoric is designed for political purposes only.  To drum up fear of the "invasion" what ever that is.  To tell them to get to the back of the line.  To tell them to go back to places like this -

And these are the nice pictures!

Would you wanna stay here for years?  Surely we can get above the base politics and show a little more compassion.  

According to the Refugee Council of Australia from 1975 to Dec 2012 we have had 48,856 people arrive by boat.  Hardly an invasion.  (0.02 % of our population or 0.0006% of our population per year)

Instead of buying boats we should process asylum applications in Indonesia within short time frames and take genuine refugees.  This would stop the need for perilous boat journeys.  

Although the rhetoric says otherwise the flood gates are not open.  This is the safest and most humane solution.  

The elephant that American's don't want to talk about

Today we saw another mass shooting in an American school. Senseless murder was committed against children in the most depraved and disgraceful manner. It brought tears to my eye watching the news.

This comes only a few months after the batman cinema shooting and only a few years after the murder of many at a political rally where a then-Senator was targeted and nearly killed. I could go on and on and on.

While these acts are horrible in the extreme it is even more disgusting the lack of political will to take on the gun reform battle.  Even when one of their own is the subject of a mass murder plot.  The affinity America has with its guns in the face of these continuous tragedies is truly mindboggling.

Now is the time to say enough is enough. Massive reform is needed now.  I just hope I'm not saying "enough is enough" again in another six months!

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.

Asylum Seeker Solution?

I was recently put on to a blog by Henk Luf where he poses ways of dealing with asylum seekers that appear on the face viable, humane and sensible.  I don’t agree with all his measures but on the whole could provide better solutions than we currently possess in Australia.  If only the Leaders of all sides would stop using asylum seekers as political footballs and came to a sensible solution.

Here is the first couple of his suggestions:

AUSTRALIA’S ASYLUM SEEKER /REFUGEE PROBLEM EASILY FIXED.

While there is currently a great debate in Australia over how the country should deal with it’s asylum seeker / refugee problem this following the rejection by the High Court of the Labor regime’s ‘Malaysia solution’, the actual solution to the problem is in fact a fairly easy and indeed legal one both in international terms as well as domestically.

The basic outline would be as followed and would include measures to deal with people smugglers as well those illegally entering Australia by air as well as overstayers.

1. Those arriving by boat with their papers would be processed on Christmas Island initially and then complete the refugee process on the mainland. Upon their papers having been found genuine and once they have been found to be refugees they would then be released into the community on ‘temporary protection visas’ their final status to be determined by the UNHCR as to their safety within their home countries. This could mean that they could either be granted ‘permanent refugee status’ or be returned to their home countries should such a return be deemed safe. Only those granted ‘permanent refugee status’ and subsequently permanent residency and /or citizenship would have family reunion rights.

2.Those arriving without their papers would be held in detention on Christmas Island or another secure facility until such time that their identity has been established upon which they can then be transferred to the mainland and issued with ‘temporary protection visas’ should they be found to be genuine refugees. The process would be slower thus providing an incentive to keep hold to their passports or other identity papers.

3.Those found to be ‘economic migrants…

Read more here

(via http://worldevents1.wordpress.com/)

 

My initial thoughts on Henk Luf’s solutions:

1. The sentiment is right.  I think however, the use of the term Temporary Protection Visa may confuse some people and think the Howard TPV system is back.  Minor issue but still one.   I think too the issue of timing is important.  How long will be minimum times for custody etc…
2. Same as 1.
3. I think there always needs to be a chance for review.  Whisking people out of the country may be more expeditious but Immigration Department officials make mistakes and if there is no chance of review in Court then this goes against what our country stands for.  After all avenues for review are up I’m happy for the 48 hour deportation period to commence.  The problem is always going to be when the home country wont accept them back.  But that is another issue I suppose.
4. Automatic jail sentences of 7 years for operators of boats is too harsh a penalty.  They are generally paid very little to make the journey and would know their fate when caught.  This should tell you what state of mind they are in (dire economic).  And while they probably understand the illegality of their actions I think that their actions are not worse than Manslaughter, Grievous Bodily Harm, Unlawful Wounding and Rape offences which quite frequently receive lower than 7 years jail terms.  And these are certainly not mandatory minimums like that suggested.  Sure punishment must occur but it must fit the crime.
5. 15 years might the right penalty so long as is isn't a mandatory minimum.
6. Excellent idea
7. If an overstayer is not claiming asylum I have no problem with their deportation within 48 hours.  But there must be an avenue of appeal.  Time limits should apply to this however.
8. Same as 7.
9. Same as 7
10. Fine idea.
11. Fine idea.
12. Fine idea.  But more work should be done to develop cooperative approaches to catch these boats prior to leaving the point of origin.  Incentives should be given to have those countries prosecute and stop the boats leaving. 

 

 

A novel idea that many will probably hate*

Australia could set up refugee processing centres (living in the community) in places such as Indonesia to stop people getting on boats.  I don’t know the numbers of asylum seekers there but might stop them getting in a boat to come here.   We have to deal with them anyway and we want to “break the people smugglers business model” (*argh I hate that phrase).  This might just do it. 

 

* This is an idea trotted out without much analysis or research. 

Abaci and slate boards mandatory in a Tony Abbott Government!

#auspol

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott shows us he is an old world kind of guy.  He appears to know very little about technology.  Thank god Malcolm Turnbull didn’t leave Parliament or else Tony Abbott might be mandating abaci and slate boards in the national curriculum!

Low-tech Tony

IT'S a little more than a year since that celebrated interview in which Tony Abbott shocked the nation with this revelation: "I'm no Bill Gates here and I don't claim to be any kind of tech head." As became apparent during an interview with Jon Faine on ABC Melbourne yesterday, Abbott hasn't upgraded:

Faine: "And just finally, on a fairly trivial point [our favourite type], but one that people will undoubtedly read more into depending on your answer. Julia Gillard in her letter to you crosses out the formal typed, 'Dear Mr Abbott', and replaces it with a handwritten, 'Tony'. The reproduced letters on the front page of today's The Australian newspaper sees you do not reciprocate with the informality."

Abbott: "And please don't read too much into it, Jon. I had to send that letter electronically and I can't cross something out and write in my name electronically, or at least I don't know how to do that. Maybe others can do it but I can't do it! But I would have, I would have, if I'd had the ability to do it I would have done it in the return correspondence."

There are plenty of bright young sparks in Abbott's office; perhaps it's time for them to stage an intervention.

(via STREWTH! James Jeffrey)

 

On a side note I hate when people cross out the title and handwrite in the persons name.  It’s just annoying to me. 

The only losers are Smith, Milne and Bolt

Michael Smith of 2UE, Glenn Milne of The Australian and Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun last week all attempted to bring down Prime Minister Julia Gillard with attacks on her judgment.

But the funny thing is they are the only ones who have lost anything in this who fiasco!

Glenn Milne has been axed from the ABC’s Insiders program (which is sad cause it would have been fun to see him and David Marr go at it about the article):

Statement regarding Glenn Milne

Glenn Milne was an occasional contributor to the Insiders program. He has been informed that Insiders has decided not to offer him any further appearances on the program.

This decision is based on a range of factors, one of which included The Australian's decision to both withdraw and apologise for an inaccurate column by Mr Milne on August 29, 2011 which did not meet the newspaper's own editorial and legal standards.

Panelists are selected for inclusion in the Insiders program based on the quality of their work for their various publications and outlets. Mr Milne's column containing what The Australian called "untrue" assertions about the conduct of the Prime Minister was therefore relevant to his role as an Insiders panelist.

In the context of live television, panelists have serious editorial responsibilities, and this was the basis for the ABC's decision: we were not confident that these responsibilities would be met.

 

Now Michael Smith of 2UE has been suspended:

2UE 'absolutely' support talkback host ... but suspend him anyway

The talkback host Michael Smith has been temporarily suspended by 2UE station management after he was "slammed" by the ABC's Media Watch program last night.

…

The general manager of 2UE, Tim McDermott, said Smith was off air "temporarily" to "put a bit of caution to the wind".

He said the station supported Smith "absolutely" but thought it prudent to remove him from his show before a meeting tomorrow to discuss this issue after "we got slammed by Media Watch".

…

Media Watch host Jonathan Holmes said last night that "Smith either didn't know, or didn't care, that every allegation in it has been aired, and dealt with publicly by Julia Gillard, multiple times".

 

And Bolt nearly took his bat and ball and went home:

Column - How Gillard tried to kill a story

Andrew Bolt

Yesterday morning I was considering resigning as a News Limited columnist.

I thought this company that I love, that I have long admired for its defence of free speech, had caved in to pressure from a Prime Minister to close down reporting of a matter of public interest.

That matter was Gillard’s former relationship, professional and romantic, with union official Bruce Wilson who, unknown to her, was ripping off employers and members of the Australian Workers Union, of which he was state secretary.

 

You can watch the Media Watch program on this story here.

 

But no doubt all three will be back and attacking the Prime Minister better than ever in no 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)

You can’t govern from opposition!

#auspol

As I have previously blogged Tony Abbott will do anything to become Prime Minister.  His policy development strategy can be simplified and taken from his own words “you can’t govern from opposition.” (See below clip)

His position on the climate change debate is, I think, the greatest indicator that he will do anything and say anything to get into the lodge. 

First, Abbott claims climate change is crap.  He then writes in Battlelines that the Liberal party should just pass the ETS for political reasons.  Then, when he sees an opportunity to oust Malcolm Turnbull, he supports a vehement opposition to the ETS.  The Government, under Kevin Rudd, blinked and the ETS was shelved.  Now a Carbon Tax is enemy number one for Tony Abbott.  Except he provided an interview (before becoming Opposition Leader) saying that if a price on carbon was necessary a carbon tax was the way to go. 

So what is he saying now?  Is he back to “climate change is crap”?  This appears to be one logical explanation.   The only other one I can come up with is that this is the best way for him to get to the lodge.  After all that is what life’s all about, isn’t it?

 

Here is the clip where Tony Abbott supports a carbon tax.

Who do you think listens to 4BC radio?

#auspol #4bc

Looking at their straw poll it would seem not to be ALP voters!

An excellent piece on sexual discrimination

#auspol

At this time, when gay marriage is back on the agenda, I thought it relevant to spread a good article written by the Honourable Justice Michael Kirby AM on the use of religion to defend discrimination against homosexuals.  Definitely worth a read.  At least for one side of the argument.

How does a tax battle climate change?

#auspol

Firstly, I am no scientist.  I am no economist.  I believe the majority of climate scientists agree in anthropogenic climate change.  This is purely my take on the rectification of climate change.

My problem with the carbon tax (apart from the lie / not  a lie argument) is that I don't see how this type of tax will reduce carbon emissions or have any effect on climate change.  To place a tax on how much carbon is released in the air has no bearing on the amount of carbon being released.  It simply charges an amount of money.  There is no cap on emissions. 

Surely, there needs to be a cap on the amount of emissions released and a way of forcing polluters to control and reduce the amount of emissions they produce.  Wasn't this the idea of the ETS? 

I haven’t seen any any better way of reducing emissions than an ETS.  We really need a sensible debate in the open air without politics coming into it.  But I think that is a fanciful idea!

Please give me your feedback on this debate and tell me if I have it way off on the carbon tax.

Tony Abbott’s dismissal of gay marriage

#ausvotes #qanda

On Monday 16 August 2010 Opposition leader Tony Abbott appeared on the ABC’s program Q & A.  He was asked a very heartfelt and personal question from a Mr Geoff Thomas, Vietnam veteran, plumbing contractor and father of a gay son.  (See full video below)

He asked:

Thank you. I am a Vietnam veteran, I have been a plumbing contractor for 37 years and I support, with a social conscience, the Liberal philosophy. I have a gay son. When I was confronted with that situation in a very short amount of time and with due consideration I accepted his position and I overcame my ignorance and my fear of gays and the idea of gay marriage. When will you, Mr Abbott, take up the same - when will you, sir, overcome your fear and ignorance of gay people and give them the dignity and respect that you'd happily give to all other Australians?

Mr Abbott’s response was the usual political spin of – I respect gay people but I just don’t want to let them get married.  What struck me as odd, (and I may be overreacting) was his choice of language when responding.  He said the following line:

… I would always try to find it in my heart to give dignity and respect to people, regardless of their circumstances, regardless of their opinions, so that is absolutely my position but I think that there are lots of terrific gay relationships, lots of terrific commitments between gay partners, but I just don't think that marriage is the right term to put on it.

I found this comment odd.  Why does he need to try to find it in his heart.  Is it because he is still confronted by gay people.  Like I said I may be overreacting to this turn of phrase but it struck me immediately when he said it. 

My final point of disgust with Mr Abbott’s answer to this question was the part in the middle of his answer where he almost mocks gay people by grabbing the show’s host, Tony Jones’ hand and saying that he knows gay men.  Although the crowd had a bit of a laugh it struck me as distasteful that the alternative Prime Minister would make a subtle joke about gay men in this way. 

And don’t take this as a pure rant on the Coalition.  I have previously expressed my disappointment with the ALP in this issue.  See my previous blog post here.

I’ll give him some credit for trying to admit his failings on the subject by saying:

[Sometimes] our initial reactions to some of these things can be far from perfect and I'm sure that at different times I have reacted a bit poorly at first to things but I hope I would always find it in my heart to treat people the way everyone should be treated, with dignity and respect and I think that people who know me well who are gay would be only too happy to testify to that.

But I think the quote of the night for me was this, by Geoff Thomas when asked if Tony Abbott had answered his question satisfactorily:

Well, we all talk about it, don't we, but we don't get there. If I'm in a loving relationship, it's fundamental to me that I want to marry that person. I mean, I'm sure I listened to Graham Richardson on this program a few weeks ago and Penny Wong and I thought their comments were insulting. Graham Richardson said that gay people have to wait. They shouldn't have to wait. You're in the government; you should do something about it now. These are decent people who just want to lead decent lives like everybody else. That's it.

Definitely, could not have said it any better myself!

(Video of the Q&A on gay marriage via Q & A.)

 

See here for an article where Geoff Thomas is interviewed after the show.  He is a very good man!

Media Watch smacks 4BC’s Michael Smith for telling porkies on asylum seekers

For many months, perhaps years, I have wanted someone to take apart the ridiculous statements that the 4BC Drive Program (or as I have dubbed his show - LNP Radio) announcer, Michael Smith has been making on well…. any topic really. 

Media watch this week took him to task on asylum seekers.  Good on you Media Watch.  You know you’re doing a good job when the people your scrutinize attack you and doesn’t answer the question. 

The political ad too risqué for YouTube

#ausvotes

This ad received widespread criticism when it was released and it was removed from YouTube.  The creators, the ACTU said that Liberal supporters were responsible for its demise.  It has now made its way back on YouTube. 

I personally don't think it is worth the attention. I think it is just plain stupid and not very clever.

I think that Gruen Nation has a lot to answer for.  Making me expect quality political advertising.

 

The Australian Sex Party’s new ad

#ausvotes

I thought this was a spoof ad in the same vein as the GetUp! advertisements on Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.  But apparently this is a legitimate ad.  Very amusing, if not a little disturbing!

 

 

Via @peterjblack at Election Blackout

Economics: Some very basic basics

#ausvotes

I am not a student of economics.  At times I struggle to understand all the implications of the Macro and Micro Economic situations of my household budget let alone Australia and the World.  But last week I read an article on Peter Black’s Election Blackout Blog written by Tom Gole an Economics student from UQ now studying his PhD at Harvard University.  This article put into perspective why we don’t need to be worried about Debt (at least at Australia’s current levels).  Here are some of the pertinent points. 

… it seems that a lot of the confusion about the level of federal government debt stems from the natural intuition of comparing a nation to a household. If it makes sense for me or my family to avoid taking on too much debt, surely a country shouldn’t either.   …

The reasoning behind households not holding too much debt is based on a lifecycle pattern: people should borrow when they are young to finance purchases they don’t have enough savings for (houses etc), then as their wages grow as they get older they pay off those loans, and then accumulate an asset base to live off once they stop working.

There is no analogous lifecycle for a country: Australia, as a nation, will never collectively stop working, so we will never need an asset base to live off. And the point goes further: Australia’s earnings, our GDP, will continue to grow, with the occasional up and down, for the foreseeable future.    …

It’s worth noting that the other reason people don’t want too much debt is so they have something to fall back on if they lose their job or get sick. In one sense, the household analogy is appropriate here – if you hit bad luck, you should use up some of your savings or go into debt until you get out of the bad times, and the government should do the same thing in a recession.     …

And there’s a further catch: most people cut back their spending in bad times, because their income has fallen and they don’t know how long it will be until they get back on their feet. On the other hand, if the government cuts its spending in a recession, it usually makes the economy take even longer to recover. The instinctive urge to tighten the belt during bad times is appropriate for a household, but if a government does the same then things only get worse.

After reading this I wondered why I hadn’t heard such an easy concept like this before.  I was then gobsmacked to hear Julia Gillard make the analogy to Laurie Oakes of the Weekend Today program:

JG: Look, I understand people worry about debt, I worry about debt too Laurie. I also understand that as we emerge from the global financial crisis, our debt position as a nation is like someone earning a hundred-thousand dollars a year, having a $6,000 loan.

When Tony Abbott is out spruiking his debt and deficit lies, why are we not hearing the fight back put in such simple terms.  I think a lot of people would be scared by the debt and deficit scare campaign and by hearing Joe Hockey talk of our borrowing Billions of dollars. 

But when the Government (and Opposition) claim they will be in surplus inside 3 years and thus be able to begin paying off our $6000 (equivalent) loan, I tend not to worry so much and I am thankful the Government didn't tighten their belts and see us enter recession! 

Family First: Intolerance, bigotry and bile

Say what you will of the major parties, but I would sooner vote informally than vote for Family First.  And I really cherish and value my vote. 

This week Family First Senate Candidate Wendy Francis made disparaging remarks likening same sex couples to child abuse.  She has since removed the comments from her Twitter page.  She (or as she now says her staff) wrote:

"Legitimising gay marriage is like legalising child abuse"

She has since apologised: (via: ninemsn) 

"I take responsibility for what was sent from my office and I acknowledge that the words used caused hurt and anguish for many people," she said in the statement.

"For this I sincerely and unreservedly apologise," she said.

But she went on to say she believed children were better off being raised by a mother and a father.

"I do not believe that upholding marriage or preventing children being raised in homosexual families is discrimination," she said.

"We can't govern Australia by legislation based on pleasing each group who wants things their way."

"My staff in Brisbane worded a media release on this issue. When I received the statement I felt that the language used was inappropriate and so I changed the wording.

"However due to my schedule these changes were accidentally not relayed to my Brisbane office and the wording from this incorrect release was transferred to Twitter."

Notice how she actually only apologises for the hurt her comment may have caused.  She does not distance herself from the comment or more particularly the sentiment behind it.  This is her way of saying don’t hold it against me, but this is how I feel.  Or at least this is how the people running Family First feel. 

And in her statement of "clarification" she comments that:

I hold no personal animosity against homosexuals.  The way people choose to conduct their lives is up to them and I will defend the right of every Australian to live according to their personal beliefs as long as their choices do not infringe upon the rights and choices of other Australians or the nation as a whole.

What does that mean.  Is she saying that homosexuality is a choice?  I hope not. 

But in her final insult to the gay community she says:

I reach out to those within the homosexual community and ask them to understand the thoughts and feelings of the many Australians that believe as I do. Respect and understanding goes both ways, and as we vigorously debate the issues it is important that none of us lose sight of the fact that we are all people of great value. Every Australian has a right to personal safety, respect and dignity and I extend the hand of friendship to those who share opposing views across this emotive subject.

Family First’s message to the gay community is:

Please respect us and our views even if we can’t respect you. 

Do you feel the loving embrace of Family First? 

 

UPDATE:

In another development on how right wing Family First are:

Family First last night disendorsed the city-based accountant after revelations he signed a “secret affidavit” denouncing many of the party’s conservative values.

In the document Mr Barrow outlined support for same-sex marriage, mooted supporting safe drug injecting rooms, called for drug possession to be decriminalised and argued against religion being taught in schools.

He also wants same-sex couples to be allowed to adopt children and access IVF treatment and says abortion should be a woman’s choice.

(via Knox Leader Newspaper)

 

This is Family First.  Vote for them at your peril!

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’