Nick Efstathiadis

By Mungo MacCallum Tuesday 8 September 2015

Tony Abbott Photo: The only certainty with this Government is that Tony Abbott will keep on punching to the end. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

After two years in Government, Tony Abbott is still more defined by what he has gotten rid of and how he has fought Labor than anything he has created or achieved. And we can expect this trend to continue, writes Mungo MacCallum.

So here we are at another Abbott anniversary - two years gone, one to go. And as we start the run up to the final 12 months, it is time to take stock: just what have we got for it and what can we expect? Or, more brutally, just what is the point of the Abbott Government?

This is a question I asked many years ago while interviewing the long-serving and successful NSW premier, Neville Wran. Wran, a wealthy and celebrated QC, had taken over the Labor leadership of the lacklustre Pat Hills and had become a political star: Wran was The Man.

But once elected, he didn't actually seem to do very much. When I asked him to enumerate the highlights, he mentioned one of the big ones was the encouragement of outdoor dining in cafes.

It didn't seem a lot: so what was it that made him go through the sacrifices - financial and personal, the awful hours, the constant frustrations, of climbing the greasy totem pole of state politics? What was his driving force? Wran replied in measured and, in those days, still mellifluous tones: "To keep the other bastards out."

And so it is with Tony Abbott: he is defined not by his vision, but by his opponents. When he says, as he often does these days, it is not about him, he is quite correct; but he is dead wrong when he adds that it is really about jobs, growth and national security. These are not an end in themselves, but a means to wedge, denigrate and ultimately (he hopes) destroy Bill Shorten and the ALP.

Abbott says he is good at fighting Labor, and he is: his time as opposition leader was Olympic standard as a model on how to bring down a vulnerable government. But fighting Labor is, it has now appeared, the only thing he is good at; when it came to the more complex task of building a replacement, there has been nothing to offer.

Last weekend even his friend Greg Sheridan admitted in The Australian that the Government was going around in circles.

Sheridan, as with the other News Corp barrackers for Abbott and the Libs, were notably reticent about boosting the achievements of the last two years. Instead, those who've tried have had to fall back almost entirely on negatives. Abbott ended the carbon tax and the mining tax, he stopped the boats. They did not have much to say about the other magic slogan: fixing the debt and deficit.

There are, of course, some positives - mainly the free trade agreements, although in the case of China that too has been deployed more as a weapon against Shorten than as a benefit in its own right. And not content with getting rid of some of things Labor has done, Abbott has now resorted to claiming credit for those that it didn't.

Last week he boasted proudly that he had scrapped the bank deposit tax - the insurance guarantee that the previous government had proposed to ensure the safety of assets in the event of a collapse among one or more of the big institutions. This remained on the books for the most recent budget, propping up the bottom line to the extent of $500 million, but had never been legislated. Now it is gone - another swingeing blow against Labor's financial waste and extravagance. Another straw man demolished instead of actually of doing anything.

This has, of course, been the pattern: Labor's suggestion of looking at any budget measures - superannuation, capital gains tax, negative gearing - have been dismissed, not because they are not worth considering, but simply because they are Labor ideas, and therefore to be summarily rejected. In their place we are repeatedly promised "conversations" - about tax, federation, the cost of living, online gambling - you name it, it is in on the table. Just how, or with whom, these cosy chats are to be convened is unclear - in fact, they are no more than distractions from the principal agenda. Only when and if Labor raises an objection will they come into force - implacable, irresistible force.

As for action - well, Abbott says he will take any proposals for the next election - or perhaps the one after that. But there will of course be income tax cuts - that's a firm promise. Well, as firm as the circumstances allow. And this is the big problem; after two years of drift and dithering Abbott and his mates have left the Australian economy in a far worse position than when they found it.

It is not all their fault; the Senate has resisted what were generally seen to be unfair and precipitate ambushes, and the international situation has obviously deteriorated. But the same could apply to Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan and they managed triumphantly. Now we are faced with almost unrelieved gloom, economic indicators dropping towards still uncharted depths.

The June quarter growth figure of a derisory 0.2 per cent was, Hockey noted, a bit below expectations (it was just half what was predicted) but look on the bright side - it was better than Canada, and, er, Brazil. But not as good as Greece, long held up as the basket case of bad management. And, it turned out, only remaining in the black at all because of a surge of government spending, which Hockey promptly disavowed: "I can promise you it wasn't planned this way," insisted our accidental Treasurer.

Hockey continues to be determinedly optimistic, as does his indefatigable Finance Minister Mathias Cormann - it is their job. But it is hard to see much, if anything, to enthuse about. The 2015 budget has disappeared without a trace; the much vaunted stimulus to small business has now been buried like a belch in the barrage of bad news. And that appears to be that; there is nothing to look forward to until the next election, when all will be revealed - or at least promised, and we all know how much we can rely on that.

The best that can be said is that there is only about 12 months, or probably less, to go; but that does not provide much comfort either. The only certainty is that Abbott will keep on punching to the end. We can only hope that he knocks himself out in the process.

Mungo MacCallum is a political journalist and commentator.

Two years in, what's the point of the Abbott Government? - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

| |
Nick Efstathiadis

By political reporter Anna Henderson and political editor Chris Uhlmann Tuesday 8 September 2015

Refugees flee Islamic State's reign of terror Photo: Millions of Syrian refugees have fled areas controlled by Islamic State militants, fearing the group's reign of terror. (Reuters: Murad Sezer, file photo)

Related Story: Europe 'rediscovers its humanity' through migrant crisis, UNHCR says

Related Story: Australia should increase assistance to Syrian refugees: UN

Related Story: Australia could accept more than 10,000 Syrian refugees: Baird

Related Story: Liberal MP calls on Government to accept up to 50,000 Syrians

Map: Australia

The Abbott Government wants to restrict any intake of Syrian refugees to minorities which are largely Christian, as passions run high in the Coalition over the way Australia should handle the crisis in Syria.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is under increasing pressure to increase this year's humanitarian intake of 13,750 people, but has put off a decision while Australia consults with the United Nations about the best approach.

Labor is pushing for an additional intake of 10,000 people, while the Greens want double that number.

Beyond the debate over numbers there is an argument over what kind of refugees should be accepted.

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.

Government ministers, like Malcolm Turnbull, have argued for accepting more Syrian Christians, and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has nominated minorities like the Yazidis.

One backbencher told the ABC the message being sent to the Prime Minister by some in the Coalition was clear: "No more Muslim men".

Mr Turnbull said yesterday he was very concerned about the plight of Christian communities in Syria.

"They are a minority, they survived in Syria, they've been there for thousands of years, literally since the time of Christ," he said.

"But in an increasingly sectarian Middle East, you have to ask whether the, the gaps, the spaces that they were able to live and survive in will any longer be available."

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.

Video: Julie Bishop discusses Syria asylum seeker crisis (ABC News)

Senate Leader Eric Abetz has also highlighted the case for Christians to be prioritised.

"It should be on the basis of need and given the Christians are the most persecuted group in the world, and especially in the Middle East, I think it stands to reason that they would be pretty high up on the priority list for resettlement."

Ms Bishop told AM the Government was looking at the best way to offer both temporary and permanent protection options for those fleeing the crisis.

"I think that Christian minorities are being persecuted in Syria and even if the conflict were over they would still be persecuted," she said.

"So I believe there will be a focus on ensuring we can get access to those persecuted ethnic and religious minorities who will have no home to return to even when the conflict is over.

"That includes Maronites, it includes Yazidis, there are Druze, there are a whole range of ethnic and religious minorities that make up the populations in both Syria and Iraq."

Fears focus on religion will increase persecution

Labor has joined refugee groups in warning the Government's emphasis on helping Christian refugees is "dangerous".

"Being a victim of war doesn't know a particular religion," Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said.

"If you're a woman facing terrible crimes to be committed against you, if you're a child, a little child, potentially drowning at sea, I'm not interested in their religion, I'm interested in their safety."


Drum: This is about humanity, not religion

The fact the Government would pause in light of such a visceral tragedy to suggest Australia should prioritise Christian refugees from Syria speaks volumes, writes Sarah Malik.

Refugee Council chief executive Paul Power said it is "natural" to expect a large number of refugees will be Christian, but he said the focus on the group is likely to do damage.

"I'm sure one of the consequences is that extremists within Syria and other parts of the Middle East will use this as a weapon against Syrian Christians," Mr Power said.

"They would use it as an argument to push the view that the west cares about Christians and does not care about Muslims and other religious minorities."

In this morning's party room meeting, Coalition MPs suggested the Government fast-track a planned increase in the number of refugees it accepts.

MPs, including Tasmanian Brett Whiteley, told the party room community sentiment around the Syrian crisis had "changed" and the public wanted the Abbott Government to act.

The ABC understands some MPs raised the prospect of the Government bringing forward its plan to increase the refugee intake to 18,750, which according to current policy is not due until 2018.

It is understood Immigration Minister Peter Dutton will brief the national security committee tonight about his meetings in Europe on the issue.

Cabinet will discuss the issue tomorrow morning and there is a suggestion the party room may meet again before an announcement is made.

Speaking from Europe, Mr Dutton said he would hold talks with the United Nations refugee agency and other organisations on how Australia could help.

"There's more to be done and the Australian Government's very keen to have discussions with the UNHCR, with our partners otherwise, to look at what more we can do," he said.

"We'll be focusing our attention particularly on the families who are in the refugee camps along the border of Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey."

'Persecuted minorities' must be the focus: Bernardi

Yesterday in the Senate, Liberal backbencher Cory Bernardi said persecuted minorities must be the focus on Australia's efforts.

"The Christians in the Middle East are among the most persecuted people on Earth," he told the Senate.

"If we can provide safe haven to them, then I say we should do it. And that is what the Prime Minister has said."

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.

Video: Bernardi questions motivations of those trying to enter Europe (ABC News)

Senator Bernardi also questioned the motivation of thousands of those who are trying to enter Europe.

"This seems to me to be becoming an opportunistic cycle which is masking the true humanitarian need that is the responsibility of all Western nations," he said.

"That is the challenge for us — to distinguish between those who are being opportunistic and those are truly in need."

Government backbencher Ewen Jones said Australia had the capacity to take up to 50,000 refugees.

But the calls for ever larger intakes were rebuffed by another Coalition backbencher, Andrew Nikolic.

"We will do this is an evidence-based way," he said.

"We're not going to do it in a way with this rhetoric of trying to out-compassion each other.""

Richard Marles has described Cory Bernardi as an "embarrassment" to the Government and said the comments were "reprehensible" and out of kilter with community sentiment.

From other news sites:

Syrian migrant crisis: Christians to get priority as Abbott faces pressure to take in more refugees - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

| |
Nick Efstathiadis

Lenore Taylor Friday 4 September 2015

The PM’s line from February – ‘good government starts today’ – is a gallows-humour joke inside his administration. Even Coalition MPs are no longer sure what they are trying to achieve

untitled

John Howard and Tony Abbott stand next to a portrait of Robert Menzies. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

Two years in and the Abbott government remains a clamour of battle slogans in search of a policy purpose. The prime minister keeps shaping up for confected daily fights without comprehending that is exactly why he is losing the political “war”.

This is the point in the three-year cycle when a functional government would be finishing the hard grind of doing what it promised at the last election and beginning the task of selling those achievements, and a few new ambitions, at the next one.


Tony Abbott one year on: how the trust was won and lost
Lenore Taylor, political editor

Even when he knew he would win the election, Tony Abbott refused to risk telling voters the truth. Then came the overreach, the backtracking and the deferred decisions. The question now is whether voters will accept untrustworthiness as a given

Read more

Not this administration. The prime minister’s line – after the unsuccessful February leadership spill – that “good government starts today” has become a running gallows-humour joke inside his own administration. Even Coalition MPs are not quite sure what their “good government” is trying to achieve.

Its first two years have been a switchback ride of policy reversals, broken promises, foot-stomping frustrations and ideological overreach, leaving Coalition supporters despairing and voters – according to every published poll – deeply unimpressed. Instead of soothing, negotiating, persuading or explaining, the Abbott government responds to new setbacks with another whiplash of hyperbolic aggression or distraction.

When ministers dutifully recite the talking point that the leak/leadership story/scandal/side issue of the day is a “distraction”, no one knows what we are supposedly being distracted from.

Coalition MPs cling to the John Howard comparison. He had persistently bad polls in his first term and he still won a second, right? But Howard was unpopular in his first term mostly because he actually did the unpopular things he believed in – he cut government spending, he changed industrial relation laws, he forced through the gun buyback and he asked voters to give him a second term so he could introduce a goods and services tax. So when he framed the 1998 election around “economic competence” and growth and jobs (sound familiar?), he could point to actual achievements to demonstrate the “courageous decisions” necessary to achieve it, from his political perspective.

By contrast this government has kept switching its slogans and policy objectives for the economy every time the last script didn’t work out.


untitled1

Malcolm Turnbull says 2014 budget was Abbott government's 'biggest misstep'

Communications minister and man seen as Tony Abbott’s strongest leadership rival says time is over for ‘spin and slogans’

Read more

It began with the call to arms at the last election – the “debt ‘n deficit disaster” that was all Labor’s fault and only a new Coalition government could avoid. But the first Abbott budget didn’t even try to do all that much about it, and ambushed voters with previously unmentioned health, education and welfare changes which the public and the Senate (backed by at least three sets of modelling) rejected as inequitable and unfair.

By the Coalition’s pre-election reasoning (which ignored international forces like global financial crises or changes in commodity prices) the bigger and longer-lasting deficits and higher debt now forecast should be an even bigger emergency than the one it inherited.

So the slogan switched to “have a go” and the shiny, optimistic 2015 budget was all about getting good, honest folk back to work, primarily women – by way of a new childcare package. That was paid for by cuts to family tax benefit and a massive paring back of what had previously been the prime minister’s “signature” policy on paid parental leave. But neither have passed the Senate, so the productivity- boosting childcare plan (which isn’t supposed to start until July 2017 anyway) remains somewhat hypothetical and complicated to talk about.

So now the slogan has switched again, to “jobs and growth”. The government likes to refer to 300,000 jobs “created” during its term, but that hasn’t been enough to stop unemployment rising. Growth has slowed to a crawl.


Budget 2015: Tony Abbott says 'let's talk' about how to pay for childcare policy

The prime minister ‘prepared to talk to Labor and the crossbench’ to find savings not necessarily attached to last budget’s failed family tax benefit cuts

Read more

Which brings us to “lower, simpler, fairer taxes”. Let’s put aside for one second the inconvenient facts that the government introduced a deficit levy and re-indexed petrol excise, both moves I agree with, but not exactly lower taxes.

The “lower, simpler, fairer” tax policy it will present at the next election may or may not include personal income tax cuts funded by an expansion of the GST, depending on which day it is and which member of the government is talking. But even if voters were to forget that the prime minister promised “the GST will not change. Full stop. End of story” when asked if he would propose changes in a second term, any GST expansion would require the agreement of the states and they want the money to pay for the looming (and real) “black hole” in hospitals funding. And any parent who has spent time comforting a sick and distressed child in a seething accident and emergency department is likely to be on the premiers’ side in that argument.

Meanwhile, the government’s plans for higher education policy remain in limbo. It abandoned a promise to match Labor on schools funding so we have no idea what will happen there, and the Medicare co-payment has ostensibly been shelved but the Australian Medical Association says a freeze on rebates achieves exactly the same thing over time, by stealth.

Barack Obama turned up and had the nerve to point out that climate change might have an impact on the Great Barrier Reef

For a while the government was going to “end the age of entitlement” for Australian industry. But then (who’d have guessed) the polls in manufacturing states headed south and it suddenly found another $500m for the car industry as a kind of farewell present, and said the Australian Submarine Corporation was actually good for something other than canoe-building and might just get a look in on the $20bn future submarine contract after all.

Briefly, the G20 was pencilled in as a headline achievement, but Barack Obama turned up and had the nerve to point out that climate change might have an impact on the Great Barrier Reef – who knew? – and most of Australia’s solemn economic pledges in the supposedly growth-turbocharging “Brisbane Action Plan” were subsequently ditched.

The free trade agreements might be chalked up as one actual Abbott government achievement, although the China FTA could still fall foul of the current toxic political environment if Labor overreaches and pushes too far with the union movement’s demands or Abbott finds it impossible to make even small legislative concessions.

And having abolished the carbon price, slashed the renewable energy target, abolished the climate council, tried to abolish – or nobble – the clean energy finance corporation and insisted that wind turbines are “utterly offensive” while “coal is good for humanity”, the government said it would sign up to tougher-than-expected 2030 greenhouse gas reduction targets, but without any credible policy to achieve to them. (It then dusted off unrelated and dated economic modelling to manufacture a case that its mostly unannounced policy would be a cheaper way to reach these targets than Labor’s unannounced policy to reach its unannounced targets. Former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser, now chair of the independent climate change authority, described that particular diversionary exercise as “weird” and “misleading”).


untitled2

Minimal sound and almost no fury: life in the shadow of Australia's wind farm 'hell'

As the political cacophony about ‘noisy, visually awful’ wind turbines reaches fever pitch, Calla Wahlquist visits the Western Australian farmers who host one of the southern hemisphere’s largest wind farms and finds them stubbornly unperturbed

Read more

On national security – a policy area where Labor has offered determined bipartisanship – the government has worked particularly hard to confect disagreement, and has sometimes managed to achieve it most successfully within its own cabinet – for example with the ill-considered and almost certainly unconstitutional surprise first draft of the citizenship laws and the equally ill-thought-through first shot at metadata retention.

On asylum the government has achieved what both major parties promised in 2013 – it has “stopped the boats”. But the human collateral damage is ongoing and has no obvious end – given the lack of resettlement options for those refugees left stranded and suffering on Nauru and Manus Island.

And while the government has been swerving and sliding and prevaricating on the most important areas of policy for the everyday lives of ordinary Australians it has confected “wars” on everything and everyone from Q&A, to conservation organisations to Gillian Triggs, which to anyone outside News Ltd editorial meetings appear to border on the unhinged.

The prime minister used internal processes to shut down any chance that this parliament will achieve marriage equality, was reluctantly forced to retreat on the “right to be a bigot” racial discrimination laws, and shocked his own party with his personal ideological frolic of reintroducing knighthoods and then giving one to Prince Philip.

All these “wars”, of course, have a political purpose – to silence dissent, sideline unwanted advice and distract from critical scrutiny – the same motivations for systematically removing Labor appointments from boards and advisory groups and defunding or sidelining groups that advocate for the poor, the sick, the disabled, the disadvantaged, refugees or the environment.

The government finishes its second year flailing around for a new enemy (it’s Fairfax, no – it’s still the ABC, maybe it’s those sabotaging greenie environmental vandals with the temerity to suggest the environment minister should follow environmental law) and still apparently unaware that its gladiatorial winner-takes-all style is actually adding to its dysfunction and voters’ mistrust.

Well, actually some inside the party understand this all too well but they are not heard – the February leadership spill opened the prime minister’s closed circle of advice a little bit, but not that much. Cabinet is as circumvented as ever – it recently met without a single formal submission and was not consulted before the party room debate on same sex marriage. And it’s leaking more.

This time last year voters had already lost trust in the prime minister, dating back to his first ill-considered budget. Now they are losing respect and the party is once again descending into a self-defeating cycle of instability, suspicions and second guessing of the leadership intentions of Malcolm Turnbull or Scott Morrison or Julie Bishop.

The only glimmer of hope for the Coalition is that voters also appear deeply underwhelmed by Bill Shorten’s Labor.

That’s what Howard was clinging to when interviewed on the ABC’s Insiders program earlier this year about his successor’s troubles, comparing them to his own difficult first term.


Tony Abbott's national security one-upmanship is about winning – at any cost
Lenore Taylor Political editor

The national security ‘debate’ is a response to Isis but it’s also a way for the prime minister to back Bill Shorten into the untenable position of being ‘weak on terror’

Read more

“One of the reasons we came back was that deep down, people didn’t think Kim Beazley – terrific bloke – stood for anything.

“[There] is a lot of parallels now; I don’t think Bill Shorten stands for anything. One thing that will increasingly being put in the spotlight is the policy acuity of the Labor party.”

But that logic fails if the Coalition incumbent doesn’t stand for anything either.

As the newly reinstated Kevin Rudd discovered in 2013, a government that goes to an election with nothing much to offer except a reminder of how much people dislike the other guy might find that the electorate decides the other guy is a risk worth taking.

Tony Abbott's first two years: broken promises and confected 'wars' leave voters deeply unimpressed | Lenore Taylor | Australia news | The Guardian

| |
Nick Efstathiadis

By ABC's Barrie Cassidy Friday 4 September 2015

Tony Abbott and Andrew Hastie on the Canning by-election campaign Photo: Never before has a single electorate held the fate of a serving prime minister in its hands. (ABC News: Andrew O'Connor)

Never has a by-election been framed so unambiguously around a prime minister - lose Canning and you're gone. It will be a nervous time and there is no precedent for this, writes Barrie Cassidy.

Forget all this talk of precedents around the critical Canning by-election in Western Australia. There are none.

Never before has a single electorate held the fate of a serving prime minister in its hands.

By-elections like Bass in Tasmania have spelled the beginning of the end of governments; and Aston in Victoria marked the turning point for a government previously in trouble.

But neither, and none before or since, have been framed so unambiguously around the prime minister. Lose and you're gone. And that is not just accepted wisdom among most commentators; it's agreed unofficially and spoken of privately by some senior Liberals who supported Tony Abbott in the February leadership spill.

And those same people are laying down markers along the way. A swing limited to about 8 per cent would be seen as a relief. Double figures would indicate a very tough federal election and might even lead to a December party room showdown. And a loss (11.8 per cent) or worse, would be disastrous. Some of those who stuck with Abbott in February on the basis that he deserved more time had this period in mind for a review.

They argued privately at the time that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer should be allowed to bring down another budget, and then a few months would need to go by before its impact, both politically and economically, could be judged.

Abbott though has hit two major hurdles in the polls this year - Prince Phillip and Bronwyn Bishop. The controversy around those two individuals caused the Government to slide beyond the typical four-point deficit. Abbott eventually recovered from the knighthood debacle to settle back around 48 per cent two-party preferred.

But he hasn't yet been able to do that since "chopper gate". And that's because the troubles keep on coming. First the Dyson Heydon issue, then the bungled Border Force operation, and all the while constant and ill-disciplined chatter. Comments by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton this week served to underline the depth of the internal problems. If Abbott cannot regain some of that lost ground in national polls before Canning, and that seat falls to Labor, judgments will be harsh and swift.

It will be a nervous time. The Coalition has a good candidate going for it, but not much else.

At the last election, Labor, after a tumultuous time in office, was on the nose, and nowhere more so than in Western Australia.

The mood was dark, even though the economy was still booming and the steam hadn't yet gone out of state projects.

Now the economy has stalled and governments - not political parties - are feeling the pressure. The previously popular state government led by Colin Barnett, for example, is now - according to Newspoll - trailing Labor after having won the last election with 57 per cent of the two party vote.

The late Don Randall with his anti-Canberra pitch was a popular local member, so popular that Labor virtually ran dead at the last election.

Add all that to the average federal by-election swing of 5-6 per cent and you can see why the polls suggest it will be close.

Of course it's a test for Bill Shorten as well. He will need to do much better than the average to avoid criticism.

But it's not his job on the line. And it's not Joe Hockey's either. Not on his own. The spin out of Coalition ranks this week suggested that in the event of a loss, it might save Abbott if he throws Hockey overboard. The stronger view seems to be that the fate of the two is tied together.

Depending on the result, the Canning by-election might signal the beginning of a comeback for Abbott and his Government - just as Aston did for John Howard. It might mean the end of his leadership. Or it might mean nothing at all. The figures on the night will determine that. And this time if a leader falls it won't be in the dead of night leaving an electorate stunned. It will have a basis in fact, the result of a real poll.

And no precedent.

Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC program Insiders. He writes a weekly column for The Drum.

Abbott's future to be decided in Canning - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

| |