Paul Daley theguardian.com, Tuesday 29 October 2013

Tony Abbott has insisted that the phrase 'Known unto God' remain on the tomb at the Australian War Memorial – and though this is a secular shrine, he's right

New Zealand prime minister John Key (left) and Australian prime minister Tony Abbott lay a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

As an orator, in parliament and on the stump, Paul Keating was excellent when fuelled with the fierce partisanship that drove his politics.

Labor diehards still pore over the words of that infamous 1994 “fireworks” speech in which he evoked John Hewson as the fizzer skyrocket; John Howard as the flower pot that “promised a dazzling performance” but falls away to nothing, and Bronwyn Bishop as “the Catherine wheel ... they’d take off, spreadeagle the kids, burn the dog, run up a tree and then fizzle out going round in circles”.

And many Liberals still hate him for it.

Paradoxically, Keating was best when he pitched beyond the ears of the True Believers and spoke to the nation.

And so he delivered what are widely regarded to be the two finest speeches of his prime ministership: at Redfern in 1992, to acknowledge the grotesque injustice to Aborigines at the heart of Australian sovereignty, and on Remembrance Day 1993, to dedicate the tomb of the Australian Unknown Soldier at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.

Both speeches tapped sleeping national sentiments (of pride, of sorrow, of profound loss, of anger, guilt and burning injustice) about two very different stories critical to the definition of Australian nationhood. That both speeches are equally reprised two decades later by Keating’s legion of ideological foes – not least Tony Abbott – and his allies alike, speaks profoundly of the emotional insights he drew upon.

It seems somewhat ironic, then, that a recent plan to replace the traditional Rudyard Kipling epithet “Known unto God” on the tomb of the unknown soldier with words from Keating’s 1993 Remembrance Day oration, has earned the speech the controversy for which it was strikingly devoid at delivery.

So much that, according to a report in the Australian, Tony Abbott personally intervened to stop “Known unto God” being replaced with the first line from Keating’s 1993 speech – “We do not know this Australian’s name and we never will.”

Another inscription near the tomb – “He symbolises all Australians who’ve died in war” – may yet be replaced with Keating’s 1993 line – “He is all of them. And he is one of us." This, it seems, is a compromise, after the memorial council’s reversal, at Abbott’s behest to memorial director Brendan Nelson, of the decision to remove and replace “Known unto God”.

Since it opened in 1941, the Australian War Memorial has become the country’s foremost secular shrine. So it may seem unusual that Abbott – mirroring the views of many others – should be exercised to intervene in the name of God.

But “Known unto God” is the epithet that marks the graves of more than 200,000 world war one Commonwealth soldiers – including many thousands of Australians – who were so disfigured at death that they could not be identified.

When you walk amid the gravestones that punctuate the European western front, for example, where some 20,000 Australians were never found or could not be identified, the words of Kipling – whose 18-year-old son was killed in the Battle of Loos – carry a profound, deeply moving resonance. Such resonance translates with historic and geographic symmetry, linking the lost soldier in Canberra to the hordes of our unidentifiable dead on the old battlefields.

To the non-religious, the words might well say “Known unto him” – meaning, only to the soldier himself. But if they did, there would be just as little justification to remove them as there is “Known unto God”.

Nelson reportedly says it was his idea to have Keating’s words displayed in the Hall of Memory, where the soldier is entombed. He said the memorial council then decided to place the words on the actual tomb.

Regardless, he will now be more mindful of the cultural/political intensity of remembrance and the arbitrary taboos therein.

It is hard to think of a genuinely compelling reason for the council’s initial actions, especially when Nelson confirms that a plaque of the full text of the Keating speech will be fixed outside the hall (it was originally intended for inside – why not in the first place?).

Politics and commemoration are old but uneasy bedfellows. Politicians of all persuasions like to harness public sentiments surrounding loss, battlefield “sacrifice” and their purported reflection on national character. It is left to the historians, artists, journalists and writers to dissent and challenge – which will happen, with increasing intensity, as the centenary of world war one nears.

Plenty of questions will, for example, be asked about how the commemoration will take shape at the memorial (which is spending more than $30m to upgrade its first war galleries).

But revisiting the words on the tomb of the unknown soldier seems like an unnecessary digression that won’t service the remembrance of our dead under headstones “Known unto God”.

The Unknown Soldier, Paul Keating and the politics of remembrance | Paul Daley | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Australian Associated Press

theguardian.com, Tuesday 29 October 2013

Icac alleges the former MP had a personal interest in avoiding tenders on prime government real estate in Circular Quay

Former Labor minister Eddie Obeid also faces claims that he influenced public officials to allow generous water licences for a coal-rich Hunter valley property owned by his family. Photograph: Paul Miller/AAP

Eddie Obeid was known in the halls of NSW parliament as a fixer but when "stuff hit the fan" in a family business, his brother-in-law says it never crossed his mind to ask the then MP for help.

Obeid is accused of lobbying state ministers Carl Scully, Michael Costa, Eric Roozendaal and Joe Tripodi to have leases on prime government-owned real estate – home to two Obeid family-owned restaurants – renewed without going to tender.

It is alleged the one-time Labor powerbroker never disclosed his personal connection to the Sorrentino restaurant and Quay Eatery at Sydney's Circular Quay.

The allegations were aired on Monday, the first day of another NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (Icac) inquiry into Obeid, who has already been declared corrupt by the watchdog in relation to separate matters.

Under questioning from counsel assisting the commission, Ian Temby QC, the ex-MP's brother-in-law, John Abood, agreed that while he owned Circular Quay Restaurants Pty Ltd (CQPL) on paper the major owner was really an Obeid family trust. CQPL, in turn, owned the two restaurants.

The inquiry has heard Abood was given the job of managing the eateries because he was struggling to find work.

He said he spoke to "the boys" – Eddie Obeid's sons – and they got together $2.4m to buy Sorrentino, Quay Eatery and a nearby cafe.

"I was fronting the businesses, not a front for the Obeids – there's a difference, sir," Abood said.

He also denied that Obeid was called in to help when NSW Maritime, the landowner, moved to seek expressions of interest from potential new lessees without giving existing retailers preference.

"Going to market in this way has the obvious advantage of ensuring that public assets provide a good return to the public purse," Temby said in his opening address.

Ultimately, NSW Maritime altered its draft commercial lease policy to allow for direct negotiations with existing tenants and new leases were indeed granted to CQPL in 2009.

"When, if you want to say – excuse me commissioner – that stuff hit the fan, we had to react to that," Abood testified. "I never even contemplated talking to Eddie about it and I never did, sir."

The three-week inquiry is part of three fresh investigations by the corruption watchdog codenamed Cyrus, Cabot and Meeka.

Icac will also examine claims that Eddie Obeid influenced public officials to allow generous water licences for a coal-rich Hunter Valley property owned by his family.

It's also been alleged that Obeid hand-delivered to then Treasurer Michael Costa a letter requesting a meeting with a director of Direct Health Solutions, without revealing that his family and long-time associate Rocco Triulcio had a combined $450,000 investment in the company.

Temby has foreshadowed that along with Obeid, prominent bureaucrats Steve Dunn – who recently headed up the O'Farrell government's controversial Game Council review – and Mark Duffy could face corruption allegations. Dunn is expected to testify at the inquiry.

Obeid has denied any wrongdoing but promised to co-operate.

"No one is ever happy with having to answer continuous allegations but as long as they have hearings, I'll keep turning up," he told the Seven Network. "I'm not corrupt, and time will tell."

He is expected to give evidence next week.

The inquiry continues before assistant commissioner Anthony Whealy QC.

Obeid inquiry: brother-in-law denies seeking help with restaurant leases | World news | theguardian.com

By chief political correspondent Emma Griffiths

Related Story: Australian Immigration Minister talks tough to refugees

Related Story: Refugee looks back on seeking asylum and detention in Nauru

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has declared that the Government has succeeded in closing the "floodgates" to asylum seeker arrivals.

Mr Abbott says the number of people arriving on boats has plunged to just 10 per cent of the number under the previous Labor government.

"Under the former government in July, arrivals were at the rate of 50,000 a year," he told a press conference in Melbourne.

"The trickle had become a flow; had become a flood.

"Well, I'm pleased to say that the floodgates are closed, the boats are stopping."

Mr Abbott said there was "still a long way to go" but he was confident the boats "will be stopped".

Asylum seeker arrivals

Keep up to date with the number of asylum seekers arriving under the Operation Sovereign Borders regime.

 

According to official numbers released at weekly briefings, 10 boats have arrived, carrying 544 asylum seekers, since the government's Operation Sovereign Borders came into effect in September.

There has been a marked fall in boat arrivals in recent weeks, but Labor is also claiming some of the credit lies with its offshore settlement policy, announced just weeks before the election.

The Government has also begun high-level talks with the Iranian government to return asylum seekers whose refugee claims have been rejected by Australia.

Iran currently refuses to accept involuntary returns but the government is negotiating to change that.

"I'm not going to comment on the details of discussions and which particular country we're talking about on which particular issue," Mr Abbott said.

"But you'll understand that we are talking to everyone that we need to talk to in order to ensure that the message goes out to the people smugglers and their customers that the game is up."

Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop raised the issue with her Iranian counterpart in New York last month and plans to discuss it again in official talks tomorrow in Perth at the Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation meeting.

The number of Iranian nationals arriving by boat has doubled, with more than 5,000 making the journey in the past year.

Earlier this year, former foreign affairs minister Bob Carr said the majority were "economic migrants".

Tony Abbott declares Government has 'closed floodgates' on asylum seeker arrivals - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By political correspondent Simon Cullen

Photo: Malcolm Turnbull has defended the update, saying the old maps were misleading. (AAP: Dan Himbrechts, file photo)

Related Story: Government moves to show more realistic NBN rollout

The National Broadband Network (NBN) has updated its rollout maps, removing hundreds of thousands of premises that were scheduled to be connected to fibre optic cable.

Labor has described those homes and businesses as the first victims of the new Government's broadband policy.

But the NBN Co's new executive chairman, Ziggy Switkowski, says the new maps are designed to improve transparency around the multi-billion-dollar project.

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull says the old maps were misleading because they listed areas as being "under construction" even though they were only at the planning stage.

"People in those homes will be advised when the NBN is likely to be - or planned to be - commenced in their neighbourhood," he said.

NBN rollout map

Find out if the NBN is coming to your place.

 

"What we're doing is spelling out the facts about the NBN's performance, instead of trying to create false impressions.

"Under the Labor regime, they were basically being misled.

"The Labor fog and spin about the NBN has been brought to an end."

Labor's former communications spokesman Stephen Conroy has told Sky News the latest data shows there has been a drop-off in the number of homes connected to the NBN during the past month.

He says that will have flow-on effects.

"Malcolm Turnbull has stalled the NBN rollout," he said.

"And what that's going to mean is later this week you're going to start to see some of the contractors, the workers who've been rolling this out, are going to be laid off."

Turnbull 'comfortable' with NBN ban on Huawei

Meanwhile, Mr Turnbull says he is comfortable with the decision to exclude Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei from the NBN.

Labor banned the company from tendering for work on the project due to security concerns, and Mr Turnbull had previously promised to review the ban.

"We'll review it in light of the full security briefing that is only available to government," he said in June.

Earlier this week, Attorney-General George Brandis said he had decided to maintain the ban after receiving his own intelligence briefings.

Mr Turnbull says the Government's position on the issue is clear.

"The Government's position is that there is no change to the policy in respect of the participation of Huawei," he said.

"And of course I support and, if you like, am comfortable with every policy of the Government."

Updated NBN rollout maps show thousands of homes removed from construction schedule - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Paul Farrell theguardian.com, Monday 28 October 2013

Thanks to cost cutting measures, two of the most loathed bureaucracies in Australia could merge – and drive users of their services to a state of apoplexy

Why are we waiting? A queue of people. Photograph: Monalyn Gracia/Corbis

There will be riots this summer. They won’t happen because of austerity measures, racism or workers rights. They won’t even be because of football.

They will be because of the post office and Centrelink.

Treasurer Joe Hockey’s announcement that Centrelink and Australia Post’s shopfront services could be combined as part of his cost saving measures will see one of the greatest concentrations of human rage ever. Two of the most loathed bureaucracies in the country could soon be joined in the un-holiest of unions.

The main problem with both these organisations are the queues. Hell isn’t other people. Hell is other people standing next to you in a queue. By bringing together two institutions notorious for their abilities to make people wait for inordinate amounts of time, Hockey will create a super-queue that would make even the most Zen-like crumble.

People hate queues. There’s always that one person who talks just a little too loudly about their personal life. Then there’s the neck-breather who can’t seem to grasp the notion of personal space. They’re always standing just a little too close to you.

And then there’s the person venting their frustration with only the most colourful of expletives, alternatively directed at “the system”, at the employees and, on occasion and for no particular reason, at customers joining the queue.

A personal favourite of mine is the idle chatterer. You’ve never met them, have little interest in them, and yet once you’ve made eye contact with them they decide to tell you their entire life story as you slowly make your way to the front of the desk.

Some even bring their pets in with them. As a general rule nobody wants a Doberman urinating on their leg, but that adage is never more true when you’re standing in a long line.

Got those images in your head? Right, now imagine two of all of these people in the same space. There could be no better description of a hell-mouth.

The particular types of services these organisations deliver are often difficult enough to navigate on their own. As a struggling student I’ve spent many days lining up at Centrelink to resolve issues with my support payments. Once you reach the building, you’re always in for a difficult time, and it’s little wonder that Centrelink is consistently one of the most complained about government agencies in Australia. Here’s a typical exchange:

Centrelink customer service officer [chipper]: “Oh sorry sir, you’ve provided the correct M81 forms but it looks like you haven’t brought a CR8 with you.”

Customer [groaning]: “Do I really need the CR8? I don’t remember seeing it marked anywhere.”

Centrelink customer service officer [even more chipper]: “Yes, sorry sir. It was clearly marked on the other M4 form that you needed to refer to rule 12.4C which directs you to guideline 18B that clearly states you need to bring a CR8 with you. Without it we cannot process your claim.”

Customer [hopefully]: “How silly of me. I can’t imagine why I would have missed that. Is there any chance you can start processing my claim now and I can come back later with the form?”

Centrelink customer service officer [barbarically cheerful]: “Sorry sir but we need all the forms to process your payment. I’m going to have to suspend your payment today until you return with the form.”

At this point it is usually just before the office closes, and you have to go home and come back the next day.

Imagine this scene combined with the post office and the inevitable culture clash. The last I want to do when I’m lining up in a Centrelink office is be standing next to some chic guy picking up his new iPad and renewing a passport for his upcoming trip to the Galapagos Islands.

If I’m lining up for a Centrelink payment, the only small comfort I have is knowing that everyone around me is lining up for the same reason: we all need government support to live. That might seem silly, but it’s actually serious. Centrelink does provide an important service, and if there’s any question the delivery of those services could be jeopardised (for instance, if the guy who sorts the mail is now processing your child support forms), then this plan needs to looked at very closely.

Before the Hockey goes through with this, he needs to think hard about what it could mean for the sanity of Australians all over the country, and more importantly what it means for these services. Surely there must be better ways to save a buck.

Centrelink plus Australia Post equals one hell of a long queue | Paul Farrell | Comment is free | theguardian.com

By Chris Berg Posted Tue 29 Oct 2013

The only way to really influence the outcome of an election is to bring others around to your cause - and that, Russell Brand, is exactly how it should be, writes Chris Berg.

The most interesting thing about Jeremy Paxman's interview with Russell Brand isn't what the comedian says.

No, it's Paxman's horrified reaction. Just watch it. Brand is a twit. But Paxman is glorious. He's just so ... shocked. Uncomfortable. Confused.

Paxman is supposed to be one of Britain's leading political interviewers. He's questioned top politicians and royalty.

Yet he is apparently flummoxed by this simple idea: voting and political engagement are not the same thing. The first does not equal the second. The second is not dependent on the first.

Fluffy movie-star Marxism aside, Russell Brand is right. Voting is one of the most futile ways to engage in politics.

Your vote - my vote, Brand's vote, Paxman's vote - doesn't count. Not individually. Not to an election.

This is intuitively true, easy to demonstrate, but strangely controversial.

The New Zealand economist Eric Crampton offers a survey of the academic evidence about the notion that an individual vote can change an election here.

The best data is from the United States. A massive survey of 56,613 Congressional and state legislature elections could find only 10 elections where the result had come down to one vote - that is, where the result was a tie or the count revealed just one vote between the candidates.

Even that depressing result overstates the likelihood of a single vote deciding an outcome. Counting is not an exact science. Mistakes can be made (just ask the AEC). Five of those 10 elections were either recounted to reveal much larger margins, or just re-run.

The chance your vote will make a difference is infinitesimally small. So small, in fact, it's not worth voting.

Not worth it, that is, if the reason you want to vote is to make a difference. There are other reasons one might vote apart from affecting an election outcome.

Many people follow politics like they follow sports teams. If they draw joy from voting, who are we to judge? Others vote because it is part of a ritual that underpins community and nation. That's nothing to be scoffed at. Purely instrumental claims that voting is "irrational" simply because an individual cannot change the outcome miss the point. There's nothing irrational about doing something you enjoy.

For some, voting is expressive. How they vote is part of who they are. A "Labor man" is a man who votes Labor. Humans build their identities out of their opinions and values - voting can help reinforce those identities.

And if voting is, legitimately and profoundly, a vehicle for personal expression, then so, surely, is the decision not to vote.

Brand explained his views in the New Statesman the next day: "I don't vote because to me it seems like a tacit act of compliance."

Many people claim that treating the decision to vote as a personal choice is somehow undemocratic, or a rejection of hard-won liberties.

These arguments should be seen for the nonsense that they are.

There's a big difference between a right to vote and a positive duty - whether enforced by legal requirement or moral obligation - to do so.

The great battles for freedom and democracy of the past were not fought so that the state could coerce people into political participation. In Australia, we have turned democratic rights into legal requirements. (Yes, voting is compulsory.) Breaches of the law are punishable by the courts. This is a sickly ironic revision of the liberal cause so many died for.

Choosing not to exercise the right to vote is a very democratic choice.

There are far more effective ways to engage with the political system than voting. After all, politics is an ephemeral business.

Paul Samuelson, who wrote the textbook Economics that monopolised post-war university education in the United States, once said "let those who will write the nation's laws if I can write its textbooks".

It's easy to overstate the differences between major parties, when, in fact, partisan differences don't account very well for changes in public policy over time.

In the 1930s and 40s governments around the world, of left and right persuasion, increased control over their economies. In the 50s and 60s they built welfare states. In the 80s and 90s they privatised and deregulated.

Elections didn't drive these epoch-defining changes. Voting certainly didn't. Ideas did. The sort of ideas developed in textbooks and magazines.

But that's where Russell Brand goes off the rails.

There's a lot not to like about government of the twenty-first century - the institutionalised rent seeking, the expanding web of regulatory control, the lack of accountability, the national security excesses.

Yet it remains the case that elections are the most equitable, peaceful and legitimate mechanism to fix those problems.

Calling for "revolution", as Brand does, is childish and naïve. At best such calls result in the kind of nihilistic destruction we saw in the London riots. At worst, well, I'm sure you know your history.

Democratic institutions ensure that if you want to alter policy, you have to convince your fellow citizens that change is desirable.

And, because any single vote will not change an election outcome, you have to convince a very large number that your cause is so important they should make an expressive, personal, "irrational" stand at the ballot box.

The futility of voting means that democracy resists sudden radical change. This is a good thing.

So many people who complain that the "system" is rigged are in truth complaining that most other citizens don't agree with them.

But Russell Brand's instincts on voting are correct. There is no civic duty to vote. His personal vote will not make a difference.

Abstaining is as powerful a democratic statement as any vote could be.

Chris Berg is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs. His most recent book is In Defence of Freedom of Speech: from Ancient Greece to Andrew Bolt. View his full profile here.

Voting is futile but that doesn't mean elections are - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Amy Mullins theguardian.com, Monday 28 October 2013

Abbott proclaimed that the election was 'all about trust', but in power has thrown up significant obstacles to transparency. This week he has the opportunity to change

Psst .... Tony Abbott speaks to Denmark's Crown Prince Frederik in Sydney. Photograph: Reuters

Sir Arnold Robinson, the most senior civil servant in the BBC’s political satire Yes, Minister once said of open government, “It's a contradiction in terms, you can be open or you can have government.”

That nugget of wisdom from the 1980s reflected the reality of a much more secretive practice of governance in the UK and Australia. Progress has been made since then with the establishment of and reforms to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and a gradual cultural shift towards greater transparency, accelerated by the democratising effect of the internet and social media.

The tension within Sir Arnold’s statement, however, still exists. Both major parties have very publicly struggled to reconcile their political agenda and survival with a hyper-critical 24/7 media cycle and the expectations that a democratic government be accountable and open to scrutiny.

We saw the Labor Party in government between 2007 and 2013 look like gushing teenagers, spilling their guts to the media whenever a new policy development, boat arrival, or internal leadership ruction occurred.

The Coalition, in contrast, look like smug Ivy League secret society members, tight-lipped and arrogant in their responses to probing media questions over MPs’ misuse of travel expenses claims and incidences of self-harm at detention centres during weekly briefings on Operation Sovereign Borders.

Both parties’ strategies were and are unsustainable in the long-term.

Labor’s communications strategy caused information fatigue over time, eventually leading to appearances of a very inward-looking government – the electorate understandably switched off.

The Coalition’s strategy is one of extreme control and caution – a hangover from the election campaign, which if sustained, is likely to cause significant distrust towards the government.

If the 2013 election was as Abbott proclaimed, “all about trust” then he and his staffers need to rethink their media strategy. In order to deliver on his promise of “a government that is competent and trustworthy and a prime minister who doesn't talk down to you”, Abbott might first want to start with a full explanation to taxpayers regarding a number of Coalition MPs’ questionable travel expenses claims, his included.

Contrary to columnist Andrew Bolt’s observation last Friday that Abbott has done “very little media management” since he was elected, readers with a working short-term memory will recall that soon after assuming office Abbott ordered all ministerial media appearances to be vetted via the Prime Minister’s Office. This strategy, which media veterans Barrie Cassidy and Laurie Oakes note, continues to hinder the flow of information to media and is a concerning early sign of a lack of transparency.

Just as the Institute of Public Affairs wrote on the subject of transparency in September 2011, “Without transparency, government accountability is not possible. Indeed, the ability of citizens to hold public officials accountable is directly proportional to the disclosure of information.”

With similar sentiment, The Australian newspaper, in its election eve endorsement of the Liberal Party, reminded Abbott of the very same principle crucial to an accountable government, that “Mr Abbott must maintain a commitment to transparency that is easier to make in opposition than to observe in power.”

As the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Summit starts in London this Thursday, it would be a strong demonstration of good faith, trust and global citizenship for Tony Abbott to provide his commitment to Australia’s membership of the OGP. This would see a public consultation to develop the nation’s own action plan for greater transparency in government.

Sir Arnold was quite misguided in his advice to Bernard Woolley when he said that “if people don't know what you're doing, they don't know what you're doing wrong.” He forgot a crucial caveat; that no matter what the timeframe, people always find out in the end. Transparency builds trust between a government and the public it serves and Australia has made great steps towards the principle of open government. We must not lose sight of that.

It's time Tony Abbott opened up his government | Amy Mullins | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Australian Associated Press

theguardian.com, Monday 28 October 2013

Disgraced New South Wales Labor powerbroker subject of more charges over alleged abuse of power

Eddie Obeid is accused of using his political position to influence public officials over leases at Circular Quay. Photograph: Dean Lewins/AAP

A fresh corruption inquiry involving the disgraced former Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid is under way in Sydney.

On Monday the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption launched a public inquiry into allegations that Obeid had tried to influence public officials and former NSW Labor frontbenchers, including Michael Costa and Joe Tripodi, to make decisions that would favour business interests connected to his family.

Obeid is expected to give evidence next week.

The inquiry is part of three investigations by the corruption watchdog, codenamed Cyrus, Cabot and Meeka.

The first, Cyrus, involves claims that Obeid lobbied MPs including Costa, Tripodi, Carl Scully and Eric Roozendaal over leases for the Sorrentino restaurant and Quay Eatery at Sydney's Circular Quay – "without disclosing his family's hidden interests in the retail leases".

Counsel assisting, Ian Temby QC, said on Monday said operation Cabot would investigate allegations that Obeid attempted to sway officials to grant "valuable" water licences on Obeid family land at Cherrydale Park, in the NSW Bylong Valley.

There were also suggestions that a water licensing officer, Sue Heaney, was run out of her job because of the Obeid factor.

Temby said disciplinary proceedings were launched against her after Obeid's son Damien complained about a telephone conversation he had had with her.

He reported Heaney had become "agitated and confused" when he told her the then department of water and energy had decided to allow a 860-megalitre water licence at Cherrydale Park, up from a proposed five-megalitre limit – in what Temby described as "by far the most generous allocation in the Bylong Valley".

"[Heaney] was not dismissed but she later took a redundancy from the department and she now works as a massage therapist," Temby said.

The final investigation, Meeka, will look at claims Eddie Obeid helped arrange meetings between the then treasurer, Michael Costa, and Paul Dundon, the principal of a company called Direct Health Solutions.

Icac will hear claims that Obeid had never revealed to Costa that his family and a longtime associate, Rocco Triulcio, together had a $450,000 investment in the company.

Earlier this year Obeid was found to have corruptly influenced the granting of a lucrative coal licence at Obeid family-owned land in the NSW Hunter Valley.

His brother-in-law John Abood is set to give evidence on Monday afternoon.

Assistant commissioner Anthony Whealy QC will preside over the three-week inquiry.

Former MP Eddie Obeid faces a second corruption inquiry | World news | theguardian.com

By Mungo MacCallum

Photo: In theory the Commission of Audit could tinker with the system, but in practice it is pretty limited in its options.

The Commission of Audit is there to provide a cover the government can use to justify its own rhetoric. If it comes undone, the Commission will provide a convenient scapegoat, argues Mungo MacCallum.

There is an old political adage that says never set up an inquiry unless you already know the result; and Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have certainly done their best to comply with it in selecting the terms of reference and personnel for their much-trumpeted government Commission of Audit.

Abbott promised a government of no surprises, and while he may not be able to deliver across the board, he will certainly do so when his hand-picked body reports in March, leaving plenty of time to process its findings before Hockey hands down his first budget.

In theory, the first national audit since 1996 should cover the whole of government and indeed all the nine governments in Australia, federal, state, and territory – though not, of course, local, still unrecognised in the constitution and destined to remain so for a long time if the Coalition has its way. And the audit should also examine every aspect of the budgeting process including those now shrouded in secrecy such as the spending patterns of our security services.

But Abbott and Hockey, while declaring virtuously that nothing is off the table, have made it clear that vast areas are in fact sacrosanct. For starters, half of the entire process – the revenue side – is effectively forbidden territory. Not only is Abbott planning a completely separate tax review, but he made the traditional opposition pre-election commitment not to increase taxes.

In theory the Commission could tinker with the system, but in practice it is pretty limited in its options. The carbon and mining taxes are to be abolished and the current system of payments to the states and territories will remain until the full tax review – and even then there is a pledge not to increase the GST.

But Abbott's promises went much further: there are to be no reductions in three of the four biggest portfolios: health, education and defence. Again, this leaves room for a bit of micro-management; the Commission can juggle the available funds to accord with its own priorities, provided, once again, they accord with Abbott's own: for instance, he has already committed to removing Labor's means test on the private health insurance rebate, no matter what.

So, with more than half the budget already declared a no-go area, the Commission is left with welfare – though not, it should be added immediately, one very big ticket item: Abbott's pet parental leave scheme.

Seniors have also been promised that their benefits will be enlarged. And the National Disability Insurance Scheme, enthusiastically embraced by Abbott during the campaign, may also be off limits.

John Howard's welter of middle class welfare measures may be vulnerable, but given that many of them are given as tax benefits rather than direct grants they may be considered more properly part of the tax review than what is left of the Commission of Audit.

In fact the Commission's main task may be to clean up the plethora of small promises made during the campaign, deliberately targeted handouts whose removal would cause voter anger out of all proportion to any economic benefit that might be gained.

We are told that the Commission may consider privatisation of both commonwealth and state-owned enterprises, which presumably means that the government wants it to do so. But there are not too many of those left and if the states were to part with theirs they would want a massive quid pro quo – one which would only be available through changes to the grants system, which will have to wait on the tax review.

All of which leaves the Commission with three fifths of five eighths of not very much, which may explain the short time given to its members to do their analysis and prepare their report. And they should have little trouble doing so, given that the chairman, Tony Shepherd is a former president of the Business Council of Australia and the head of the Commission's secretariat, Peter Crone, is the Council's chief economist.

The BCA is one of the more conservative of Australia's business lobby groups, with a long standing policy of resisting wage increases, demanding tax breaks for its members and defending every aspect of corporate welfare while condemning much public welfare as wasteful and extravagant.

And there will be no serious opposition to this becoming the Commission's dominant view. The other members consist of the former Howard minister Amanda Vanstone and three public servants: Peter Boxall, an ardent free marketeer who worked as Peter Costello's chief of staff, Tony Cole, a former treasury secretary, and Robert Fisher, a ex-bureaucratic heavy from Western Australia. Not too many closet socialists or bleeding hearts among that lot.

There has been some protest at the one-sided make up of the Commission; surely it would have been reasonable to include at least one voice from the other side, someone to speak on behalf of those who receive and depend on government benefits and who could make the case for their retention – or perhaps even a critic of big business, someone willing to point out the cosseted nature of so many industries and the extent of the protection, subsidies and favours Tony Shepherd's members receive from the taxpayers.

But this was never in the script: Abbott promised the Commission of Audit in the context of ranting about unsustainable debt and deficit, a budget emergency, the overwhelming urgency of the need to do something about the hideous morass into which Labor had delivered the nation.

Of course, the emergency is suddenly over: Joe Hockey has insouciantly raised the debt ceiling by two thirds, borrowed an extra $9 billion for the Reserve Bank and allowed the promise of returning to surplus to recede yet further into the never never. And he, like Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt, finds himself bound by Abbott-inspired policies which he must surely know are at best silly and at worst downright dangerous – policies which sounded terrific as three word slogans in opposition but which are manifestly unsuited to the actual process of government.

The Commission of Audit is there simply to provide cover: to produce a report the government can use to justify its own rhetoric. And of course if it all comes undone, the Commission will make a very convenient scapegoat.

Mungo MacCallum is a political journalist and commentator. View his full profile here.

What will a Commission of Audit achieve? Not much. - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By chief political correspondent Emma Griffiths

Related Story: Union anger about Centrelink job shedding

Labor and the unions have leapt on reports the Abbott Government is considering a plan for Australia Post to take over Centrelink's front office operations.

Treasurer Joe Hockey is known to be in favour of consolidating service delivery and has put "everything on the table" for the Government's newly formed Commission of Audit.

That includes a proposal which could mean closing Centrelink's service centres and job losses, the Australian Financial Review reports.

Readers voiced their thoughts on the plan for Australia Post to take over Centrelink's front office operations

A spokesman for the Treasurer says there are no recommendations before Government yet and nothing will be considered from the Commission of Audit before the budget process begins.

But Opposition Human Services spokesman Doug Cameron says it would compromise Centrelink's "specialised" service delivery.

It's not simply about rocking up (and) getting your payment.

Labor senator Doug Cameron

"We need high-level government capacity to look after people that are down and out," he told Radio National.

"People who can't find work, people who have got significant personal problems in some cases - I don't think the local post office is capable of dealing with that.

"It's not simply about rocking up (and) getting your payment.

"That's why we've got professional public servants in face to face delivery with the public."

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) president Ged Kearney says the proposal bolsters the union's argument that the Commission of Audit currently lacks transparency and accountability.

"Millions of people rely on the services of Centrelink," she said.

"This is an enormous thing that would need to be looked at.

"And there are services here that will impact on many, many Australians.

"Australians have a right to be consulted about this process."

The Commission of Audit is due to deliver an initial report by the end of January and give its final recommendations by the end of March.

Centrelink currently handles payments for retirees, the unemployed, families, carers, parents, students, people with disabilities, Indigenous Australians and emergency payments for victims of natural disasters.

About 50 of its offices have already merged with Medicare under a process initiated by the previous Labor government, which is due to continue until 2015.

Labor, unions slam plan for Australia Post to take over Centrelink operations - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By political reporter Anna Henderson and staff

Photo: Barrie Cassidy says he wants to know if other Labor appointments will be reviewed. (News Online Brisbane)

Related Story: Amid pressure, journalist quits Old Parliament advisory council

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has suggested moves to oust ABC broadcaster Barrie Cassidy as chairman of an advisory board amount to a political witch-hunt.

Attorney-General George Brandis has thanked the Insiders host for standing down as chairman of the advisory board of the Australian Museum of Democracy at Old Parliament House.

Cassidy took on the unpaid position in August, but stepped down from the role this morning after Mr Brandis asked him to do so.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott had raised concerns about Labor appointing "friends to all sorts of positions" in the dying days of the Rudd government.

Senator Brandis said the process for the appointment was "questionable".

But Mr Shorten says he does not think there was anything wrong with the way Cassidy's appointment was handled.

"We think that processes that are gone through should be respected. We don't believe in political witch-hunts," he said.

Video: Barrie Cassidy speaks to News 24 before standing down from the advisory council (ABC News)

Senator Brandis said the museum must be seen to be apolitical, and it was not appropriate for a working political journalist to hold the chairman's role.

He said the circumstances did not reflect on Cassidy personally, and said the broadcaster's decision to stand aside was an "unselfish act".

In a letter to the director of the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House, Daryl Karp, Cassidy wrote that he was resigning to prevent damage to the institution.

"I am of the belief that remaining in the position would shroud the board and the institution in ongoing controversy; and that's the last thing that I want," he wrote.

In his resignation letter, Mr Cassidy said Senator Brandis explained that he has "a strong view" that it is not appropriate for journalists or politicians involved in the political process to sit on such boards.

This morning, Cassidy defended his appointment and told News Breakfast he was approached in June to take over the vacant chairman position.

"It's an honorary position. It comes with no money. You volunteer your services," Cassidy said.

"It was signed off on in August and The Australian put it on page one and sort of said it was all shrouded in secrecy and so on."

Cassidy says he wants to know if other Labor government appointments will be reviewed to establish that there was nothing personal about Senator Brandis's request.

He says he is prepared to accept the Coalition has genuine concern about appointments in the last days of a government, but he wants evidence that it will be consistent.

He has requested that Senator Brandis outline what he knows about other appointments that were made around the same time.

Bill Shorten says move against Barrie Cassidy amounts to political witch-hunt - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

By political reporter Anna Henderson

Video: Scott Morrison gives weekly update on Operation Sovereign Borders (ABC News)

Photo: Scott Morrison made an under-the-radar trip to Malaysia this week. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

Related Story: Asylum seekers on bridging visas in limbo: advocates

Related Story: Iranian in Sydney detention arrested for alleged people smuggling

Related Story: Asylum seekers would rather be locked up than sent home

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says the Malaysian government has agreed to extra measures that should ultimately stop asylum seekers from reaching Australia by boat.

Mr Morrison has confirmed he visited Malaysia this week and met its home affairs minister, Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

The under-the-radar trip was confirmed at the Immigration Minister's weekly briefing today.

Mr Morrison says Malaysia is a "critical geographic link in the people smugglers' chain to Australia", and he estimates more than half the asylum seekers who reach Australia transit through Malaysia.

"Disrupting arrivals at KLIA (Kuala Lumpur International Airport) or across the Thai-Malay border or preventing the passage to Sumatra across the Malacca Strait is as critical, and I would suggest even more critical, than anything we do once that boat leaves Indonesia," Mr Morrison said.

The Minister says the meeting has served to "reboot" the Australian Government's relationship with Malaysia on border protection and people smuggling.

Detainees in limbo

Asylum seekers held in Darwin have told the ABC they would rather stay in detention indefinitely than be sent home to face persecution or even death.

Read the story.

 

He says the scope of Australia's joint working group with Malaysia will be expanded beyond people smuggling alone.

"Also on issues of drugs, guns, people trafficking and other cross-border-related issues, where our border enforcement authorities have a critical role to play."

Mr Morrison says the Malaysian government has also undertaken to broaden the tighter visa arrangements that apply to Iranians entering Malaysia.

"To have this extended to Iraqis and Syrians, and we will continue our dialogue on further reforms and exclusions to visas on other arrival arrangements."

Mr Morrison says Australia can assist in gathering intelligence that will help Malaysian authorities.

Two boats arrived in past week

Defence now runs Australia's border protection arrangements and has confirmed two boats carrying asylum seekers have arrived in the past week.

One boat was carrying 126 people, the other had 40 people on board.

Earlier this week the Government sent 28 Vietnamese nationals who arrived by boat back to Vietnam.

Defence says 10 detainees chose to return, but the rest were forced to leave Australia because they did not have a valid claim for asylum.

Stark choice presented to asylum seekers

Mr Morrison has also confirmed that the message to asylum seekers who have arrived since offshore processing was reinstated, is to return home or face indefinite detention.

In Darwin, where more than 1,000 people are living in four separate detention centres, some detainees have told the ABC they are prepared to remain locked up rather than face persecution or even death in their country of origin.

Mr Morrison says there's a stark choice.

"The choice they have is to go home or await their transfer to Nauru and Manus Island," Mr Morrison said.

"The policy is anyone who turned up after July 19, they don't come to Australia."

The Government has not provided a timeframe for when asylum seekers would be released from detention on Nauru or Manus Island.

Scott Morrison says new Malaysian measures will stop asylum seekers coming by boat - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Penny Wong theguardian.com, Wednesday 23 October 2013

Having spent their election campaign talking down the Australian economy, the Coalition can now apparently afford a $500bn debt ceiling

A man inserts a five Australian dollar note into a slot machine at Bowlers Club in Central Sydney. Photograph: Daniel Munoz/Reuters

It‘s been just over one month since the Abbott government was sworn in, and already Australians have seen what they can expect over the coming three years.

Details about asylum seeker arrivals are being withheld – apparently the entire nation imagined the Coalition’s announced tow back the boats policy. Despite promising severe regulation of foreign investment, the government is now proposing to rush through free trade agreements. Now Joe Hockey has announced the details of their commission of audit, a well-used Liberal tactic to make drastic and punitive cuts to services, kept secret before the election.

Not only is this a government that isn’t doing what it said it would do; it doesn’t want to tell Australians what it’s really doing.

Over the last few years, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey were unrelenting in their scaremongering over the state of the nation’s finances; Australians were told that “there is now a budget emergency”, and, worse, that Labor was “drowning the nation in debt”.

But, now in government, the Liberals tout some debt as “good” and the “budget emergency” appears to have disappeared. So much so, under the Coalition, the nation can now apparently afford a $500bn debt ceiling. So much for the “budget emergency”.

Just pause for a moment and imagine the extent of Hockey’s hyperventilation had a Labor treasurer proposed such an increase.

The new treasurer has flagged higher infrastructure spending funded by government borrowing – that is, by debt – and the assistant infrastructure minister, Jamie Briggs, blithely suggests thinking “more broadly” about using the Commonwealth balance sheet.

Of course, when Labor borrowed to invest, Abbott and Hockey declared a “debt crisis”, but now they are finally being honest that some borrowing can be smart.

The fact is, if the nation really was drowning in debt as many of the Liberals had been hysterically asserting, the last thing a conservative government would be doing is flagging more debt and more spending.

And, if there really were a budget emergency, they would be publishing their budget update well before the country goes on its summer holidays.

By their own words and actions post-election, the Coalition not only underline their pre-election dishonesty; they also confirm the true state of the budget and the economy.

Because the reality of the economic and fiscal circumstances the Coalition inherited is far different from the confidence-sapping slogans that characterised their time in Opposition.

The facts are these: Australia’s public finances are sound. Under Labor, Australia received AAA credit ratings from all three ratings agencies, our net debt position as a share of the economy remained low, and it peaked at a small fraction of the level seen across major advanced economies.

Over the six years Labor was in government, Australia’s economy grew by 14%, nearly a million jobs were created, and we came through the global recession in far better shape than most of our global peers.

We fostered a fairer society, taking a million people out of the income tax system by tripling the tax free threshold, giving 3.6 million workers a tax break, and boosting the retirement savings of over eight million Australians.

We took decisions to improve the structural position of the budget, many of which the Liberals opposed, even though these decisions created room to fund important long-term investments for the nation’s future including the Better Schools Plan and DisabilityCare.

Of course there was more reform to do. There always is.

And it is also true that we could have done more to communicate Labor’s achievements, which were often drowned out by too much other noise, much of our own making.

But the fiscal and economic facts cannot be denied. It is Labor’s strong economic management that today enables the Liberal Government to contemplate more debt, more spending.

These are the facts that stand clear in the face of the dishonest scare campaign on debt that now even Abbott is backing away from.

Australia's missing budget emergency | Penny Wong | Comment is free | theguardian.com

By ABC's Barrie Cassidy

Photo: Tony Abbott and his strategists are closing down the political debate as best they can. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

The Abbott Government is entitled, and indeed smart, to wind back the media focus. But not to the point where routine scrutiny is almost impossible, writes Barrie Cassidy.

The Treasurer, Joe Hockey, demonstrated twice this week that the new Coalition Government has it all over the previous mob when it comes to strategy.

First, he insisted that the debt ceiling be raised way beyond expectations to $500 billion. That should take the politics out of the debt issue. What government wouldn't want that?

Hockey merely wants to ensure that Labor in opposition can't do to him what he did routinely to them when they were in government.

Then on 7.30 on Tuesday night he deflected a tricky question on the expenses scandal with another routine shot that never occurred to former Labor ministers.

"I'll leave that to the Minister for State," he said.

"The Minister for State" is in fact the Special Minister of State, Senator Michael Ronaldson, who like most of the rest of the ministry is rarely available for interviews. So you can chase your tail on that one for as long as you like.

Tony Abbott and his strategists are closing down the political debate as best they can.

For now, the tactic probably has public support. The sound of silence is just what they need after the ceaseless crescendo of what has passed for debate for years now.

The electorate was surely sick to death of the daily churn. Labor ministers convinced themselves that more was best; the more they talked, the more likely they were to gather support.

Or at the very least they felt if they left a vacuum, the Abbott opposition would fill it.

Well, has the penny dropped now that they have seen the alternative put in practice? Labor has had it on its own for weeks now, and how has that gone?

The previous government overplayed the media game. So many of the messengers were flawed. They irritated rather than inspired, but never knew it.

The approach by the new government is working just fine (in a strategic sense) for now, and the NSW bushfires have kept the media busy with blanket coverage for more than a week.

But how long can it last?

While some might be enjoying the break, the political class will eventually claim back their relevance. More to the point, the public deserves better.

All governments, and all ministers, should be accountable to the public through the media.

The Abbott Government is entitled, and indeed smart, to wind back the media focus. But not to the point where routine scrutiny is almost impossible.

In the meantime, we are seeing examples in the rare interviews that are getting through of why the Abbott Government prefers to limit them.

The Environment Minister Greg Hunt went offshore to the BBC to argue he had verified on Wikipedia that climate change has not caused bushfires.

The reliability of that source was obvious the same day when somebody altered his Wikipedia profile to say: "Since the 2013 election ... he (Hunt) has already proven to be terrible at his job."

Then Tony Abbott used an interview on 3AW to say the head of the United Nations climate change negotiations was "talking through her hat" by suggesting a link between bushfires and climate change.

Whatever the cause of the current NSW fires - and to be fair they range from child arsonists to the army - it is a stretch to argue that warmer temperatures and below average rainfall does not add to the risk of fires more generally.

Then Abbott showed further poor judgment by appearing to defend his West Australian colleague Don Randall for flying across the country, with his wife, at taxpayers' expense, to have a conversation with the government whip that could have been held on the telephone.

"I mean there are certain things which just have to happen face to face," he said.

And what would they be?

That's the trouble with interviews that go awry. They tend to further persuade the strategists to allow less of them.

Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of Insiders and Offsiders on ABC1. View his full profile here.

How long can the ministerial sound of silence last? - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Australian Associated Press

theguardian.com, Thursday 24 October 2013

Nobel laureate likens Australian prime minister to 'pliant politicians' who said tobacco didn't cause lung cancer

'The meaningful way to resolve this crisis is to put a price on carbon and in Australia's case, to keep a price on carbon,' Al Gore said. Photograph: Mario Anzuoni/Reuters

Tony Abbott's insistence that bushfires aren't linked to climate change is like the tobacco industry claiming smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, Nobel laureate Al Gore says.

In light of the New South Wales bushfire disaster, the former US vice-president says the prime minister's comment that bushfires are a function of life in Australia and nothing to do with climate change reminds him of politicians in the US who received support from tobacco companies, and who then publicly argued the companies' cause.

"For 40 years the tobacco companies were able to persuade pliant politicians within their grip to tell the public what they wanted them to tell them, and for 40 years the tragedy continued," Gore told ABC TV's 7.30 program from Los Angeles on Wednesday night.

"And bushfires can occur naturally and do, but the science shows clearly that when the temperature goes up and when the vegetation and soils dry out, then wildfires become more pervasive and more dangerous.

"That's not me saying it, that's what the scientific community says."

Gore said it was a political fact of life that politicians and commercial enterprise colluded to achieve goals after he was asked if there was a conspiracy between polluters and politicians.

"I don't think it's a commercial conspiracy. I think it's a political fact of life," he said. "It certainly is in my country. In the United States, our democracy has been hacked.

"Special interests control decisions too frequently. You saw it in our recent fiscal and debt crisis.

"The energy companies, coal companies and oil companies particularly, have prevented the Congress of the United States from doing anything meaningful so far, to stop the climate crisis."

The Nobel laureate said Australia's new Direct Action strategy was not workable.

"The meaningful way to resolve this crisis is to put a price on carbon and in Australia's case, to keep a price on carbon," he said.

He argues the price needs to be at an effective level with the market sending accurate signals so that renewable systems of energy are encouraged.

 

Al Gore attacks Tony Abbott's refusal to link bushfires with climate change | Environment | theguardian.com

Oliver Laughland, Paul Farrell and Nick Evershed

theguardian.com, Wednesday 23 October 2013

Treasurer claimed flight costs for himself and a family member but denies visiting his farm in nearby Malanda

The treasurer owns hundreds of hectares of farmland in Malanda outside Cairns and declares the property as a business interest. Photograph: Paul Miller/AAP

Just hours after Joe Hockey told MPs to "put your hand in your pocket" if claiming private expenses, questions have arisen over a trip the treasurer took in 2010 to Cairns, where he carried out a day's official business and then took a holiday but claimed the $924.02 cost of the inbound flight for himself and a family member.

Hockey, the member for North Sydney, owns hundreds of hectares of farmland in the Malanda region outside Cairns and declares the property as a business interest in his statement of registrable interests.

On 10 October 2010 Hockey and a family member claimed $924.02 for the flight from Sydney to Cairns. Hockey's office said he conducted official business on 11 October, which consisted of a local radio interview and meetings with local business people. It is understood Hockey took leave the day after until 17 October.

Asked on 11 October in a radio interview whether he was planning to visit his farm, Hockey replied: "You've got to have a few days off, absolutely, but I made a pledge to Warren Entsch that I'd come up after the election, not just before the election."

Later asked about his family holiday plans, Hockey said: "The family, yeah, they're good. I got in very late last night. They're up here having a holiday and after I finish work I'm going to spend a bit of time with them. Their favourite travel destination is Cairns and it's a good time of the year. It's nice and warm compared to yesterday."

Hockey's office told Guardian Australia he would not name the family member he travelled with, nor whether the person accompanied Hockey on leave, but said categorically he did not visit the farm at all during the trip.

Hockey paid for the return flight privately and did not claim any other travel allowances on the trip.

On 6 July 2012 Hockey also visited Cairns for six days, charging $2,110 for a flight from Melbourne to Cairns. On that occasion he visited the Malanda farm. On 8 July, Hockey took part in a charity milking contest in Malanda (where he claimed the cow kicked his bucket and prevented him from winning). Hockey beat Bob Katter in the competition.

Hockey's office drew Guardian Australia's attention to three media interviews conducted during the stay, as well as two meetings with local business people. The day before his departure Hockey was interviewed for an asylum policy debate on ABC radio from Malanda and was asked to describe the weather in the region. He replied: "Well, as I look out the window it is mist-covered mountains, it's about 20 degrees and it's raining."

A spokesman for the treasurer said: "All expenses claimed on these two trips were completely within guidelines." He added that no private business was undertaken on the farm during the July 2012 trip.

Guardian Australia was given details of Hockey's flight expense claims by the Impute blog.

MPs' expenses: Joe Hockey's trip to Cairns in question | World news | theguardian.com

By Mike Steketee

Photo: The question is whether Bill Shorten's qualifications are better suited to those of prime minister than opposition leader, a position rightly described as the hardest in politics. (AAP: David Crosling)

Detractors call him "Showbag Bill", with some saying his ego can be overbearing. But that hasn't stopped the advance of Bill Shorten who, as Mike Steketee writes, has more than a little in common with Labor's most successful prime minister, Bob Hawke.

Comparisons may be invidious but Bill Shorten is unlikely to complain about those who say he has more than a touch of Bob Hawke about him - at least not if we concentrate on the flattering parts...

After all, Hawke's four election wins made him the party's most successful leader and he left a reforming legacy now commonly used as a reference point for successful government.

Shorten comes to the Labor leadership without the high public profile and widespread appeal to voters that Hawke brought to the job. But he shares Hawke's skills as a communicator, with an ability to inspire audiences. He is a tireless self-promoter and networker, within the party, in the media and to the public at large.

Perhaps even more than Hawke, his ego and drive can be overbearing. It has led him to push down barriers that would cause a more patient person to hesitate. Rather than waiting for a vacancy, he played brutal factional politics to take the Melbourne seat of Maribyrnong from the sitting member and shadow minister, Bob Sercombe, so that he could enter parliament in the 2007 election. Loyalty sometimes takes second place to pragmatism and power politics. As the Abbott Government will endlessly remind us, he played a key role in first cutting down Kevin Rudd and then in restoring him to the leadership three years later. Though his relentless ambition has offended many in the Labor Party, it has not stopped his advance.

His wide political connections also are reminiscent of Hawke. He identifies easily with workers on the shop floor but has put much effort into cultivating relations with the big end of town. He obtained a Master of Business Administration from Melbourne University. His first marriage was to Deborah Beale, the daughter of former Liberal MP and prominent Victorian businessman Julian Beale, and he was close to Richard Pratt, the cardboard king. Hawke's friendship with businessmen such as Peter Abeles was held against him by the Labor left but seems unlikely to be a great handicap for Shorten, except amongst the remaining rump of Labor class warriors.

He identifies easily with workers on the shop floor but has put much effort into cultivating relations with the big end of town.

Shorten joined the procession of ambitious Labor politicians, Hawke among them, who have offered their credentials to the Americans for approval. In a cable released by WikiLeaks, the US consulate in Melbourne reported on a meeting in 2009 with "this young, ambitious Parliamentarian". He told the Consul-General "he did not take this job to stand still", even though he had been overlooked for promotion by Rudd. He was "highly critical" of current union leaders and drew a contrast with his own willingness to listen to business concerns. Despite his "somewhat rumpled" appearance, he seems to have passed the Washington test, with the report noting "he is widely known for his pro-US stance".

The other side to the no-holds-barred factional warrior is a broad political philosophy that could have been borrowed directly from Hawke. His instinct is for conciliation rather than confrontation. It is summed up in a sentiment he often expressed as a union leader and has repeated as a politician: we can spend all the time arguing about what we don't agree on or we can focus on the 90 per cent that we do agree on and get things done.

The labels attached to him as he waded through the quagmire of Labor politics included "Showbag Bill" and "Showbag Shorten" - that is, he is all style and no substance. But he has notched up successes. As national secretary, he restored the Australian Workers' Union to financial health and attracted new members.

The creation of a national disability insurance scheme is a case study in effective politics. When Kevin Rudd appointed Shorten as parliamentary secretary for disabilities, it struggled to get any recognition on the always crowded political agenda. Shorten dragged it into the mainstream by talking passionately in private and public about the need for reform, by urging disability groups to start speaking with one voice and to put pressure on the government of which he was a member. In other words, he assumed a role way beyond his then lowly status to push his issue to the political forefront.

That said, the Shorten style can run ahead of the substance. A rare note of disagreement during his contest with Anthony Albanese over the leadership occurred over Shorten's suggestion that the Labor Party consider extending quotas beyond women to others under-represented in parliament, such as Indigenous Australians and LGBTI - lesbians, gays, bi-sexual, transgender and intersex. Meant to appeal to the Labor rank-and-file, Albanese quickly realised the weakness of the proposal. He called it not practical or politically astute and added: "People's political contributions are not defined by their sexuality - that is just one aspect of a person and often a private aspect."

Shorten has shown an inclination towards thought bubbles. In 2005, as head of the AWU, he advocated dramatic tax reform, including a top income tax rate of 30 per cent. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) estimated his proposal would reduce revenue by no less than $44 billion and increase taxes for some lower income earners. Shorten responded, "I don't pretend to have all the answers."

The question is whether his qualifications are better suited to those of prime minister than opposition leader, a position rightly described as the hardest in politics and all the more so for the person who takes over after an election defeat. Though not unprecedented at the state level for first-elected opposition leaders to go on to win government - Bob Carr in NSW is an example - the last to do so at the federal level was Andrew Fisher in 1914 and that was after he already had served two previous terms as prime minister.

Shorten's tenure may not be as precarious as that of most opposition leaders, thanks to the rule Rudd forced through the party requiring the support of 60 per cent of the Labor caucus for a leader to be removed. His instinct for conciliation over confrontation may appeal to voters but it is unlikely to take him far in opposition. As Tony Abbott demonstrated, opposition leaders generally are at their most effective when they concentrate on dragging governments down by means fair and foul.

In theory, opposition leaders can use the platform of parliament to establish their dominance, as Gough Whitlam did. But that was against vulnerable prime ministers - John Gorton and William McMahon. It is early days but Tony Abbott looks to be made of sterner stuff.

Mike Steketee is a freelance journalist. He was formerly a columnist and national affairs editor for The Australian. View his full profile here.

Bob's his uncle: Bill Shorten's path to power - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Lenore Taylor political editor

theguardian.com, Wednesday 23 October 2013

Senator knew the Labor government had 'lost its way' when it picked a fight with the media six months before the election

Bob Carr announces his resignation from the Senate. Photograph: Alan Porritt/AAP

Bob Carr claimed he was suffering from “irrational exuberance” when he repeatedly insisted he would serve a full six-year term, as he announced he was resigning from the Senate just weeks after being re-elected in the number one position on Labor’s Senate ticket.

Carr, a former NSW premier, pleaded with Labor to be more “canny” and “cunning” in its political strategies and said he knew the Labor government had “lost its way” when it picked a fight over media law reform in the lead-up to a federal election – a move which “tore up the Neville Wran playbook of how to get re-elected”.

Carr agreed to the former prime minister Julia Gillard’s request in February 2012 to enter federal parliament and become foreign minister as a replacement for Kevin Rudd, who moved to the backbench after his failed leadership challenge. Carr repeatedly said he would serve another full term after the 2013 election.

But, announcing his resignation on Wednesday, he said: “If the government had been re-elected I would have served at least three [years].” He said his thinking about his future in the event of a Labor loss had “ebbed and flowed”. Many inside the Labor party were in no doubt he intended to resign if Labor lost.

Asked why he had been so insistent that he would stay on, Carr said: “[Former chairman of the US federal reserve] Alan Greenspan summed it up best with ‘irrational exuberance’.”

Carr had some direct advice and candid observations about his return to politics during the tumultuous final years of the Gillard and Rudd governments and the future of the Labor party, including:

• That Labor should bide its time before locking in a strategy on climate policy which was its “biggest policy challenge”, because public opinion about climate change could easily shift during periods of extreme weather and because of the unpredictability of the crossbench of the Senate after next July. He said he was “happy with” the direction indicated by new leader Bill Shorten on the issue.

• That it should be more canny in strategising. “I was struck by the lack of canniness, caution, cunning,” Carr said of Labor’s period in power since 2007. He said, for example, Labor would have been more cautious and canny to have adopted a federal version of NSW’s more limited emissions trading scheme when it came to power in 2007 rather than to attempt an economy-wide scheme.

• That it should stick with the tough “Papua New Guinea solution” on asylum policy introduced after Rudd returned as prime minister and should not have dismantled the Howard government laws so readily when it first came to power. “My strongest, strongest advice … is the Labor party should stick with the PNG solution. The Australian people will never accept a situation where 20% of the total migrant intake is brought to Australia by people smugglers … it could in theory get even higher and the Australian people won’t buy that … Labor cannot be wrong footed on this.”

Carr said he knew “the government had lost its way” when a cabinet meeting called in February this year to consider coal seam gas policy was presented with sweeping media law reforms.

“That was really tearing up the [former NSW premier] Neville Wran playbook of how to get re-elected … starting a fight with the media in the six months leading up to an election,” he said.

Despite having re-entered politics at the request of Gillard, Carr eventually voted for Rudd’s reinstatement as prime minister, saying he was “thinking about the long-term viability” of the party in the face of dire opinion polling.

Carr said he would not become a commentator on the ALP and intended to “reinvent himself” as an Asian policy specialist, accepting two part-time teaching positions, one at the University of New South Wales and one at the University of Sydney.

Bob Carr quits, saying his decision to run again was 'irrational exuberance' | World news | theguardian.com