Are we being fooled?

EXCLUSIVE:

Bertel Torsten in Canberra

ABBOTT-GESTURES-HYPNOTICALLYWHEN Christine Milne of the Greens supports Abbott's Environment Minister, Greg Hunt; when Hunt is already fighting with Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane, suspicion gathers around the head of the new Prime Minister. It's looking increasingly likely that he will get rid of the Carbon Tax and replace it with Son of Carbon Tax, and the man to do it is Greg Hunt.

Hunt has called for water studies (called the "water trigger") on 47 large coal seam gas (CSG) and coal mining projects before federal approvals are granted. Seems reasonable on the face of it. But Macfarlane just the day before said he (Macfarlane) was intervening in NSW to fast track CSG projects claiming that it had a gas crisis. Racketty times in Cabinet ahead!

It gets worse. The much-maligned Labor looked at four CSG projects – Hunt is looking at twelve times that number.

And, Labor only did it to shut up Tony Windsor of creepy memory. Labor dragged their feet even though they knew it would not please their partners in crime, the Greens.


Hunt is not only outdoing Labor he is proud about it. He tells the world about it. He boasts about it. He puffs out his chest and denounces Labor for not administering the law.

"THEY stalled them all and simply refused to make decisions – it was a symbol of a dying government."
It's not enough that the ratbag Greens drool over Hunt's action; one of their fronts, the Lock the Gate Alliance – the Anti-coal seam gas organization – praised him for it.

That's not all the Greens are behind him on.

Christine Milne gave nearly the same speech on the purely political "Report" of the corrupt IPCC. Possibly Bob Brown wrote the speeches for each.


HUNT endorsed the IPCC report and was interviewed by Elizabeth Jackson.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: Do you and does your government accept this scientific assessment?

GREG HUNT: Yes we do.


That is plain enough. A straight answer to a straight question. He accepts the IPCC assessment that Carbon Dioxide is the cause of the world's problems. Furthermore, he binds all his colleagues and the PM to the same opinion. Encouraged by this, Jackson went on to look for specifics of what he is going to do about Global Warming. Little did she know, or anyone know, that he is not in the business of straight answers any more.


ELIZABETH JACKSON: … Do you accept that Australia will experience more fire weather, extreme rainfall, an increase in intensity of cyclones, and sea levels that could rise by up to a metre by the end of the century?


GREG HUNT: Quack-quack Well, there are a range of scenarios in the report, and the broad range shows that temperatures are likely to change over the coming century from between 0.9 to 5.4 degrees. Now that depends on the extent to which the world reduces emissions, but that's the range set out. Quack.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: So how concerned are you about Australia's coastal communities?


GREG HUNT: Quack-quack. Look, I think this is an important report. Quack-quack it reaffirms the domestic work of our own agencies and indeed our own agencies were well represented in the drafting of the report.


ELIZABETH JACKSON: But Minister, are our coastal communities in danger?


GREG HUNT: Quack-quack, quack, quack-quack.


ELIZABETH JACKSON: OK, so what will you do to protect coastal communities? There are a lot of people who are saying that we need to rethink planning – do you agree with that?


GREG HUNT: Ribbet, Ribbet, Ribbet. Quack. Quack.


Undaunted, she asks a third time.

ELIZABETH JACKSON: … Practically, what will you and your Government do to protect coastal communities.


GREG HUNT: Four lines of quacks… and reduce emissions… quack-quack.


ELIZABETH JACKSON: (With rising tones and a hopeless wail) But you haven't said how you'll manage it.


GREG HUNT: RibbetRibbetRibbet…

She changes tack in despair.


ELIZABETH JACKSON: Minister, do you agree that both Sydney and Brisbane airports are at risk long term?

GREG HUNT: Three paragraphs of quacking.


And Jackson gives up, having done her best, and trots off for a Valium sandwich and a bottle of meth. 

So what does one make of Greg "Duckspeak" Hunt? All hat and no cattle? Got his own agenda?
He apparently pursues the very thing that got Gillard and Rudd landing on their faces. Then does a Campesi around every question about specifics afterwards.

So, did Abbott pull a fast one? Pretend to conservatives that he was going to bury global warming but follow an even worse course than Labor did?

Hunt has promised to subsidise 100,000 solar panels as well. Or is it all show?

The question is: will Tony Abbott bury global warming and Greg Hunt with it, or are we being fooled?

Oh, Canada! Our new PM doesn’t really eat babies

James Allan in Canada exposes what Labor's propaganda machine sends beyond our shores. GC.

So Canadian newspaper readers have an image of Abbott, now Prime Minister Abbott, as some sort of hard-line Catholic, with misogynistic tendencies, who would like to crush unions wherever he sees them and who is the driest of dries when it comes to the economy.

Each of these peddled stories is a myth, pure and simple, and yet my wife and I, who are in North America for my 2013 year-long sabbatical, have seen all of them regularly regurgitated in Canada’s main newspapers.

Read full story: Via Quadrant.org.au

Carefully considered or bad decision?

EXCLUSIVE:

Jim McCrudden 

Dr Dennis Jensen, BAppSci, MSc, PhD, has worked with distinction in industry and with the CSIRO. His PhD is in Materials Science and Physics. At the CSIRO he worked as a researcher but also as an analyst at the Defence Science and Technology Organization. 

He still makes serious contributions with regards to the Joint Strike Fighter debate, climate change, nuclear energy, scientific research, National Broadband Network, and education matters. He is on the Advisory Board of the Australian Research Council (Centre of Excellence) for Anti Matter/Matter Research.

Cutting it short, he is the most highly qualified Federal MP in science—on all sides.

So when the opportunity arose of appointing Jensen Minister for Science he was obviously the favourite in the minds of anyone who was interested.

Abbott clearly thought about it.

But rather than put this highly qualified man in that position, Abbott, in an act of craven cowardice abolished the position of Minister of Science altogether!!

The ALP had done the groundwork of effectively destroying the position of Science Minister and reshaping it into a sinecure for speechmakers by appointing schoolteachers and economists and union bosses to be Science Ministers. Simultaneously, they twisted the CSIRO so much that the initials now stand for the Corrupted Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. But in that, it could be argued, they were merely short of competent people. The Coalition had been no better.

Corrupting the CSIRO was another thing altogether, of course. That was political and was done cynically to get support for their Global Warming agenda.

But why did Abbott abolish the Ministry altogether rather than appoint Jensen? Why not keep it? Reform it? Take science seriously?

Because Jensen carries baggage. Nearly ten years ago when even men like Howard were running scared from the Global Warming scare, Jensen proclaimed that the so-called evidence was ridiculous and that the models were worse – they didn’t even half work.

Oh, God, thought Abbott as he went on his knees at church, I will be slandered and shamed in the Fairfax press if I appoint a climate skeptic to the position. And the ABC will eat me up. There will be snide remarks in Crikey! Jokes about science hating misogynists. Only one thing to do – take the coward’s way out.

Abbott could choose between dishonour and vilification.

He chose dishonour and got vilification. Every scientist polled in the country was astonished and disbelieving. What, keep a Sports Minister and remove the Science Minister? Are you nuts, the cry went? Crazy?

Abbott said science would “largely” be in the industry portfolio, under incoming minister, Ian Macfarlane.

“Largely”??

What the hell does that mean? 60%? 90%? What? And who will be doing the rest? The Minister Responsible for Sitting Behind the PM and Nodding When the PM Addresses Parliament? The Attorney General? The Under-secretary to the Tea-lady’s Deputy Assistant?

Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, complains that development of science is already too fragmented, “Already it’s spread across multiple budget lines; at the last count we had something over 70 spread over something to the order of 14 portfolios and we could miss things if we aren’t strategic in the way we go about it.”

So why not appoint the best man for the job?

Because it was politically inexpedient.

Appointing someone with no qualifications would carry huge criticism. It would run for years. It will smear all the other appointments.

Anyway, he thought, Jensen talks too much. The coalition’s policy on emissions has exactly the same target as Labor had, and Jensen may have words to say about that.
Abbott abolished the Ministry of Science because it was politically expedient?

That – because it was the gutless thing to do.

‘On track’ for a surplus? Not good enough

Temporary deficits have a tendency to become entrenched – just ask the US. If Tony Abbott fails to return the budget to surplus quickly, Australia could face the same fate, writes Chris Berg at The Drum.
Read More

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/berg-on-track-for-a-surplus/4931502

 

All about the illegals

Well once again this morning as we made our way here indeed, there has
been the announcement of yet another arrival of yet another boat under
Kevin Rudd. We have had now more people turn up under Kevin Rudd’s very
brief Prime Ministership the second time around than occurred in the
last six years of the Howard Government which I think just goes to
demonstrate once again the scale of this problem that has occurred when
Kevin Rudd rolled out the Rudd carpet all those years ago to the people
smugglers that has led to the chaos, the cost and the tragedy that has
followed.

Full story here: scottmorrison.com.au

K.Rudd, public enema number-one

Opinion:

You can give it a slick paint-job, put a fake foxtail on the antenna, but beneath the dazzle remains the same old oil-burning, rusted-out, un-roadworthy clunker destined to inflict cost and heartbreak. A wreck is a wreck.

We must be the silliest country in the Western World. Kevin Rudd, the worst prime minister in Australia’s political history who was ousted by his deputy Julia Gillard and more than half the cabinet having caused “Labor to lose its way” has been reinstalled by ousting the absolute worst prime minister in the nation’s political history. Isn’t there supposed to be a lesson learned? Don’t we go to school to learn what is smart and what it dumb?

This mess will occupy government all the way to the election, whenever that may be. I, like many concerned Australians, want to know who in hell is running the country while this rabble called government is totally embroiled in self destruction?

Meanwhile, illegal immigrants step up their rush, the debt mounts uncontrollably and the unions are the recipients of unprecedented legislation giving them rights to intrude into any business house, factory or private entity at will.

Too many people believe Tony Abbott is a wishy-washy leader. Now, is his chance to show himself as a forceful contender who means business. Only lefties and bludgers will whine.

Mr. Abbott, for God's sake give us a sign!

GC.Ed.@L.

MUST READ: A Health Warning For Liberals

Medicine is pressured by a radical socialist transformation

Medicine is pressured by a radical socialist transformation. Some of this is top down. Much of it is bottom up, writes Dr Grant N Ross

For
2 years I was the Melbourne University Liberal Club’s token doctor.
Turning up late, or never, I would always be out of kilter with JSM,
political theories and fights of the day and somewhat under the
impression that Kroger was a kind of cheese. 
Luckily,
being a stereotype got me over the line.

I
would like to redeem my standing by attempting to write about the
direction of health under Labor and the alternative policy direction
the Liberal Party should choose when in Government.

I
feel that there is a need f
or a Liberal establishment to take note of
the direction of health under Roxon and Plibersek and to hear the
story I am about to tell about the pressures within medicine that
will come to change the way doctors do politics for the next 20
years. All is not well, and I want to tell you why.

As
we speak, Medicine is pressured by a radical socialist
transformation. 
Some
of this is top down. Much of it is bottom up.

The Top Down 

 From
the top down, there have been a series of reforms that:


  • Create
    a greater role for government in health


  • Are
    mostly anti-doctor


  • Occurred
    without significant consultation with the medical profession


  • Involved
    the creation of enormous layers of bureaucracy to centrally manage
    an existing private industry


  • Prioritised
    special interests and unions rather than the front line service
    deliveries

Such
reforms include the creation of many different councils to
micromanage various health care aims instead of directly funding
practitioners; and by doing so orchestrate a transfer of power away
from practitioners and patients towards bureaucrats and their
interests.

A
quick list of the agencies and bureaucracies created by federal Labor
include the following:

  • Australian
    commission on safety and quality of healthcare

  • National
    Health performance authority

  • Independent
    Hospital Pricing Authority

  • The
    Administrator and funding body

  • Medicare
    Locals

  • Australian
    Medical Locals Network

  • Australian
    national preventative health agency

  • Local
    Hospital Networks

  • Health
    Workforce Australia

  • Aged
    Care Reform Implementation Council

  • Mental
    Health Commission

  • Aged
    Care Financing Authority

There
are three cardinal reforms by Labor that have made things worse in
health; national registration, Prescribing and Medicare Locals.

National
Registration

Since
2010 we have had the imposition of a massive tax on doctors by way of
a National Registration reform by Nicola Roxon.
Previously, doctors were registered to a state body but are now
registered to the Australian Health Practitioners Registration
Agency; a centralised national authority.

AHPRA,
formed by Labor to ‘facilitate’ national registration, imposes a
$680 ‘Doctor Tax’ on doctors every year; much higher than
previously imposed. The agency’s role, it seems, is to run a police
check once a year, keep names on a register and then deal with a
doctor if they do something wrong by threatening or taking away the
legal right to practice Medicine.

Whilst
most doctors agree on the need for professional regulation, nobody
accepted the AHPRA model being imposed in the face of a functioning
previous system.

There
is an overwhelming sentiment among the medical community that the
AHPRA reforms are decidedly anti-doctor. Firstly, they removed
semi-autonomy from the previous state based QUANGOs. Secondly, the
AHPRA came about against the wishes of the AMA and the medical
profession at large. Thirdly, doctors have to pay extraordinarily
higher registration fees. Fourthly, AHPRA lumps doctors together with
other health professionals in an overt breach of professional
autonomy:


Ahpra

Footnote I – The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law came into effect in 2010. Whilst it was a COAG agreement, AHPRA was a cornerstone commitment of Labor and driven largely by their political agenda and under mostly government influence.

What
is most worrying is that the registration reforms are a direct step
towards the complete Federal take over of health; via monopolising
the licensing of ALL health professionals in the country to one
federally controlled agency. This should be interpreted as a step
towards government socialisation of the entire health workforce. 

Nobody
is quite sure what will happen in the future with AHPRA. I would look
at it as a dysfunctional way of registering doctors and a target for
reform under a Liberal government.

Prescribing
under Labor

The
Labor reforms have particularly offended the medical profession by
allowing nurses and other non-doctors to prescribe medications.
Prescribing has long been the privilege of the physician, a deeply
difficult and precise business and the Government have legislated for
non doctors to prescribe dangerous medications.

Doctors
still do not agree with this. Below is an example of a lethal
medication that should not be given to people in a range of
circumstances ranging from addiction to intra cranial conditions that
is available from a nurse with no medical training. 

DHA

Footnote II – http://www.ahpra.gov.au accessed 6/11/2012
  
Whilst
nobody would wish the loss of political capital by enabling more
practitioners to prescribe, a government should make a principled
stand on prescribing and give that right exclusivity to those who
lead the health system; doctors. Put simply, do not politicize
opiates; morphine is a drug, not an entitlement. We are all better
off without this gray zone.

General
Practice and the Medicare Locals

Medicare
Locals are essentially the creation of large bureaucracies all across
Australia to control the delivery of General Practice services.
Marking the greatest shift of power away from the functioning private
sector to yet more bureaucrats, these organizations claim to
‘coordinate resources’, ‘identify gaps in access’ and other
nebulous imperatives.

They
are really about creating a centralized bureaucracy, more removed
from front line services, to control the allocation of General
Practice visits. Most of these agencies will be run by non-doctors
with political agendas. This
WILL
redirect front line funding.

Whilst
most left leaning elitists and pundits would label a move against
Medicare Locals as ‘protectionism’ for doctors, it should be a
Liberal priority for several reasons.

Fee
for service, rather than centralized allocation, is the most
efficient form of funding for primary care. Doctors alone deliver the
vast majority of primary care via their minute to minute labor.
Direct funding is clearly superior.

Secondly,
reinforcing private practice builds trust within the medical
profession and empowers doctors to deliver good care for their
patients.

Thirdly,
it builds on the only model that can safely deliver cost effective
health care in a flexible and dynamic way. There is pragmatism within
the medical profession that is unrivaled in history. Pragmatism
requires individual liberty. It is the antithesis of bureaucracy.

Doctors
should be allowed to govern how they arrange their practice and the
market is the best way to ensure that each patient finds the doctor
they prefer. We all know that we would prefer to choose our doctor
when we need them; not when the government tells us.

I
have written about three big players in the health reform agenda of
the last 5 years. National Registration and the step towards
socialist health system, widening of prescribing rights and finally
the complete government takeover of General Practice. These are just
a few example of the top down socialist pressures on health that I
have noticed. 
Alas,
they are not the most worrying change ahead of us.

Luckily
for us, Peter Dutton, Shadow Minister for Health, has already
demonstrated his capacity for reform by pledging to scrap the
Medicare Locals and GP super clinics.

Dutton
is an ex policemen, successful businessman, ex-Minister in the Howard
Government and assistant treasurer to the great Peter Costello. He is
clearly a man who understands health and has a distinct policy vision
to restore the health system to a position of strength, rather than
interference and bureaucratization. I believe he will be warmly
welcomed by the medical community and be one of the best advocates
for the restoration of a sensible health system.

The Bottom Up 

Dutton

I
have spoken about some of the top down pressures in a socialist
direction on the health system. I would like to talk briefly about
some of the pressures from the bottom up, that only a doctor can see,
that are still pertinent to the Liberal agenda.

If
the fantasia reforms of the Roxon/Plibersek era are anything to lose
sleep over, they are nothing on the bottom up forces plaguing
medicine at a much more sinister level.

Since
my entry into medicine as a first year student in 2006, the values
underpinning medicine have been rampantly veering towards the left.
The pressures mounting from the bottom, aka medical school
environments, are horrendously aligned with ALP and Greens stigmata.
For those who thought that foaming at the mouth socialism and
bureaucratic elitism were limited to the confines of the Arts
departments, you are wrong.

The
Medical schools themselves have pursued a long march style reform
into the medical degree; especially in the selection of candidates.
Traditionally, school leavers were selected based on ENTER/ATAR score
and the Undergraduate Medical Admissions Tests. No test is perfect,
but the principle was that admission was based on objective academic
capacity; with a view to selecting bright school leavers (whether
advantaged or otherwise).

This
principle cemented medicine as being about academic capacity,
something worth its salt in any market, rather than ‘social
equity’. This is the right way for things to be.

Nowadays,
courses almost universally select via interview. You can dress up how
‘official’ and ‘standardized’ your interviews are, but they
remain the quintessence of subjective selection. That is the purpose
of interviews. They are effectively a mechanism to allow people to
form a personal opinion on a candidate. And exercise bias. 

Adelaideu

On
a background of the inherent socialist tendencies of education at
both secondary and tertiary level, the reforms to selection have
outright enabled the medical schools to pursue a political agenda
that aims to expand the role of government in healthcare, involve
medicine into a nexus of government social equality agendas and
further the promotion of minority special interests to any particular
degree. This is the definition of long-marching.


Wollong

The
results of these efforts are now coming to fruition. Medicine is
becoming overtaken by special interest group after special interest
group, all vying to dictate the rules of medical practice and
employment, values and principles in an ever growing mountain of
elitist control. The effects of this can be seen via organizations
such as the Australian Medical Students Association, the Post
Graduate Medical Council of Victoria and even the Medical Journal of
Australia and the Australian Medical Association; a nexus of
bureaucratic woe:

Amsa

Footnote III – http://www.amsa.org.au

These
organizations are replete with bureaucratic choke holds and
indecisive post modern ‘collaboration tactics. The result,
obviously, is what we have seen under Kevin Rudd: Power from the
people to their overlords in an ever growing unholy alliance of
bureaucrats, red tape and pathetic backyard politicians who would
rather do anything to promote themselves rather than a good idea. It
promotes ‘sellout politics’ and betrays the individuals who
together make medicine what it is and what gives individuals the
right to be free in this country. 
So
long as this framework persists, doctors will be worse off and
patients will be worse off. 

 At
the moment, the AMA can be proud of the leadership it has had.
Brendan Nelson went on to become Liberal Party Leader. Rosanna
Capolingua was clearly Liberal, Michael Wooldridge kept General
Practice sustainable and independent. Steve Hambleton, current AMA
leader, stands for sensible restraint and genuinely aims to protect
autonomy for doctors. We have been lucky. But I am not so sure about
our future. Just look at what the ever growing Australian Medical
Association calls for on Climate Change:

Amsa2

Footnote IV – http://www.amsa.org.au/press-release/20120703-amsa-calls-for-leadership-on-climate-change/
  • Australian
    Medical Student Association


    Health-climate-change

    Footnote V – Australian Medical Students 2010 Policy Document Climate Change and Health see website http://www.amsa.org.au
  • The
    Australian Medical Association’s is little better than the student
    body in this regard:
     
Ama

Footnote VI – http://ama.com.au/node/4442

I
think I have made my case. 
If
anybody in the Coalition did have a silver bullet to stop the long
march, they’d immediately be preselected for a golden safe seat. I
am not that man.

However,
if we were to theoretically look at reversing the political bias
pressuring medicine in Australia, I would start with reforms that
target medical selection, medical training, the de-bureaucratisation
of medical registration at the junior level and aim to move the
governance of medical training away from University bureaucrats and
elitist back to grassroots doctor groups.

This
would help. 
There
is an argument for such change on the basis that it restores
efficiency and principles of autonomy to the medical profession and
by extension of that, to patients. It would be one hell of an effort,
but I honestly do not believe it to be beyond an Abbott government to
achieve in some capacity.

The
other issues are perennial for Liberals; especially for those of us
who have campaigned on campus. The fight against bureaucrats, against
elitists and to genuinely reform education in this country in the way
that David Cameron is trying in England. Perhaps some of the above
changes could be caught up in a commission of audit. I would like to
see that. But I don’t know. I am not a politician.

Conclusion

As
a doctor, I naturally bring more of a background of social sciences
and welfare to the Liberal table than I do tax reform and economics.

However, there is a need for a Liberal establishment to take note of
the direction of health reform that the Roxon and Plibersek ministry
has imposed on health and a need to identify them as inefficient,
retrograde, centralist and to be removed as needed. Equally important
is the message I would like to impart about the need to think about
what is needed to prevent the medical establishment being long
marched into foot soldiers for the ALP.

Just
remember, health accounts for 12-17% of spending and employs 11% of
all Australians. That is one hell of a voter base to lose to the
left.

Peter
Dutton has a lot to contribute to health in the next Liberal
Government. Autonomy, efficiency and restraint will serve our country
well. Similarly, I encourage young Liberals in rising positions of
leadership to consider the principles of a sound health system as
they develop their policy directions.

The electorate expect a good
health system and we have no excuse for leaving ourselves weak on
this front from a simple lack of knowledge.

Dr
Grant N Ross MBBS B.Med Sci is a medical practitioner and graduate of
Melbourne University.

 

Footnotes

Footnote
I – The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law came into effect
in 2010. Whilst it was a COAG agreement, AHPRA was a cornerstone
commitment of Labor and driven largely by their political agenda and
under mostly government influence.

Footnote
II –
http://www.ahpra.gov.au/
accessed
6/11/2012

Footnote
III –
http://www.amsa.org.au/
see About AMSA accessed 6/11/2012

Footnote
IV –
http://www.amsa.org.au/press-release/20120703-amsa-calls-for-leadership-on-climate-change/

Footnote
V – Australian Medical Students 2010 Policy Document Climate Change
and Health see website
www.amsa.org.au

Footnote
VI –
http://ama.com.au/node/4442


Labor Just Doesn’t Get Small Business

Andys RantI see former union hack official Brendan O'Connor is the newly appointed 4th Minister for Small Business.

How foolish of me to think Gillard would appoint someone who had started or managed their own small business and can empathise with small business entrepreneurs.

Finally under Labor, the Minister for Small Business will be a Cabinet member. Senator Mark Arbib was the last Minister for Small Business.

Consider these small business statistics:

(For statistical purposes, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) defines a small business as an actively trading business with 0–19 employees.)

  • There were 2,051,085 actively trading businesses in Australia as at June 2009. Around 96 per cent were small businesses (1,961,337), 4 per cent were medium-sized businesses and less than 1 per cent were large businesses.
  • Small businesses provided employment for almost half of total industry employment in 2009–10, which equates to almost 4.8 million people 1.
  • Small businesses contributed around $294 billion or 35 per cent of industry value added in 2009–10.
  • Small businesses account for 85.7 per cent of employment in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector, compared with 47.6 per cent in the services sector, 30.2 per cent in the manufacturing sector and 13.9 per cent in the mining sector.
  • As at December 2008, almost 50 per cent of business owners estimated working more than 40 hours in a typical working week. 22 per cent of business owners estimated working 41 to 50 hours, 18 per cent estimated working 51 to 70 hours, and 6 per cent estimated working over 70 hours. Of those owners (4 per cent of business owners) estimating they worked less than 40 hours per week, 17 per cent estimated working 31 to 40 hours, 17 per cent estimated working 21 to 30 hours, 11 per cent estimated working 11 to 20 hours and 8 per cent estimated working 0 to 10 hours.

At least Tony Abbott and the coalition rightly acknowledge the important role small business plays.

 

 

Key Small Business Facts and Statistics can be found here.

1 ABS Cat. No. 8155.0.

Update: Labor has finally  just made the small-business portfolio a Cabinet post.

The ALP are yet to update their Ministers page.

My post has now been corrected to relfect the change.

 

Follow Andy on twitter

Why are we still giving Remarkable Indonesia a Billion Dollars in aid?

I recently noted that Remarkable Indonesia just purchased 6 brand new Russian Sukhoi Su-30MK2 jet fighters for a cool $470 million and asked the valid question why is Australia squandering $500 million on a flawed aid program for Indonesian schools?

I emailed both the offices of Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd (14th Jan) and shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop (12th Jan) for comment. So far only Ms. Bishop’s office acknowledged my email.

I’d like to know why the Gillard government with bipartisan support from the coalition are committed to providing Remarkable Indonesia will a billion dollars in foreign aid by 2016.

 

As the video clip from the Indonesian Investment Coordinating Board states, Indonesia is a G20 member with an annual GDP of nearly $1 Trillion USD.

It seems to me that Remarkable Indonesia is doing alright on its own.

 

Follow Andy on twitter

Abbott Needs to Say No to a Gay Marriage Conscience Vote

Andys RantTony Abbott should not give in to the lobbying from the ALP, the ABC and his band of progressive Liberals and allow a conscience vote on Gay Marriage.

The pro-Gay Marriage camp claims to have the majority of public support so I say put that majority to a test and let’s have a referendum. It’s that important.

The Australian newspaper today reports that Malcolm “Treacherous” Turnbull, along with other progressive Liberals, have been lobbying Tony Abbott for two months to allow the coalition members a conscience vote. Abbott shouldn’t surrender.

Homosexuals claim they have a right to “marriage” as a civil rights issue. They do not. Homosexual couples already have all the same rights as heterosexual couples. What certain homosexuals want to do is disrespect the heterosexual orthodoxy and co-occupy a word for their own use – marriage. That is the sole issue.

And as for Labor Senator Doug “subtitles needed” Cameron demanding Tony Abbott allow for a conscience vote on Gay Marriage yet arguing at the weekend’s ALP National Conference that his fellow Labor members should not be extended the same conscience vote privilege just smacks of typical Labor hypocrisy.

I just hope Tony Abbott doesn’t get sucked in and succumb to the pressure. Saying “No” to a Gay Marriage conscience vote is the right thing to do.

I'd also rather have Tony Abbott as “Dr No” for Prime Minister than Julia Gillard as “Dr No Idea.”

 

Be Gay and Happy and Follow Andy on twitter