Menzies House

Old Mother Hubbard

Senator Cory Bernardi notes how no-one can take the Gillard Government seriously:

With the budget only a fortnight away, the media is awash with speculation about what is in store for the country.

This week, the Prime Minister finally admitted what many have been saying for many months: the financial cupboard is bare and 'all options are on the table'. This is political speak for ‘new taxes are on the way’.

Despite a healthy 7 per cent rise in tax takings over the past year, the government committed to around a 12 per cent increase in spending. For some inexplicable reason they thought the nation would cough up the extra even when the economy is so clearly struggling. This assumption (which Labor defends as being based on Treasury modelling) clearly brings into question the value and wisdom we are getting from our public service advisers.

If families, business people and members of the Opposition knew that things were tough outside of the rarefied air of the bureaucracy and executive, how did our highly paid specialist advisers sign off on such dodgy modelling? One can only assume that political influence was brought to bear.

If this is true, it makes the credibility of Swan, Gillard and Wong sink to an even lower level than it was. For many months they have been steadfastly assuring the nation that things were on track and a surplus was on the way. When this rhetoric changed, they claimed it was justified because income had fallen short of estimates - the dodgy estimates that they possibly insisted should be used in the first place.

And yet amazingly, these people still want to be taken seriously as credible financial managers.

Click here to keep reading

Senator Cory Bernardi a Senator for South Australia. 

The Bold And The Woeful

Senator Cory Bernardi discusses the soap opera that is the current Federal Labor Party: 

What more can be said about the state of disarray within our federal government?

It has become a theatre of the absurd with a plot line akin to the Days of Our Lives saga. Unfortunately, the events depicted in our daily media are real and the characters are in charge of our nation.

Like every compelling soap opera there are returning players who were previously presumed dead. That role currently ‘stars’ Kevin Rudd, who represents as close to everlasting life as we’ll likely ever see in politics. Even his own team are wondering what special implement is needed to stop him from rising again.

Then there are the characters whose imminent death lingers through episode after episode. Viewers tune in in equal measure, hoping for a miraculous recovery or confirmation of their demise. No one fills this role in modern politics quite like Julia Gillard. There seems to be no doubt within the electorate that she will eventually be put to the political sword but it seems there are a few more scenes to film before that happens.

No good (bad?) soap is complete without the required villains. These are represented in this high political farce by the faceless men. Feared and loathed by most in their own party, few dare risk their ire through failing to pay appropriate homage. After all, when trouble strikes the main players turn to these men to save their skin.

And then there are the bit players; the nodding dolls who stand resolutely behind whomever they are told to for the television cameras, indicating their furious agreement. Sometimes they get to say a few lines of their own but their contribution it is generally limited to the state of parliamentary beef stroganoff or ‘lobotomised zombies’.

Of course, there are the obligatory extras. Sometimes these feature members of the public, carefully chosen from the Actors Equity Union membership list who can be relied upon not to steal the ‘on location’ scene from the main stars - think dining with sympathetic mummy bloggers rather than the punters at the Rooty Hill RSL.

Naturally these outside studio shots are fraught with danger lest a rogue extra stumble onto set and say something unscripted that’s not approved by the caucus focus group. Unfortunately for the publicists involved with this political soap opera, these ‘reality star’ moments are captured by independent cinematographers and can rarely be edited out of existence.

Now that we have the players, it seems that the plot takes care of itself. Surely no one who actually wrote a script along the lines of what we have borne witness to could ever be taken seriously.

Click here to keep reading. 

Senator Cory Bernardi a Senator for South Australia. 

Public or Political Interest?

Senator Cory Bernardi discusses the latest attack on Free Speech by the government (visit www.FreeSpeechAustralia.com to fight back!)

Diversity of opinion is the lifeblood of democracy - at least that's what ‘media regulator in chief’ and Gillard Government minister Stephen Conroy claims.

And yet, despite his rhetoric about freedom of opinion, he has just launched a proposal to increase regulation of media interests. It's a half-baked policy that threatens freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

In the government’s typically belligerent fashion, the propaganda minister has threatened that if his package is not passed in full by the end of next week he will take his bat and ball and go home! Notwithstanding the fact that we’d all be better off if everyone in this government decided to ‘go home’ until September 14, petulant ultimatums aren’t how public policy should be made.

The cornerstone of the government’s bill is deemed the ‘public interest test’. Given that we already have laws that protect diversity of voices, promote competition and prevent market concentration, it begs the question: what additional interference is Senator Conroy proposing?

One might also question the ‘public interest’ of anything this government has proposed. Massive waste of taxpayers’ money, lethal policies, falsehoods and failures have characterised most of this government’s actions. It's clear that political interest, rather than public interest, has been the overriding consideration of the Labor caucus.

Click here to keep reading. 

Senator Cory Bernardi a Senator for South Australia. 

Let's get Cory Bernardi

There has been much said for and against Cory Bernardi on this forum recently about his links to various entities and matters of non-disclosure. Bernardi himself cannot comment as legal action has been taken. However, this article posted on Quadrant should put to rest much of the nonsense report by Fairfax media. Of course, there will always be those who will believe what they want. That's how smear works. GC.Ed.

Read more:http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2013/01/fauxfacts-media

In Defence of Freedom

Senator Cory Bernardi stands with Israel:

I have always been a supporter of Israel.

It is a beacon of freedom and democracy in the Middle East. During a visit there a few years ago, I was struck by the resilience and optimism shown by the Israelis under very trying circumstances. The testing of their patience and resolve in the face of repeated attacks from terror group Hamas has since increased.

Most recently, missiles salvaged from the Libyan Islamist insurgency by the rulers of Gaza have been launched at major Israeli population centres – Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. This is an alarming escalation from the hundreds of home-made and rather ineffective rockets directed at Israel annually from within the Gaza Strip.

The cowards in Hamas responsible for these attacks usually store and launch their weapons of terror from within residential areas. This is so that any retaliatory strike will likely incur civilian casualties, which can be paraded before a sympathetic and often unquestioning press in an attempt to discredit the justifiable Israeli defence response.

This is a common tactic used in the propaganda war by terrorists. They view the loss of innocent civilian lives as just collateral damage that can be used to further advance their cause. In some instances, they will even target their own people in grotesque public displays of political violence.

This morning’s media carried one such event. 

Click here to keep reading

Senator Cory Bernardi is a Senator for South Australia. 

Slippery Slope

Senator Cory Bernardi discusses Peter Slipper's resignation from parliament - and what it says about the integrity of the Gillard Government: 

Just when you think the Australian Parliament cannot throw up any more surprises, it almost spins out of control.

Peter Slipper, the Speaker of the House who has been mired in allegations of sexual harassment and scandal, finally did the right thing and resigned. This came just hours after the government, led by Julia Gillard, defended his continuing in the role.

It suggests that Mr Slipper, for all his personal peccadilloes, has better judgement than our Prime Minister.

The vitriolic debate conducted by the Gillard Government descended into personal smears and attacks, principally against the Leader of the Opposition. Launching a fusillade of abuse decrying Tony Abbott as a misogynist and a sexist, even Julia Gillard’s hibernating conscience seems to have been stirred from its slumber.

Her attack was launched during what was effectively a motion of no confidence in the House Speaker. The motion was brought on by his degrading and insulting text messages relating to women. Not a word of condemnation about these messages and how they diminished the Speaker’s position in the parliament passed the Prime Minister’s lips. Instead, she launched an attack on a husband and father to three daughters, decrying him in the most unparliamentary terms.

It was a similar pattern from the sensitive souls in what people are calling the ‘handbag hitsquad’. Nicola Roxon was silent about Mr Slipper’s slip-ups, choosing instead to blame Tony Abbott’s dislike for her as being a result of her gender. I’m sure it has nothing whatsoever to do with her poor performance in her portfolio. Her personal antipathy to Tony Abbott certainly doesn't explain why she voted to keep Peter Slipper in the Chair despite portraying herself as a ‘champion of feminism’. Tanya Plibersek chose to support Peter Slipper too. In doing so, she created a serious credibility gulf between her faux outrage at the merest slight and her silence on genuinely offensive matters of principle.

Of course, after the fact, they have all claimed that Peter Slipper has ‘done the right thing’. On that they are quite correct. However, they haven't been able or willing to explain why they didn't do the right thing when they had the opportunity.

This goes right to the heart of what the public perceives to be the problem with modern politics. Australians simply do not trust many of their politicians to put the national interest ahead of their personal or party interest.

Click here to keep reading

Senator Cory Bernardi is a Senator for South Australia. 

Local media slams Bernardi

The huge fuss made here about the demoting of Senator Cory Bernardi was ballooned by coverage in the UK media. The same words are used for journalistic convenience. The Bernardi travesty was of such international importance that it failed to rate in the top 10 stories viewed in the UK Telegraph. Number 5 was, "Dog shoots owner in France." Priorities, I suppose.

GC.Ed.

Sen. Bernardi's Now-Infamous Speech

Here is the full text of Senator Bernardi's speech on proposed ammendments to the Commonwealth Marriage Act:

NOTE: Menzies House has no editorial position on this matter, and we have published numerous pieces in favour of same sex marriage, opposing same sex marriage, and even calling for the privitisation of marriage. We are reposting this speech simply in the interests of furthering debate and so that people can read Senator Bernardi's comments firsthand - Tim Andrews, Managing Editor. 

I have spoken many times in this place about the importance of traditional marriage. In fact, I spoke about marriage in my maiden speech in this place over six years ago. In that speech I said:

Marriage has been reserved as a sacred bond between a man and a woman across times, across cultures and across very different religious beliefs. Marriage is the very foundation of the family, and the family is the basic unit of society. Thus marriage is a personal relationship with public significance and we are right to recognise this in our laws.

I have been and always will be a strong supporter of traditional marriage and its current definition, being a union between a man and a woman. Marriage is accorded a special place in our society because it is a union that is orientated towards having children, thereby ensuring the continuation of our population and civilisation. Society benefits from marriage, so marriage is accorded benefits by society. At the base level marriage is concerned about what is best for society, rather than being concerned about the so-called rights of the individual. Changing the definition of marriage would indeed change the focus of the institution itself. It would put the focus on the desire of adults, as opposed to having the focus on the production and nurturing of an environment for the raising of children for the benefit of society.

I know that not every marriage has children but marriage is a foundation for the family unit upon which our society is built. It has proven itself as the most sustainable and effective social support and training environment for our future generations. I recall columnist Miranda Devine quoted a UK Family Court judge in 2010 in which he noted that family breakdown is the cause of most social ills and that, despite its faults, marriage should be restored as the gold standard and social stigma should be reapplied to those who destroy family life.

The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found that children of married couples benefit from marriage because they have higher levels of social, emotional and educational development in comparison with children who do not live in that traditional environment. Married mothers are more likely to be employed or hold a university degree and married-couple families are less likely to come up against financial problems. While the authors of the research were keen to stress that this is because of a family's financial situation and the educational qualifications of the mother, it does give me cause to wonder: doesn't marriage itself help to provide financial stability and better outcomes? That seems to be a case for opening marriage up to any environment and to any union of two people, as Senator Cameron said, who happen to love each other, but in a family environment it is children who should be the primary concern and children benefit from having both a male and a female role model living in a house—two people that love each other in a permanent union.