The Navy boats inevitably have to travel thousands of KMs back to Australia anyway, and then repeat the journey when another boat signals for help. The pain issue is the Navy being manipulated by people smugglers to act as the transport service for their customers.

How do you propose to 'transfer' them to Papua New Guinea? Are you talking about the boats or the people?

The distance between Christmas Island and Indonesia is less than 500km.

The distance between Perth (where the RAN is based in WA) and Christmas Island is 2600km.

The distance between Christmas Island and Papua New Guinea (remember that the western half of the big island is actually part of Indonesia) is 4200km. Then it's another 3000km from there to Sydney.

An Armidale class patrol boat only has a range of 5600km. Even the Anzac Frigates, who have a lot of range for their size, would use something like 90% of their fuel to do the round trip from Perth -> Christmas Island -> Sydney. They probably wouldn't have the range to go from Perth -> Christmas Island -> PNG -> Perth. It'll also take a very long time.

A random dodgy Indonesian people smuggling fishing boat would require multiple refuelling, and it's seaworthiness is unlikely to enable many of them to actually get there.

Not to mention that the simple 'solution' to being escorted or intercepted and turned around or forced somewhere else, is to scuttle the boat and call mayday.

Well obviously I'm not a transport logistics expert like you are but it's entirely feasible for an Armidale boat based in Darwin which makes continuous 6,000km return boat journeys to Xmas island to make a stopover at PNG if it means not having to make those continuous, risky, dangerous journeys in the future due to reduced demand.

The other option is to excise Christmas Island from the migration zone and fly them directly to PNG. Either option enhances significantly the chances of boats turning around on their own accord if they know there's no chance of getting into the Australian migration zone let alone resettlement.


Edited by rusty: 18/9/2013 03:19:13 PM

:lol:

Darwin -> Christmas Island isn't 6000km. It's within the range of the patrol boats. Darwins -> Christmas Island -> PNG -> Darwin would require a stop in Darwin to refuel or a rendezvous with one of our limited numbers of underway replenishment ships, and it will keep the boat out over 3 weeks, at least half of which will include ferrying desperate asylum seekers onboard. That's assuming you can even fit everyone from the asylum seeker boat onto the austere compartment of the patrol boat, and keep everyone fed for 2 weeks.

The trip from Christmas Island to PNG is far more dangerous than the short distance from Indonesian waters to Christmas Island.

You also haven't explained what can be done to stop the asylum seeker boats from scuttling their ships and calling mayday and forcing the RAN to pick them all up.

Christmas Island was excised from our migration zone 12 years ago.

They already fly people from Christmas Island to wherever they are being detained.

I might not be an 'expert' but at least I don't waffle on about topics I have absolutely no idea about.

Three public service department heads sacked by Abbott government

September 18, 2013 - 5:38PM

Three high-profile public service department heads have been sacked by the incoming Abbott government.

The departures of Andrew Metcalfe at Agriculture, Don Russell at the Industry Department and Blair Comley at Resources, Energy and Tourism were announced on Wednesday.

The head of AusAID, Peter Baxter, has gone on extended leave, with his agency to be absorbed into the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Treasury secretary Martin Parkinson will stand down in 2014.

Mr Metcalfe had been in charge at the Immigration Department from 2005 to 2013 in a tenure that spanned Liberal and Labor governments.

In power: Warren Truss, Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop at Government House in Canberra on Wednesday. Photo: Andrew Meares
He had been secretary at Agriculture since January.

Mr Comley had only been at Resources since March 2013 after a stint as secretary of the now defunct Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Dr Russell, a former adviser to former Labor prime minister Paul Keating, is also understood to have lost his job as head of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.

It is understood that the three men are the only departmental secretaries to lose their jobs at this time.

Mr Parkinson remains Treasury head until mid-2014; the government says it will discuss "further appointment" with him next year.

With AusAid to be absorbed into DFAT, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's office denied Mr Baxter had resigned, saying he was on extended leave.

"The government looks forward to Mr Baxter's continued service in another senior official role,'' a spokeswoman for Ms Bishop said.

There will be two new departmental secretaries, with Gordon de Brouwer heading up environment and Renee Leon to take over the Employment Department.

Lisa Paul has been appointed as the secretary of the new Department of Education, which will be split from Employment and Workplace Relations, and Paul Grimes will take over at Agriculture.

Glenys Beauchamp will replace Dr Russell at Industry.

While announcing the moves, Mr Abbott paid tribute to the three public service department bosses he sacked.

"I take this opportunity to acknowledge three former secretaries, Dr Don Russell, Mr Blair Comley PSM and Mr Andrew Metcalfe AO," the Prime Minister said.

"Each of these secretaries has made a substantial contribution to public life in Australia and I wish them well for the future."

Mr Abbott's office also announced structural changes to the public service, designed to create "clear lines of accountability" and put an end to "confused responsibilities, duplication and waste".

The Abbott government will split education and employment into two separate departments.

The Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport will no longer exist, with its portfolios being absorbed into new departments.

Sports policies and programs will come under the charge of the new Health and Sport Minister, Peter Dutton, who will also take responsibility for the National Mental Health Commission.

Regional development, including local government and territories, will move to the Department of Infrastructure.

Arts will move to the Attorney-General’s portfolio, with the appointment of George Brandis as both Attorney-General and Minister for the Arts.

Customs and border control policy will move from the Attorney‑General’s portfolio to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

The Department of Social Services will assume responsibility for aged care and all programs for people with disabilities. The department will also take over income support arrangements for working age people.

Climate change policies and programs have been moved from the Industry Department to the Environment Department. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will take charge of climate change negotiations at international forums.

Resources, energy and domestic tourism will come under the responsibility of the Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane. There will no longer be a separate Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will take on indigenous affairs, deregulation and the Office for Women.

Bill Shorten, who is running for the Labor leadership against Anthony Albanese, used a press conference in Melbourne on Wednesday afternoon to attack Mr Abbott over his public service sackings.

''I think it's important that we respect the independence of our public service,'' Mr Shorten said.

''It's a bit odd that the first things they do is sack [Steve] Bracks, it's a bit odd that they sack public service chiefs.

''Sacking people, not promoting women, it's not the best start I've ever seen.''

With Jonathan Swan

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/three-public-service-department-heads-sacked-by-abbott-government-20130918-2tykp.html#ixzz2fF8QbI23

Bill you have to be more ruthless than that if you want to be leader.

"Sacking people, not promoting women, it's the biggest crisis the nation has ever seen."

That's better.

But not "the biggest moral challenge of our time"...

Master Troll, Tony Abbott is Minister of Women Affairs.

Good God ladies, dresses to the ankles.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/tony-abbott-womens-minister-portfolio



Edited by theselectfew: 18/9/2013 11:30:20 PM

Coalition scraps Climate Commission, dispensing with Tim Flannery

'Dismayed' Flannery says Australians have 'a right to independent and accurate information on climate change'

Oliver Milman in Melbourne
theguardian.com, Thursday 19 September 2013 16.55 AEST

The Coalition's decision to abolish the Climate Commission, which provides information to the public on the impact of climate change, is "dismaying" and deprives Australians of their right to independent information, according to Tim Flannery, the body's chief commissioner.

The commission, which was established in 2011, has compiled 27 reports on various aspects of climate change. Its most recent major report, The Critical Decade, warned that the world must "virtually decarbonise in the next 30 to 35 years", with Australia keeping most of its fossil fuels in the ground in order to avoid serious consequences from climate change.

The environment minister, Greg Hunt, called Flannery on Thursday morning to inform him that the commission would be disbanded. The Coalition had promised to scrap the body when in opposition.

Flannery told Guardian Australia he had a "very cordial" conversation with Hunt but said he was concerned about where the public would receive independent information on climate change.

"I personally had good relations with minister Hunt but overall the government's decision is dismaying," he said. "I must say, I really wonder where the independent authority on climate change is now going to come from.

"People, rightly or wrongly, are often suspicious if the government provides information that it bases policy on. We had a winning formula of experts, economists and scientists that could provide that information away from the spin."

The scrapping of the commission will be seen as a symbolic victory for climate sceptic critics of Flannery, who have accused him of exaggerating the threat of climate change. But critics argue that Australia, which has just had its warmest 12-month period on record, will be seen internationally as wilfully ignoring the science of climate change by breaking up the commission.

"I believe Australians have a right to know, a right to authoritative, independent and accurate information on climate change," Flannery told a press conference in Melbourne.

"We have just seen one of the earliest ever starts to the bushfire season in Sydney following the hottest 12 months on record. Last summer was the hottest on record, breaking over 120 heat records across Australia.

"As global action on climate change deepens, propaganda aimed at misinforming the public about climate change, and so blunting any action, increases."

In a statement, Hunt said the commission would be "dissolved" to avoid duplicating other government departmental work. The decision would save the budget $580,000 in 2013-14 and annual funding of up to $1.6m in future years, he said.

"I would like to recognise the efforts of the Climate Commission in providing information on climate change to the Australian public and thank all the commissioners for their work," Hunt said.

"In opposition the Coalition indicated publicly the Climate Commission did not have an ongoing role as it believed that providing advice on climate change is the role of the department of the environment."

Flannery told Guardian Australia the commission did an "outstanding job" in informing the public and he would continue to help explain the dangers of climate change.

"At the moment, it's strikingly similar to a game of rugby," he said. "We've got the ball and every prick on the other team is trying to trip us up and kick us in the knackers. We've got to keep going and get the ball across the line. We reduced emissions by 9% last year, we are making headway. We can't give up."

The Coalition is in the midst of dismantling a number of bodies that provided advice on climate change and funded renewable energy.

The Labor leadership contender Anthony Albanese said in a speech on Thursday the move to scrap the commission was "shameful".

Greens leader Christine Milne went further, calling prime minister Tony Abbott a "climate criminal" for dismantling bodies such as the commission and the Climate Change Authority, which sets targets on Australia's emissions reductions.

"Shooting the messenger does not alter the fact that Australia has to do a lot better than 5% in order to contribute fairly to the global challenge of constraining global warming to two degrees," she said.

"In the context of global warming this action is a crime against humanity. In one swoop, [Abbott] has demonstrated his contempt for climate science and for the health and wellbeing of future generations.

"Prime minister Abbott has distinguished himself as one of the only leaders of a western democracy to deny the severity of global warming and to actively undermine infrastructure which is bringing down emissions," she said.

"Future generations will look back on this day and remember it as the day Tony Abbott condemned them and their peers to climate chaos."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/coalition-scraps-climate-commission-flannery

Pfft, if people want climate change information, the Free Market can provide it.

Indonesian MP says country will 'fully reject' Coalition's asylum boat policy

Indonesian MP Tantowi Yahya says Coalition's asylum seeker boat policy is 'illegal, offensive and an affront to democracy'

Helen Davidson
theguardian.com, Thursday 19 September 2013 08.39 AEST

Indonesian parliament will "fully reject" the Abbott government's asylum seeker boat policy, according to an Indonesian MP who labelled it illegal, offensive and an affront to Indonesian sovereignty.

Indonesian MP and member of the parliamentary foreign affairs commission Tantowi Yahya told ABC Lateline on Wednesday there were no circumstances under which Indonesia would agree to the government policy of turning back boats carrying asylum seekers.

When asked if he regarded the plan for the Australian navy to intercept boats in international waters and turn them back towards Indonesia to be legal, Yahya said: "it might be legal in your perspective, but in our perspective it might be different story."

Pressed to define if he meant that he believed the policy was legal or illegal, Yahya responded: 'it's illegal."

Yahya said the policy affects Indonesia's sovereignty as an independent country and that the Australian government should halt the policy until they had the agreement of Indonesia.

"I think the policy will be very offensive and we in the parliaments fully support what was said by our foreign ministers, that we will fully reject the policy," he said.

One of Tony Abbott's first international visits will be to Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and Yahya said he is sure Yudhoyono will raise the issue of asylum seekers with him as it has become a big concern for Indonesian government and citizens.

"As it has become a big issue here in Indonesia, not only in the parliaments, but also the people on the streets, I'm very, very sure the President will put this issue on the table and have it discussed with Mr Abbott when he visits Jakarta in the near future," Yahya said.

He also revealed that neither policy of turning back or buying back boats were discussed with Indonesia. "As far as I remember, no," he said. "We just know everything from the newspaper."

Yahya said asylum seeker issues should be settled by discussion between countries of origin, transit and destination on sharing the burden, without "one country becoming the police".

"What Australia should do right now is sit with us instead of giving money to pay our police to do on your behalf."

Operation sovereign borders officially began following the prime minister and his cabinet were sworn in at government house on Wednesday.

Deputy chief of army Angus Campbell, promoted to the three star level of Lieutenant-general, will head the multi-agency task force to reduce the number of boat arrivals carrying people seeking asylum.

The prime minister's office has been contacted for comment.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/indonesia-reject-coalition-asylum-seeker-policy

Welfare bashing won’t work, Vinnies chief tells Tony Abbott

John Falzon says work for the dole had limited success and 'blaming the poor for their poverty' has no place in framing policy

Bridie Jabour
theguardian.com, Thursday 19 September 2013 18.01 AEST

Tony Abbott has been warned not to base his social welfare policy on “giving some therapeutic satisfaction to those who want to put the boot into people on welfare” by reinstating work for the dole.

St Vincent de Paul Society National Council chief executive Dr John Falzon is hoping to meet the social services minister, Kevin Andrews, and the human services minister, Marise Payne, in the coming weeks to warn them off returning to the work for the dole scheme.

“If your aim is a social and economic one, and that is to improve people’s chances of economic and social participation and to take them out of poverty and to meet the economic needs within the labour market, then you don’t do something like work for the dole,” he told Guardian Australia.

“You don’t succeed in building people up by putting them down and making them feel like they’re being exploited and are worth very little. That’s not to say there aren’t cases where it has been a useful stepping stone for some individuals but we’re talking about a fairly significant government program, and you don’t base a government program on some very, very limited successes.”

Work for the dole was phased out in the early stages of the first Rudd government but Abbott has signalled a return to the policy, which Falzon equates to welfare bashing.

“The principle of welfare bashing, of blaming the poor for their poverty, is completely and utterly ideologically driven and should have no place, not only in the political discourse but in the framing of our policies,” he said.

Falzon is also concerned about any plans to expand income management schemes, which restrict what people can buy with welfare.

He said such a program started as a way to “protect children” by ensuring money was spent on food and education but it had morphed into a program which was based on race when it was brought in as a blanket policy in the Northern Territory, and could soon expand to be based on class as well.

“We have to say it is disappointing one of the first policy directions of a new government is simply to rehash stuff that was clearly ineffectual and didn’t lead to any long-term employment participation outcomes,” he said.

“We had this argument with the Howard government, then we had the argument with the Rudd and Gillard governments for not differentiating themselves enough from some of those participation politics.

“It would be refreshing to be having a different argument.”

He said policy needed to be about economic and social outcomes rather than “giving some therapeutic satisfaction to those who want to put the boot into people on welfare”.

Falzon said policy in practice under John Howard did not improve entry rates for the unemployed into the workforce and the work for the dole programs rarely offered any training.

Falzon met Payne when she was in opposition and called the meeting “very productive” although he was disappointed at the time that the Coalition would not commit to a goal of halving homelessness by 2020.

Asked how hopeful he is of the new government listening to him, Falzon said: “We have to start from the premise that an incoming government will listen. It would be grossly unfair, it would be doing the incoming government a gross injustice, to start from the assumption that they’re not going to listen, that they’re deaf to what we have to say.”

He said that being optimistic did not mean he was confident the changes he would ask for – including a $50 increase in the Newstart allowance – would be implemented, and quickly.

Abbott said earlier in the week that the employment minister, Eric Abetz, would be responsible for “reinvigorating” the work for the dole program.

In the lead-up to the election the Coalition released a policy of reintroducing the program for people under 50 who have been on welfare for more than six months.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/welfare-bashing-wont-work-vinnies-chief

Climate Change? Pfft, I'm more concerned about Manbearpig. This is the same Tim Flannery who had all the fateful worried sick back in 2007 that burning fossil fuels had sent us into permanent drought...

Abott has to realize that confrontation wont work, we can't go in like were Australia listen to us or else . Negotiation has to paramount in dealing with the asylum seekers . Also why is a defence force job as its always been a civilian post

Shame, poor Tim Flannery. I guess if this charlatan feels like he's relevance-deprived he can have a coffee with Rudd, Brown and Blanchet.

Axing carbon tax won’t cut power bills for two years, industry says

Electricity retailers cast doubt on Coalition claim that families would be $550 a year better off

Lenore Taylor, political editor
theguardian.com, Friday 20 September 2013 16.59 AEST

Household power bills are unlikely to fall for two years, despite Tony Abbott’s intention to make the carbon price repeal his first item of legislative business, the electricity industry is warning.

With both Labor leadership candidates insisting the ALP will vote with the Greens to block the repeal, the Coalition is likely to have to wait until after the new Senate sits next July to get the abolition through the upper house.

But electricity retailers say that means they will have to factor the price into forward contracts for another financial year, with July 2015 the earliest practical date that it could be unwound from power bills.

Cameron O’Reilly, chief executive of the Energy Retailers Association, said that by July 2014, “the industry is likely to have locked in hedging arrangements for 2014-15 – so there will be a lag between passing the bill and carbon coming off retail bills.”

The chief executive of the Energy Supply Association of Australia, Matthew Warren, agreed.

“Price regulation and forward contracting make it very difficult to unwind the carbon price in the middle of a financial year. It would create enormous logistical problems to try to unwind the carbon price from electricity pricing before the end of the financial year in which the carbon price repeal took place,” he said.

The Coalition has promised that an average family will be $550 a year better off once it has “axed” the carbon tax, but O’Reilly pointed out that future movements in retail prices will also be influenced by network charges and green schemes like the renewable energy target, which the Coalition has promised to review next year.

The Coalition has made unwinding Labor’s climate policies a top priority for its early days in office – immediately abolishing the Climate Commission and starting the process to repeal the carbon pricing scheme, the Climate Change Authority – which advises on Australia’s fair share of the global emission effort – and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which funded renewable energy and energy efficiency projects and earned commercial returns for the government.

The Climate Change Authority – chaired by former reserve bank governor Bernie Fraser – is set to release a draft report next month, widely expected to recommend that Australia’s target of reducing emissions by 5% of 2000 levels by 2020 will need to be increased as global efforts on climate change intensify.

The authority told Guardian Australia it had not yet discussed its work with new the environment minister, Greg Hunt, and was continuing to work on its report. A spokeswoman for Hunt said no decision had been made about whether the report would be received and considered.

The Coalition insists its Direct Action plan, which offers competitive grants to companies and organisations proposing to reduce emissions, can meet the 5% target, although independent modelling suggests it will fall well short. The Coalition has agreed to raise the ambition of Australia’s target under the same conditions as proposed by the former Labor government.

The Coalition will propose separate legislation to repeal Labor’s carbon pricing scheme and to implement its own Direct Action policy. It appears likely the Coalition will win support from the required six of eight crossbench senators who assume the Senate balance of power from next July to repeal Labor’s scheme, but it is not certain to win their backing for Direct Action, leaving some long-term industry observers deeply concerned that Australia could be left with no policy to reduce its greenhouse emissions.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/carbon-tax-axing-wont-cut-bills-for-two-years

Abbott's removal of top public servants smacks of ideology, not values

Losing such talent just to send a political message undermines the prime minister's claim to respect an independent civil service

Lenore Taylor, political editor
theguardian.com, Friday 20 September 2013 18.04 AEST

"We will be a problem-solving government based on values, not ideology," said the newly sworn in prime minister Tony Abbott in a short speech on Wednesday before he presented his new ministry to the governor general, Quentin Bryce.

But he'd already begun the process of sacking or moving on four of the country's finest public servants – with ideology the only apparent motive.

Martin Parkinson and Blair Comley appear to have been punished because of their roles in implementing the former government's policy on climate change, Andrew Metcalfe for advising the former government on asylum policy and Don Russell for having once been a senior adviser to former prime minister Paul Keating.

Parkinson, Comley and Metcalfe had served former Coalition governments with distinction. The Abbott government didn't even wait to see how well it could work with Russell. Losing that kind of talent just to send a political message made Abbott's subsequent protestations about having the utmost respect for the independent public service sound particularly hollow, even to some Coalition ears.

Within hours of taking the job, treasurer Joe Hockey was also writing to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, telling the board to immediately cease operations, contrary to its obligations under the law of the land, which says it has to keep making "green" investments until such time as the parliament abolishes it. (The CEFC itself paused new investment decisions during the election campaign and is continuing that stance until it can talk to the new government, but believes it is not legally possible to stay in a holding pattern if the Senate refuses to pass repeal legislation until next year.)

It is true the Coalition had made its hostility to the so-called green bank absolutely loud and clear – in fact its starting threat was that it would "tear up" any loans or investments the CEFC entered into before the election.

But if it isn't driven purely by ideology, it's a hostility very hard to understand. The CEFC is investing in exactly the kind of projects the Coalition needs to make its alternative Direct Action climate plan work – energy efficiency fit-outs, renewable energy and the like. And it is making a commercial return for the government. Instead of spending $23 a tonne to abate carbon emissions, like the current carbon price, or about $15 a tonne, as envisaged under Direct Action, the CEFC helps abate emissions and earns money for the government in the process.

In his Government House speech, Abbott also said "we hope to be judged by what we have done rather than by what we have said we would do".

So far on that basis we can question his claim that he will base decisions on values and not on ideology.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/abbot-ideology-public-service-parkinson

Joe Hockey rules out GST online retail changes despite pressure from states

Retailers and state treasurers want Coalition to honour agreement to include online shopping in GST

Katharine Murphy, deputy political editor
theguardian.com, Friday 20 September 2013 15.21 AEST

Treasurer Joe Hockey says the new Coalition government has no intention of changing the GST – even in an area where the states and major retailers are in full agreement.

Australia's so-called "bricks and mortar" retailers and state governments want cheap online purchases from overseas to be caught in the GST net.

The proposal under discussion under the previous Labor government was to lower the $1,000 tax-free threshold for online purchases from overseas.

The Gillard government initially resisted the idea, arguing the compliance costs would be greater than the GST revenue collected.

But in April, the NSW government achieved an in-principle agreement from then treasurer Wayne Swan to prioritise this issue for 2013. Swan told NSW treasurer Mike Baird he was happy to pursue changes to the current arrangements provided the revenue raised was worth the compliance burden.

State treasurers want Joe Hockey to pick up where Swan and Labor left off, and Baird has written to his new federal counterpart highlighting online purchases as a key issue.

"The state treasurers have been united in our push to lower the GST threshold for online purchases," Baird told Guardian Australia on Friday.

"Federal Labor agreed with the need to close the loophole created due to the rise of online shopping, and work looking at the administration of online purchases was already underway. NSW will continue to pursue this important tax reform, which is in the long-term interests of the states and the nation," he said.

Baird said NSW would also seek "a fairer and more sustainable GST distribution system".

"The final report of the independent GST Distribution Review under federal Labor clearly outlined that moving to an equal per capita sharing, with specific support for the smaller states, is the best long-term solution," Baird said.

He said he "stood ready to engage with the federal Coalition to ensure an efficient, equitable and transparent GST distribution system for the states."

But a spokesman for Hockey rebuffed the overture. Hockey's spokesman told Guardian Australia there would be no change to the GST – even in the area of online purchases.

"There will be no change to the GST," Hockey's spokesman said from Bali, where the treasurer is meeting APEC finance ministers. "End of story."

Western Australian premier Colin Barnett put the GST back on the political agenda on Thursday night by urging the prime minister, Tony Abbott, to increase the tax.

"All of the states will say the GST is not growing sufficiently quick enough to fund basic services like health and education," Barnett told the ABC's Lateline program.

"I pose the question: do Australians really mind that much if the GST is 10% or 12.5% if it means maintaining high-quality health and education, disability services and alike? I suspect the Australian people are mature enough to say we'll cop that."

Abbott ruled out any increases to the GST during the recent election campaign. That position was reiterated on Friday.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/joe-hockey-online-retail-gst-states

Soaring Australian dollar gives Coalition early budget headache

Australian dollar strengthens after Federal Reserve tapering decision surprises markets

Follow Greg Jericho by email

Greg Jericho
theguardian.com, Friday 20 September 2013 13.48 AEST

The US Federal Reserve's decision to extend its policy of quantitative easing has sent a shockwave through international markets, and the Australian dollar soared nearly 2% on Thursday.

In Friday's trading its value fell from the peak of US95.15 cents, but at about 94.57c remained about 6% above the low of 89.24c observed just three weeks ago.

The increased value of the dollar comes at a time when export-exposed industries such as manufacturing and tourism were beginning to see some relief from a nearly three-year period from 2010 to May 2013 when the Australian dollar was above parity with the US dollar.

Most investors had expected the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, to announce a slowdown (or tapering) of its stimulus program of buying US$85bn worth of US treasury bonds a month – known as "quantitative easing". Instead the Federal Reserve announced that due to "the downside risks to the outlook for the [US] economy", it would maintain the bond purchases at the current rate.

The Federal Reserve also revised down its growth forecasts for the US economy, from an expected growth for 2013 of 2.3-2.6% down to 2.0-2.3%.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average Index closed at a record high of 15,676.94.

Usually central banks try to avoid taking the market by surprise, but in this case most analysts and investors had assumed the Federal Reserve would begin to taper the quantitative easing program which had been in place since September 2012. The decision to continue the program highlights that the US economy is struggling to return to trend growth levels.

Previously the Federal Reserve had suggested it would begin to wind back the stimulus when the US unemployment rate hit 7%. With the current unemployment rate of 7.3%, the Federal Reserve has now indicated that it will keep the quantitative easing in place "at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6.5%".

This change in target reflects that the recent falls in the US unemployment rate have been due more to workers leaving the labour market – and thus no longer being counted as unemployed – rather than through a growth in the numbers of people finding work.

In Australia the decision was most strongly felt in the currency market. The quantitative easing program has kept the value of the US dollar artificially low, and markets had priced in a reduction of the stimulus. When the opposite was announced, the value of the US dollar fell and the Australian dollar soared from 93.40c to a high of 95.15c within a few hours.

The increased value of the Australian dollar will also cause some budgetary pain for the incoming government. The budget deficit and surplus projections announced in the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook (PEFO) were based on the assumption of the dollar averaging 91c.

A higher value dollar is likely to push company tax revenue below expectations and also inhibit growth in the non-mining sector at a time when both the treasurer, Joe Hockey, and the Reserve Bank are looking to those sectors to take up some of the slack as the mining boom comes off the boil.

In the minutes of its August meeting released on Tuesday, the Reserve Bank noted that interest rates "together with the lower – though still high – exchange rate, were continuing to provide a substantial degree of policy stimulus to the economy". It also indicated that "some further decline in the exchange rate would be helpful in achieving such an outcome".

The moves by the Federal Reserve this week have made that outcome much less likely.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/20/australia-federal-reserve

Great, we already get the "Australia Tax" on purchases in Australia, and these greedy fucks want to add more tax on items outside Australia?

Abbott’s attack on unions

The Coalition intends to abandon $1.5 billion of union-linked wage increases for up to 350,000 workers in aged and child care, challenging one of the union movement’s strongholds.

A spokesman for Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbott confirmed the funding for higher wages committed by the Gillard Labor government would be redirected because the money was to be funnelled through agreements negotiated by unions, including the scandal-hit Health Services Union.

The wage rises were rushed through in the dying days of the last Parliament, and required most workers to sign up to enterprise bargaining agreements for their employers to be eligible for the extra money.

The new government does not need the agreement of the Labor and Greens-controlled Senate to stop the wage increases for aged care.


“As part of the Coalition’s approach, we will work with providers to ensure these funds are distributed in a way that is better targeted to genuinely improving pay and conditions for the workforce,” the spokesman said.

“Labor’s Workforce Compact adds to red tape without guaranteeing improved conditions for all workers. It appears to be more about boosting union membership than improving aged care.”

The federal bureaucracy has also suspended payments from the $300 million Early Years Quality Fund established by the Gillard government to cover wage increases for childcare workers. The Coalition doesn’t plan to go ahead with the wage subsidies.

The Coalition government will be able to reallocate Labor’s $1.2 billion Aged Care Workforce Supplement with the approval of the House of Representatives within 15 days of the first sitting day of the new Parliament.

DUE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM ANNUAL WAGE INCREASE
Under the Aged Care Workforce Compact introduced as part of the Labor government’s Living Longer Living Better policy, many aged-care workers were scheduled to receive minimum annual wage increases of 2.75 per cent, backdated to July.

The Coalition vowed during the election campaign to take the $1.2 billion allocated to the “Workforce Compact” over four years but to keep it in the general aged-care budget.

The office of outgoing Labor minister for mental health and ageing, Jacinta Collins, said 248 aged-care ­providers had applied for the subsidy by August 20.

“It looks like the [Coalition’s] first act in the job will be to put the knife to the pay of Australia’s 350,000 strong aged-care workforce,” a spokeswoman for Senator Collins said.

“The tragic reality is that the ­Coalition will rip these pay increases out of the pockets of hard-working nurses and aged-care workers at a time when we need to help the aged-care workforce almost triple in size by 2050 to meet the demands of the ageing population.”

The Coalition may reallocate the childcare fund, which was set up to distribute any taxpayer-subsidised pay rises for childcare workers.

It is unclear whether any childcare workers had received the wage top-up already because the Labor government was late to release the eligibility rules for the two-year wages subsidy, which was due to end in 2015.

The Coalition’s childcare policy states it would honour any contracts already made and the remaining funds would be kept in the government’s childcare budget.

The Aged Care Workforce Supplement was passed by the Labor government as a regulation rather than full legislation after the last sitting day of the last Parliament.

Regulations are not passed directly by both Houses of Parliament and can be repealed through a disallowance motion in the House or Senate.

The office of the Coalition’s spokeswoman for mental health and ageing, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, declined to comment on Thursday.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells is expected to lose her portfolio when the new government is formed and West Australian senator Michaelia Cash is in line for the job.

PROVIDERS WELCOME A SWIFT REPEAL
Many aged-care providers opposed the Workforce Compact and welcomed the possibility of its swift repeal.

“Using a government contract to force an industrial outcome was not in the best interests of those who would miss out on pay rises where their workforce did not have an enterprise bargaining agreement in place,” Catholic Health Australia chief executive Martin Laverty said.

“That gives us confidence the incoming government not only sees the problem but is willing to consult with providers as to how best dismantle this poorly thought-through scheme.

“We not only welcome it, it shouldn’t have been committed to in the first place.”

Unions, including the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Foundation (ANMF), are disappointed the planned wage increases are likely to be cancelled.

“Those providers who are now trying to walk away from the previously agreed Workforce Compact are mean-spirited and self-serving,” ANMF federal secretary Lee Thomas said.

“If we cannot recruit and retain nursing and care staff, it’s older Australians primarily living in nursing homes who will ultimately suffer through poorer care outcomes.”

Senator Fierravanti-Wells claimed, during fiery debates over the legislation, that the Workforce Compact was “a backdoor deal to resuscitate the HSU” after it had become embroiled in a corruption scandal.

Former HSU national secretary and ex-MP Craig Thomson and former national president Michael Williamson have been charged with misusing union funds for personal expenses. Mr Thomson has been accused of paying for prostitutes using union money.

Mark Mcleay, a senior national industrial officer for the HSU, said the arguments made by Senator Fierravanti-Wells were “nonsense”.

“EBAs are about agreements. They’re not compulsory, there is no compulsion for employers. The supplement tied to EBAs means that workers are getting better wages and conditions and [would have] ensured that the funding flows to the workforce as it should,” he said.

http://www.afr.com/p/australia2-0/abbott_attack_on_unions_5gBDcoKPdPonTTTpz8QiaJ?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=abbott_attack_on_unions

My wife works in childcare and they deserve a pay rise . So do the age care workers . If people think its easy to do their jobs and for the amount they get , go work a day in the industry . You wouldn't last a day

Dubious reasons for sackings

September 21, 2013
J.R. Nethercote

The Coalition is taking full advantage of the fact the traditional tenured structure for senior public servants has been eroded.

The practice and, more so, the rhetoric of government and politics are often marked by both predictability and irony.

This is unusually the case with the top cadre of the Australian Public Service, the secretaries of departments, previously known as permanent heads.

They have long been favourite subjects of journalism and dinner table gossip.

The preferred hunting season usually follows an election that brings a change of government. Even a modest turnover in secretary ranks will give rise to much confected Sturm und Drang.

And so it has occurred lately; as the Abbott government has settled in and effected several changes among secretaries, notably removal of three - one had to go because of a reduction in the number of departments - and the prospective stepping down of a fourth, there has been quite a deal of breast-beating and other outpourings of grief.

It is not only changes of government that bring changes among top officials for, from a professional perspective, doubtful reasons.

Following the 1990 election, the then head of the Immigration Department, Ron Brown, was removed unceremoniously. Although there was little public or media comment, it was a termination that sent shockwaves through Canberra (not just the sort of ripples of the past few days). There has never been an authoritative account of that particular exercise of executive prerogative; some of those involved have subsequently prospered mightily.

Likewise, after the 1993 election, the then head of the Treasury, Anthony Cole, was reassigned to the Department of Health; no one thought it a promotion and he left the APS within little more than a year.

The roll-call of secretaries also reveals a number of fairly doubtful mid-term departures. A case might be made that these personnel decisions were based on performance, but the unwritten story usually focuses on some form of personal incompatibility or tension.

In more recent times, the individuals receive handsome payouts, but their departure usually means a loss of talent; a number, of course, prosper in the dubious ranks of consultancy.

This feature of the present structure of the secretary group is the most potent symbol of the politicisation of the APS because it entails the termination of a career in the merit-based public service by ministerial decision, not professional appraisal and judgment.

It never dawned on the architects of these arrangements that it was one thing to concede the rights of, as they are described, "elected" governments to decide who should head the departments and, as such, be the principal advisers to ministers; it was quite another matter to concede the termination of a career. This distinction was, however, lost on most of those in high places.

Initially, the traditional tenured public service arrangements for departmental secretaries were reduced by various surreptitious means on the grounds that new governments were entitled to have, as departmental heads, individuals in whom they had full confidence. The barely hidden subtext was that Labor governments should be able to shed top officials too steeped in conservative ways, either because this is the nature of those who rise to the top in bureaucracies or, more particularly, because they had worked too long for Coalition governments.

John Menadue, secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 1975-76, and before that, secretary-designate, is a prominent advocate of this analysis.

Doubting that the public service was "politically neutral" when he moved to Canberra from his post as general manager at News Limited in Sydney, Menadue considered that, "with its service to conservative governments for 23 years", the APS was "steeped, however unwittingly, in traditional ways of thinking and doing things. It was culturally, if not politically, conservative."

A related problem was that too many of the new ministers were "too impressed with the reputations of heads of major departments who found change hard". The government "should have replaced them on day one".

But the wheel turns. Speaking at Parliament House in 2002, in the wake of the ''children overboard'' controversy, Dr Don Russell, then in the private sector, reflected on changes in the role of departmental secretaries. Tellingly, he concentrated on the question of tenure.

"Losing tenure and a subsequent move in the Howard years to put secretaries on to fixed-term contracts appears to have had the biggest impact on behaviour, reducing the willingness of secretaries to speak up even within the confines of the public service itself."

Russell finished by proposing that "tenure be returned to secretaries".

"It is hard for secretaries to speak their mind when they are on fixed-term contracts and the person chairing the meeting is responsible for the terms of that contract."

The irony in this progression is that removal of the traditional tenured structure, often by stealth especially where the Remuneration Tribunal has been involved, and its replacement by quasi-contract relations was conceived and designed in the interests of Labor governments for reasons admirably expounded by John Menadue.

But it has been the Coalition side of politics that has used the weakened arrangements and deployed them in its own interest; similar arguments apply to the growth and development of the ministerial private office (which also caused Russell considerable angst in his 2002 address).

The sackcloth and ashes that have accompanied this week's announcements have obscured important aspects of the new government's establishment.

The first is continuity. Well nigh three-quarters of the secretaries continue to work in the same fields as they did under the recent Labor administrations; in a few cases the field of responsibility has been changed, notably in the welcome split of the Employment and Education Department (which should never have been joined in the first place).

The second important feature is that the two new secretaries have been drawn from the APS, indeed, from APS HQ, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

This is a contrast with the Rudd Labor government. It won some kudos for retaining all secretaries it inherited from the Howard government.

However, as vacancies arose, it looked to state public services, especially NSW, for replacements.

This reflected practice in Queensland after the Labor government, with which Kevin Rudd was closely associated, came to office in 1989; most of the inherited departmental heads were replaced by "Mexicans", people recruited from down south - the Commonwealth or other state public services.

Finally, APS HQ seems to be on a roll again. Rare is the department head who has not done time in Prime Minister and Cabinet at deputy secretary or division head level.

It is not the first time this has occurred in APS history. And the appointees may, as individuals, be well suited to the posts to which they are assigned.

But it always comes with an apprehension that the search for people for top jobs is not as wide-ranging or as thorough as it ought to be.

John Nethercote is adjunct professor, Public Policy Institute, Australian Catholic University; editor, Liberalism and the Australian Federation (2001).

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/dubious-reasons-for-sackings-20130920-2u5fl.html#ixzz2fR6eSAMi

Why some Australian women loathe Tony Abbott – especially now

If you think David Cameron has a 'woman's problem', meet Tony Abbott: the new Australian PM who, among other things, said people should vote for him because he has "not bad looking" daughters. Now he's only employed one woman to his cabinet, tensions are at boiling pot says Australian writer Van Baham.

By Van Badham, Australian writer4:12PM BST 16 Sep 2013

When then Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard denounced her opposite number, the conservative Tony Abbott, as "the definition of misogyny in modern Australia", her words, and her fury, went viral. She had, after all, been subjected to the man's taunts, eye-rolling, jibes and sexist comments for the entire tenure of her prime ministership. Women across the globe recognised her level of frustration as a woman in a leadership position consistently undermined by gendered attacks. Abbott had, after all, challenged the Labor Prime Minister to "make an honest woman of herself". He'd been photographed in front of protest signs denouncing the Prime Minister as a "bitch" and "witch". He'd said that "abortion is the easy way out" for women, that women were "physiologically unsuited to leadership". When Gillard tore him to shreds the whole world seemed behind her, but, alas, Australia wasn't listening: on September 7, 2013, Tony Abbott was elected Prime Minister in a federal election.

His opponent wasn't Gillard, but Kevin Rudd – the former Prime Minister whose internal battle to regain the leadership Gillard herself had earlier wrested from him became the deciding narrative of this election cycle. It's often said that Australians don't vote for conservative governments but against Labor ones, and the destabilising, internecine Labor warfare had dominated the news since Rudd's deposition in 2010. With Labor effectively doomed by infighting, all Tony Abbott has to do was keep a low profile to win the election. He refused to be interviewed. He released policies in dot points and with no costings. When humiliated by Gillard in her "misogyny speech", Tony Abbott's people immediately swamped the press with pictures of the man surrounded by his wife and three young adult daughters. "My Tony's a Good Man," was the official line, avec photo of devoted wife, used to douse what conservatives knew was Tony's "woman problem".

Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard was ousted
Australians got to see a lot of the Abbott daughters, usually dressed in white, over the course of the campaign. Infamously, Abbott released a "vote for me" message to the Australian Big Brother household, flanked by the girls and with the actually expressed sentiment "Vote for me because I'm the guy with the not bad looking daughters". He appeared on a cooking programme with his daughters as his kitchen assistants. He deployed them as talking shields when questions were raised of what appeared to be sexist behaviour on the campaign trail; when Tony Abbott described one of his own candidates, Fiona Scott, as being worth voting for because she had "sex appeal", the incident was written off as a "daggy dad" moment. It was a "daggy dad" moment when he suggested to video a female worker in a service utility was "popular" because of the way she looked. It was again a "daggy dad" moment when Tony Abbott had himself videoed with a teenage female netball team and expressed the desire "to be younger" and that "a bit of full body contact never hurt anyone".

Again and again the women of Australia were reassured by conservative spokespeople that Tony was no sexist, but that it was Gillard herself who'd played "the gender card" in her famous speech. The Abbott daughters spoke at their father's campaign launch. His wife gave exclusive interviews about how much he loved women to just about everyone. He got elected.

Thing is, merely saying someone is not sexist does not alter reality if they truly are. Tony Abbott has been Prime Minister for a week and has just announced his ministry and cabinet. Of eighteen cabinet ministers chosen by Abbott, only one, Julie Bishop, the new Foreign Minister, is a woman. In Gillard's cabinet, there were seven. Of the 12 parliamentary secretaries chosen by Abbott, only one there is female, too. Abbott has excused his selection by saying that he's "disappointed" there aren't more women in his cabinet, but that it's been chosen "on merit" and there are women "knocking on the door" of cabinet in the outer ministry – still, of course, heavily outnumbered by men. That Abbott's cabinet contains a Treasurer who couldn't correctly add up a costings document, an Attorney General who believes religious rights trump human rights and an agriculture minister who thinks equal marriage rights for gay couples might somehow affect his daughters' chances of finding husbands, the "merit" defence does not carry much weight. Especially not, as the Labor Opposition Leader pointed out today, Australia now has less female representation at cabinet level than Afghanistan.

It's a sorry state of affairs for what has been a modern and progressive country to find itself in, and what it will mean for Australian women to have a leader who doesn't enfranchise women at a political level, who has actively campaigned against abortion rights and said "the right of women to withhold sex ... needs to be moderated" is a thought this writer can only countenance with nausea and dread.

The impassioned reaction of outgoing Australian senator Sue Boyce to the ministry announcement sums up what many are feeling. "Shocked and embarrassed," she announced to the press today, "How embarrassing to be a government with only one woman at a senior level".
She's not an ideological opponent of Abbott's, either. She's a senator of his own party.

Van Badham is an Australian writer, commentator and feminist hag. Tweet her at @vanbadham

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10313055/Why-some-Australian-women-loathe-Tony-Abbott-especially-now.html

@Joffa - are anti-Lib articles the only ones you'll be posting in this thread?

:lol:

No, why do you interpret these articles as anti-Liberal, are any of them not factually correct?

How many women are in cabinet should not be an issue.

I agree, people should be selected on merit, personally I'd like to see high performers from the opposition parties also selected into the Ministry.

That's a good idea, prevents the wasting of talent from one side of politics.

I don't see how it could be implemented though :-k

It happens in the US, but our set up is different of course.