James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree

Dear Eric

July 16, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 3 Comments

Dear Senator Eric Abetz,

A short while back now, you did countenance the idea in an article in the Canberra Times that Asian countries are against marriage equality. I did reply to your article there, but it was lost completely in the innumerable responses you already had so perhaps here I can address a few issues in the quiet of my site. While that applies to the governments of these countries, it is not so true of their populations. In fact in a repressive regime such as South Korea only two years ago over 47% of their population openly stated their views on this had changed in the last five years and by 2013 there were 57% of the folks surveyed that supported some manner of the legally recognised union. The interesting convergence of our government with theirs is an unwillingness to listen to the voice of their “constituents”. I find it a strange argument for an Australian political representative to make especially when it is mostly untrue as numerous surveys, and research centres are discovering. It almost suggests that the views you are representing are of external governments not the opinion of your people’s desires, in our country, that you were elected to serve! Instead, you find it necessary to consider other countries who don’t elect you because why …. they might not buy up all our mining rights and minerals, and land, and farms and houses? So perhaps I am a little behind in pointing this out, but you’re a senator of AUSTRALIA, not China!

Plebiscites

Now you want a plebiscite! I know polls can be inaccurate by a few percentile, plus or minus. It is fair to suggest that there is always elements of bias in the manner in which the data is collected that sways results in one way or another. Do you seriously think that this is a strategy that could reinforce your obviously personal viewpoint in the face of polls showing a 72% approval for legalisation from the Australian community? Who are you representing Senator Abetz? Your opinion, Asian governments or Australia? … and if our country, then perhaps, do you not wonder if a plebiscite is a losing argument also?

Polyamory?

Icons from one of the countries we normally follow.

The previous day in the media you argued that legalising marriage equality may “lead to polyamory”? If indeed allowing a change to the marriage act was a slide towards polygamy, why do you give so much support to our Asian neighbours, many of whom allow polygamy? They are already there, Eric! I would have thought we would prefer to align ourselves with other western countries like New Zealand, Canda, the UK, the US or Ireland ñ all of which have marriage equality. We certainly have aligned ourselves with these in the past, why change and move in with the polygamists now, Eric? I am confused by your allegiances, Eric?

For the sake of five words.

The legislative proposal is to change five words in the marriage act to make it gender neutral. That’s it. Nothing else! Do you not understand that accepting polygamy would require far greater changes in the Marriage Act? The changes for access to “lead[ing] to polyamory” would be far more than five words to make it gender neutral., That is all we are discussing here, making it gender neutral. Sliding down the “slippery slope” to bestiality, marring your direct family members, “polyamory”, or any manner of things you are suggesting it will lead to would require very significant changes to the Marriage Act! Probably a complete rewrite! You have degrees in law and arts, and yet forgive me if I am lead to wonder do you not understand how the law works, Senator Abetz? How is this a rational argument for someone of your legal background? Are you so desperate to resist this idea that you will clutch at any straws that fall from the top of your head?

Churches are not affected

How difficult is the fundamental message of Christianity to understand?

Ultimately, Senator, it’s about allowing a simple choice. It’s about two people (not multitudes) making decisions to stay together because they love doing so and having the state recognise it. Something many do already but which has no legal recognition. The change allows the churches to object to it as you feel “real Christians” should and not perform the ceremony at their discretion. Churches can still refuse to participate. That right is retained. Then there is the Presbyterian church saying they might refuse to perform any marriages if marriage equality goes ahead (also Page 2 & 19 of the SMH on July 6th, 2015). OK! Fine. Do they not understand that you have that absolute right now AND if the act is changed? It is merely about civil and legal recognition. Nothing more. You can still pronounce it as “evil”, still preach against it, still be bigots, still dislike it! It affords the two people the legal recognition of their relationship even if you don’t like or want it for yourself Senator Abetz!

LNP’s approach to Legislative change

It is such a small legislative change. But you and your colleagues appear to stuck on it. Morrison says he’s concerned about consulting a range of “stakeholders” to get their feedback. But he, in particular, will change other major pieces of legislations without consulting any “stakeholders” all the time. For example look at the major change to legislation your colleague Morrison put through before he moved portfolios. Not only did he not speak to stakeholders but he without reservation, used emotional blackmail on opposing senators to get draconian legislation designed to oppress entire communities housed in detention under our care! That was a major piece of legislation that effectively puts children in harm’s way and yet amazingly your next argument was about protecting children. I’m confused, Senator, as to what your party’s position on protecting children is?

Gay couples are already raising children

It would seem to me that protecting Children is a complete distraction, a “strawman” argument if you will. Children are not in the marriage vows! Marriage is not about children; it is about a relationship between two people. Children may result from that union, but marriage is about two adult people. A surprising discovery for many (especially the proponents against marriage equality) is, there are lots of married couples (older, infertile & simply not interested) that have a marriage that does not involve children at all. Another discovery for many is that Gay couples are already raising children. One of them is a fellow parliamentarian. OK, you and Penny Wong are not the best of friends, but you see and speak to her regularly. Let me repeat; Gay couples are already raising children. How exactly will resisting this legislative 5-word change provide greater protection for these kids? I can suggest some ways allowing it does protect children. In fact, it would ensure legal and social recognition of those children. It would protect from the legal discrimination frequently experienced in Gay relationships over inheritance and custody when one parent dies. It provides security for the children as it is more likely to reduce prejudice, stigma and discrimination against these families. How about considering protecting the children to the full extent of the Law by providing children of Gay couples the rights inherent in marriage under the Act? If you are truely concerned about children, then provide for the parents they have. You don’t get a second set of parents, you know, not unless adoption is involved. It would appear that there are more arguments that marriage equality is in the best interests of children being raised by same-sex couples. So your next line was ‘study after study’ had shown that children benefited from having a mother and a father. Although strangely that isn’t what Australian Government literary analysis reveals?

Studies supporting children

The trouble is that there are Australian studies (that’s the country you’re a senator of Eric) that say otherwise.
Perhaps you should read the study conducted by the University of Melbourne researchers that surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children about their physical health and social wellbeing. The results there don’t agree with you, Eric. Don’t take my word for the results, look it up yourself, Eric! Of course, don’t read it if you feel the cognitive dissonance would not be good for you!

Domestic Violence & Separation

So if children thrive with two parents, I can only assume you must be anxious about the obvious issue of single parents and the high rate of divorced couples throwing a spanner into your concerns for children. Equally concerning to you must be family domestic violence in this country is at an all time high although not helped by your government’s removal of funding for legal aid, support and shelters. So surely one would assume you are putting your senatorial weight behind providing as much support as possible for issues of domestic violence and for single parents of these “enormously disadvantaged children” about which you are so concerned. Although aligning yourself in support of the “World Congress Of Families” who are opposed to single mothers as one of societies biggest drain on resources as well as damaging to societies moral fabric doesn’t suggest consistency here. What are you doing to help out folks for whom the failure of “straight marriage” from divorce and violence which results in either denying children their access to a mother and a father or damaging them because they have a violent parent? Still, I am probably wavering a little off topic here.

IVF

Couples have a right to choose to be without children, as they should have a choice about whom they love. Couples don’t usually found their marriages on “sexual complementarily and potential fertility” as Archbishop Hart suggests but on more esoteric values such as “love”. Fertility matching is obviously not a strong factor here when you consider that “IVF” is the most googled “word” in Australia. For many married adults “generating” children “normally”, is not even a physical possibility let alone the focus for getting married. And yet “children” is the fallacious “strawman” argument used to prop up the anti-equality rhetoric.

Legal protection for Children

What do you seriously believe will happen if this goes through?

“The institution of marriage has stood the test of time.”, You said. Really? It used to be about property ownership and dowries. Before that, Gay marriage was an institution of previous dynasties. “Heterosexual Marriage” the way this generation envisages it, is a recent historical invention. As for this generation, it hasn’t been doing so well. It now ends for huge proportions of our population down the familiar path of unhappy families, domestic violence, broken marriages, unfaithful partners, divorce, legal battles and subsequent family disruption! Yeap, straight marriage is doing so well … NOT! I do although agree with your comment (when taken out of context) that “For our children’s sake it [marriage] needs to continue to do so”. Gay Parents will be able to secure legal protections for their children if it is legalised.

Happy children

My son’s school AND our Church is replete with both examples of single parents and same sex parents with normal happy children whose kids play in the church, the soccer field and the school play yard with my Son. We’ve been proud to attend the baptisms of children of Gay couples. Children need not be used as pawns in a fallacious argument!

Choose Love!

The issue in the case for having children or getting married is about – a legal right to a choice for whom you love. Don’t you like it? Well, that’s your choice too! Changing the Law to allow choice doesn’t prohibit your bigotry, hatred, your ranting about polygamy, bestiality, being ambushed OR -alternatively – your acceptance or joy at the opportunity presented by giving LOVE between two people, legality.

Keating on Abbott

July 10, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Keating warning us about Abbott

Ah, Keating, there was a man who could chew them up and spit them out. He didn’t need to repeat himself over and over while he thought of the next word to say in a pathetic attempt to form a whole sentence as Abbot does. He churned out dialogue at a remarkable rate as his mind leapt out in front to choose from a cornucopia of comments he wanted to express. His verbal banter barraged his opponents like a flooded river hits at the shores tearing at the edge of their debate till the walls collapsed. Abbott is barely able to complete a coherent sentence in most of his diatribes. They are typically either so full of gaffes or misspoken expressions that it is a wonder he can make a speech himself at all. In fact, he once complained in that infamous ABC interview in 2010 that we could only be assured he wasn’t stretching the truth was if he was expressing himself from an “absolutely calm, considered, prepared, scripted remark”.
It seems carefully scripted dialogue — probably written by someone more articulate — is the only way he can even tell the truth, much less string a series of coherent sentences together. This is our national statesman? Is it no wonder Germaine Greer on Q&A once said, ”For me, the biggest mystery is that Tony Abbott is a Rhodes scholar” to roars of approval from the crowd and the anger of right-wing columnists. Keating, love him or hate him, was as adroitly articulate on his feet as Abbott simply isn’t, even in a scripted speech. There couldn’t be two Prime Ministers further apart in intellect.

Electricity costs

July 8, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Remember women of Australia how Abbott’s reward to you as Minister for Women was to give you a $550 bonus reduction in your electricity prices so you could buy a top of the line iron to smooth your husband’s shirts! Well, I hope you all remain climate sceptics and have not added to your household either air conditioning or solar panels. As you all “know” the earth is cooling not heating up so you might need that air-conditioner and neither you need that set of solar panels on your roof. Because with the cost of electricity plummeting and the earth cooling such things will be unnecessary in the Australian household. To encourage this behaviour, the electricity authorities have come up with a way to reward those of you who believed prices would plummet and climate would get cooler. <sarcastic sigh> Now while Murdoch’s papers, are notorious for getting things slightly out of kilter, it would seem there is a new agenda for electricity pricing. One that you “believers of climate change” and “disbelievers in the Minister for Women’s generosity” may find yourself at odds. Oddly this article from Murdock press is supported by the AEMC government document I’ve attached herein.

http://mobile.news.com.au/finance/money/increase-cost-for-families-running-an-airconditioner/story-fnagkbpv-1227195669476

http://www.aemc.gov.au/News-Center/What-s-New/Announcements/New-rules-proposed-for-distribution-network-prices

Before you drop into the belief that any of the discussion in the AEMC paper is fair, you need to engage a little thinking & reading between the lines! Think financial capacity in a heating climate …

“The goal would be to curb usage on the hottest days.” …. Umm who are the most economically vulnerable and physically susceptible to death by heat stroke during these “hottest days?” during which “we” are encouraged to curb usage??? Notice how the article says…
“The AEMC’s Mr Smith said: “This is about consumers taking … more of an ownership for their outcomes.”

Corporate avoidance speaks for “we are not here to provide a service equitably for the community“. We are not the guilty party we are transferring guilt for our decision to the consumer. The monkey is on your back now. You (not us) are the party guilty for the result, and we are absolved of all responsibility for our decision! How is their approach equitable? If you have a problem with your definition of “equity”, have a look at the image alongside here.

Minister for Women?

July 2, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 2 Comments

DV hotline

In recent time the Government has expressed concerns for Domestic Violence issues but just how aligned is their rhetoric to their actions? The announcement of $4M for a Domestic Violence hotline has the appearance of affirmative action but then Abbott’s contribution as the Minister for Women, was to axe the funding for education in school around Domestic Violence. This in not the only axing he has been doing in this field. There are a significantly smaller numbers of Women’s shelters available to women and children fleeing domestic Violence since funding to women’s shelters was axed. The assertion that women are after all free to move away and seek shelter has been reduced to the point that what shelters are left are turning women away. So $4M for a DV hotline is a tokenistic effort on the part of the government designed for maximising publicity and deflecting bad publicity at a relatively low cost. It is an illusion to garner the publics gratitude that they are doing something for this cause in the hope that no one notices that the total sum of effort has still been a withdrawal of support for the victims of domestic Violence! It is actually a cynical and manipulative gesture.

Tax, education, Shelters

Similarly cynical is Mr. Abbott’s recent contribution as the Minister for Women to axe family tax benefit for women in certain “classes”. This was just after he’d axed the funding for education in school around Domestic Violence. You’d assume he thought, “Aren’t men better behaved nowadays now the Adults are in charge”? Women are after all free to move away from these bad domestic situations and seek shelter in … oh ummm … there are a great deal less shelters now. The sum of these three axings is that it makes it even harder for women with children to escape domestic violence. Perhaps they could seek shelter in the Tattersalls club. Apparently they are receptive to women nowadays. Wasn’t Abbott claiming they “they’ve now broken down the last barrier and they’ve made the men’s only club admit women!” when they celebrated International Women’s Day there? Perfectly appropriate for him to celebrate the day there. He is the Minister for Women, he had membership. I mean who else needed to attend? Although perhaps the reality is that Tattersalls isn’t actually making any changes to protocol in so far as access to women is concerned. , as they have always been allowed in. Unless of course they are seeking membership. Women have long been granted access, just not membership! So I hardly think this is a sign of any change whatsoever. I used to go to regular dance events at Tattersalls over a decade ago and I wasn’t there to dance with other Men. So there is nothing changed there as he stated. Dear me is that classified as a “misdirection”, an “overreach” or a “lie”, Mr Abbott?

Besides, Abbott hosting his celebration of International Women’s Day there is perfectly appropriate for him. It makes perfect sense and I understand the congruence inherent in this decision by the Minister for Women. It is totally in line with all his previous decisions in regards his portfolio. Makes perfect sense to me! Allow me to elucidate a little.

Carbon Tax and Refuges

Women killed by mid 2015 V people by Terrorists

So … not at a refuge. So many frontline support services are feeling the pinch since Abbott stepped up to the plate to bat for the Women of the country. Seems to me he has done quite a bit lately. Before hosting his celebration of International Women’s Day at his “old boys” club his claim to support was putting money into housewives pockets by removing the Carbon Tax. Mr Abbott has been very active in his role as The Minister for Women. OK, perhaps not in regards issues about violent deaths incurred by women via partners or ex-partners. There were 89 women were killed by their current or former partner between 2008-10 reaching 84 deaths of women last year 2014 (although we look set to exceed that this year) and thousands of domestic violence cases. (In Victoria alone, police were called out to 65,393 domestic violence incidents in 2013–14 – 30,000 of which were serious enough for police to press charges.) To date we are only six months into the year and have a scored past half of last year’s total of 48 violent deaths, maintaining a close to 2 women/week average. (There is something appallingly sterile about expressing it that way.) But what deaths does he concentrate on … External terrorism (which has killed exactly how any people in Australia this century? – let alone the last year). And where is he spending millions in fighting which deaths? What if he spent the same relative money per real death on domestic violence terrorism that he does on practically non-existent external born terrorism deaths? Then he’s truly have reason to whine about a Deficit! (see my post on the Budget for that particular fraud)

Control Issues

In truth his position allows him significant control over women’s issues. It allows the inequality of pay and position to remain the status quo (actually latest figures show the gulf has widened), allows him to shutdown women’s shelters, revoke funding for Women’s Leadership programs and the Financial Counselling/National Shelter programs all which provide direct support for women & children. Shutting down funding for the 13 community legal services in Victoria which provides for the same. It ensures the “Women’s Budget Statement” which has been a part of the federal budget papers for 30 years, ceased to exist in 2014 onwards. Let’s not forget how he castigates women verbally as exemplified by repeated gaffes that cast women in the kitchen and relegate their only conceivable role to that of unpaid housework. Lately, mother’s are “dirty leaning double-dipping rorters of the system” just because these scheming women want to spend the first 6 months of their child’s life, with them rather then getting back to work the moment they leave hospital and are no longer entitled to sick leave. Adding to that list his role allows him to ignore the issue of domestic violence, amongst other crimes. Like I said, very active.

His greatest Achievement for women?

Delegating his greatest achievement as Minister for Women to throwing out climate legislation ignores many women who thought dealing with climate actually mattered. The third most significant issue to women behind Immigration and “Defence & Security” according to JWS Research. And the majority of women rate him poorly in all these issues. “The perception is it’s essentially a male government focusing on male issues,” said John Scales, JWS Research managing director. Given his many instances of misogyny from physically attacking women in his student days, his anti-abortion activism, his professed disapproval of no-fault divorce, contraception and pre-marital sex, his many misogynistic attacks on Julia Gillard while in opposition, to the unparalleled verbal attack on Gillian Triggs (where was the “partisan” criticism for Phillip Moss – a man – for revealing similar or worse abuses than Triggs revealed, in his report on Naru), I’d dare to suggest another motivation for this role. He’s a sociopath which is something many have begun to recognise or acknowledge. (Yes I have a post on that too)

“FOR” or …

The choice of taking on the position of “Minister for Women” ought to be more properly seen as a huge #¥€< you to women in general. So don’t expect any real improvements for Women at all under Abbott!

Like I said he’s been working very hard, it’s just that title that confuses me, because I would have thought that middle word was spelt “f” “i” “x”, not “f” “o” “r”?
<sigh>

Afterthought down the track

Still a Minister who thinks we need to "fix" women! — Still a Minister who thinks we need to “fix” women!

It’s three months down the track since I wrote what’s above (now September 2015). The Death rate is 65 Women and Abbott is gone. Malcolm Turnbull has clawed back only a small proportion of the funding for Domestic Violence that Abbott stole but it is merely a bandage on a gaping wound. Changing the Minister for Women to a woman who has clearly stated she doesn’t believe in feminism is not going to help. The problem with both Abbott and Cash is that they both think the middle part of their title is “fix” not “for”. Abbott stole $300M from DV social support funding. Just for they whom believe Malcolm putting a third of that back is an improvement, let’s think about that a bit. So the government is going to put money back into domestic violence but not to the extent to that which they took out. People get excited about the government and say “isn’t this a great start“. And “heading in the right direction“. Nobody of course pays attention to the net loss figure as there is just a presumption that it is moved away from the point that Abbott left it in. It is essentially the strategy of many a politician to appear to act in the interests of the people as the election draws near. Let’s face it who remembers – in the short news cycle of contemporary society – what the net change in funding and societal harm has been created. People react positively to the perception that things are changing in a direction that benefits society without recognising that the total net movement has been to its detriment. A wave of positivity and a lack of critical analysis results, and the results are the government gets in for another three year term where they rework the same cycle that they have been successful with in the past. An improvement would be $400M! This is just political misdirection! Hopefully your not buying into it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he’s done it but … too late and not enough! The title is: “Minister FOR women”!

Gay Rights

May 30, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The right to your choice for Love

A friend raised the spectre of opinions from the Gay community who don’t support the marriage rights debate. She said, “I have had three different people say to me this week on the subject of same-sex marriage that ‘lots of gay people are against it you know’.”

Denial by the unengaged

She reflected that just because you are part of a community seeking justice that it doesn’t give one “special privilege” to deny the rest of your community a right, any more than it does for them outside of it. I am sure there were “blacks” in the “South” who thought emancipation was inappropriate for their community and that slavery was “normal”. Also, I suspect this is a failure by “different people” to recognise the individuality of people and lump all “Gays” into a homogenous lump. Where the opinion of one “Gay” person represents the view of all and then pretend the years of protest and numbers of people who hold a different opinion are irrelevant because … “I have a gay mate who says he doesn’t care.” How completely lacking in insight, and affirming of their gay bias is that?

The reality is that lots of heterosexual and homosexual people are not interested in the institution of marriage. So what? How exactly is that relevant to the conversation of the rights of people to choose and to have a choice. If you as an individual independent of your sexuality decide not to engage in marriage, why does that, therefore, give you the right to deny it as a choice for others?

Parenthood & Children

I am a parent; it is something I choose to be, that many married people don’t want and some can’t have. There are people in the world but choose not to be parents, that is their right too. When you consider that “IVF” is one of the most googled “word” in Australia, for many married adults “generating” children “normally”, is not even a physical possibility. Marriage is not about children; it is about a relationship between two people. A surprising discovery for many (especially the proponents against marriage equality) is, Children, are not in the marriage vows! Placing Children into the marriage equality argument, is a complete distraction, a “strawman” argument. It seems like I am talking to simpletons to point out that there are lots of married couples (older, infertile & simply not interested) that have a marriage that does not involve children at all! People & couples have a right to choose to be without children, as they should have a choice about whom they love. The issue, in either case, is – a right to a choice. Eric Abetz suggest we should think of the Children when deciding about Marriage equality and I agree with him on that! Although not the conclusion he reaches, that it is a prohibitive argument. A news item for Eric: Gay couples already have children!!! What they want to provide their children with are the security of legally and emotionally married parents. Plenty of anomalous relationships from gay to single parents raising kids in our community. I’d ask Eric what his government is doing to help out, but I already know how difficult you are making it for them all. The high rate of failure of “straight marriage” results in denying children a mother and father in the ordinary course of life! So Eric’s claim that “study after study” had shown that children benefited from having both, is not only irrelevant, it’s also not true. Perhaps he should read the study conducted by the University of Melbourne researchers that surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children about their physical health and social well being. The results there don’t agree with you, Eric. Don’t take my word for the results, look it up yourself! Of course, if you’re one of Abetz’s bigots you won’t want to read it. Don’t read it; the cognitive dissonance would not be good for you!

Thinking of the children?

Still thinking of the children Eric? I don’t believe so! Our Church and my son’s school have same sex parents whose kids play in the church, the soccer field and the school play yard with my Son. The kids are happy, funny and even I as a parent think they are great kids. Give them a secure future. The issue in the case for having children or getting married is about – a legal right to a choice. Don’t you like it? Well, that’s your choice too! Changing the Law to allow choice doesn’t prohibit your bigotry, hatred, your ranting about being ambushed, OR your acceptance or joy at the opportunity presented.

Choose the light!

The tyranny against a man's choice — The tyranny against a man’s choice

Each couple should have the right to make that choice, and just because I think it is a “good” or a “bad” thing does not – in of itself – make it so! To include or preclude for all people a choice is a dictatorship. To presume that one person’s opinion is the “be all and end all” of the conversation is to assume that she/he has dictatorial rights of preclusion of all other opinions. This authoritarianism is the realm of emperors and kings, and last time I looked; I thought we were a semblance of democracy in Australia. (OK, some may suggest we are moving to become a fascist state but that is another conversation, and we are not there yet!) Just because one person or a group of them, does not wish to get married does not preclude the desires of many others who do want to participate. It is the argument of the “fascist” who wishes to dictate his choices upon all others. And let’s face it, in the conversation about marriage equality, there are plenty of “fascist” style thinkers. They are wishing to pronounce their opinion as for the only one worth considering and insisting it’s followed. Even though that choice has no impact on their own lives, either way. This conversation should be about facilitating “choice for individuals” not “individuals dictating choice“!

What to ask a Sociopath?

May 14, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The Day after the leadership spill precipitated by Tony Abbott’s “Captain’s Pick” of Prince Phillip for a Knighthood, Abbott fronted the ABC for an interview with Leigh Sales. The interview was difficult for Abbott as Leigh Sales asked some very direct questions on the 7:30 Report. Towards the end of the interview, she changed tack to ask him some direct and possibly more personal questions, such as, “Who are you? What do you stand for? Which Tony Abbott are you?”

One respondent, I read on social media to the Leigh Sales interview eager to hear about policy changes suggested the “Who are you?” question was trite and questioned her skill. I, on the other hand, found it an interesting question. The early questions were about the leadership spill and his policies. I think it would be a lot to expect Abbott to have completely revised his policies and have new ones fully developed having been challenged so damagingly by his political “friends”. I don’t think there was anything to see there. Even if he does rewrite his policies (which I don’t think he will) that would take time. There would be no point to asking what the new policies might be as he wouldn’t have them yet, given how committed he has been till now, to the current maligned policies. Perhaps it was these questions that were a more pointless exercise in asking, as he had only just declared at a press conference a few hours before that ‘good government starts today’. Aside from asking the obvious question of what had he been doing until that point (which she did if you watch the interview via the links above). You may note in the interview, he did just rehash his old policies and to be fair to him, what else could he have done?

The reoccurring promise of Good Government

Now the latter part of the interview contained what I think from Leigh was a very insightful question. If I may dare to presume, his avoidance of that question reveals quite a lot about him. This is a question that anyone with a clear set of values would be able to answer. Having a clear moral compass helps to build capacity for empathy and comprehension of the emotional consequences of their actions on others. Even having a shred of internal insight might enable one to comprehend another’s emotional responses. So perhaps an insight into “who he is”, is simply not that available to him. The question “Who are you?” speaks to his insight into himself. His lack of answer tells you what so many people have already discerned. His moral vacuum and authoritarianism are already self-evident. His constant blinking when being challenged is indicative of his sensitivity to criticism. The “captains Picks” (and there were more than two of them) from the paid Parental Leave Scheme, the issue of dames & knighthoods, knighting a Prince, moving forward the spill meeting are all examples of impulsive behaviour, that is not grounded in a clear set of values. As for being a manipulative liar, well not only did Leigh raise the lies but Abbott in the interview immediately identified the most talked about ones, without being explicitly prompted, and began making excuses for them. I think no one is going to argue rationally that he hasn’t lied to and misled the Australia people. Essentially Leigh is exposing the character of our Leader. It is an excellent question to ask given the history of characteristics that have been established. She is not identifying what is right or wrong with his policies. They have been argued for months on end. It’s his policies that have landed him in this mess. What she is identifying by these questions, is what sort of man we have as a leader.

Short of a medical diagnosis, a number of articles have arisen asking the question “Is Tony Abbott a sociopath?“ such as the one by Alison Parkes. Also, Psychologist, Lyn Bender, has already examined Abbott’s duplicitous character in an attempt to remotely profile him in her article “What if Abbott and his cronies are just a bunch of psychopaths?”. If indeed, either is true, it would appear that Leigh Sales’s question to Tony Abbott is certainly a query that would be useful in the diagnosis of either.

No taxes here please!

April 19, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The government’s unwillingness to look at taxation management for the country via any method that involves they, that have more capacity, is quite obsessive. The decision not to proceed with tax investigation into the evasion of tax by so many large companies was a written part of the LNP Government’s budgetary papers! (Pg 117 of MYEFO Dec 2014). To facilitate this, the dismissal of 4,400 tax officials described internally as the “go to” people in the department, renders the Tax office without the resources to pursue dodgy corporate tax fraud. So Treasurer Joe Hockey then follows up with his latest tax white paper suggesting the need for a “fairer” corporate tax cut – meaning they need pay less. Given how little they already actually pay, it appears to be simply an attempt to make the disparity what the should pay and what they don’t, LESS offensive to other taxpayers. The present status being that 30% of Australian companies are paying less than 10% or no tax. So if the legal requirement for them to pay anything is being minimised further, it would be less embarrassing to the government. All of these aforementioned factors represent a gradual coverup. Add to this the recently written endorsement not to name and in fact to hide who these corporations are – it’s a huge and immediate cover-up endorsed by Joe Hockey himself.

Given that the burdens of Australian financial management still needs to be serviced by the rest of us who are forced to pay their share of the tax. Or as the last budget showed, they want to cut services to the population but would facilitate the transfer of wealth and power to the already wealthy. We only seek little things, like education, medical, social support, etc. These Tax reductions are effectively subsidising corporate Australia’s greed. Instead, we subsidise their businesses by billions, especially the mining and fossil fuel industries. The Liberal party is engaged in a massive corporate heist as they propose lowering corporate tax and continuing subsidies. The LNP have stated in writing they don’t want to collect these taxes (Page 117 MYEFO). They don’t want to modify laws to collect appropriate taxes from 30% of the countries largest companies, which by some estimates – i.e., the Tax Justice Network – it might amount to around 8.4 billion a year, and where would the Deficit the Liberal’s are so concerned about, be then? Perhaps Hockey would have to contribute even more money for the Reserve bank, to what end? Perhaps the Treasurer will buy more defective US jets, & weapons to pay for another expensively futile war which will create even more refugees for which we already pay currently anywhere between 40K to 400K/person/yr. The smaller $40,000 is for an asylum seeker to live in the community on a bridging visa. The larger $400,00 is for offshoring in Naru and Manus. It’s much cheaper to do community processing. We haven’t yet begun to pay for the metadata keeping expenses they have landed on us, running over a 3rd world speed internet.

The joys of Capitalism and big business milking you for all your worth.

So for just how much of this corporate heist do Australian citizens want to bear witness? I am sure these companies are delighted you are both buying their products and having government pay for their subsidies. I mean what could go wrong with that? It’s capitalism. It’s just how the system works. Besides, for the most part, you don’t even know who they are. So you can’t even choose to stop your patronage of them. It’s a win for them but you…. Well, I’m sure they appreciate your continued patronage and are thinking of you. “<suckers!>”

This article was modified in early 2017 with more accurate offshore asylum costs which I had previously suggested were estimated between $40K to 1.3M along with links to supporting articles. Beyond that, it’s still sadly a relevant article as nearly every situation mentioned here has only gotten worse.

Save

Order of Australia

March 31, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

My Father received an Order of Australia many years back, the pin of which he wore on his jacket at many prestigious functions for years with some pride. It acknowledged the many years he had given to his particular community in this country … Australia that is. Although he is gone, I see it in Dad’s cupboard whenever I stay at our family home with Mum. It is a memory of our country’s acknowledgement to the man who was my Father and for what he contributed to us as Australians. It is something I can speak of with some pride in my Father’s accomplishment. The Order of Australia was not then given lightly and as such should command some respect for the individuals in Australia who have earned it.

When I first saw this image (to the right) posted by a friend on social media, two questions occurred:

Is this some silly satire?
If not, when did this occur (because I had not been aware of any recent announcements)?

In fact, there was never a mention of it in any of the Mainstream Media. Besides, I assumed, surely Abbott could not be so stupid as to repeat the Prince Phillip fiasco? Also, he took flack after praising the Japanese for their honourable efforts in WWII! So with these two events behind him surely Abbott, nor anyone in the LNP, would undertake to pronounce awards of an OAM to a Japanese General, when there are plenty of Australian Soldiers or Officers who have served Australia with honour and in recent years. I reasoned it had to be a fake accusation. People I had spoken to said they never heard of it. So I sought answers.

The answers are:

No and
Friday the 27th March 2015.

Here’s the proof in the link below and … I have no further words I can say…………!

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015G00438

The IGR

March 17, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 1 Comment

The intergenerational report (IGR) produced by the government is another fraud like the “Budget Emergency” (which they seem far less panicked about since they doubled the deficit – which if you have read the main page you will realise means little). The prospect of not achieving a surplus is merely because their ideology prevents it, not because it’s unachievable. It is beyond their ideological capacity of thinking of retracting the massive subsidies to Mining, huge defence spending, huge “subsidies” to Super, huge “subsidies” to investors but not beyond them to cut subsidies to tuition in Universities. Instead, there were the cuts suffered by everything from the ABC, CSIRO, Trade Cadetships, Health, Hospital, Climate management, ATO, and even our children’s education (i.e. Gonski). Then the removal of major revenue streams (mining & carbon taxes – minimally over 6.5 billion), the 8.8 Billion Hockey gave away to the Reserve Bank – they said they didn’t need – and let’s also include the failure to collect taxes from 30% of the country’s largest companies. If achieving a surplus was such an urgent consideration, there are billions recoverable from the list above which would result in Australia having that (were it even an important factor in our economy). Add to this the fraudulent nature of our claiming national poverty for the 14 wealthiest nation (regarding gross domestic product per capita in IMF$,) in the world (Yes, Australia) with the third lowest gross debt to GDP of any country in the OECD.

Budgetary deterioration under the "Adults". — Budgetary deterioration under the “Adults”.

If a deficit is supposedly a measure of financial progress in a sovereign economy (which it isn’t) then doubling that Deficit under Joe’s administration surely is a poor indicator. If anything it merely exemplifies that what Australia can not afford is to continue to subsidise our wealthiest individuals and companies. It is purely about “political will” to act to redistribute the economy fairly, not an incapacity to bring in revenue.

The IGR has no allocation for disaster relief because of increasing natural disasters triggered by Climate change, in fact, Climate change is only mentioned in relation to the Direct Action policy (which a long list of experts believe will be completely ineffective anyhow). A slow economic growth (consistent with current) will result in a budget shortfall for Hockey alone. [Note: the mining boom contributed nothing/zero/zip/nada to economic growth in the last quarter – dropping from 5.6% in 6 mths – and professional/scientific/technical contracted by 1% – (ABS stats – look them up yourself)]. As jobs growth contracts and unemployment expands [i.e. as jobs disappeared from mining the expected pickup in Construction has not occurred and has fallen from 7.9% contribution to GDP to 5.6% in 6 mths], our prospects are grim. A ratio of jobs to the unemployed is 1:5 – although moving thru to 1:6 and that is only if you accept Govt Stats on employment & unemployment. (If you look at more realistic stats such as Roy Morgans then the prospect is far worse at 1:8.) ACOSS has noted that the IGR report is silent on what poverty would result by full implementation of government policies. No indicator of the Gini coefficient (an standard reporting indicator for the socio-economic impact of policies) has been provided. I wonder why Hockey forgot that? The value of the all ordinaries on the Australian Stock Exchange has fallen, consumer & business confidence is collapsing, the Aussie dollar is at the lowest level since 2010 and inflation went up from 2.4% to 3.0% last year. (Yes, it has fallen this year, along with everything else too.) BUT the Adults are in Charge of our economy! Bejesus, Hockey, give us a break!

Friday 13th unlucky for Heirisson Island

March 15, 2015 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree 1 Comment

Aboriginal Eviction across the Centuries

Descending like storm troopers onto the deck – but in black and on horseback – the police stormed in on an aboriginal island community on Heirisson Island on Friday morning, stealing their property and herding aboriginals off their homeland. Videos have sprung up showing police voluntarily (or should I say complicity) and illegally evicting people off their land on Heirisson Island. Eviction without fair cause is considered criminal in most States. What legislation unbeknownst to the traditional owners has the Western Australian or federal government enacted to be able to remove people from the land that they own? Is the government’s declaration that they were “squatting on their own land” now considered fair grounds? Does not the absence of support of the courts cause curiosity? It is surely ironic (not the least to say, excessive) that the police would come as mounted troopers to clear them out! Especially for anyone who is aware of the violent early history of Australia about suppression by “authorities”.

A friend of mine in reaction to a meme I posted about Tony Abbott’s statement that we are “sick of being lectured to by the United Nations” said, “… we can’t afford to care for our own marginalised people, let alone introducing extras“. After some responses to that pointing out the fraudulent nature of ours claiming national poverty for the 14 wealthiest nation (regarding gross domestic product per capita in IMF$,) in the world (Yes, Australia) with the third lowest gross debt to GDP of any country in the OECD. I finally said, “What we can’t afford, Alice, is continuing to pay for the ultra-rich!” And this latest Abbottism about “lifestyle choices” for “our own marginalised people” (i.e. Aboriginals) shows a similar lack of insight into wealthy versus poverty based lifestyle choices.

Abbott’s statement is hypocritical at best but more probably just another “lie” of misdirection to victimise the marginalised to facilitate the wealthy to take advantage. The only other thing the land these aboriginals are on is useful for (outside of occupation by “real Australians”) is either agriculture or mining. Let’s not forget that the Mining industries are significant donors to the Liberal Party. Guess who wants it? Who’s “lifestyle choices” are we supporting now Mr Abbott? Waging war against aboriginals and their rights to their land – for the benefit of wealthy exporters seeking to mine that land – is, I would assume, an act considered despicable by Australians that acknowledged their apology for white man’s mistreatment less than a decade ago.

Save