Today the NSW Labor Party showed one of its best examples of hypocrisy by criticising plans by the O’Farrell government to introduce alpha-numeric route numbering in the state. The changes, reported to cost $20 million were criticised by opposition roads spokeswoman Penny Sharpe for being a “colossal waste of money”.
Does Ms Sharpe recall that the system was committed to in May 1997 when all state and territory roads ministers agreed to introduce alpha-numeric route signage? Who was in government then? The Labor party of course!
The O’Farrell governmenet is spending $20 million to implement something the Carr-Iemma-Rees-Kenneally governments agreed to. You might notice there are plates with numbers on them on road signs next time you are driving around. This was part of the Labor party’s introduction – put up new signs with the new route numbering and then cover the number with the old number until it is introduced. Putting up new signs and then defacing them – isn’t that a colossal waste of money?
Once more, congratulations to the Labor Party for failing to tell us the full story.
A famous quote from Shakespeare’s Henry the Sixth is “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” I am sure after the negativity surrounding the approval of an Enterprise Migration Agreement for Gina Rinehart’s mining company for its Roy Hill Iron Ore mine in the Pilbara region of Western Australia that the Gillard government would love to kill all the spindoctors.
The announcement by Gillard’s Immigration Minister Craig Bowen and Resources Minister Martin Ferguson that Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting had been given approval to import up to 1715 skilled migrants to assist with setting up the Roy Hill project immediately caught the attention of unions which attacked the decision. Gillard herself was reported to be uneasy about the message the decision would send.
In an apparent attempt to deflect blame, Gillard has claimed not to have been consulted or informed of the decision. Bowen claims to have sent a brief to Gillard’s office and discussed Rinehart’s request with all relevant ministers yet Gillard herself says she wasn’t told. Either Gillard is stretching the truth or there is a serious degree of dysfunction in her government.
What is one of the government’s few good policies is being sunk because of a lack of promotion and the cowardice of the Prime Minister who would rather duck from cover than stand up and tell us how Enterprise Migration Agreements deal with the skills shortage facing some Australian industries.
While the decision was always going to be controversial, it is one that could have quite easily been sold to the public. Rinehart is claiming that the project will create a total of 8415 jobs during construction with just 1715 of those to be skilled migrants. That leaves 6700 jobs open for Australians. How could a government fail to sell a decision which creates 6700 new jobs?
Instead of attacking a government decision which imports a few jobs to create almost four times more, those attacking the government for allowing the importation of labour should look at the reasons why skilled migrants are needed. For years, successive governments have failed to address the nation’s skills shortage – particularly in civil engineering – the very skills which would be needed to start the Roy Hill project. Instead of attacking the decision to import those with the necessary skills, attention should be placed on skilling the 17% of young people who are unable to gain employment. While skilling them now won’t help them get a job at Roy Hill, it could equip them with the skills to gain a similar position in the future.
Australia’s treasurer Wayne Swan has tonight handed down his fifth budget since the Labor Party came to power in 2007. Of particular interest in the budget is the estimated deficit for the current financial year.
In the 2011/12 budget, Swan estimated that the deficit for the financial year would be $22 billion. When the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook was released at the end of 2011, that deficit blew out to $37 billion with the economic situation in Europe and natural disasters in Queensland being blamed for the worsening fiscal position. In the Outlook, it was said that:
The forecast deficit in 2011-12 is larger than expected at Budget, with around two-thirds of the increase reflecting variations to receipts and payments as distinct from policy decisions.
With $10 billion of the deficit blow-out coming from incorrect estimates, what exactly was the other $5 billion spent on?
Now we are almost at the end of the financial year, another $7 billion has been wiped off the budget bottom line. Where did this go? Swan can’t blame the situation in Europe which has remained stable in the last six months. Swan can’t blame the Queensland floods which happened twelve months ago (and for which he introduced an extra levy to recoup costs).
With a $1.5 billion surplus predicted for 2012/13, one has to wonder whether or not Swan and Gillard can even deliver it. Only time will tell.
I don’t often praise the Gillard government, but today’s revelation that the Gillard Government is planning on reducing the period upon which a single parent may receive parenting payment is a step in the right direction. Presently, a single parent receiving parenting payment – single is entitled to the payment until their youngest child turns 16. Along with the payment, single parents are given a pensioner concession card. The Gillard government will reduce that age to 8.
The changes will work well with the government’s existing requirement for single parents to participate in work or study, up to 15 hours per week from the time their child turns 6. This will allow parents to gain valuable skills and experience prior to being shifted to the dole, which will improve their ability to find work.
What the initiative doesn’t address are the small minority of parents who continue to have children in order to stay on the payment. There are a number of single parents which have 5 or 6 children and see it as ”insurance” against getting a job. These parents should be required to undertake some form of approved activity after they have a certain number of children in order to retain their benefits, particularly if the children are to multiple or unknown parents.
There has been significant discussion about whether or not the Police were right to shoot the occupants of a stolen vehicle in Kings Cross on Saturday morning. Many people have criticised the Police for shooting the occupants of the car – believing the Police should have shot the tyres of the vehicle out rather than shoot the occupants.
In my opinion this is an utterly moronic assertion. From the moment the vehicle mounted the footpath and ran over a pedestrian, the Police had a duty to stop the vehicle as quickly as possible to stop further injuries. Shooting out the tyres of the vehicle would not have guaranteed that it would have stopped. Shooting the driver did.
The biggest fool in all this would have to be girlfriend of the oldest occupant of the vehicle (Matthew Dalton) who told the Sydney Morning Herald that she was shocked, angry and scared by the Police’s actions and said ”If they wanted to stop the car they could have at least shot the tyres, not shoot at little kids.”
What Dalton’s girlfriend forgets is that these “little kids” were driving a stolen vehicle along the footpath where they ran over a woman. They didn’t stop after hitting the woman – they continued driving along with her pinned beneath the vehicle. Perhaps these idiots should have thought about the repercussions of their actions when they stole the car, when they tried to flee from Police and when they drove along a footpath and hit a pedestrian. How many members of the public should have been placed in harm’s way because of the action of a group of morons?
What I don’t agree with is the actions of Police after the incident, where one was seen punching Troy Taylor on the ground after he was shot in the neck. That was completely inappropriate and the officer involved deserves to be dealt with in the most serious manner. At that point in time there was very little risk posed by the offender.
The final concern arising from the incident is the belief that it somehow has something to do with race because the passengers in the vehicle were aboriginal. Anyone with any sense would see that the Police’s actions had nothing to do with the fact that the offenders were aboriginal and everything to do with them being in a stolen vehicle and placing other people’s lives at risk. Anyone who sees it differently is a fool.
Many hold the belief that the sexual harassment allegations against former Speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper could spell the end of his parliamentary career and bring down the Gillard government. What they forget is that section 44(ii) of the Constitution provides that a person can be disqualified from parliament they are “attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer.”
Unfortunately for those who hold some hope that Slipper can be pushed out due to the sexual harassment allegations – it won’t happen. Sexual harassment is a civil matter, not criminal.
The allegations which may push Slipper out of parliament (if he was convicted) are those about him misusing a CabCharge card. These allegations are presently being investigated by the Australian Federal Police and may lead to criminal charges. If convicted, Slipper would be disqualified from parliament. In terms of the risk for the government, this is the more significant allegation.
The opposition should test the government’s numbers on the floor of parliament with a vote of no-confidence when it resumes on May 8. While the coalition would lose the vote, it would be helpful to Abbott’s political cause, particularly if there was a tied vote. If one assumes that Peter Slipper sides with the government and Andrew Wilkie against it, the numbers would be 74 a piece – with a casting vote having to be decided by the Labor speaker (who by convention votes for the status quo).
If there was a tied vote, Abbott would prosecute that the Gillard government has a bare majority in the House of Representatives. It would also allow him to paint Windsor, Oakeshott and Slipper as going against the will of the people – siding with a hugely unpopular government.
An article on the Herald Sun’s website about Google using house numbers obtained as party of Google’s StreetView project as captchas (those annoying type what you see in the image to prove you are real on most websites) has me scratching my head.
UK based organisation Big Brother Watch is complaining that Google is using personal data for commercial gain. Big Brother Watch identifies two issues – identifying the number of people’s houses and using users to enter this data.
Firstly, it needs to be remembered that Google StreetView shows what anyone can see by driving down the road. If a street number is viewable on StreetView it is also viable by someone driving past.
Secondly, does Big Brother Watch realise that many sites use reCAPTCHA which uses captcha challenges to digitise books? Where is the big deal about that? People are still unwittingly being used as data entry clerks but I don’t see Big Brother Watch complaining about that.
- Credit: Google (map), AEC (data)
The Greens’ new leader, Christine Milne during her first public address to Australians has said that she would like the Greens to connect with rural and regional australia. Traditionally, the Greens tend to attract support in the inner city suburbs while rural and regional Australia tends to go conservative (see map on the left).
The question is – can Christine Milne connect with rural and regional Australians and have them lean towards the Greens?
There is no doubt that there is room for a third force in Australian politics given the growing discontent among voters towards Labor and the Coalition. Many voters feel that neither side of politics truly represents their interests, that there is too much spin and point scoring going on and a real lack of policy substance. A third party would need to tap into this discontent and address these issues. Unfortunately, the Greens are not that party. The Greens are too far to the left to ever be a serious contender in the political arena.
In rural and regional Australia, the major industries are mining and agriculture. The Greens have policies which are detrimental to the mining industry and which would undoubtedly cost jobs in the regions. On agriculture, Milne seems to be a little more promising acknowledging that global food security is going to be an important issue. Unfortunately, the Greens have policies detrimental to water security and land clearing which would affect the agriculture industry.
Frankly, Milne might believe she can connect with rural and regional Australians but the reality is she won’t.
NSW Energy Minister Chris Hartcher has claimed that 90% of the rise NSW households will see in electricity bills from July is due to Gillard Government’s carbon tax.
In NSW, standard electricity prices are set by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART). From July 1, NSW households face an average increase in electricity tariffs of 16% following an 18% jump last year.
Last year’s increase was blamed on network costs and the federal government’s Renewable Energy Targets. Hartcher is basing his 90% claim on IPARTs 2011 prediction that rises would be between 2 and 10 percent. Obviously he believes the additional rise is due to the Carbon Tax. Still, a claim that 90% of the price rise is due to the Carbon Tax, even using this logic is misleading. IPART never said that it predicted a rise of 2%, it did give a range between 2 and 10%.
According to IPART, half the increase is due to network costs and the other half is due to the Carbon Tax. That means either the Carbon Tax is going to eat the poles and wires, which have been neglected for years anyway or that Hartcher is out by 40%. I suspect the later.
Hartcher is just trying to create further anger towards an already disliked federal government instead of being honest with the people of NSW.
Recent Comments