Amanda Wells Social Agenda

WAYNE SWAN ADMITS; his figures are out by $7.5 billion,

and its gone to the miners.

Treasurer Wayne Swan is battling through a hostile press conference as his spin catches up with him. He wanted to boast about revised Budget estimates claiming the surplus by 2013 will be not $1 billion but three times as much.

     Trouble is, can we trust Treasury’s calculations any more? Swan has also had to admit that the “super profits” tax would not have raised the $12 billion in its first two years but billions more. In fact, he admits, the Government gave up not $1.5 billion over two years in its peace deal with the miners, but $7.5 billion. It lied and lied again.

     No wonder one of the questions Mr Swan got was whether he’d still be Treasurer after the election. Another was to explain why Rudd had been ditched but he promoted.

POSTSCRIPT

I bumped into or he actually rammed into me at Sydney airport on Monday afternoon. I was stunned, he looked at me in the eye as if I were insignificant, and didn't even say sorry, just glared at me ... I thought that says a lot about a man when he loses his manners because he has a title!

POSTSCRIPT

Janet Albrechtsen diagnoses the common conceit that explains so many of Labor’s disasters - from the pink batts fiasco to the Green Loans blowout: Even a cursory look at the Green Loans scheme, just the latest Labor debacle, suggests a consistent message. Labor in the 21st century is committed to a deluded philosophy where a big spending government believes it can spend our money better than we can …The Green Loans program, with an initial budget of $300 million, later cut to $175m, promised government-funded energy assessments in 300,000 homes and up to 75,000 interest-free loans of up to $10,000 so households could reduce the environmental impact of their homes. Sounds too good to be true. And it was.

     Predictably, and understandably, shonks and sharks sniffed the easy money. And three independent reports reveal a litany of government and bureaucratic failings. For example, an independent external review by Patricia Faulkner, a former head of the Victorian Department of Human Services, with support from KPMG, found: 96 per cent of procurements reviewed were done without open competition, evidence of contract splitting to avoid authorisation by senior management, repeated breaches of the Financial Management Act and Regulations, non-compliance with Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, unaddressed conflicts of interest, lack of documentation, poor contract management, lack of commercial terms (advance payments were often made), huge cost escalations (an original contract for $49,588 skyrocketed to $462,000, while another for $770,000 ended up costing $3.4m), weak budget controls, delays in implementing an audit process and the absence of a quality assurance program.

     In short, no one cared too much about how money was spent, how much money was spent and what quality of services it was spent on…Gillard, who has the historical hallmarks of being another grand designer yet wants to be known as the great pragmatist, ought to check whether the myriad failings of the Green Loans scheme are explained by first principles.

     Freidman, who wrote the introduction to Hayek’s book, best described the four ways we spend money: “You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.”

And that’s the Green Loans scheme. And the insulation program. And the national roll-out of new school halls.

I received this today from one of our MP's and I wanted to put it on my social agenda blog as I thought it was worth a look at. As the election looms closer I would hope that everyone would look at each party's policy's closely. Also look at how each party has functioned so far. This government has had an appalling record of failures, the Batts in the Belfry scheme, the botched education building scheme, the Copenhagen Treaty a monumental failure, a leadership spill like no other in the history of our Nation.

We now have the opportunity to vote for a new PM and we have 2 choices one who is a strong catholic who readily believes in God and asks for good Godly counsel on occasions and another a woman who is a self confessed atheist, who is living with her partner and is unmarried (this will be the first time this relationship is put into the Lodge) who is still the same woman who was 'in the kitchen cabinet' of the Rudd government and made the same decisions then and the woman who made an utter debacle of the Asylum Seeker Policy last week with East Timor.

I now have a number of Christians writing to me saying, I will be voting for the Greens as I don't like either party, and some of the Greens are Christians. Please think before you cast your vote. Kevin Rudd said he was a Christian also but in his final speech couldn't make up his mind if God was a he or she? I have to wonder at the foundational truths of his faith? The Greens have policy's such as late term abortion to 40 weeks (some time ago they discussed post 28 days birth!!), euthanasia, legalised drugs and more that are AGAINST the tenants of our faith. So please because someone says their a Christian means little, I can say I am a teapot because I drink tea, but it does not make me one.

So lets be wise this election, not conned and look at each party and their policy's and just because your dad always voted one way does not mean you have to, it should mean you are alert and educated so as to make a wise decision for the next generation!

Government is More Than a Destination

With an election likely to be called in the week ahead, Australians will once again contemplate the path ahead offered by the major parties. The Labor Party will expect you to believe that the dysfunction of the past three years in government is behind them. Having changed the leader for another of the 'gang of four', the policy readjustment has nearly been completed - or has it?

The French phrase "Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose" roughly translates as "the more things change, the more it is the same". It captures Labor's transition from a Rudd to a ‘Gillrudd’ government; the same spin with a different mouthpiece.

Consider for a moment Ms Gillard's border protection policy. There’s been no real change from the policy that has seen an unprecedented arrival of unauthorised boats ferrying the product of people smugglers to our shores. Despite her on again, off again denials, Ms Gillard promised a new detention centre on East Timor, in spite of the fact that the East Timorese Parliament has rejected such a measure unanimously.

How can anyone believe this Gillard promise is anything more than spin and trickery designed for political advantage rather than a serious policy solution?

So too should we question on what basis does this government deserve to be re-elected. They have wasted tens of billions of dollars on flawed and failed programs, excelled at administrative incompetence and failed to hold true to the Westminster system of ministerial accountability.

The Gillard team has lost notable contributors like Lindsay Tanner and John Faulkner, yet Ms Gillard insists upon retaining Peter Garrett and Penny Wong in cabinet. These latter two have presided over some of the most incompetent schemes (apart from that administered by Ms Gillard herself) over the past three years.

Mr Garrett had carriage of the fatally flawed insulation program that cost billions of dollars, burnt hundreds of homes and cost four lives. He was also responsible for the rorted and dumped Green Loans scheme, whilst also presiding over the solar panel stuff up. Despite his gross incompetence, Mr Garrett continues to collect his ministerial salary and benefits whilst having little left to take charge of.

The track record is little better for Penny Wong in her attempt to impose a great green tax in the form of an Emissions Trading Scheme on us all. Despite the evidence that such a scheme would make no difference to the environment, yet would in fact reduce our competitive economic advantage, Ms Wong ditched the national interest in pursuit of an extreme green agenda. Fortunately she failed, but her department and portfolio responsibilities live on.

Regretfully this proves once again the maxim that 'the closest thing we have to eternal life on Earth is a government program'. I could go on cataloguing the waste and incompetence characterised by Ms Gillard and her team. Little has been achieved over the past three years and it is clear they have even less idea about what to do for the next three years.

Ms Gillard and the Labor party need to realise Government isn't a destination in itself. It is a responsibility that comes with a duty to improve the country and suspend self interest in favour of the national interest.

The Gillard Government's list of failures, false promises and fakery suggest it has self interest at its core and is not worthy of a second term.

Miss Gillard admits she said what she said she didnt the day before and now unrols Plan C!!!

Julia Gillard changes her mind on changing her mind:

JULIA Gillard conceded today that she had nominated East Timor as a possible location for a proposed regional refugee processing centre. In a series of interviews that will only add to confusion over how the tiny nation figured into her plans, Ms Gillard today stopped denying that she had said the facility could be built in East Timor.

“Earlier this week I made the case that regional processing needs to be part of our long-term solution to unauthorised arrivals. I said in my speech that one possibility was a centre in East Timor,” she said in a speech in Perth this morning…

But yesterday the Prime Minister denied she had identified a specific location for the processing centre in her speech on Tuesday to the Lowy Institute in which she first floated the concept.

Let’s sum up: if East Timor rejects her plan, Giillard never had one; if it accepts, Gillard’s plan worked out just as she wanted. Julia Gillard says she wants her new detention centre to be in one of the few neighbouring nations which have signed the UN refugee convention.

She first wanted East Timor, but: East Timorese MPs met yesterday to discuss the proposal. ‘’National parliament will make a resolution on this matter urgently,’’ said Rui Meneses, an MP from Mr Gusmao’s coalition.

He said the statement would denounce the proposal and be sent to the Australian government, probably next week…Mari Alkatiri, the former prime minister who is secretary-general of the opposition Fretilin movement, said there was ‘’zero’’ chance of the centre being built.

‘’I totally rejected it [when it was proposed by the former Prime Minister John Howard] and it will be totally rejected again,’’ he said.

Home Affairs Minister Brendan O’Connor then suggested Papua New Guinea, which hosted the Manus Island centre used by John Howard, but: PNG Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare’s spokeswoman Betha Somare said the PNG Government had closed down the centre and considered the matter ended. “Our official position has been the asylum seekers issue is an internal Australian problem,” Mr Somare said.

That leaves only New Zealand (too rich to deter); Samoa (too far), Tuvalu (too small, and wasn’t it drowning?), the Philippines (too far) and the Solomon Islands (where we’ve had to send peacekeepers).

Inept doesn’t fully describe this.

Greg Sheridan says the refugee convention is outdated, wildly rorted and and encouraging huge population movements from the Third World.

Julia Gillard’s big solution to the boat people crisis she helped to cause took just 24 hours to fall apart:

DEPUTY East Timor PM Jose Luis Guterres yesterday indicated his country would be unable to accept Australia’s plan to build an asylum-seeker processing centre…East Timor leaders Xanana Gusmao and Jose Ramos-Horta will meet this morning to debate the Australian government’s plan, but Mr Guterres yesterday said his country had previously rejected a similar request from former foreign minister Alexander Downer and was still “not in a condition to accept a detention centre”.

The Australian wife of Mr Gusmao, Kirsty Sword, who is visiting Sydney, yesterday said she also was surprised at Ms Gillard’s plan.

“I must say I was taken aback when I first heard about it,” she told the Fairfax press. “Timor has so many urgent problems in health, education and infrastructure I am not sure it should be distracted by this issue.”

And wait until the East Timorese hear how many are coming, and who: Asked on the ABC’s Lateline program if the thousands of asylum-seekers in Indonesia might be moved to East Timor once a centre was built there, Ms Gillard replied: “Certainly I wouldn’t rule that out”, adding that it would be a decision for the Indonesian government and officials from both countries.

Many of the asylum-seekers in the Indonesian camps are young Muslim men and concerns have already been raised about the impact of moving them to largely Catholic East Timor and finding them jobs in a tiny nation that has an unemployment rate of about 40 per cent.

Gillard’s Plan B?

UPDATE

Gillard, for some bizarre reason, consulted only East Timor’s president, rather than the man who actually makes such decisions, Prime Minister Xanana Gusmao - and he’s ominously quite: He refused to comment on Ms Gillard’s asylum-seeker announcement, which effectively drew President Jose Ramos-Horta into an issue of national planning which, as head of state, he is supposed to have no input on…But alongside the deafening silence emanating from Mr Gusmao’s office yesterday, there were rumblings of dissent.

One senior government staffer said they “absolutely didn’t agree” with the Gillard proposal. “We have enough issues dealing with our own displaced persons problem. Who imagines we can take more refugees from outside?” the staffer said.

As for the locals:

For another dirt-poor Dili resident, Becora woman Theresa Da Silva, the big end of town and its decision-making barely figures. But as she filled old motor-oil containers with water to haul up the hill for her nine-person family to cook, drink and wash with, she said: “It would be better that the government paid attention to us, before they paid it to foreigners who don’t even belong here.”

UPDATE 2

East Timor’s Deputy Prime Minister says the country knocked back Gillard’s first appeal and isn’t keen on saying yes to her second, either: East Timor’s Deputy Prime Minister, Jose Luis Guterres, ... revealed East Timor had flatly rejected the idea initially and was only considering it because it had been put formally by Ms Gillard....‘’East Timor is one of the poorest countries in the world. We have huge problems. It is difficult for any government to invite, for any politician, to invite any problem to another country that he is not prepared to face, to solve,’’ he told the Herald.

‘’As a citizen and a member of cabinet, I can advance to you that it’s very unlikely that East Timor will accept the proposal.’’…With the main opposition party, Fretilin, rejecting the idea yesterday, there is little support in the tiny country of 1 million people. Mr Guterres said domestic political considerations appeared to be a factor in Ms Gillard’s approach to East Timor and the early announcement of talks...The first approach came from the Australian ambassador in Dili, Peter Heyward, to the Minister of State Security, Francisco Guterres, just days ago and ‘’our first reaction … was that it is not possible’’.

Meanwhile Gillard again pretends she’s not reinventing the Pacific Solution she often claims was useless and a waste of money: The difference here is we are not acting unilaterally, and we are not doing something quickly for political effect the way the Pacific Solution was done.

Not done for political effect? Not acting unliaterally? New Zealand’s participation - sought at the last minute on Monday - would hardly make a difference, and is not certain, either:

Ms Gillard also discussed her plan with the New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, during a five-minute phone call on Monday night. Mr Key was cautious about embracing the proposal...

In fact:

THE “regional solution” to asylum-seekers proposed by Julia Gillard has sparked a political debate in New Zealand. Opposition Leader Phil Goff yesterday questioned the value of establishing a processing centre in East Timor. “Why we should load this problem on to them; I just can’t understand,” he said.

Mr Goff said that East Timor was already dealing with the problem of 100,000 internally displaced people.

UPDATE 3

Gillard gets into trouble on Lateline, and refuses to say what her plan B is if East Timor doesn’t play ball.