Work with me: PM appeals to business

Australia's prime minister Julia Gillard has called on the Australian business community to work with the government on Carbon Tax pricing.

In an address to the Business Council of Australia last night the prime minister said:

''Because for us to be our best selves, listening and leading, we need you to be your best selves too, putting that characteristic BCA voice into the public debate.''

Unfortunately business in Australia is not to particularly supportive of Carbon Tax so her pleas may have fallen on barren ground there.


By the way I have included the Sydney Morning Herald's cartoon because I am a fan of Political cartooning.


It was the Australian Federal Labor Party that stabbed Kevin Rudd in the back, not Ms Gillard alone, so to that degree the cartoon is a little unfair on the PM. 


Work with me: PM's appeal to MPs and business

Why did I do That?: Tony Abbott Carbon Tax Plebiscite

Tony Does it Again!

Federal Opposition leader Tony Abbott can't take a trick!


He thought he was on a winner with his proposed plebiscite on "Carbon Tax". But he needed the support of both cross bench senators, Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding. But Senator Fielding has come out and put a kibosh on this lame and "shoot from the hip"idea.

Calling the plebiscite, which would have cost $80 million, a "glorified opinion poll", Senator Fielding said:



"What we've got here is a political stunt which will waste taxpayers' money and achieve nothing."

And rightly so. The country can give it's verdict at the next Federal Election.

With all the woes the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and government are going through at the moment all poor old Tony had to do was sit back and smile. But alas, that's  our Tony.






Fielding kills Abbott's carbon plebiscite - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Australian ex-PM denies planning leadership bid

You know when there is going to be a leadership bid when everyone says there isn't going to be a leadership bid.

Opinion polls have Rudd as a much preferred prime minister than Ms Gillard but Kevin Rudd must have stepped on a lot of toes in the Australian Labor party. There is not a lot of love oozing from his fellow Labor politicians.

But one wonders if Rudd really wants to get the PMs job back, at least at the moment. He would appear to be on a hiding to nothing, given Labor's polling, of winning the next election. As well, we have the Asylum seeker issue, Carbon Tax and live cattle exports issues. One would think it is time to remain warming the bench till the tryline turns around. But stranger things have happened in politics. Funnily enough Rudd is the type to relish these challenges.

Rudd appears to be a man who holds a very quiet but very deep hurt over his axing so quickly after bringing Labor to power in 2007. He won't forgive and he certainly won't forget.

But, to his credit, and despite all the criticism about his tripping around the world, he has achieved quite a lot in his role of Foreign Minister. His various speeches around the world particularly his moving ANZAC Day address have, in my book at least, marked him as a man of consequence on the world stage. Just look how many Twitter followers he has!

 For all his schoolboy looks and squeaky clean, butter would not melt in his mouth facade,  Rudd is a fighter.

 He grew up tough and he really has an affinity with the grass roots of Labor's heartland. He may be up against it on many fronts but he is certainly not one to give in without a fight at a time and a place of his choosing.


Australian ex-PM denies planning leadership bid - Channel NewsAsia

Australia's Rudd: Set on being "best" Foreign Minister

The English Telegraph ran the following story today about Kevin Rudd denying aspirations to regain his prime ministerial position. I for one would much prefer to see him back in that position instead of Ms Julia Gillard




"Labor Party figures are reportedly furious that Mr Rudd, who was brutally ousted by his then deputy Miss Gillard in a party-room coup, is giving a series of interviews ahead of the one year anniversary of his dumping.


But asked whether he was plotting a comeback, Mr Rudd, now Australia's foreign minister, said: "I am set on being the best Foreign Minister I can be. But nice try."


Miss Gillard led a party-room coup which removed Rudd in June 2010, and shortly afterwards called national elections in which Labor lost its clear majority and resulted in a hung parliament.

After narrowly scraping back into power by securing the support of several independents and a Greens MP after 17 days of negotiations, Miss Gillard named Mr Rudd as her foreign minister.


Miss Gillard said on Saturday she felt "very secure" in her position, but the nation's first woman prime minister has experienced an unprecedented slump in the polls while Mr Rudd remains popular with the public."

Australia: prime minister Julia Gillard feeling the heat.

A  Herald /Nielsen telephone poll conducted June 14-16 has very few positives in it for prime minister Julia Gillard in particular and the Labor government generally.


The results show a 3% drop in the two party preferred figure to 41% as compared to the Coalition's figure of 59%.


Of particular concern for the PM are the Carbon Tax and  Asylum seekers issues. 


The carbon tax result is self evident but the report does not indicate whether dissatisfaction with Asylum seekers issues is general or more particular only concerning the recent choice of Malaysia as a destination for detention processing . It is my feeling that it is more about destination rather than general policy of housing asylum seekers offshore.


Whatever the issues of contention are among the electorate one can not help but feel that this is a backlash of sorts not against Labor party policies but Julia Gillard herself.


The Australian public has not warmed to Julia Gillard. She really did not even have a honeymoon period.


I have considered this long and hard. As our first female prime minister one would have thought she would have had been cut some slack but no. The manner of her gaining the top position, I believe, does not sit well with a majority of Australians.


Firstly, Australian's do not feel they "elected" her. Despite the fact that only her electorate actually elected her to parliament and it was the Labor  Party who elected her to the top job, Australian's feel they elected a Labor party headed by Kevin Rudd. If anyone was going to get rid of Kevin Rudd it should be them not backroom boys of the Australian Labor Party.


Secondly, the ousting of Kevin Rudd was seen, I believe by many, as being "UnAustralian", to coin that oft used but  ambiguous term. Australian's don't stab their mates in the back. Kevin Rudd may have been getting up the nose of some in the country but that's not how you handle getting rid of him.


Apart from that there are other reasons I feel for the lack of connectivity between Ms Gillard and the people.


Is the fact she is a woman an issue with her acceptance? I feel it is. I would describe mainstream Australia as leaning more to being matriarchal rather then patriarchal so one would think that having a woman leader would not be an issue. But whilst I have this view generally for day to day Australian life I don't think it  holds true in the case of national leadership. 


A degree of sexism it could be said  exists but it is coming from both men and women. Australian's, I quite frankly think, don't see the country being led by a woman.


Then  her lack of connectivity is to a degree a result of her heritage. She is not the fair dinkum, knock about, knock you down then shake your hand, Aussie type that we have been use to in our political history. 


She is not the hard living Bob Hawke calling people "mongrels". She is not the Mao like figure of a Menzies or the say it as you see it Gough Whitlam standing on the steps saying "God save the Queen....", the Billy Hughes' the Jack Langs the Jo's.


The culture has not had enough generations to embed itself. In other words she does not come across as "Australian" enough. 


It is blatantly apparent that Ms Gillard is on a losing streak from which she is very unlikely to recover from and the Australian Labor Party is on a loser, not as a person, but as a leader and a winner at the next election..

Few positives for Gillard in horror poll

Australian Refugee Situation: The wheat from the chaff

The linked to article is an interview with Dr Jane McAdam. 


Dr McAdam talks about Australia's obligations as concerns the relocating of asylum seekers offshore whilst they await processing and assessment as to their eligibility of being classified as Refugees.

Dr McAdam states

Australia has obligations primarily not to return anybody to a place where they would face persecution or other forms of serious harm such as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or arbitrary deprivation of life.

She goes on further to say

This requires, at a bare minimum, the assessment of individuals’ international protection needs.

In other words we are required by our being a signatory to the 1951 UNHRC Refugee Convention  to perform due diligence on a case by case basis.

And then, quite rightly, she expands on that observation

Australia is therefore at risk of breaching its obligations precisely because it does not systematically examine on a case by case basis whether people have a risk of such treatment if they are removed from Australia. This needs to be assessed not only with respect to their removal to their home country, but also to Malaysia (or any other country to which their removal might be proposed).

What Dr McAdam states is quite true but I think our "obligations" need a little more understanding as some may think our obligations have a legal basis.

We have a moral and an ethical obligation to treat Refugees as per the 1951 Refugee Convention. This obligation arises out of our agreement to adhere to the principles for the treatment of Refugees as set out in that Convention. It holds no force in International or Domestic Law'

What is a refugee as defined by the Convention?

A PERSON WHO IS OUTSIDE HIS OR HER COUNTRY OF NATIONALITY OR HABITUAL RESIDENCE; HAS A WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION BECAUSE OF HIS OR HER RACE, RELIGION, NATIONALITY, MEMBERSHIP OF A PARTICULAR SOCIAL GROUP OR POLITICAL OPINION; AND IS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO AVAIL HIMSELF OR HERSELF OF THE PROTECTION OF THAT COUNTRY, OR TO RETURN THERE, FOR FEAR OF PERSECUTION.

Thus it is incumbent upon a receiving country to asses whether a person attempting to gain entry for purposes of remaining there fits the definition of "refugee" as per the convention. This is the process the government undertakes after interception. The reason for this is that there are people who are "economic refugees", those seeking a better standard of living then achievable in their native country. These people do not meet the criteria of the Convention and thus fall outside our obligations under the Convention.

Where the person's claim is assessed he is either found to have fitted the definition or not in which case the receiving country has the right to return that person to whence he originated  from.

As an aside, even if the person satisfies the criteria of the definition, the convention

.......does not provide automatic protection for all time. Many refugees have integrated permanently in their country of asylum, but some stop being a refugee when the basis for their original asylum claim ceases to exist. Voluntary repatriation of refugees to their home country is UNHCR’s ‘preferred’ solution – and indeed is the commonest outcome – but only when conditions make it possible for them to return home safely. (UNHRC)

Therefore, the government has the right to grant temporary refugee status that can be revoked once the situation in the refugees home country changes. In practice this does not happen.

So the Australian Government has the right to process those seeking refugee status anywhere that it wishes as long as it does so with "Non Refoulement". This means that no country may deport or expel a person to a country where that person faces persecution, or risk of serious human rights violations.Now, the question is whether Malaysia is likely to persecute or violate the human rights of the Asylum seekers during their period of detention there on our behalf.

That is a question for the Government to answer. Whilst Malaysia is not a signatory to the Convention that does not preclude it per se. It would have to be proved by sending claimants there would be an act of "Refoulment". Dr McAdam's is right that each case must be looked upon individually, for example, you could not send a Muslim to a country that only serves pork even if that person was otherwise treated as a King.

I am sure the Government is more than aware of this requirement, notwithstanding that, we as a country treat Human Rights very seriously and I doubt any Australian would act so cavalier to do other than what is in the best interest of the claimants and Australia.

This whole debate is based on Australia's rights to deter non genuine "refugees". We should do all we can to achieve this objective with due respect to the commitments we have undertaken and to a genuine regard for the human rights of the claimants.


Explainer: The facts about the Malaysian solution and Australia's international obligations

Jane McAdam

Director of Research in the School of Law at University of New South Wales

Australia's PM Gillard Dreams on...

Cartoons | National Times

This cartoon from the National Times Australia refers to the Australian prime minister and her partner who revealed recently that he has a garden shed that the PM is not allowed to enter.

Prime Minister Gillard is wishing that she held an outright  majority in both Houses of the Australian Parliament: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Currently she governs with the support of minor party The "Greens" and independents.

Australian Welfare System:Fear of failure Causes Unemployment

I welcome this Australian study on Australia’s Government Unemployed Welfare Scheme

The study essentially concludes that people are scared to get a job and run the risk of it not working out for whatever reason.

They therefore prefer to stay on the dole because of the inherently demeaning and totally out of proportion requirements to access this basic social security right if they need to do so if things don't go right. These are some of my thoughts on the current system.

• Given the structure of Australia’s welfare system the interface with authorities is incredibly demeaning, especially so, for people who find it difficult to deal with authority figures, paperwork or just issues that we take for granted.
• The processes required to access the system or more importantly in the context of this study re-access, are far out of proportion with the benefit and are a disincentive to take risk in employment searching in the first place.
• A majority of people trying to access the system, whilst many are not impoverished, they do live hand to mouth and waiting weeks for financial support is untenable thus reducing employment risk taking by getting "off the dole".
• As many are not prepared to take the risk of employment that may be uncertain they won,t, therefore decreasing the likelihood of getting employment in the future. The old saying it is easier to get a job if you have a job
• Thus a long term unemployment scenario is effected. No risk taking in job search, longer on benefits, loss of skills, less credibility with potential employers, less likelihood or desire to get a job.

As the report says fixes are cheap and easy.

 I can think of one straight off the bat so to speak. If you go off security payments for a job and you lose that job for whatever reason (and don't think employers don't use vulnerable people) then you sign one piece of paper and your benefits are fully restored. You took this risk it failed (it may not have) you don't starve for a week or two and you are not put through the whole soul destroying and demeaning paperwork and interview rigmarole.

I think a lot of people will stick once they get that job. It certainly would cut administration costs for the Government.

Australian Welfare System:Fear of failure Causes Unemployment