Morgan: Turnbull 70, Shorten 24

1,190 comments on “Morgan: Turnbull 70, Shorten 24”

1. [Think Big
   796

   Shorten and the ALP should take heart – Abbott didn’t even last two years into the term of a first term government despite the best turd-polishing that News Corp, commercial TV and the shock-jocks could manage. Also the ‘government stability’ and ‘national security’ wells have well and truly been poisoned by Abbott’s constant over-reach and no longer serve as a complete panacea for conservative political ills plus some lingering damage has been done to the Libs economic management credentials as well which Turnbull may or may not be able to repair.]

   Under the circumstances it has been an extraordinary achievement by Shorten Labor. Abbott may have largely done it to himself, but Shorten & Co made damn sure he was directed into the right space in which to do it.

   Blows my mind that so many, ostensibly in the Labor ledger, are so dismissive of Shorten.

   A certain shallowness of analysis, I say.

2. AJH

   The answer to your reply to zoomster is that its the LNP lying not Labor

3. I won’t believe the Dutton resignation until I hear it on 2GB. 2GB is the new trusted news source for PB 🙂

4. [I suppose Turnbull’s fans will now credit him with bringing in the NDIS. Mike Baird was certainly sounding a bit like that.]

   It’s ironic that Turnbull’s first claimed victory should be the only Labor program that Abbott was not obsessed about destroying.

5. privi izumo@831

   Privi – apologies, but I’ve never done this before. So I’m still a bit confused about where I drop in the line. Which of the five fields does it go into?

   
   No problem. You press ok, and then a text box comes open, and that’s where you put the line in. Then save.

   First part is about what you’re going to call the script. second part is the script itself. You haven’t gotten to the second part yet.

   I think he would be better with Musrum’s script which is more general and allows additions and deletions of pests.

6. guytaur@898

   I’m not against amending the legislation. If it can be done.

   I am against the media assault claiming that the FTA will destroy jobs.

   By all means argue about procedural matters in regards to temporary migration, within the bounds of the negotiated agreement.

   But look at Labor’s advertising in Canning. It is against the agreement in its entirety.

7. daretotread@684

   Muttlegee

   I think abbot will be curled up in a ball sucking his thumb and will not get out of bed to actually do any undermining.

   Abbott, like Rudd will be hurting and angry and revenge will be on his mind. However I think Abbott does not have the personal resources to mount an effective revenge strategy.

   More critically, he doesn’t have anything like the political capital Rudd did.

8. AJH

   Labor are not running an race anti FTA campaign at all. They have expressly said they support the Agreement, but want protections for Australian skills etc

9. [If you ended up with Tanya P. leading the ALP and Barnaby the Nats, then you would have the three best Q&A performers leading the potential governing parties.]

   That would put Sir Tony Jones at Yarralumla then.

10. AJH@897

    mexicanbeemer@874

    You can’t just “delete provisions” in a negotiated agreement. They are there because the Chinese negotiators insisted they are.

    These things are a complex balancing act. We can’t pick and choose which bits we want.

    Well it was done with the US FTA via the implementing legislation. Emerson & Shorten say they have solutions as well.

    dave@728 on ReachTEL: 53-47 to Labor | The Poll Bludger

    What would Howard do? How Tony Abbott could salvage China trade deal

    The political standoff in 2004 about the US free trade agreement is instructive. Then, as now, Labor was in opposition and claiming the Coalition government had failed to secure a good enough deal. One of the major concerns raised by Labor’s then leader, Mark Latham, was the protection of Australia’s pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS).

    The then prime minister, John Howard, argued the government was “totally committed” to the “historic” deal that it had negotiated, insisted that the PBS was safe, and accused Labor of prioritising populist politics over the national interest. But he ultimately relented and allowed the implementation legislation to pass with Labor’s PBS-related amendments that he maintained were not needed and could irk the US.

    “If the ultimate price of getting the free trade agreement, albeit with some risk in relation to ultimate acceptance for the reasons that I have outlined, is to accept a clumsy, unnecessary and undesirable Labor amendment, I will do so in the national interest, not in my own political interest,” Howard said at the time.

    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/28/what-would-howard-do-how-tony-abbott-could-salvage-china-trade-deal

11. [ These things are a complex balancing act. ]
    And the person who was running the show when it was signed has just been knifed by his own side because of his economic incompetence

12. AJH

    You are against the media campaign telling the truth because you believe the lies the LNP have been peddling and not the likes of Craig Emerson who does know what he is talking about

13. davidwh
    [2GB is the new trusted news source for PB 🙂 ]

    I almost fell off the chair earlier when Chris Smith gave Julia Gillard credit for driving the NDIS (though only after giving Tony Abbott the most credit for it of course).

14. Windhover@625

    “I have never leaked or backgrounded against anyone and I certainly won’t start now.”

    These are chilling words from Tony Abbott. They reveal precisely what is on his mind (why did he have to say it if it was not part of his make-up?) and observing what is on his mind is a better predictor of his actions than listening to his words.

    Indeed. One might even suspect he is deliberately telegraphing his intentions to his rabid fan pack.

15. Julie Bishop is copping a caning on 2GB.

    She is no longer the “good sort” of Smith’s listeners’ fevered imagination.

    One part of me whispers that this is a welcome arrival at normality.

16. Will Abbott show up to QT today?

17. @craigthomler: The Australian government is becoming very good at creating terrorists… http://t.co/7pj1WhfE0n #auspol

18. [847
    AJH

    privi izumo@ 817

    Australia made concessions on temporary labour mobility and ISDS. China made concessions on basically everything else.]

    That is, Robb agreed that indebted and indentured workers would be trafficked into this economy; that the promise we made to each other in 1901 that everyone in Australia would be free and equal was dispensable.

    This agreement will install a neo-colonial labour market. It must be amended.

19. [Labor is running a race-fuelled]

    Absolute bullshit. You do yourself no credit by repeating this sort of rubbish. If the cheap labour that is proposed was coming from anywhere on the planet Labor would treat it in the same way. This is about protecting Australian worker especially those who are already out of work through no fault of their own. Employ an Australian first and if that’s not possible then foreign workers can be considered but only if their pay rates are in line with the laws that cover Australian workers.

20. Greens presser

21. Di Natalie saying Abbott had more sense than Turnbull on the water issue

22. KEVIN-ONE-SEVEN@866

    Kevin, if you have reverse engineered the 70 -24 to get 53 – 47 (am I correct) that doesn’t seem too great for the libs. Indeed, once you take out the “thank god he’s gone” effect, the libs might not be above 50%. In other words, you have reverse engineered (quite correctly) on the basis of an artificially inflated number. Does that sound right?

    Any polling now will have that reservation attached to it. In the other direction, bounces do not always appear fullblown in the first week.

    Message for Labor is whatever Turnbull gets, don’t panic.

23. Di Natale adding the 2 to Labor’s 1 in the 1-2 Turnbull changes nothing punch.

24. Vic
    I wouldn’t be surprised if Abbott did not turn up all week. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was already in at home in Sydney.

25. Interesting poll of the single best word to describe Turnbull taking over

    The winner by a mile was “relieved”, which would be my word incidentally.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-16/malcolm-turnbull-mood-of-the-nation-relief/6779844

26. AJH@899

    zoomster@887

    That just seems disingenuous.

    Labor is running a race-fuelled anti-FTA media barrage. That doesn’t mesh with the desire to simply amend one clause.

    Its not just Labor who have concerns about ChAFTA – ANU academics have as well –

    dave@740 on ReachTEL: 53-47 to Labor | The Poll Bludger

    A whole lot of stuff not getting aired in MSM on this FTA – sorry for large ‘extract’ – but its important.

    Whole sections of it are still to be hammered out, other stuff not released –

    The investment chapter of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, signed in Canberra on Wednesday, is missing many provisions that have created controversy in other FTAs.

    Instead, the Government has agreed to set up a committee that will, in the future, negotiate these provisions.

    What does it mean? It seems the ChAFTA may eventually contain problematic clauses on “indirect expropriation” and the “minimum standard of treatment” – which are frequently used by investors to challenge public health and environmental measures – but Parliament will not be able to scrutinise them before ratifying the deal.
    
    Even so, there is already more than enough in the ChAFTA to raise alarm bells. The agreement allows for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), for example, which is the controversial mechanism that lets corporations bypass the courts and sue countries before arbitrators who lack judicial safeguards.

    The government claims the ISDS provisions in the ChAFTA are “modern” and “balanced”, but Australia has gone backwards on secrecy in ISDS.

    The ChAFTA does not guarantee that ISDS hearings and key documents will be public as has become standard in recent treaties.

    Also surprising are the ChAFTA’s provisions on market access and non-discrimination. Remarkably, the government has given Chinese companies a general right to buy resources and other assets in Australia – so-called market access – without getting the same right for Australian companies in China.

    That is the free trade equivalent of exchanging your car for a pair of sneakers. It is a huge concession by Australia, in the context of the investment chapter.

    To put it more technically, Australia’s commitments on national treatment in Article 9.3 of the ChAFTA apply to the “establishment” and “acquisition” of assets by Chinese companies in Australia. But China’s commitments in Article 9.3 do not apply to these stages.

    A footnote in the deal helpfully confirms that China’s commitments – unlike Australia’s – apply only to “existing investment” and not “new, separate investment”.

    There you have it, plain as day: unequal commitments on market access, at Australia’s expense.

    Australian investors wearing sneakers will now be racing Chinese investors in cars.

    This lopsidedness flies in the face of the usual principle of reciprocity in investment chapters of trade deals, and is very hard to reconcile with the government’s rhetoric. DFAT’s website actually claims that the ChAFTA “provides improved access and protection for Australian investors and investments in China”.

    Moreover, on the “protection” part of DFAT’s claim, the ChAFTA is also unequal in China’s favour.

    If we read the agreement a little further, we see in Article 9.5 that China has excluded from the deal ALL its existing discriminatory measures with respect to Australian investors in China. In other words, China has committed to do nothing differently in its rules on intellectual property, taxes, permits, and so on, where they favour Chinese over Australian companies.

    In contrast, Australia has excluded only those existing discriminatory measures that are listed specifically in the ChAFTA. That obviously is not reciprocal. China can maintain its protectionist and discriminatory measures for Australian investors; Australia commits to market access and a level playing field for Chinese investors.

    In case anyone is looking to hold the government to account for its negotiating decisions, we suggest three key questions.

    1. Why did the government accept an investment chapter that is unequal on market access and non-discrimination, in China’s favour?

    2. Why did the government punt the most controversial aspects of ISDS to a future committee?

    3. Why did the government ensure it could keep key documents and hearings in ISDS – especially in Chinese investors’ claims against Australia – from the public?

    The government should have very good answers to these questions. If not, one can safely conclude – based on the ChAFTA investment chapter – that the government gave in to China by granting significant advantages to Chinese investors while getting precious little in return.

    In other words, Australia got Chafted.

    http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/news-events/all-stories/china-australia-free-trade-agreement

27. [868
    AJH

    That is the whole point of this agreement. Not job creation. It’s all about getting Australian companies access to operate in China.]

    This agreement is about the importation of poverty into the Australian labour market. You can be absolutely certain that any value-adding that can be realised in Australia will be done by Chinese-invested firms who will import their own bonded workforce. This so-called Free Trade Agreement is not about trade and it is not about freedom. It is intended to be an instrument by which this economy will be annexed to China’s State sector.

28. That was a great spiel from Di Natale. My word he sounds credible.

29. briefly@917

    Oh. FFS. You sound like the “Resistance” guys on my campus circa-1987.

30. AJH

    Its easy to prove briefly wrong. Agree with Craig Emerson.

31. [Message for Labor is whatever Turnbull gets, don’t panic.]

    Exactly. Thankfully I don’t think panic is in their plan. Some of their supporters however…

32. dave@896

    Musrum

    I have Greasemonkey 3.4
    cccp 4.15

    Can you post a screenshot of the error?

33. In my opinion the provisions in ChAFTA are worse than workchoices. They will mean that indebted, bonded and trafficked workers will be inducted into this economy in large numbers. ChAFTA will be a source of labour exploitation here and corruption in China. It really must be resisted and amended before it is implemented.

34. [I almost fell off the chair earlier when Chris Smith gave Julia Gillard credit for driving the NDIS (though only after giving Tony Abbott the most credit for it of course).]

    But none of those will give credit to Bill Shorten for being the person who was, by far, most responsible for getting the NDIS up to the starting gate. Like giving all the credit to the jockey and the officials at the finishing post and no credit to the trainer.

35. TPOF

    The problem for the LNP is the disabled community and their families know the Shorten role.

36. [899
    AJH

    …. why is Labor running a huge scare campaign against the agreement, when it simply seems they are simply asking for modification to a single clause in the legislation?

    Labor is running a race-fuelled anti-FTA media barrage. That doesn’t mesh with the desire to simply amend one clause.]

    This is a disgraceful line of argument. There is nothing racist about opposing the induction of trafficked, indebted and indentured workers.

    This is about opposing the re-construction of the colonial labour market.

37. [That was a great spiel from Di Natale. My word he sounds credible.]

    The freedom of no responsibility. But yes he is smashing Turnbull right where I’ve been saying he was vulnerable. The luvvies who would be giving Turnbull the love who hear this will be having 2nd thoughts.

38. The overwhelming view on the CFTA is that it is important for Australia so Labor would be crazy to oppose it. I have no problem with Labor and the Coalition negotiating protections providing they don’t mean the agreement falls over.

    Personally I think there have been over-blown rhetoric from both the Coalition and Labor/Unions. To date politics has trumped good policy negotiations. I hope it changes from now.

39. dwh

    The only way that will happen is for the LNP to negotiate on the points Labor has problems with. Instead of my way or the highway

40. Musrum

    Running Greasemonkey 3.4, and re-installed CCCP 4.15 from your Openuser link.

    Both are showing up in FF Add-ons and Scripts settings, respectively, but now nothing happening on the Crikey web pages.

    Do I need to restart FF?

41. dwh

    In his adress to parliament today Robb made a slip. He talked about how much it would cost Australia if the deal was DELAYED.

    So its not now never in future as was made out during Abbott era

42. [The only way that will happen is for the LNP to negotiate on the points Labor has problems with. Instead of my way or the highway]

    And Labor needs to listen to the views of the government but otherwise yes.

43. Musrum – sometimes the message comes up others not – but this is what it looks like –

    

44. “@AustralianLabor: The PM famously previously said, “I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.” #auspol”

45. [So its not now never in future as was made out during Abbott era]

    Ahh the Abbott era. It seems like just yesterday … or the day before.

46. [928
    AJH

    briefly@917

    Oh. FFS. You sound like the “Resistance” guys on my campus circa-1987.]

    And you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. I do. I have a lifetime of experience dealing with China. I know the system there from the standpoint of an exporter – from the standpoint of one who produces food products and sells them to Chinese consumers. I know the customs system. I know the regulatory order. I know at first hand how this all works. So I can speak with the benefit of first hand knowledge.

    Labor is right on this. Robb is a sell-out.

47. AJH

    [But if that is the case, why is Labor running a huge scare campaign against the agreement, when it simply seems they are simply asking for modification to a single clause in the legislation?]

    Firstly, the bulk of the running is by the unions. There is a distinction.

    Secondly, they’re not asking to alter anything in the legislation (if by that you mean the FTA). They’re asking for a separate piece of legislation which ensures that the normal provisions for employing foreign nationals is adhered to – so a reassurance, if you like, that the existing law applies to this FTA as it does to all the others.

    [Labor is running a race-fuelled anti-FTA media barrage. That doesn’t mesh with the desire to simply amend one clause.]

    Wow. A bit of a giveaway claim!

    The idea that this is race fuelled is the government’s line. It is ridiculous to suggest that people can’t criticise/analyse the FTA because to do so shows they’re racist. (On that argument, the government should have just given the Chinese everything they asked for, without question).

    It is the government who is being unreasonable here, not the ALP. It is quite common for Oppositions to raise concerns about FTAs – it’s their job. That the government has met such a minor concern with their own media barrage is the unreasonable aspect of the affair – and that kind of over reaction always raises its own questions.

48. [but now nothing happening on the Crikey web pages. ]

    Meaning, your script is doing nothing, I don’t even have the Show Help, CCCP settings, STFU settings, and Recommend CCCP buttons under the comment box anymore.

49. briefly/zoomste

    Well said

50. 937
    davidwh

    david, it is important to understand this deal is not about freedom. It is about the opposite. It is about the return to a labour market in which very large numbers of workers will not be free and will not be equal.