Campaign updates: Bass, Chisholm et al.

A private poll turns up a surprisingly strong result for the Liberals in the Labor-held Tasmanian state of Bass, while a Liberal candidate stumbles in a key Melbourne marginal seat.

Latest electorate-level campaign news updates for the Poll Bludger election guide:

The Australian reports a uComms/ReachTEL poll for the Australian Forest Products Association gives the Liberals a surprise 54-46 lead in Bass, the north-eastern Tasmanian seat that has changed hands at seven of the last nine elections, most recently in favour of Labor incumbent Ross Hart in 2016. The primary votes from the poll are Liberal 42.8%, Labor 32.6% and Greens 10%, though I would guess the balance includes an undecided component of around 6% that hasn’t been distributed. The two-party result suggests a much more favourable flow of preferences to the Liberals than in 2016, when Labor received fully 89.2% of Greens preferences as well as about 55% from the other two candidates. That would have converted the primary votes in the poll to a two-party total more like 51-49. The poll was conducted on Monday night from a sample of 847.

Rachel Baxendale of The Australian reports Labor is “distributing postal vote application forms across the blue-ribbon Liberal seats of Goldstein and Higgins for the first time ever”. As for the Liberals’ assessment of the situation in Victoria, you can take your pick between reports yesterday from The Australian and the Daily Telegraph. The former spoke of the Liberals “becoming less pessimistic about a wipeout”, with optimists speaking of the loss of two to four seats. But according to the latter, “the Coalition fears its losses will be worse than it expected before the campaign began”, to the extent of being “seriously concerned about the loss of up to eight seats”.

• The Melbourne seat of Chisholm has been much in the news over the past few days, partly on account of Liberal candidate Gladys Liu’s overreach as she sought to bat off a question about her views on gender identity and same-sex marriage. Liu helped organise anti-Labor activity on popular Chinese language social media service WeChat at the 2016 election, much of it relating to the Safe Schools program, as she discussed at the time with Doug Hendrie of The Guardian. Confronted over her comments to Hendrie, Liu appeared to claim his report was “fake news”, and that she had been pointing to views that existed within the Chinese community rather than associating with them herself. However, Hendrie provided the ABC with a recording that showed Liu had been less careful on this point than she remembered. Thomas O’Brien of Sky News reported yesterday that a planned interview with Liu as part of its electorate profile had been cancelled by party headquarters, following earlier efforts to insist she not be questioned about the matter.

• Gladys Liu’s comments on Sunday were made at an Australian-first candidates’ debate conducted in Mandarin, the first language of Labor’s Taiwanese-born candidate Jennifer Yang, but only a third language of Liberal candidate Gladys Liu, who identifies her first languages as English and Cantonese. Rachel Baxendale of The Australian quoted a Labor strategist saying they expected Liu “use Ms Yang’s Taiwanese heritage against her with mainland Chinese voters”, but also indicates that Labor has a better handle on the importance of WeChat than it did in 2016. The service was also much discussed during the New South Wales state election campaign, with respect to the controversy generated by Labor leader Michael Daley’s statements of concern about the impact of Asian immigration on the employment and housing markets.

• Leaning heavily on the passive voice, a report in The Australian today says it is “understood” Labor polling shows it is unlikely to gain the regional Queensland seats of Capricornia, Flynn and Dawson, in addition to facing a “growing threat” in its own seat of Herbert. However, Labor is said to be encouraged by its polling in the Brisbane seats of Petrie, Bonner and Forde, and believes itself to be in the hunt in Brisbane and Dickson.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

857 comments on “Campaign updates: Bass, Chisholm et al.”

  1. WWP:

    The one thing the federal govt does do well is fund the delivery of services, when requisite levels of funding are proffered.

    What begets the federal govt is when there is an ideological party in government, and we get the kinds of regressive budgetary decisions made that we’ve seen with this lot the past 20 years.

  2. Jack Aranda
    says:
    Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 10:14 pm
    nath, is it possible that Roskam was doing what bludgers often do – reading his own meaning into whatever Shorten had said to him?
    _________________________
    I think Shorten has surprised his right wing backers with his negative gearing and franking credits policies. . Shorten may have appeared more corporatist when it suited him, when he was hanging around Pratt et al. Shorten may never act on his corporatist leanings, or he might. Ultimately it’s about power, so if staying towards the left keeps him in power, he will do that. If he thinks he’s best suited to shifting right, he will do that too.

    The good thing about all these speculations is that we will soon find out how it all unravels.

  3. In the longer term my hope is that the extremists get less sway and we don’t see Indonesia following the Brunei’s approach.

    Maybe even influence Malaysia back to a more open to diversity approach.
    I emphasise hope.

  4. I’m assuming shorten et al will have a more complete, nuanced response to their climate change policy in the next few days.
    I would hope so, every journo tailing him around will keep harassing him until he gives some details.
    Where’s Butler these days, he should be front and centre in all this.

  5. The one thing the federal govt does do well is fund the delivery of services, when requisite levels of funding are proffered.

    I think there are a fairly wide range of things that Govt, Federal to Local, does innately do pretty well. I’d start with swimming pools and swimming lessons. They are both a commonly demanded social good, and an important social outcome. Of course in Australia we make it all but impossible for a local government to deliver the pool and lessons, unless it is in a place where noone would ever make a profit.

    We self sabotage the potential of the local government to offer a better pool and a better class, and the opportunity of a cross subsidy from high population areas to low population areas by ensuring that it is a for profit offering it in all the high population areas and leaving it to an underfunded local govt in the balance.

    That is just one fairly crude example, competitive neutrality neuters Govt in almost all the places it would excel, and an insistence that Govt only ever employ the very cheapest form of labour means that most talent goes to private industry (there is a not insignificant core of great and good people that go into govt service as a personal sacrifice but this cohort should not distract from the fact we pay public servants so badly more than 50% would be unemployable or ‘last employed’ in private enterprise.

  6. I get the impression there is a certain amount of rope a dope going on by Bill Shorten at the moment. With all the billions he has at his disposal there must be some massive announcements coming once Easter and Anzac day are out of the way. Then it will really be game on.

  7. Henry says:
    Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 10:24 pm
    I’m assuming shorten et al will have a more complete, nuanced response to their climate change policy in the next few days.
    I would hope so, every journo tailing him around will keep harassing him until he gives some details.

    I’m sure Shorten is sticking to a plan as to when all that will be announced. It will be in his own good time, not when the hangers on would like it to be.

  8. “The Commonwealth Orange Book rates Australia’s performance against similar countries and proposes policy reforms to schools and universities, hospitals and housing, roads and railways, cities and regions, budgets and taxes, retirement incomes and climate change.” Sounds like good traditional Labor or Greens policy…

  9. That’s fine darn but in a game of inches, as each day goes by when he doesn’t put more meat on this policy bone, the knuckleheads in the msm will just draw attention to his responses. It’s all about the 60 secs on the 6pm news, rightly or wrongly and right now it’s not a great look.

  10. Clem

    Agree to disagree. I think Bowen is a fine speaker. What you are describing is the role of the shadow finance minister which is Chalmers role. He does a good job at that too.

  11. Henry

    Its a lot less about the 60 seconds in the news than it used to be. Don’t get me wrong it’s still important but a lot less get to see that news. If they are not working late or have gone out after work. They are most likely streaming entertainment.

    People get their news this way. On demand. Its part of the reason people talk about how fast the news cycle is. Its also why the Murdoch”s are losing influence.

    For most people it’s either Facebook or twitter.
    Its also good for a politician to be seen making honest mistakes and correcting them instead of a polished perfect campaign.

    You just have to avoid a narrative gaining traction like happened to Daley in the last week in the NSW campaign

  12. “I get the impression there is a certain amount of rope a dope going on by Bill Shorten at the moment.”

    I think so. One of the complications in this campaign seems to me to be the Easter / Anzac Day “long holiday” thing.

    People will just want to switch off politics over that period. But after that, we get into the prime period, just before an election where its imminent and the undecideds have to make up their minds. From what i understand the last 3-5 days are a critical period for that.

    Any party has to balance off when they make announcements that they think will “jolt” the electorate towards them (or away from their opponents) and giving the electorate time to absorb and comprehend whats announced.

    Easy if you are focused on a negative campaign, much more nuanced and risky if you are running a mainly positive campaign.

    ALP seem to be pretty good at the timing thing. Am hoping for a couple of things being released in the last two weeks, for example, something interim on Newstart.

  13. nath: “Well Shorten has been on the record about lowering company tax, which they facilitated with Turnbull recently for lower earning companies”

    It may make sense to have differentially lower tax rate for small corporations. Companies don’t ultimately pay tax (but instead distribute the tax burden elsewhere) and so the corporate tax rate is technically a furphy (but is important for compliance). However, there is an argument that small (revenue / turnover) corporations get a modest cash flow benefit from differentially lower corporate tax, enabling them to compete more effectively with larger corporations who (due to scale) can achieve better cash performance under a given corporate tax regime.

  14. Firefox says:
    Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 9:00 pm

    “Thank goodness Bill Shorten and his team will reverse the trend later this month.”

    ———————————

    Obviously I meant next month. This campaign has already gone on long enough and it felt as though we were already in May.

  15. Pegasus: “Grattan Institute does not support Labor’s (and the ACTU’s) policy to raise the Super Guarantee.”

    They are correct in a technical / theoretical sense. However, in practice (and in politics) their recommendation leads to low paid workers getting screwed over their lifetimes.

  16. WeWantPaul @ #795 Wednesday, April 17th, 2019 – 9:37 pm

    I never thought I’d say this, but in hindsight My Way was a better option than Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison’s NDIS.

    It is an idea I’ve only just started cooking, so it is more stir fry just on the heat, than complex stew of perfection (on a scale where raw is bad and you are looking for the perfect stew as good) but the right / far right have been most effective over the last 40 years in taking what is essentially good and making it bad.

    I was listening to the crooked media / Obama brovers contemplate a system of universal healthcare that works well (medicare works pretty well but we probably fail to appreciate just how bad howards add on private stuff was and how far that drags us from best in class, but I disgress) and they are just innately terrified of the idea that Govt can do some things really really well. In the discussion, one of their many pods over the last couple of weeks, they did kind of weave and waffle towards to point and improved from their starting position which was ‘way too scared to move’. But at heart was the fundamental idea that in the US the voters will ultimately choose to accept that for profit corporations will always do a fundamentally better job than the same task done by a govt body.

    And my stew conclusion, still at the barely warmed stir fry start, is that you are going to have to win the argument that there are somethings that Govt do actually just do better, not perfect by 1000 miles but better. If you are too cowardly to even start that debate you are going to lose to the Trump end of capitalism (stupid, lazy, monopolistic, succeeding without merit or effort) every every time.

    For the record I’m on the Warren side of this debate where the kind of capitalism that allows monopolies, monopolistic behaviour, rent seeking, and the rich idiots like Trump to to thrive or even just survive, is just a perverted bad from of capitalism from the start.

    I cannot disagree with any of that.

  17. EGT

    Money in retirement: more than enough

    https://grattan.edu.au/report/money-in-retirement/

    Even if governments did want to boost retirement incomes more
    generally, the current policy of increasing compulsory super
    contributions to 12 per cent is the worst way to get there: it will
    cost workers and governments more today, reduce the pensions of
    current retirees, and do less for future retirement incomes, than the
    alternatives. Reducing superannuation fees would increase retirement
    incomes and budget revenues more than the planned increase to the
    Super Guarantee.

  18. “How quickly Labor forget…”

    As others have already pointed out firefly, Labor remembers alright. Especially its 600,000 primary votes that walked out the door on that deal, of which Rudd was able to claw back about 200,000 at the election. I’m amazed that the Greens didn’t notice the 300,000 votes they lost in the lower house in 2013, but that’s the fact of the matter.

    The problem wasn’t the negotiations or the deal, per se. Rather it was that the climate in which the deal was made was way outside the Overton window: the blame for that is fundamentally Labors: the original policy sin was Rudd’s in not prosecuting the CRPS at a DD. The Greens also bear responsibility for their decisions as well. The failure of the Greens to grasp that, in the face of those 300,000 lost votes is epic, industrial scale, cognitive dissonance. Even more amazing is the failure of the Greens to notice the 500,000 votes they lost in the senate. FFS!

    Gillard is to blame for setting the political climate (see what I did there) for the post 2010 election negotiations with the tack she took in the post coup environment and then the campaign proper. Her deal with the Greens was a breach of political trust. Simple as that. Didn’t matter how good the carbon pricing scheme was. Didn’t matter that that technically the ‘carbon tax’ wasn’t a tax.

    Right now, trust in politics is fractured. Folk generally want action on climate change, but only as some abstract ‘cost free’ notion. Labor has nailed its colours to the mast in its calculation of where the Overton window is now and compared to the status quo it is bold. The Greens dont think it is bold enough. Fine. But for labor to go to the election with one bold plan and then be blackmailed into effectively scrapping it but shuttting down all coal production and cfps by 2030 is just mad. As in DSM certifiable. Anything like that outcome would see all progressive parties get a kicking at the 2022 election the likes of which we have never seen before. Which will mean another decade of no effective action. Again. Thanks to the Greens. Again.

    And for what? The Greens position is completely unnecessary. Shutting down our coal industry by 2030 will achieve exactly nothing from the big overseas coal users: coal can and will be sourced elsewhere without any great additional cost. The Greens plan doesn’t fit into any international framework to make the international polluters change any more rapidly than they would otherwise do. It is a pure vanity project.

    Similarly , instead of using the 20 or so year window that we have before the last remaining Australian cfps is due to be decommissioned to sensibly, steadily and deliberately transition to carbon neutral electricity, shutting down all cfps by 2030 by edict will just likely force bad decisions to be made and incur unnecessary cost, which will enevitably be passed onto consumers.

    Fuck the Greens and their pathetic blackmail. Labor just won’t capitulate to a bunch of wannabes.

  19. A random LinkedIn person for some reason thinks I own a business and sent an invite to “Anarchists Online Sessions”.

    Apparently these are “weekly gatherings of like minded business owners committed to building lasting wealth through their business” where “we meet online, share in each others successes and discuss effective strategies to increase the free cash flow”. Doesn’t sound very anarchy-y, to me.

    I feel like I should attend just to see where the ‘anarchy’ part kicks in. I also feel like there’s a very good chance it never actually does.

  20. Confessions says:
    Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 9:43 pm

    Puffy:

    I understand. If these funds were administered differently, you would be getting respite care. It is a massive fail and raid by the spivs. imho.

    It may be partly about how funds are administered (I really don’t know), but I’d suggest it’s mostly about the fact that the NDIS has not been funded to levels intended to meet demand.

    We saw in the wake of the Morrison govt budget reports that they’d robbed the NDIS in order to deliver tax cuts to wealthy Australians. I’d suggest that is the reason service providers are having to increase fees for their consumers.

    I think you’re barking up the wrong tree in this case.

    From the original tweet she implied they had a plan which had money for respite care. The whole point seemed to be the ridiculous amount they were asking which would obviously limit the amount of respite time she could take.

    Nothing to do with delays in approving applications which has become the Libs’s budget surplus.

  21. ” hoping for a couple of things being released in the last two weeks,”

    An increasing number of people are voting early. Early voting begins 29 April. Campaign announcements and strategy need to take this into account.

    ———–

    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/FederalElection2016

    The continued rise of pre-poll voting
    The 2016 federal election continued the trend seen in the past several elections of increasing numbers of voters choosing to cast their vote early, with—31 per cent of the votes cast before polling day in 2016—around 4.5 million votes, according to Parliamentary Library calculations. This compares to 26 per cent, or 3.6 million, votes in 2013.

  22. Pegasus @ #786 Wednesday, April 17th, 2019 – 9:57 pm

    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/what-do-young-people-care-about-this-election/11027018

    At 18 years of age, did you pay attention to elections and what politicians got up to on the hustings?

    Well, turns out most millenials are showing an interested in this election, according to a survey released today by Triple J.

    14, 000 young people aged between 18 and 29 took part in the survey, which revealed the environment & climate change to be their biggest issue.

    Guest: Shalailah Medhora, political reporter, Triple J Hack.

    It’s all very well to have so many nominating ‘the environment’ as their number one issue, but that does not tell us whether or not it will shift their vote.
    I suggest that, in the case of a large number, it will not or, both the ALP and Greens would be doing much better and the Libs would be facing an almost complete wipeout.

    But it sure gets the Greens and some of the more excitable ALP supporters hyperventilating.

  23. Barney in Mui Ne @ #826 Wednesday, April 17th, 2019 – 9:15 pm

    Confessions says:
    Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 9:43 pm

    Puffy:

    I understand. If these funds were administered differently, you would be getting respite care. It is a massive fail and raid by the spivs. imho.

    It may be partly about how funds are administered (I really don’t know), but I’d suggest it’s mostly about the fact that the NDIS has not been funded to levels intended to meet demand.

    We saw in the wake of the Morrison govt budget reports that they’d robbed the NDIS in order to deliver tax cuts to wealthy Australians. I’d suggest that is the reason service providers are having to increase fees for their consumers.

    I think you’re barking up the wrong tree in this case.

    From the original tweet she implied they had a plan which had money for respite care. The whole point seemed to be the ridiculous amount they were asking which would obviously limit the amount of respite time she could take.

    Nothing to do with delays in approving applications which has become the Libs’s budget surplus.

    And I think you’re missing the point entirely. What can you possibly deduce from the person’s stated circumstances outside of the miniscule amount of information the person tweeted? The only ‘fact’ you can glean from the tweet Lizzie posted is that they have to pay extra for respite care on an overnight public holiday.

    Seeing as other services either cost additional on public holidays, or are nonexistent because the business or service is closed, it isn’t unreasonable in my view to expect to have to pay extra for a service that is offered on a public holiday.

  24. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/days-of-melbourne-heat-cracks-almost-a-century-of-records-20190417-p51f6u.html

    Melbourne has sweated through two consecutive days above 30 degrees for the first time so late in April in almost a century.

    It’s the city’s driest ever start to the year, as Tuesday cracked 30.3 degrees and Wednesday hit 30, the first time that’s happened so late in April since 1922.
    :::
    The weather bureau found March and the 2018-19 summer were the hottest on record.

    Worsening climate change is predicted to lead to harsher, more prolonged and more frequent droughts, bushfires and heatwaves.

  25. Barney in Mui Ne @ #832 Wednesday, April 17th, 2019 – 9:31 pm

    ‘fess,

    If she didn’t have a plan and funding how would she have a provider for respite care?

    You can have a plan and funding for respite care (or any other care for that matter), but if there are no beds (or support) available, it means nothing. We have cases here of people with funds for home maintenance and gardening and there simply isn’t the services in the community to meet the demand.

    As I said, that person in Lizzie’s tweet should be thankful they can access respite care when they need it. Cause that isn’t what people in other parts of the country experience.

  26. Clem

    Maybe Bowen could say something like “the Coalition are terrible economic managers” and then just walk off.

    Did you see all of his joint presser today or just the 10 second news grab?

  27. Confessions says:
    Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 11:43 pm

    Barney in Mui Ne @ #832 Wednesday, April 17th, 2019 – 9:31 pm

    ‘fess,

    If she didn’t have a plan and funding how would she have a provider for respite care?

    You can have a plan and funding for respite care (or any other care for that matter), but if there are no beds (or support) available, it means nothing. We have cases here of people with funds for home maintenance and gardening and there simply isn’t the services in the community to meet the demand.

    As I said, that person in Lizzie’s tweet should be thankful they can access respite care when they need it. Cause that isn’t what people in other parts of the country experience.

    And how’s any of that her fault?

    Do you think $200 an hour is a reasonable price for such a service?

  28. Well Charles, one of my bugbears is that Labor treasury spokespeople have a tendency not to defend Labor’s past record as economic managers and they also fail to sufficiently nail the Tories economic lies. if I was Bowen i would be repeating the deficit doubling every time I went on camera. Instead, they just cede that ground as belonging to the Tories.

  29. There had better be a Morgan Poll released this Friday 19th, because I am not sure the other companies will poll over the Easter weekend. It’s a long time until a (presumed) Newspoll release on April 28th – some hard polling data showing no movement to the Coalition should help change the media narrative.

  30. Barney:

    Where do you get $200 per hour from? Other than making assumptions on an unsubstantiated tweet.

    This is what Lizzie posted:

    Denise Allan
    Just talking with a foster mum who cares for a severely disabled boy…wanting respite for Anzac day night…$2400!! For one night! $1400 per night normal night! Out of his NDIS package. Someone is making a killing out of the NDIS. @LindaBurneyMP #auspol #MSM #NDIS

    You don’t know what the person is being charged for, much less the hourly rate. And maybe you should be asking Lizzie for clarification, as I did (but didn’t receive a response), seeing as she was the one who posted this tweet in the first place. Maybe there is other evidence that she didn’t post which would shed further light on this.

  31. Barney:

    Yes, assumptions. You don’t know what is being charged or for what. And note the person is “severely disabled” which may factor in the respite care he needs.

    Maybe Lizzie can share why she felt moved to drop that tweet here with no other context provided.

  32. Confessions says:
    Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 12:14 am

    Barney:

    Yes, assumptions. You don’t know what is being charged or for what. And note the person is “severely disabled” which may factor in the respite care he needs.

    Maybe Lizzie can share why she felt moved to drop that tweet here with no other context provided.

    And yet his foster mother normally carries it out.

  33. Christ must be desperate to be wanting a Morgan Poll. Plus, since they’re not tied to any News bodies, it wouldn’t be reported on anyway.

    The long and short of it is the media is less taking sides as wanting a contest to drive circulation and clicks.

  34. Barney:

    The foster mother is his regular carer. When she wants a break from caring she has to put the person in respite care. This is what the person is being charged for.

  35. https://www.pollbludger.net/2019/04/17/campaign-updates-bass-chisholm-et-al/comment-page-17/#comment-3133269

    The Greens lost protest votes to smaller parties in 2013, because they had ,a, dealt with the government and ,b, that government leaked whenever it got clear air and was regaining votes and ,c, the increase in the number of minor parties increased competition for votes.

    The deal on carbon pricing suffered because the new Senate did not take their seats until the new financial year had started, which delayed its implementation by a year and allowed the scare campaign (that would have been just about the same even for a much weaker deal) much more time to stick in peoples heads. The blame for this probably lies with Malcolm Fraser, for holding the 1977 Referenda otherwise than in conjunction with the 1977 Commonwealth Parliament Election and thus likely causing the mid-term protest vote (backed by the state premiers in those states and the Opposition Leader (Lib) in Tasmania) to defeat the Simultaneous Elections Referendum 1977 by narrowly defeating it in Queensland and WA when one of them passing it would have meant a victory for the referendum.

  36. Clem

    I absolutely hear what you are saying about Labor not defending their economic record and not nailing the Coalition on their lies. Shorten and Chalmers have though been regularly nailing the Coalition about doubling the debt and low wages growth.

    To go to the past and re-litigate the GFC stimulus packages is, I’d say not what they want to do. See, even though they know and we know Labor saved us from a recession and mass unemployment during the GFC, unfortunately that period was tainted by Rudd and Gillard and the internal fighting. So everytime Labor brings it up, voters are reminded of those internal problems. In any case, a poll done last year showed the majority of voters agree that Labor did save Australia from a recession during the GFC. So a big tick there.

    Labor has a very strong economic team assembled and have worked very hard to build a coherent economic plan. And look, I think their argument is very easy for voters to follow. Fix the structural budget imbalances caused by unsustainable tax loopholes (which nearly all credible economists say is vital – Howard created most of these), don’t give tax cuts to wealthy and big business, help stimulate the domestic economy by boosting wages and giving low income earners tax cuts – and this will allow Labor to properly fund health, education, TAFE etc AND keep the budget in good shape. The Libs cannot do all of these things – hence them being exposed today by the $40bn a year black hole. Also Labor wants to invest in human capital through education, TAFE Uni, re-skilling etc. This will also boost the economy.

    So Labor want to argue about the now. And they want to fight on their turf where they can.They have done the hard work to win back the trust of voters. There is still a long, long way to go in this campaign, so let’s see how it unfolds.

  37. Barney

    I have been waiting for more than an hour to see who, if anyone, would comment on what Confessions has been writing in 7 or 8 posts about the exorbitant cost being charged for one night of respite.

    At last someone has ….. you.

    This has to be gouging of government funds in the extreme. Like a dog licks himself, they do it because they can.

    I am reminded that the first young man to die in the pink batts installations was a casual employee of a subcontractor of a subcontractor of the mob who actually had the government contract (incidentally, a big real estate company). It’s government money so it is there to be gouged, at every level as the dollars travel down to the coalface ….. in this case, to the person with the disability. The gouged dollars are of course “admin costs”

    Back to tonight, Confessions is defending the indefensible. She appears to have totally missed the point. Her proposition that the case in question occurs because NDIS is underfunded is quite illogical. The tweet posted by Lizzie actually complains that the person has already been allocated adequate funding, but that the allocation is being gouged. It is actually a case of whistleblowing the gouging, not about complaining about the NDIS itself.

    Confessions response that the person should feel grateful to actually have a respite option is an unconscionable argument along the lines “stop whinging ……. at least YOU have someone to gouge your allocation”.

    Confessions evidently works somewhere in the allied health sector. Her enthusiasm to defend this gouging (and on several occasions to blame Lizzie ‘for not posting enough details’) suggests that she may in fact work in the space that this case occurs within, and she may be defending a raw nerve.

  38. “The deal on carbon pricing suffered…”

    Another reason it suffered is because Labor – Gillard in particular – called it a tax instead of a price. I think her words were that it was “effectively like a tax” from memory. The second she said that she gave Abbott and the Coalition an enormous amount of ammunition and it made it look like she had broken the promise that “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”.

    Of course, the fact that it was a hung parliament and the Greens went to the election with a policy for a carbon price/ETS meant that she wasn’t actually breaking any promise. Labor didn’t have sole control over the policy platform of the government.

    However, the perception was that Gillard had broken a promise. She could have called it an ETS, a price, or any other name apart from a tax and she probably would’ve been able to get away with it. To her enormous credit, Gillard has since admitted that allowing it to be considered a tax and playing into that was a crucial mistake.

    In Gillard’s own words, in an article she wrote for the Guardian…

    Quote:

    I erred by not contesting the label “tax” for the fixed price period of the emissions trading scheme I introduced. I feared the media would end up playing constant silly word games with me, trying to get me to say the word “tax”. I wanted to be on the substance of the policy, not playing “gotcha”. But I made the wrong choice and, politically, it hurt me terribly.

    Hindsight can give you insights about what went wrong. But only faith, reason and bravery can propel you forward.

    Labor should not in opposition abandon our carbon pricing scheme. Climate change is real. Carbon should be priced. Community concern about carbon pricing did abate after its introduction. Tony Abbott does not have a viable alternative.

    While it will be uncomfortable in the short term to be seen to be denying the mandate of the people, the higher cost would be appearing as, indeed becoming, a party unable to defend its own policy and legislation: a party without belief, fortitude or purpose.

    Labor is on the right side of history on carbon pricing and must hold its course. Kevin Rudd was both right and brave to say this in the dying days of the campaign.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/13/julia-gillard-labor-purpose-future

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *