Scott Morrison's imploding act

 

Pinned post created by dthead

Posted last year

  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
...
The bloke was never going to win over the reactionaries on radio and their fuddy-duddy devotees. Certain recalcitrant colleagues always wanted his head on a platter. Fact is, if either lot actually mattered Wentworth would have been far closer.
...
Groundrelay
So why the hell did the Liberal Party make him leader then? Was it because they wanted his money?

He was a poor choice to replace Abbott with, a candidate who didn't end up making anyone happy. And his vested interests in the banking industry stood out more than once; he fought the Banking Royal Commission tooth and nail until the Nationals threatened to cross the floor and even then he was still trying to cover up for his buddies' malfeasance.

Sponsored advertisement

  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
really don't put much value on what an opposition leader from 24 years ago has to say about the current conundrums within the Liberal Party;
"don_dunstan"
Of course you don't. You know much more about Liberal Party workings and Australian politics than somebody who has actually done it.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
really don't put much value on what an opposition leader from 24 years ago has to say about the current conundrums within the Liberal Party;
Of course you don't. You know much more about Liberal Party workings and Australian politics than somebody who has actually done it.
Valvegear
Where did I say that? Hewson is yet another vested interest who has picked sides and is paid to comment like Keating - incidentally Keating is still making policy pronouncements saying that superannuation should be insured by the Commonwealth because the present superannuation pool at $2.6 trillion won't be enough (Guardian). Pretty obvious whose interests he's still working for.

Speaking of Keating as Labor leading light and actual former Prime Minister (rather than opposition leader) I'm sure you'd be interested to know that he thought Malcolm Turnbull's performance as Prime Minister totally sucked - Fairfax:

Paul Keating has accused Malcolm Turnbull of capitulating to conservatives in the fight for a republic, launching an extraordinary denunciation of the recently toppled leader and declaring Australians would need a "microscope" to find his true beliefs.

Mr Keating savaged the former prime minister for doing too little during almost three years in power, saying he had “failed dismally” in leading the Liberal Party back to the centre of Australian politics.

I'm sure you'll be covering your ears right now saying "No, no, no!" but I think there's a different side to this story that says Malcolm simply wasn't any good at the job and deserved to be sacked.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE


I agree . In short, I think he'd had a gut full.
Valvegear
A gut full of what? Being a hopeless PM?

He was fired by the party, "thanks for doing the job, but we don't want you anymore, please move aside", like he did to Abbott. Note MT was well reknown for being the ongoing leak in the camp, spent his entire time when not being PM trying to undercut Abbott, was probably one of the most disloyal senior ministers there ever was to his own leader.

Abbott at least gave MT a decent job, (which he screwed up).

Gillard gave Rudd a decent job to keep him busy.

Turnbull sent Abbott to the back bench with nothing to do. MT's treatment of Abbott in the weeks following the dumping was heavily critised by many, even those in the ALP and MT had plenty of time to fix the issue, he didn't. He took the job off TA because he was loosing popularity and making a number of very public gafs. He's too young to retire and a career MP with no significant previous private sector career, so what do you think he will do, just resign? Should TA have resigned from the house at the previous election, probably, however MT would still have been dumped as he is one of the worst PM's we have had in recent times. Not sure if he's worse than Gillard, but up there. At least she could make a decision. Yes, TAs should have shown more loyalty.

When Gillard was being challenged by Rudd for the final time, she had the respect to at least say, "who every looses walks away quietly and retire from politics to walk away after the next election". After being dumped, she did the respectful thing and advised the party and house a few weeks after being dumped she was not contesting the seat. Gillard's main issue was her back flipping on the CO2 tax for which the marginal electorate never forgave her for.

Hawke did the same, was fired after years of having Keating on his heels and finally winning. Went to the back bench quietly for a while then resigned from the house.

What Rudd, Gillard and Hawke never did was risk their parties position to hold office!

MT had a gut full alright, but it was all his doing and nothing more than he did to TA and it continues in his "take my bat and ball and go home if I don't keep the PM's job" attitude. He was pi$$ed off from the start when he lost by one vote to TA as opposition leader, went after TA ever since and when he finally got the top job, he screwed it up! By his own admission, loosing 30 public opinion polls in a row is not a sign of something doing a good job. He hasn't just hurt the LNP, he's cost the taxpayer and likely going to cost a lot more in an early election and political instability.

MT should be kicked out of the LNP party for his actions, which probably suits him fine as he never wanted to be in the LNP in the first place, he wanted ALP. However he will likely go down as one of the better PM's ALP should have had, at least he improved the budget situation, something no ALP PM's have managed to do since Hawke.
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
Where did I say that?
don_dunstan
You didn't; I did. It certainly read as though it was what you meant . . . that you know better than Hewson.

Hewson is yet another vested interest who has picked sides and is paid to comment like Keating -
don_dunstan
And just what "vested interest" would that be? What side has he picked?

I'm sure you'll be covering your ears right now saying "No, no, no!" but I think there's a different side to this story that says Malcolm simply wasn't any good at the job and deserved to be sacked.
don_dunstan
I don't understand what you're rabbiting on about. I have never said that Turnbull was good as PM. He wasn't. The big difference is I have taken the trouble to point out that he had no chance because his party was not united behind him. But, of course that must be wrong, because Hewson has also said the same thing, and good ol' Don knows that Hewson is irrelevant.

Yes; he was a failure, and there were good and sufficient reasons why he was.  
Having said all of that, I rest my case because I can't be bothered bashing my brains out against the Turnbull-haters.  You go your way and I'll go mine.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
...
The bloke was never going to win over the reactionaries on radio and their fuddy-duddy devotees. Certain recalcitrant colleagues always wanted his head on a platter. Fact is, if either lot actually mattered Wentworth would have been far closer.
...
So why the hell did the Liberal Party make him leader then? Was it because they wanted his money?
don_dunstan
Because, in a rare moment of clarity, they realised that extreme right wing nutjob policies/people might actually have been the reason for 30 losing newspolls and a more centrist character might be the answer. And it probably would have been the answer if the aforesaid Entitled Ones had just let go, but it was never gonna happen.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
You didn't; I did. It certainly read as though it was what you meant . . . that you know better than Hewson.
Valvegear
I do know better than Dr John Hewson. Wouldn't be hard.
And just what "vested interest" would that be? What side has he picked?
Valvegear
Dr John Hewson has had many, many jobs since retiring from politics including professor of the Crawford School of Public Policy and also Asset-Owners Disclosure Project - another green initiative seeking to shame companies connected to non-green assets. He gets paid to attack "climate science" deniers and he does so regularly.
I don't understand what you're rabbiting on about. I have never said that Turnbull was good as PM. He wasn't. The big difference is I have taken the trouble to point out that he had no chance because his party was not united behind him. But, of course that must be wrong, because Hewson has also said the same thing, and good ol' Don knows that Hewson is irrelevant. Yes; he was a failure, and there were good and sufficient reasons why he was. Having said all of that, I rest my case because I can't be bothered bashing my brains out against the Turnbull-haters. You go your way and I'll go mine.
Valvegear
I don't understand what you're rabbiting on about either - you keep using the disunity in the Liberal Party as though that's an excuse for him to fail. It isn't - the whole reason why he was put there in the first place was to try and unite a disparate rabble and it was yet another thing that Malcolm failed miserably on. What is a leader there for if they're not there to lead?

Again, compare Turnbull's pathetic leadership with Johnny Howard's extremely tight grip on the parliamentary Liberal Party - nobody said a word out of line, it was a very tight ship right till the end. Not so Turnbull, he didn't seem to care about trying to take the rest of his party along with him - he was having a fun time just ignoring the critics and letting them carp to the media right to the point of voting him out of the job.

A real political leader wouldn't have done that.
  Groundrelay Chief Commissioner

Location: Surrounded by Trolls!
...
The bloke was never going to win over the reactionaries on radio and their fuddy-duddy devotees. Certain recalcitrant colleagues always wanted his head on a platter. Fact is, if either lot actually mattered Wentworth would have been far closer.
...
So why the hell did the Liberal Party make him leader then? Was it because they wanted his money?
don_dunstan
Self preservation. The party was on the nose but so was its leader. Turnbull could roll Abbott because the mob I mentioned, the same ones who went ape-smeg  afterwards, were in the minority.

a candidate who didn't end up making anyone happy. And his vested interests in the banking industry stood out more than once; he fought the Banking Royal Commission tooth and nail.
don_dunstan
As one would expect of someone 'Born to Rule'. The Liberal Party has and remains backward and obstructionist when it comes to protecting those on the wrong side of the ledger and Abbott would have done the same.

Yes Turnbull was a huge disappointment for continually pandering to those knuckle draggers. Did he seriously expect quid quo pro?

Yes he spat the dummy, however in a masterstroke he robbed them of their defacto Abbott.

It might be the party of Ming but there is no high moral ground with this lot either, just politics.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Self preservation. The party was on the nose but so was its leader. Turnbull could roll Abbott because the mob I mentioned, the same ones who went ape-smeg  afterwards, were in the minority.
Groundrelay
Subsequently turned out to be completely the wrong choice not just for that reason.
As one would expect of someone 'Born to Rule'. The Liberal Party has and remains backward and obstructionist when it comes to protecting those on the wrong side of the ledger and Abbott would have done the same. Yes Turnbull was a huge disappointment for continually pandering to those knuckle draggers. Did he seriously expect quid quo pro? Yes he spat the dummy, however in a masterstroke he robbed them of their defacto Abbott. It might be the party of Ming but there is no high moral ground with this lot either, just politics.
Groundrelay
So why didn't he whack them back into line? Why didn't he invite them to set up their own party if they weren't happy (they wouldn't have)? Because he simply didn't have what it took to lead the parliamentary Liberal Party - end-of-story. Continually pointing the finger at the conservative rump within the LNP simply doesn't cut it in my opinion; a leader is there to keep the various disparate factions in line as any sort of government will be subjected to factionalism. Malcolm just ignored it to his own peril.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
It might be the party of Ming but there is no high moral ground with this lot either, just politics.
Look I had high hopes for Malcolm and I thought it was a really good decision to knife Tones in favour of him; I thought he could have been a voice for positive change in the LNP and whacks the neo-cons back into line on some issues, bring the whole of the party including the Nationals along on the journey. He could have been a Hawkie "consensus builder" within his own party and indeed across the benches.

But some of the bigger picture things we face as a nation he completely capitulated to the interests of the global corporations (ie gas) and I find that completely infuriating, not only that he refused to address the core of the problem by setting a firm national reserve system but also that he allowed this ridiculous gouge of poor Aussies to feed these obscene Japanese gas contracts selling our own resource at a loss because that's what the contracts dictated.

I just don't have enough swear-words for that selfishness and un-representative behaviour, it's a total sell-out of our nation. We're supposed to rip off little nations like East Timor's gas - not our own! Can you imagine Menzies twiddling his thumbs while something like that happened to the Aussie public? Certainly not Chifley or Curtin, probably not even the less notable ones like Stanley Melbourne Bruce would have allowed the gouge of ordinary Aussies over multi-nationals. The problem is that nobody - not Shorten, not any of those shills in Parliament (with the possible exceptions of Pauline Hanson and Bob Katter) are prepared to even talk about what the issues are, instead proposing ridiculous waffle like Turnbull came out with in the dying months of his "leadership".

Good riddance.
  bingley hall Minister for Railways

Location: Last train to Skaville
not any of those shills in Parliament (with the possible exceptions of Pauline Hanson and Bob Katter) are prepared to even talk about what the issues are,
don_dunstan

You mean the Pauline Hanson who backed $50bn in tax cuts for corporate business, and the Bob Katter who backed (until the fall-out got too much) one of his party member's reference to "the final solution".

You're funny Razz
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
...
The bloke was never going to win over the reactionaries on radio and their fuddy-duddy devotees. Certain recalcitrant colleagues always wanted his head on a platter. Fact is, if either lot actually mattered Wentworth would have been far closer.
...
So why the hell did the Liberal Party make him leader then? Was it because they wanted his money?

He was a poor choice to replace Abbott with, a candidate who didn't end up making anyone happy. And his vested interests in the banking industry stood out more than once; he fought the Banking Royal Commission tooth and nail until the Nationals threatened to cross the floor and even then he was still trying to cover up for his buddies' malfeasance.
don_dunstan
I suspect mostly yes.

Also if anyone else got the job he would have continued what he started with Abbott with the next one.

I'm sure one day someone will write an interesting book on what was really going on.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
It might be the party of Ming but there is no high moral ground with this lot either, just politics.
Look I had high hopes for Malcolm and I thought it was a really good decision to knife Tones in favour of him; I thought he could have been a voice for positive change in the LNP and whacks the neo-cons back into line on some issues, bring the whole of the party including the Nationals along on the journey. He could have been a Hawkie "consensus builder" within his own party and indeed across the benches.

But some of the bigger picture things we face as a nation he completely capitulated to the interests of the global corporations (ie gas) and I find that completely infuriating, not only that he refused to address the core of the problem by setting a firm national reserve system but also that he allowed this ridiculous gouge of poor Aussies to feed these obscene Japanese gas contracts selling our own resource at a loss because that's what the contracts dictated.

I just don't have enough swear-words for that selfishness and un-representative behaviour, it's a total sell-out of our nation. We're supposed to rip off little nations like East Timor's gas - not our own! Can you imagine Menzies twiddling his thumbs while something like that happened to the Aussie public? Certainly not Chifley or Curtin, probably not even the less notable ones like Stanley Melbourne Bruce would have allowed the gouge of ordinary Aussies over multi-nationals. The problem is that nobody - not Shorten, not any of those shills in Parliament (with the possible exceptions of Pauline Hanson and Bob Katter) are prepared to even talk about what the issues are, instead proposing ridiculous waffle like Turnbull came out with in the dying months of his "leadership".

Good riddance.
don_dunstan
i too didn't like MT, but hoped he would succeed and stabilise the govt and end the Australian trend of the 2010's of changing PM's in between elections and not long before he was rolled I actually thought he was making less mistakes.

MT showed his true character right to the end by dumping the LNP into a bi-election at a time they didn't one. He could have supported the party by staying on until after parliament finished for the year, thus allowing SCOMO to hold off on a bi-election until Q1 and given himself some time to improve their position.

MT didn't even want to face the house as a disposed leader. Billy gave a TA a very nice send of speech because TA was/is well re-known to be a private consular/support to anyone going through personal and professional issues regardless of their politics. For example during Mk1 Rudd's dying days when his own party physically wouldn't even stand next to him at a public event. TA went over and chatted with him to cheer him up. I've also heard he supported BS after the loss of his father. I believe Bob Hawke was given a standing obviation by the house after he was disposed. Was MT fearful of how he was to be sent off?

I don't think TA was ever seriously going to be considered as leader again. He had his chance and muffed it and far too right wing for Australian people.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: I was here first. You're only visiting.
Interesting article today in Fairfax media that questions what the so-called liberal part 'base' is. According to that minority group at the conservative end of the spectrum, it is themselves, and they must be pandered to. This attitude will surely dog Morrison in the not too distant future just like it did MT unless it changes.

Salient within the article is this:

Hours after Turnbull narrowly survived the Dutton challenge in August, the conservative commentator Janet Albrechtsen wrote, “This is not over. There is unfinished business in the Liberal Party that guarantees another leadership spill. The rising damp of the wets in the party has left the joint with dodgy foundations. Until that is fixed, the Liberal Party will crumble further, unable to define itself, prosecute policy or win an election.

She went on to observe that, “Turnbull is decidedly more ABC than Sky News. And though he will say speaking with Leigh Sales rather than, say, Paul Murray is all about audience reach, Turnbull should be brave enough and smart enough to reach out to both audiences. Murray’s audience is where Turnbull needs to make a mark. When you lose the base, it’s clear that you have lost your philosophical bearings.”

Turnbull might be more ABC than Sky News, but so is Australia. While Turnbull was favouring Leigh Sales over Paul Murray, her nightly audience was around 600,000 and his was less than 60,000.

Sums it up nicely, I say. The conservative faction members are up themselves.

Full article:
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/who-is-the-base-the-conservative-faction-of-the-liberal-party-keep-talking-about-20181026-p50c6f.html
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
not any of those shills in Parliament (with the possible exceptions of Pauline Hanson and Bob Katter) are prepared to even talk about what the issues are,

You mean the Pauline Hanson who backed $50bn in tax cuts for corporate business, and the Bob Katter who backed (until the fall-out got too much) one of his party member's reference to "the final solution".

You're funny Razz
bingley hall
Hey, I'm telling it like it is. Name me one major party parliamentarian who was willing to call the "gas crisis" what it really was - an artificially manufactured jump in prices making Aussie consumers pay more than Japanese consumers for our own resources. We are still being ripped off - is anyone actually going to do anything about it or do they consider selling our resources for a fraction of their true worth to be an essential part of avoiding recession? Malcolm for one certainly wouldn't come anywhere near to the truth of the matter - that's what NEG was all about, a massive smoke-screen so the multinationals could continue their good work in ripping us off.

Were there any people in parliament at all who said anything? I can't think of a single one apart from the cross-benchers who called it for what it was, a rip off of the poor Aussie consumer.
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
FYI - The Dubai govt plans to close nearly all govt agency outlets by 2021 and this week doing a 1 week close down test run claiming the need for such customer service agencies has been replaced with the internet. For car registration, you mow just get your inspection (physical) and insurance then renew at the machine or on line having dispensed with the need to get a new registration card and sticker each year.
Yeah but Dubai people don't get to go to their local member en masse and complain as people have been doing here. Believe me, Steve Marshall has been getting some angry correspondence about the closure of these motor regos.
don_dunstan
My point was, technology is making many parts of these govt front desk agencies redundant. The Dubai govt wants to be seen as a leader in technology, not a typical Emerging economy bureaucratic nightmare. The rate of change in last 7 years since we came here is pretty amazing. On the rare time you need to go into a govt office, you just see rows of empty counters where people used to work.

A bit like the banks, people complain about closing them down but when was the last time you actually go inside a physical branch? Even way back in 2003, we bought an investment property with finance and never set foot in side any office. All done over the phone, email and snail mail documents.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
My point was, technology is making many parts of these govt front desk agencies redundant. The Dubai govt wants to be seen as a leader in technology, not a typical Emerging economy bureaucratic nightmare. The rate of change in last 7 years since we came here is pretty amazing. On the rare time you need to go into a govt office, you just see rows of empty counters where people used to work.

A bit like the banks, people complain about closing them down but when was the last time you actually go inside a physical branch? Even way back in 2003, we bought an investment property with finance and never set foot in side any office. All done over the phone, email and snail mail documents.
RTT_Rules
I live in Adelaide - Australia's nursing home. You should be the one to go and tell all those 80-somethings that it's the 21st century and they have to get on line or they'll be left behind. They'll poke your eyes out with their walking sticks.

Also there's lots of Afghanis and Chinese in my neighbourhoods who would be basically computer illiterate (at least in English); added to that is the fact that many motor rego tasks such as license examination, driver's license renewal etc will all need to be done at a physical branch and you can soon see why closing a branch of the state government arbitrarily is going down like a cup of cold sick. I'd be surprised if they don't back down, it's was the third most-used motor rego in the entire state, some stupid bureaucrat decides its too close to some of the others and closes it down with the stroke of a pen? Give me a break, how bloody-minded and ignorant these people are.

Our Liberal state government is already unpopular and its barely a year old... Steve Marshall is no Tom Playford and I'm sure South Australia will continue sliding backwards under their non-existent leadership. They're so pathetic they couldn't even deliver on one of their 'core' promises to deregulate shopping hours, how on earth they're going to transform us from the 'rust belt state' to something else is beyond me.
  Graham4405 Minister for Railways

Location: Dalby Qld
I live in Adelaide - Australia's nursing home. You should be the one to go and tell all those 80-somethings that it's the 21st century and they have to get on line or they'll be left behind. They'll poke your eyes out with their walking sticks.
don_dunstan
Many elderly people that I know are eagerly embracing the 21st century technology, including a 98 year old friend. Yes, I know it's not for everyone, but it is possible. More should be encouraged and helped to see the need. We don't still see people carving hieroglyphics into stones now do we?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
My point was, technology is making many parts of these govt front desk agencies redundant. The Dubai govt wants to be seen as a leader in technology, not a typical Emerging economy bureaucratic nightmare. The rate of change in last 7 years since we came here is pretty amazing. On the rare time you need to go into a govt office, you just see rows of empty counters where people used to work.

A bit like the banks, people complain about closing them down but when was the last time you actually go inside a physical branch? Even way back in 2003, we bought an investment property with finance and never set foot in side any office. All done over the phone, email and snail mail documents.
I live in Adelaide - Australia's nursing home. You should be the one to go and tell all those 80-somethings that it's the 21st century and they have to get on line or they'll be left behind. They'll poke your eyes out with their walking sticks.

Also there's lots of Afghanis and Chinese in my neighbourhoods who would be basically computer illiterate (at least in English); added to that is the fact that many motor rego tasks such as license examination, driver's license renewal etc will all need to be done at a physical branch and you can soon see why closing a branch of the state government arbitrarily is going down like a cup of cold sick. I'd be surprised if they don't back down, it's was the third most-used motor rego in the entire state, some stupid bureaucrat decides its too close to some of the others and closes it down with the stroke of a pen? Give me a break, how bloody-minded and ignorant these people are.

Our Liberal state government is already unpopular and its barely a year old... Steve Marshall is no Tom Playford and I'm sure South Australia will continue sliding backwards under their non-existent leadership. They're so pathetic they couldn't even deliver on one of their 'core' promises to deregulate shopping hours, how on earth they're going to transform us from the 'rust belt state' to something else is beyond me.
don_dunstan
I don't disagree, but you cannot just keep things open for a minority that don't want to be involved, however doesn't mean closing the lot either.

Chinese, if they cannot use a computer in English, I'd be surprised considering how proactive the Chinese are doing everything on line. In China even the small street vendors trade using e-cash. Afghan's, yeah well you wanted to come here, this is the rules, don't like it, you know where the airport is.

Agree there will at least for now need to be some things that are done in person, but this is reducing.

No idea why they want to close that office though!
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Defence spending under the LNP has exploded to become the single biggest category procured by the Commonwealth; but no-contest tenders and "in confidence" secrecy means we're not allowed to know where the money is going - or how much of it is being wasted - Michael West:

The blow-out in Defence has gained attention in mainstream media over the past week as the Government has sought to block the publication of details about a $1.3 billion defence contract. Labor then expressed concerns about the dearth of parliamentary checks and balances.

“Last month, key sections of an Australian National Audit Office report were blocked from publication on national security grounds, keeping from the public details of the Defence Department’s contract with French-owned company Thales Australia for the purchase of 1100 Hawkei combat vehicles,” said a story in the AFR.

Attorney-General Christian Porter issued a certificate barring publication and ten pages of the report were redacted in a move the newspaper described as “unprecedented”. Further, Guardian Australia found the government was paying twice as much as it had to to buy the combat vehicles.

The report said Thales was “aggrieved” by findings that “hundreds of millions of dollars could have been saved for taxpayers had Australia chosen a US manufacturer”.

So we're not allowed to know when the Department of Defence wastes hundreds of millions on choosing the wrong supplier? Great. This whole system is being gamed by defence manufacturers such as Boeing and Thales to ensure that there's no real contest-ability or transparency anyway and now the government is removing the taxpayer's right to know to save themselves from embarrassment. And at a time when we're entering an economic crisis they've ramped up defence spending to unprecedented levels - so much for the Liberal Party's fiscal responsibility?
  RTT_Rules Dr Beeching

Location: Dubai UAE
Defence spending under the LNP has exploded to become the single biggest category procured by the Commonwealth; but no-contest tenders and "in confidence" secrecy means we're not allowed to know where the money is going - or how much of it is being wasted - Michael West:

The blow-out in Defence has gained attention in mainstream media over the past week as the Government has sought to block the publication of details about a $1.3 billion defence contract. Labor then expressed concerns about the dearth of parliamentary checks and balances.

“Last month, key sections of an Australian National Audit Office report were blocked from publication on national security grounds, keeping from the public details of the Defence Department’s contract with French-owned company Thales Australia for the purchase of 1100 Hawkei combat vehicles,” said a story in the AFR.

Attorney-General Christian Porter issued a certificate barring publication and ten pages of the report were redacted in a move the newspaper described as “unprecedented”. Further, Guardian Australia found the government was paying twice as much as it had to to buy the combat vehicles.

The report said Thales was “aggrieved” by findings that “hundreds of millions of dollars could have been saved for taxpayers had Australia chosen a US manufacturer”.

So we're not allowed to know when the Department of Defence wastes hundreds of millions on choosing the wrong supplier? Great. This whole system is being gamed by defence manufacturers such as Boeing and Thales to ensure that there's no real contest-ability or transparency anyway and now the government is removing the taxpayer's right to know to save themselves from embarrassment. And at a time when we're entering an economic crisis they've ramped up defence spending to unprecedented levels - so much for the Liberal Party's fiscal responsibility?
don_dunstan
Oh god,
Don't you just love the sensationalism, "Exploded"? Likely pun intended since he's talking about the military. I wonder if the same guy was writing something similar about the agricultural industry it would be "FLOODED".


Now back to reality.

1) The ADF budget is a % of the Australian govt spending, hence as the Australian govt spending increases year on year, as does the % for defense spending.

2) Typically LNP govts spend more on defense, ALP govts less as they need to find money for their social programs.

https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/military-expenditure

3) The Australian govt previously agreed with USA to increase its spending on the military to I believe 2.1%, previously 1.6-1.8% or something around there. Likewise much of the USA alliances including NATO are all doing the same or been told to do so or risk being kicked out and mostly in response to China and to a lessor degree Russia being a pain in the backside.

As Australia's sovereignty exists due to its virtual nuclear power status. We must do what the non-virtual nuclear power says in providing a reasonable level of non-nuclear self defense. Even the Kiwi's are towing the line for the same reason.

4) Ok, we have Trump over the in USA being applauded for telling everyone he will bring jobs back into USA and protect US jobs with tariffs. Now we all know those jobs left the USA because it was ultimately cheaper to go of-shore. So what he's telling everyone we will have more jobs, but yes things might cost a tad more. The USA intentionally does nearly all its own defense spending in the USA, even though its cheaper to off-shore many aspects. Some of its for control of IP  and rest strategic. ie in WW1 the USA had to borrow planes from UK and France because they were not making their own.

Now back in Australia, God forbid the Australian govt in a rare case on Patriotism would actually try and do the same thing for its own spending and supporting the Local Defense industry which exports $2B a year of military hardware and the larger pool of jobs that supply our own military. Why are we denied to have a home based strategic supply chain?
  Valvegear Dr Beeching

Location: Norda Fittazroy
RTT - I do wish you'd change your spellcheck:-

"lessor" = person who lets something on a lease. You want "lesser".
"towing" the line = haul along by rope or chain.  You want "toeing".
"defense" we've already been there with it.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
If anybody needs any idea as to how dumb Scott Morrison really is, well here is the proof, today in an interview with 2GB'S Alan Jones (aka, the parrot) he reprimanded the former PM Malcom Turnbull saying that he should "stay out of politics", after he went over to Bali for the Oceans conference earlier in the week, apparently Turnbull discussed issues of trade with the Indonesian President, and also claimed that moving the Australian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was a bad idea (I agree with him on that point) , so then , why didn't Morrison listen to people in the first place, he had ample opportunity to send another minister Rolling Eyes - https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-reprimands-malcolm-turnbull-20181101-p50d9i.html

Kind Regards
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
Oh god,
Don't you just love the sensationalism, "Exploded"? Likely pun intended since he's talking about the military. I wonder if the same guy was writing something similar about the agricultural industry it would be "FLOODED".
RTT_Rules
Did you even read the article? Defense spending has indeed exploded to become the single most expensive procurement item on their balance sheet - the amounts of money being discussed are not piffling. We're talking hundreds of millions being wasted on choosing the wrong supplier at a time of economic crisis - and then the government tries to cover it up with 'defense in confidence' clauses so that their mistakes aren't made public. If that's not terrible financial management then I don't know what is.
Now back in Australia, God forbid the Australian govt in a rare case on Patriotism would actually try and do the same thing for its own spending and supporting the Local Defense industry which exports $2B a year of military hardware and the larger pool of jobs that supply our own military. Why are we denied to have a home based strategic supply chain?
RTT_Rules
We've been through this before - Australia cannot become a world leading expert on production of weapons because the market is already completely flooded. You seriously think that Australia can compete with the United States, the UK, Italy, Russia and China with making weapons? Two billion dollars is nothing; it's bullsh*t, it's just some fantasy that the LNP dreamed up after the loss of the car industry to try and assuage the punters that we are still manufacturing something. It's rubbish - we have no hope of competing against the established cartels in producing weapons, they've already got the market sewn up.

And there are no jobs to be had in replicating manufacturing and supply chains already operating overseas exclusively for our own purposes; all it's going to do it cost us tens of billions and produce almost nothing of tangible benefit for the current economic slump that we find ourselves in. The submarines project is for us and us alone - there are almost no spin-offs or economic positives from building those chains here, it's just a very expensive job creation program.
  don_dunstan Minister for Railways

Location: Adelaide proud
If anybody needs any idea as to how dumb Scott Morrison really is, well here is the proof, today in an interview with 2GB'S Alan Jones (aka, the parrot) he reprimanded the former PM Malcom Turnbull saying that he should "stay out of politics", after he went over to Bali for the Oceans conference earlier in the week, apparently Turnbull discussed issues of trade with the Indonesian President, and also claimed that moving the Australian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was a bad idea (I agree with him on that point) , so then , why didn't Morrison listen to people in the first place, he had ample opportunity to send another minister Rolling Eyes - https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/scott-morrison-reprimands-malcolm-turnbull-20181101-p50d9i.html

Kind Regards
lsrailfan
Israilfan: Beat me to it. What was Morrison expecting? Of course Malcolm's going to keep making pronouncements - he's exactly the 'ghost' that he criticised Rudd and Abbott as being, another failed PM who won't shut up.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: