Gerard Is Right: Leave Turnbull Be .. What We Need Him To Be

Gerard Henderson wrote a piece published in The Australian on the 28 May  titled, “election 2016: Media should just let Turnbull be.” As you would expect there has been a lot of comments. Most of it seems to be negative anti-Turnbull. 

It was an interesting piece. Much of what G Henderson said was in my opinion true.  But there were contradictions. There was one statement in particular I thought was a contradiction. It also generated most of the negative comment from those who state they are conservatives. Honestly, who would know if they are or aren’t. But the statement was this, “If Turnbull wins on July 2, then he will have a greater opportunity to fashion the Coalition’s policy with reference to his own policy vision.” 

The point made related to SSM and the Nationals. The point escaped most of those commenting. They see it as a broader issue. But, it plays to the fear many people on the liberal/conservative side of politics express. If Malcolm wins he’ll take the party down the left channel. 

The statement conflicted for me because it clashed with other points made by G Henderson. 

“Some of those who want Turnbull to be Turnbull overlook the fact he is the leader of a right-of-centre Coalition administration. No Liberal Party leader can ignore the views of party operatives, parliamentarians and the rank-and-file members who keep the organisation together and do most of the work at election time.” 

Correct  and it  won’t change if he is elected. So why would he be stupid enough to revert to the ‘stereo-type’ Malcolm the leftie? He remembers what happened last time. He’s been warned what will happen if he tries it again. 

G Henderson stated, “And then there are the Nationals. When Turnbull led the Liberal Party in opposition in 2009, he was close to presiding over a situation where the Nationals dumped the Coalition agreement. The issue turned on Turnbull’s support for an ETS.” 

Do you honestly believe the Nationals wouldn’t threaten this again should Malcolm stray from the path of the straight and narrow? Perhaps the not so happy Libs who are championing a vote for Barnaby might like to consider that and insist on an agreement to be sure. I think it makes sense to have one.

Our elected representatives have shown they are prepared to remove a leader. They have done that twice in recent times. Malcolm as opposition leader and Abbott as PM. Why would Malcolm or indeed us think they wouldn’t do it? If the LNP with Malcolm as leader are elected. If he strays too far to the left changing agreements we vote for, I’ll be one of the loudest voices calling for his head.

Tony Abbott broke promises. That didn’t sit well with many centre moderate Libs. If (and it’s a big if) Malcolm was to break promises after being elected there would be a monumental revolt. I’m in doubt it would be the case. 

Malcolm Turnbull is many things but a fool he is not. He knows the score and I doubt he wants to be turfed for a second time assuming the LNP gain government and he remains leader. 

I will refer to one comment to G Henderson’s column. It was this from someone named Andrew.  

“I agree with the very many right wing Abbott supporters who attack Turnbull.

Not because Abbott was deposed as he was hopeless and had to go.

(I concede border protection etc)

Turnbull has turned out to be a socialist and bereft of ideas, and more hopeless than Abbott.

I'm very sorry that Costello left Parliament he would have been an even better PM than Howard.

Unfortunately I'm voting for the truly awful Labor lot in the hope that a new liberal-conservative party will arise from the ashes.

The Other Andrew.” 

I have no idea who The Other Andrew is. Or whether he is genuine. But if he is, there's not a lot you can say about comments like that except HELP!!!!! No self respecting, genuine conservative would ever vote Labor. Ever advocate voting for Labor. I don't often reply to media comment but I did to this one.  

“To reward Labor after they almost led this country to the point of ruin, on the off chance a new conservative Phoenix will rise from the ashes of a decimated LNP I find astounding. Even more so given Labor are promising to spend more, tax more and weaken our borders in removing TPV's that's just for starters.

There's also the very real likelihood you could be waiting 20-years for the 'saviour' to reach maturity. There is no guarantee it will happen. 

So good luck with your gamble. I just hope the rest of us don't end up paying for the bet.”

So back to G Henderson’s headline. Yes. Let Turnbull be. Let him be the leader he has committed to being in leading a right-of-centre Coalition party. Not the leftie, republic pushing, social engineer so many would will him or wish him to be.  Hold to account on that commitment.

People do change and they do modify their opinions. It's called maturity and taking into account team and voter expectations. Turnbull knows the score. Time will be the judge of his conviction. He may never completely give up his attachment to a republic. I’ve little doubt that we will traverse that path one day. When the time is right. The same goes for SSM. He has stated he supports the party’s plebiscite decision. The will of the people will decide. As it should. Turnbull will stand firm on border protection. As PM he knows more about the inherent risks of weakening our policy that the armchair experts.  Turnbull will hold the line on the economy. As he absolutely must. He's no fool. We must not forget; there are still people waiting in the wings to topple him (that isn't a dig at Tony Abbott). There are others.  He knows it and so do we. 

Back to focusing on what is really important. Bill Shorten and Labor. Keeping them OUT. If they get in as conservatives we can't control them. We can control Turnbull.

Update From Labor Election HQ: A Political Farce?

It was red faces this morning with the realisation that future star David Feeney was on another losing streak. He's previously 'lost' a house. This was followed yesterday by 'losing' his interview notes and exposing Labor's duplicity. Then we had the David Speers interview. What a shambles for Feeney. So we chalk up the third loss. I can't wait to see what's next on Feeney's agenda. Mr Feeney has been affectionately dubbed a 'loser' in the past. Now it appears it is an inherent flaw. 

We were informed yesterday of more division within the party. This time the split is over backing a ban on political donations from miners and all fossil fuel subsidies. Justine Elliot, the current member for Richmond, and Janelle Saffin, the former Page MP who is trying to win the seat back, have broken ranks in backing a ban. I have it on good authority Bill has upped his dose of 'headache' pills. 

Labor are not happy campers with splits over border protection and now donations from miners and fossil fuel subsidies. At this rate there'll be more out than in the camp by July 2nd. 

Meanwhile Bill Shorten's 'Spend-O-Meter' has been in meltdown. When quizzed by his 'number cruncher' Bowen "where does the money come from Bill?" Bill replied. "All sorted. I've just organised a $100billion overdraft on the credit card and ScoMoo exaggerated anyway. Bill could be heard chuckling to himself, "I mean $69billion what a laugh it's only $40billion." It is, isn't it, only $40billion? Chris tell me I'm right." Bowen's just ordered a new calculator and 144 rolls of paper. 

Reading this you would think it was a satirical comedy script. But it isn't. It's fact with a slight embellishment to the Shorten, Bowen exchange. But the numbers are real. We can laugh, but if this lot secure government it will be no laughing matter. 

I'm Becoming A Polygamist

Bill Shorten will appoint an LGBTI Commissioner should he win office. This will cost $1.4 million over four years; $200,000 year one and $400,000 year two onwards. The appointee will be tasked with being a “champion” of the community’s rights. The LGBTI Discrimination Commissioner will be appointed to Australian Human Rights Commission. 

In announcing this, our lesbian senator Penny Wong said, "An LGBTI Discrimination Commissioner will ensure lesbian, gay, transgender and intersex Australians can feel safer, more secure and more included in Australian society. 

“The Commissioner will address structural discrimination, work towards ensuring our schools, workplaces, and communities are free from discrimination."

Penny Wong said, "love is love." We are here because we reject hatred, we reject bigotry and we reject discrimination."

They don't. This would prove it. 

I've been giving this a lot of thought. I will become a polygamist. I shall have two husbands. One old and extremely rich. The other closer to my age. Someone who likes doing the things I like to do. Best of both worlds; someone to have fun with and someone to bankroll me. 

I'll love them both equally of course. I will be demand my rights. I know I can rely on Penny to go into bat for me. After all as she said "love is love". In this new Penny World the traditional idea of love between a man and a woman to produce children is just so yesterday. So why should those seeking to have two husbands be discriminated against. After all it is a relationship between a woman and a man. 

I wonder if Penny will defend me against the hatred that will be directed toward me. Will she decry the bigotry when I am accused of being immoral? Will she demand the appointment of a Commissioner to help stamp out the hatred and the discrimination? Will she support my plan to educate our children and the community on the imperatives of embracing my lifestyle choice? She said, “We are here because we reject hatred, we reject bigotry and we reject discrimination." Remember 'love is love.'

Do you think she would stand up for me if I went ahead with my plan? Will she fight for my rights because they differ from hers?  To quote one of my favourite Pommy sayings, "eck is like."

I don't care how people live their lives as long as they don't interfere with mine or hurt others. However, I do get heartily sick and tired of having LGBTI stuff rammed down my throat. Now, if Labor gets in we will have a Discrimination Commission to 'police' our workplaces, our schools and our communities. Big brother is alive and well. 

Where does this stuff end? By 2050 50% of the population has to be an alternative sex practitioner? Given the indoctrination of kids in schools and the constant barrage of media reports, demands to change the law etc I’m starting to wonder. 

I'll let you know how I go with the polygamy stuff. I'm off to find my rich hubby.. 

Jones and Turnbull Peace Deal. Why?

Daily Telegraph a lead story. Jones and Turnbull’s Peace Deal 

That any politician regardless of what side, has to cosy up to a trumped up peacock like Jones infuriates me. The fact their possible meeting is newsworthy is beyond belief. Plus, we’ve heard it all before. Why should any politician require Jones blessing? Why do we allow people like Jones and other shock-jocks to determine who is worthy of being elected and who is not? 

I was a long time Jones listener. I turned off some years ago because I could no longer take his two-faced sycophantic ravings. Jones, like Bolt plays to an audience. He does it not because he always believes in what he is saying. He does it to gain an audience, increase his ratings and hence his paycheque. 

I have been on the receiving end of Jones attacks more than once. I was a climate skeptic when Jones was a climate change advocate.  I took issue with Jones pushing the climate myth down our throats.  It was obvious it was a money making scam. Given my job at the time I saw it firsthand. I believed I was in a position to speak from a basis of fact. He disagreed. Yes, he has changed his position now because the mood changed. But it doesn’t absolve him of the vicious attacks on people who disagreed with him. 

Who could forget his denigration of people who had the temerity to take off public holidays? Remember those episodes?  At the time Jones had to work public holidays. So it was the perfect excuse to climb onto his soapbox and attack those who didn’t.  Jones circumstances changed and he hasn't worked a public holiday for years and never a word has been uttered since. 

Then we suffered his endless railing against the development at Circular Quay. Jones went on and on about the harbour foreshore being stolen from the people. His accusations of impropriety against the developer and those who approved the development were a daily occurrence. We found out sometime later (when the attacks had stopped) Jones owned an apartment and lived there. What a hypocrite.

Jones was a long-time champion of Julia Gillard. In fact, he even convinced me (cut my wrist and my blood runs blue) she was OK. Then he turned on her in the most vicious way. Was she a good PM? No. Did she deserve to go. Yes. Did she deserve the vicious attack by Jones in claiming her then recently departed father died of shame? No, no, no!!! No person with a modicum of decency would think that let alone say it. How cruel. How contemptible. Any respect (which wasn’t much) I had for him flew out the window at that point. He lost me as a listener. 

What genuine Liberal supporter would forgive Jones full on assault against the Queensland Liberal Party? Jones even returned from holiday to (his words) sink them. Jones summarily dismissed what the Libs had inherited, their record or the impact of electing another Labor government. It was a personal vendetta, stuff everyone else. That speaks volumes about the man. 

Jones cares only for himself and his mates. He's never gotten over being overlooked for Liberal pre-selection. He's an A class hypocrite who wields far too much power. Jones sees himself as the King maker, the ego of the man is unbelievable. 

I laugh when I read comments about him ‘standing up for us’. He doesn’t. He stands for himself and his mates. He will stand up for you as long as you fawn over him and stroke his ego. Or, as long as there's something in it for him. The moment you stop or there is no benefit for him, Jones drops people. Listeners are no different. Try disagreeing with him. 

Jones found his niche and as a result he has become very wealthy. But he isn’t your friend and I would be much happier if Malcolm Turnbull had continued to boycott him. But I understand why he possibly won’t, I hope he doesn’t live to regret it as so many others have. 

Question: How much are you prepared to pay?

Question: How much are you prepared to let the government spend for changes to our refugee intake policy. I have assumed (possibly dangerous) you don't want to see our debt position worsen as a result of the proposed Labor & Greens increases. What are you prepared to give up byway of benefits? Or conversely, what are you prepared to contribute byway of increased taxes and charges to pay for it? 

Remember this proposal isn't general immigration. This is for increases to the humanitarian refugee intake. This will means people from third world countries; predominately war torn. 

The LNP have committed and budgeted to spend $700million to cover the cost of the increase of 12,000 one off uplift. This is besides our current intake of 13,750; this increases to 18,750 by 2018 - 2019. 

Labor's proposal is an annual increase to 27,000 at a cost of $2.7billion over four years. 

If we adopted the Greens proposal of a staggering 50,000 annually the cost would be $7billion over the same period. To put this into perspective. That equates to housing a city approximately the size of Wagga Wagga every year. That doesn't even touch on the special needs of those people. 

It's easy when it's someone else's money conjured up by the mysterious government money fairy from the pot at the end of the rainbow. But it's yours and mine. We pay. 

So, it's a simple cost based question. What are you prepared to pay in increased taxes and how much are you prepared to give up byway of current benefits? Or, are you simply prepared to see the country go into more and debt leaving the legacy for future generations to deal with? 

A couple of comments on the Peter Dutton issue. A lot of people condemned him for what he said. Completely ignoring the fact that he was talking about the likely profile of our humanitarian intake today. Not the profile 50-40-30, even 20 years ago. In many cases a profile very different in both their religious and social maturity than those who came here following the Second World War. Whilst our country has developed, grown and matured economically and socially, the same can't be said for all countries. Particularly those where the bulk of humanitarian and boat people have come from. You may not like what he said and, many called him unAustralian. If anyone's acting in an 'unAustralian' manner it's the people attacking him. We have to be mature enough to debate thorny issues no matter how unsavoury and confronting the facts are. If we can’t then we forego the right to call, ourselves a mature and intelligent society. 

Research commission and published by the then Labor government back in 2011 confirms what Mr Dutton said. Although I'm not sure I totally agree with his comment about taking Australian jobs. As the jobs taken by people who come into the country are often those shunned by locals. The facts with respect to literacy, welfare and employment prove what he said is right. No amount of bullying or slurring Peter Dutton or those who defend him will change that. 

"They think we can live beyond our means indefinitely"

Love him or hate him, Mark Latham has moments of lucidity when he makes some excellent if somewhat confronting points. His column in @dailytelegraph today titled "Left holding the Bill: The Lucky Country is a fool’s paradise" is no exception. 

For me these points should be front and centre in every political debate when talking about spending, debt and our future economic security. Trouble is most political parties are too intent on being re-elected and most commentators are left wing. 

He talks  about the inability or unwillingness to bite the bullet and start to fix (as oppose to band-aide or mask) the state of the economy. He mentions the addiction (my word) to increased spending on what he labels the Feelings And Behaviour of individuals. 

Key points. 

“Yes, our politicians are to blame but so, too, our public culture has become weak and self-indulgent.”

Harsh but absolutely correct. People know it but once you are addicted to anything it's hard to break the cycle. 

“Every day, media commentators are inventing new crackpot spending ideas and welfare entitlements.”

I would add helped along by hand-wringing self-interest groups and promoted by social reformers. 

“Too many voters have forgotten what it’s like to experience a recession and double-digit unemployment.”

That’s an excellent point. Let's face it in the last financial crisis Labor cleared out the cookie jar doling out cheques to all and sundry. 

“They think we can continue to live beyond our means indefinitely.”

When you aren’t paying for it you feel no pain, simple as that. But the piper will come calling. If we don’t start facing reality it will be sooner rather than later.  When he does, he will be playing a very bleak tune. 

Election déjà vu

This comment came from the Australian today. 

"If the Libs do win the election, can you just imagine how Turnbull will react. He will actually think it is because of his 'wonderful' leadership when the only reason would be the alternative is too terrible to contemplate." Joan wrote that. 

My reply. 

“You could say we won for the same reason in 2013.  Labor was simply too terrible to contemplate then and, nothing has changed in 2016.”

By the way the only person who knows what Malcolm Turnbull would think should he win is Malcolm Turnbull. So Joan and all the other Joan's out there you are talking through your hat. You don’t have a clue what he will think. 

But now to my election déjà vu. LNP voters cheered enthusiastically over our 2013 win in the lower house (hence gaining us government) it was impressive. But, I wonder how much of that win was down to how bad Labor was. Not necessarioly how good the LNP were. I suspect the anti-Labor impact was reasonably large.

At the risk of repeating what I’ve said before where it mattered (in the Senate) it was the LNP’s worst ever result. That says to me swinging voters and disillusioned Labor voters wanted to send Labor a message. In other words, a protest vote. The majority (and this probably included anti-Abbott LNP voters) delivered a mess in the senate; we don't trust you enough. 

Now we are facing the 2016 election. Labor are still on the nose but there are the anti-Turnbull LNP voters championing protest votes. Plus a gaggle of opportunistic ‘parties running for the senate. This group are championed by you've got it anti-Turnbull supporters. They justify that in stating we voting for other conservatives. Of course those other conservatives haven’t said who they’ll favour out of the Liberals or Labor. Mind you, some of their policies border on alarming though. Clive and his group were conservatives. So were some of the other cross-benchers. That turned out well didn’t it, she says dripping with sarcasm. 

But no worries you can hear the protesters say ‘I’ve vented my spleen’ and sent a message. Please write a bloody letter it would be less damaging and the rest of us don’t have the pay the price. 

We have short memories and it seems we are addicted to chaotic government. I hope the country can survive a repeat of 9-years of mess. Six dark Labor years and three years of senate high- jacking.  Why would you want either of those again? Beggars belief.

Are Superannuation Changes Fair?

I’ve been contemplating that question since the budget. Are superannuation changes the end of the world? Are they fair? Changes were’t a surprise. They’ve been on the LNP agenda for sometime. Going back to Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott. Previously, the government has either backed down or been voted down. Malcolm Turnbull is standing firm despite attacks from media, conservative supporters and self-interest groups. Good on him.

When I’m working through a vexing question I try to think back on a past experience.

More than once in my career I’ve had to sit down with my senior team and both explain and ask their permissions to in effect, hit them in the back pocket. Tough  economic times means making tough decisions. You take those decisions in the hope you can make improvements in the months and years ahead.

Asking people to agree to give up their merit increase and any potential bonus is a tough decision. Tougher when asking people to forgo themselves and to use those dollars to bump up the less well paid in our wider team. Most people are selfish. I’m selfish. But, I’d already swallowed the bitter pill so, I wasn’t asking them to do anything I wasn’t doing myself. Was I over the moon about it? Hell no. But sometimes you simply have to do the right thing.

So why am I sharing this? It reminds me of the discussion that is now taking place as a result of the 2016 budget. Particularly the push back on superannuation changes. Those ‘with’ are being asked to be prudent and to give up a few perks and those who need a helping hand are being given a leg up.

When superannuation changes have been raised in the past, I’ve been critical. But I’m also realistic enough to accept that things needed to change. The wealthy and those who could were using what was set-up as a retirement fund as a wealth accumulation tool. In my opinion Scott Morrison and Malcolm Turnbull have done a reasonable job with something that was always going to be emotive.  It wouldn’t matter where they placed the cut-off point for contributions. Or, what limit they placed on non taxable etc someone would be unhappy.

They’ve delivered a suite of changes that takes certain benefits away from the higher end. But added in a handful of sweeteners. Although no one mentions them. The biggest sticking point appears to be centred on the ‘retrospective’ claim applied to the non-concessional contribution. Taking this back  to 2007 and limiting it to $500,000. The following comment from the Australian today I thought summed it up perfectly.

“All of the complaining around retrospectively is just noise. If I have already placed more than $500k in non-concessional contributions then I am only stopped from adding more in the future. The retrospectivity argument is only semantic. The facts are, nothing about my past actions have been changed. The consequences all lie in my future actions.”

If you managed to add $500,000 in non-concessional contributions to your super in the last nine years, you are either on a huge salary or you’ve had a windfall. It equates to $55,500 per year.

I made two comments this morning. How many of those complaining will ever have more than $1,600.000 in their superannuation account? Given the volume of whinger’s I didn’t realise we had so many rich people in Australia.

So if we have an abundance of rich people with over $1,600,000 in their super accounts why is our welfare bill so high? Just wondering. But that isn’t the case according to readily available research which states.

The average male has a super balance of just over $80,000; the average female about $44,000. Even at the point of retirement, the average super balance for a male is just shy of $200,000. For a woman it is $105,000. Sure, people want to build that up but to get from $200,000 to $1,600,000 10 years out from retirement is a Herculean effort.

So, would it be safe to assume that the bulk of the complaints are coming from those who are already self-sufficient or will be self-sufficient. Is it coming from those who were planning to cash in assets and start funnelling into super as a wealth building exercise.  Is it from those who think they are missing out on something? Or maybe it's the usual eruption we get when people say ‘we must fix this but don’t look at me’. I’m not sure which.

My first reaction on hearing of the changes was was, sod. But after giving this some thought and speaking with my financial advisor it's not so bad and I as everyone else does, does have other options for investment.

Whilst there has been endless chatted about the negative aspects few people talk about the upside of the changes.

For lower income earners the co-contribution scheme didn’t change. According to reports I’ve read very few people take advantage of that. Free money.

Whilst the government lowered the salary sacrifice cap to $25,000 on concessional contributions from the current $30,000 for under 50s and $35,000 for over-50s. They added a sweetener. At the moment  if the annual cap is not used you lose it. But the new $25,000 cap will be cumulative for five years for those with super balances of $500,000 or less. Based on research that’s the majority of people.

Ability for everyone up to age 75 to make contributions to super without having to meet the work test. Surely that's a positive for those in retirement now with some ready cash. Plus future retirees.

Plus, the ability to make personal before-tax contributions, if your company doesn't offer salary sacrifice or you don't have an employer. Before this was only available to the self-employed

Lastly, they added an increased eligibility for the spouse super tax offset

So it's not all downside.

Would I love to keep building my super nest egg (which is very healthy) and not pay tax on it when the time comes to start drawing down? Of course,  I’m selfish but I’m a realist. Is it fair, perhaps not. After all, I will continue to reap the benefits of things like healthcare, subsidised pharmaceuticals (should I need them in the future). Roads and other infrastructure. So whilst I’ve accused people on pensions and on welfare of being a burden on tax payers. Maybe in using super as a wealth building system (and not contributing fairly to the government pot) I’m not any better. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not being a martyr here. I’m simply recognising that I can’t demand changes to stop abuse then scream when a few not unreasonable changes impact on me. I’d be nothing more than a hypocrite if I did.

I’ll swallow the bitter pill and look at what other options I have to reduce my tax liability. I hope the PM and Treasurer do stand firm. It may cost them votes but at least they had the guts to try and fix the inequity that some many complain about.

Australian Electoral Commission's Responsibility

I was happy when the senate reform legislation passed. In fact, I stayed up until the wee small hours watching the debate because to me it was important. It appeared obvious as voters we should decide where our senate preferences go, not behind-the-scenes vote manipulators. Neither should parties who do secret deals with other parties (we don’t support) to increase their chances of gaining a seat.

Given the revenge strategies now being played out by micro parties (from the last parliament and running for this one) I am even more convinced we need to clear this rabble out. We certainly shouldn't vote anymore in. By their actions this group has proven time and again they have no real interest in improving the country, hence us. It's about power and lunatic fringe ideas. Rant over. 

With this in mind I am concerned about the information the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)have published on their website and via ads. They only tell half the story. I don’t know if that is deliberate or because of legislative constraints or merely waiting for Bob Day’s high court ruling. But they must give voters all the relevant information to enable them to execute their vote and make it count. I don’t believe the AEC are fulfilling their role in giving us all the facts. 

This is an important election. Senate voting can be confusing. This time around we have the added confusion of senate voting changes. The issue is this. Given the changes to senate voting rules I expect more people will access the AEC site for how to vote information. So yesterday I visited the AEC site and, I tested out the practice link. I know if I choose I can put 1 in one box above the line. I did that and I got this back. 

So I queried this via Twitter and copied the AEC. I received this in reply (see below). They were quick to respond. However, I am still waiting for a response to my second question.   (see below). I want to know the answer; how will you treat my vote. I’m not the only one. 

I followed the senate debate and I understand the rules. But unless people read SkyNews online and picked up Mathias Cormann’s confirmation yesterday that putting the number 1 in one box above the line was valid I’d probably follow the AEC instructions. I am sure many will. They certainly wouldn’t know anything different from reading the AEC material. 

I have no intentions of allocating preferences to any party. I will be voting for one party in the senate. But I know people who felt they would be forced to allocate preferences because they weren’t aware they didn’t have to do so. I am also aware many people have voiced their concern over the lack of clarification. They have done that via social media and talkback radio. I've certainly been doing my bit.

We have a right and an expectation to receive exact, prompt  and detailed information on how to vote. Whilst I understand the Electoral Commission can not and should not direct you how to vote I fail to understand why they can’t just say if you mark one box only your vote is a formal vote.  

This is the relevant section. 

I have no idea what instructions parties will give on ‘how to vote cards’. Or what blub parties will have on their website and printed on material. I maybe unfair in saying this. But I suspect the Greens and fringe parties (who will need preferences for their  candidates to stand a chance of being elected) will not tell you, you only have to number one box above the line. Why? Because they pick up preferences if you number all six. Let's face it people pick up a handful of how to vote cards when entering the polling station.

All I ask is that our choices are made clear. I don't buy into the LNP / Greens conspiracy. That's just fanciful. But the AEC has the responsibility to provide all the information we need, not just some of it. If they are not prepared to make it clear we should be questioning why not. My attitude is >>>> Just do it.

Doesn't Tony Abbott Deserve Better?

Tony Abbott as the deposed Prime Minister has put his unseating behind him. So why is Mr Abbott’s supporters campaigning against him? Urging people not to vote for the LNP. Urging people to vote for new micros and even worse telling them to donkey vote. Isn’t that another slap in the face and the ultimate betrayal? 

Mr Abbott still believes in the Liberal Party. His supporters say he is a man principle. He is encouraging people to stick with the party so it's safe to assume he believes the basic principles haven’t changed. 

Perhaps he’s reflected on when Bob Menzies was removed as Prime Minister by his party back in 1941. Menzies claimed the crown back in 1949 (after the conservative parties of the day merged to form the current Liberal Party). Or perhaps he knows more about the risks than we do. 

Mr Abbott has even declared he will work during the campaign to undermine Bill Shorten’s claims of a “civil war” within the Liberal Party. Mr Abbott was hurt. Understandable when the majority of your team informs you they longer wanted you as their leader. It’s a confronting thing to face. He did things following the change I suspect he’s come to regret. We’ve all been there. But Mr Abbott knows politics. 

Mr Abbott well knows the mess the Liberal National government  inherited from Labor. He’s experienced the impossible task of dealing with a senate that is obstructive and totally unpredictable and illogical in their behaviour and their decisions. He knows what potentially lies ahead if the Liberal National government is wiped out and replaced with an alternative. My God just consider for a minute what the alternatives might look like.       

• A Shorten led Labor government staffed with predominately the same group as last time. High taxing, high spending give, give, give party. We haven’t recovered from their last rounds of feckless spending and they want to inflict more on us? Their class warfare surfaces the worst in society; greed and envy. It's shameful. 

• A hung parliament with the Greens holding the balance of power? Open borders, high taxing, increased asylum seeker intake to 50,000 per year. Closing down the coal mines putting another 50,000 out of work.  This list goes on. 

• A hung parliament in the lower house. Greens holding the balance of power. A senate stocked with independents, and micro fringe parties holding who ever wrestles power in the lower house to ransom. We’ve had close to three years of the government being thwarted in delivering on their policies. Surely no one wants the same or an even worse outcome after this election.

Even Mark Latham was pleading with voters last night to pick either Labor or the LNP and give them a workable parliament in both houses. Mark Latham also understands the looming chaos if we get this wrong. 

Tony Abbott understands what it is at stake; communism and social engineering, restrained capitalism or chaos. No prizes for betting on what Mr Abbott is campaigning for. 

Back in 2009 Mr Abbott led the revolt against Malcolm Turnbull. Mr Abbott disagreed with the Turnbull lead opposition supporting Labor and their ETS/Carbon Tax. The Abbott led team upheld
their principles and opposed the direction the opposition was going in. In doing so he and his supporters were prepared to resign. Now that is standing up for your principles. 

In 2015 Mr Abbott chose to stay in government. He is still there in 2016 doing everything he can to help secure a victory for our government. I read that as confirmation Mr Abbott supports the current direction and current policies. Let's face it, with a few tweaks here and there nothing much has changed in key areas like; Sovereign Borders (nothing has changed) climate (minor change) and addressing debt. Tony Abbott has proven he was prepared to resign on principle when he fundamentally disagreed with our policy direction. This time he is staying, so that is good enough for me. 

So back to my original question. Why are the exLibs, basically Tony Abbott supporters doing everything in their power to undermine him, undermine the party and support sinking the government? It's a question that intrigues me. In particular given the often quoted justification, "it's a matter of my principles."

I think Tony Abbott deserves better, but that's just me applying my principles. But more importantly for me it's following what Joseph Heller said. "Rise above principle and do what is right."

This Is Why Banks Charge You Exorbinate Fees

Ever wonder why banks slug you with exorbitant fees? I’ll tell you why. It's to pay for the cost of their wastefulness caused by their mind boggling bureaucracy, incompetence and frankly, stupidity. 

Following the recent death of my husband, I started the onerous task of cancelling bank accounts, credit cards, drivers license etc. As a result I’ve encountered some wonderfully sympathetic and caring people. Believe it or not, public servants being at the top of the list. I am eternally grateful to those people who have made my task as easy as they can. 

But, then I came to the point of dealing with Westpac Bank. Simple task I thought. Cancel my late husband's Westpac Visa Card and his old cheque account (which he hasn’t used for years). I started with the card. I wrote a detailed letter to the bank. I explained the position and included a copy of a certified Death Certificate and the card statement. All they had to do was cancel the card and credit the annual renewal fee which had just hit the account. I had cancelled the only two direct debits that had been billed to the card. I requested confirmation on completion so I could update the Estate File. All very straight forward you would think.

About two weeks later, I received a letter advising me the card had been cancelled. I was also asked to clear the balance of $89.99 to avoid a late payment fee. What balance!! Yes, it was the annual fee of $90.00 minus a 1cent credit that was already on the account. Muttering my displeasure I decided to phone rather than write another letter. After an age hanging on the line I was connected to a human being.

So the nightmare begins. 

I explained the story only to be told she couldn’t help. I needed to speak with someone in credit. I was transferred to credit.  Wait for another 15 minutes. I explained the story again only to be told credit couldn’t help. I needed to speak to someone in Estates Management. I was transferred to Estates Management. Explained the story for a third time only to be told the person who took my call couldn’t process a credit as they were only helping out with calls. They didn’t have the authority. At this point I become very annoyed. 

Deep breath start again.  

I made it abundantly clear that the card holder was deceased. They could no longer use the card. The card had been cancelled so therefore the annual renewal fee should have also been cancelled. I mentioned I even made reference to that in my original letter!!! The young lady I was dealing with was very sympathetic and apologised for not being in a position to help me. She took my number and organised for someone to call me back. 

About 30 minutes later a very helpful young lady did phone me back. Once again, I explained the situation. I was asked to send yet another Death Certificate. I faxed this as requested.  I have since received a confirmation letter that the card has been cancelled and the balance is zero. Tick off the list file away. 

To my total astonishment I received another letter from Westpac yesterday. This one included a covering letter along with six attachments (various forms and instructions) on what's required to manage my late husband's estate. What has really driven me over edge is this wording from the covering letter. 

“To ensure we protect the accounts  held solely on the name of (husbands name inserted here), we have today loaded a restriction status on these account(s) prohibiting any unauthorised withdrawals before the Estate is finalised. 

After reviewing our records, we advise that (husbands name inserted here) held a Visa Card xxxx xxxx xxxx with us. This account has a credit balance of $0.01CR. This amount will be forwarded to you once the estate is finalised.” 

I’m gobsmacked. Six attachment to receive $0.01 that I don’t want. For heavens sake it isn’t even legal tender apart from on electronic transactions. The seem to have completely missed the cheque account. 

I haven’t attempted to cancel the cheque account. Given my experience with cancelling a simple credit card I can only imagine what I’ll have to go through to get this sorted. I am so thankful that neither my late husband nor myself managed our major banking through Westpac. Or had any other dealings with them. 

Finalising an estate is stressful and emotional. It takes forever and is one endless round of form filling. Thankfully my solicitor has carried most of the burden. As for me, I’m fast losing the will to live dealing with Westpac. 

They Didn't Have The Green Thing Back Then

A friend of mine shared this on Facebook. It was posted by a lady named Debbie Donivan. I have no idea who the original author is but whomever you are you nailed it. I can hear my Gran saying exactly the same thing. 

“Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment.

The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."

The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

The older lady said that she was right -- our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day. The older lady went on to explain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But, too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then.

We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day.

Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day. Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a r azor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the "green thing" back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the"green thing." We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person.

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off... Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much.”

No, they didn't have the 'green thing' back then. They had common sense, real caring for the environment (rather than scams to rip off tax payers) and they had manners. They understood the value of living within their means and they didn't expect others to pay for them. I think they were much better off without 'the green thing'. 

Budget 2016 : Now The Hardwork Begins

The budget been delivered and so far comments have been largely positive. I’ll ignore the idiotic ramblings of people like Andrew Bolt. No government can deliver on the wants of everyone. It's about balancing fairness. On that point I believe Scott Morrison has done a good job. 

I’ve said on many occasions that my assessment of the Turnbull Govt would be based on a couple of key measures. 

1. 1) Budget 2016 
2. 2) The Treasurer, Prime Minister and key cabinet ministers ability to sell the budget 
3. 3) Election policies 

I’m comfortable with the budget. I was pleased to see Treasurer Morrison resisted the urge to open Pandora’s Goodie Box. I mentioned in a recent blog that the Treasurer should steer clear of ripping the guts out of school and hospital funding. He did. Big tuck for that. Changes to superannuation are reasonable.  The removal of the works test for over 65 year olds who want to make a contribution should please self-funded retirees. 

Over the coming days we will be subjected to more and more analysis and sad people like me will plow through the budget papers. But, so far so good. 

The Treasurer and the Prime Minister hit the airwaves today, as they should.  But, the real test will come over the next week or two. Labor and the Greens have already flagged they will block certain initiatives around tax cuts. We expected that, so no surprises there. 

Now we sit and wait for an election to be officially called followed by various parties delivering election promises. This is where the real test begins for Malcolm Turnbull. Turnbull will lead the party to the election. He has 50-days to convince the electorate that his government deserves another run. He’s starting behind the gate but that is often a good place to be. It's certainly advantageous if you are a fighter. We’ll now see if Turnbull is a fighter. I suspect he is and I suspect he will enjoy the challenge. It  won’t be ‘fire and brimstone’ but I expect we’ll see restrained determination. I’m comfortable with that. 

The real highlight of the day was the announcement by Clive Palmer that he won’t be re-contesting for the seat of Fairfax. He cited family reasons.  He made a complete ass of himself in QT yesterday but don’t be fooled by his hollow gesture. He makes his intentions clear in his valedictory speech at the 7min27sec point. He wants the balance of power in the senate and you can bet your life he’ll be running for a senate spot. Note, despite family reasons he HASN’T ruled it out. I just pray to heavens voters are wiser this time round and give Palmer and PUP a very, very  wide-berth. 

(link to) Palmer's valadictory speech

So now the hard work begins. The LNP are off to a good start. They’ve performed strongly in the parliament over the last two days. The budget has been reasonably well received and for me I can tick off my first point. I hope I can tick off 2 and 3. Time will tell.