A letter to Bill Shorten, Richard Di Natale, Independents, Senate Cross-benchers (and recalcitrant Backbenchers)

You did NOT win the election. The Liberal National Coalition did. Granted, it was by the slimmest of margins but, it doesn’t  change the fact, you lost, they won. 

As for the recalcitrant Backbenchers, whilst you were on the winning side take a hint, this applies to you as well. Stop acting like the opposition. 

Now to put it into simple words. That means the majority of  Australian voters, voted for key initiatives to be actioned. 

We voted for the Sex Marriage plebiscite. If the decision is yes, then the Government is duty bound to   action. 

We voted for Superannuation reform as per the policy presented. That isn’t to say all of us are thrilled by some Of the proposed changes. But, those of us with an ounce of intelligence understand we have a problem and we all need to contribute to fixing it. 

We voted for Budget repairs as per the policies presented. 

We voted for the reintroduction of the ABCC. 

If the electorate truly believes they got it wrong then it's up to the electorate to change it at the next election. It is not up to you. It's our decision. You are OUR servants we elect you we pay you we fire you. Now it's your responsibility to make sure  the will of the majority of people is acted upon. Just DO IT. 

Stop the politics, stop the argy bargy and get on with supporting the decisions and getting this country moving again. I am sick and tired of the posturing, the grandstanding, the ego trips the power plays and, the “this is what I want utterances.” Being a politician does not grant you cart-blanch to force your will upon the majority. I would “bet London to a brick” I’m not the only who thinks as I do. 

As for the voters who ad nauseam bleat on about the Government is this, the Government that. The Government is composed of people other people elected. If you aren’t happy with the collective mix blame the people who put them there. Stop the whinging. 

The bottomline is this. Politicians work for us, start doing your job. That means implementing the decisions of the majority. If that requires minor adjustments fine, but blocking this, blocking that to flex your muscles is most certainly NOT. Senators, you sit in  a house of review. You are not the Government. It's your role to ensure the Government delivers what they promised.  By all means argue for your pet initiatives but holding an elected Government to ransom to get your way is not on.  

Voters if we as a collective have delivered the wrong result; Government and policy mix  that's our fault. We better lift our game, educate ourselves and do a better job next time. But when I see an Essential Poll which highlights even now on key issue after key issue 40% don’t have an opinion, that tells me a lot of people need remedial instruction and urgently. 

Rant over. 

Election 2016: Is It Time To Call A Truce?

We are a little less than two weeks away from the election. Many people are still making up their minds who they will vote for. For those who have, the polls are close. A hung parliament is looking like a real possibility. Fantastic I say, another three years of chaos. 

From the liberal/conservative side of politics the lead up to this election has been like no other I’ve experienced. Conservatives attacking conservatives. The far right beating the c##p out middle to left conservatives. Abbott supporters attacking Turnbull and party supporters. Labor supporters haven’t had to do anything. They must be in hysterics over the land mining that has gone on within the conservative supporters groups. 

I will ask the liberals and conservatives who support the conservative side of politics to call a truce. These are my reasons. I believe we have stuffed up the last three elections. Wait! Yes we did vote the LNP into Govt but it wasn’t a parliament that enabled the Govt to do their job properly. So let's drop the, it was an overwhelming victory for the Abbott Govt. It wasn’t. It was the worst senate result for the LNP for many years. That is fact.

So what are those choices? 

We return the LNP to Govt. This allows them to continue on their path of economic reform, and debt repair. To make sure our borders are protected and to deal with climate in a responsible way. Plus, deliver on the rest of the initiatives in the policy plan. But to do that they must be given a parliament that works. Not one based on ‘hedging bets’ which will deliver an unworkable senate controlled by Labor/Greens, single issue parties and untested and untried new comers. 

The electorate DID NOT give Tony Abbott a workable parliament in both houses. Instead, they delivered a senate controlled by Green's and cross-benchers. I use the word “they” because I voted for the Liberals in the upper house. I marked one above the line because I did not want to preference any party. I will be doing the same thing again this election.

People can continue with their ‘strop’ over Malcolm Turnbull and vote informal. Or vote for new parties like Xenophon, ALA etc. Palmer is back running candidates in the senate. We have dozens of opportunists running. There are choices but I urge people to think about that and the likely outcomes of voting for these people. It's important to check policies. I know for a fact many people don’t. They protest vote. Not smart people. There are nasties hidden in many of the policies dependent on your views. I've discovered a few. Policies that true LNP supporters would not support. Check who they are giving their preferences to and who they will favour out of the major parties. I’ve been surprised by a couple when I’ve checked. Although with Xenophon who would know. He won’t give us that information. But from Xenophon’s own policies we find this.

I read an interesting comment to a column by Paul Kelley in the Australian. It was from one of the ALA supporters. His sole argument for recommending the ALA was the candidates had real jobs. Any job is a real job? It's a stupid term. Anyway, how does a ‘real’ job translate into a good politician. There was no mention of policies. There was no mention of who the ALA will preference. It's a worry. There are some concerning policies within the ALA suite. Their senate preferences in NSW are enlightening to say the least.

Another example I recently read. “I want to protect what is left of the Liberals, so I’m voting for Bill Shorten.” It's not the only comment I’ve read along those lines. Beggars belief and graphically highlights the lack of intelligent thought applied by this voter. He isn’t a lone wolf. 

Ex Libs you can vote for Labor or the Greens. But let's get serious. We are talking politics so let’s dispense with the I couldn’t live with myself if I voted for Turnbull BS. It’s a choice between communism/socialism or capitalism. It's that simple. The electorate has already tested six years of Labor. Let's not forget how painful that was. Apart from new leaders, it's the same bunch you are voting back in. You are placing a lot of trust in their ability to have ‘gone to Jesus’ in three short years. I belief we've had a glimpse of what the next Labor Govt will look like thanks to Daniel Andrews and Victoria. The unions control the puppet Shorten and the left are poised for a take-over. 

I have read many comments urging people to destroy the Libs in a vain hope Labor will be defeated in three years. Well, they weren’t last time. Labor carried on with another three years of destruction and chaos. Regardless, they can do a lot more damage in three years. As for a new conservative party rising from the ashes that could take years and years. I don't hold out much hope for that.

Whilst many cannot stand Malcolm Turnbull he is but one man. If conservatives do the right thing, we will have a good mix of liberals and conservatives in a new Govt. I’ve said before I am not a big fan of Malcolm Turnbull. I wasn’t a big fan of Tony Abbott either. I vote for the party. It’s very important that Barnaby Joyce retains his seat. He brings balance. I would much prefer a Turnbull led Govt over the possible alternatives any day. We can deal with Turnbull. It will take three years perhaps more to remove what replaces the LNP if it comes to that.

Malcolm Turnbull has shown a lot of courage. He could have called an election earlier when his stocks were significantly higher than they are now. He didn’t. Anyone who believed Turnbull’s approval rating would stay in the 60’s plus for any length of time has rocks in their head. Malcolm Turnbull knew that and his advisors encouraged him to go earlier. He ignored that advice. Gutsy decision. 

Kitchen Cabinet this week with Senator Cash was interesting. Her comment to the question about Malcolm Turnbull just implementing Tony Abbott’s policies was spot on. Michaelia Cash pointed out, they are the policies of the party. It was a fair point. They are the policies of the party.

So to summarise the choice is:

A Liberal National Government.

A Labor / Greens Government. 

A hung parliament controlled by who knows who. It could be the Greens or Xenophon or a combo. It's the walking the plank solution.

I’ve said before when I asked the question, can we afford to gamble in this current climate with so much uncertainties. I believe the answer is a resounding no. I want no part in delivering chaos.

What the rest of you do is your decision and your business. But, I sincerely hope we can unite and call a truce until after the election when the LNP is hopefully returned? 

History teaches us that unity is strength, and cautions us to submerge and overcome our differences in the quest for common goals, to strive, with all our combined strength to make our nation stronger. That’s what is really important. What is in the best interests of the country and therefore our future.

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.

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."

Question of 100 Good Men & Women

The twitter post read. "The current two-party system is an epic fail." Suggesting what we need in Canberra is “100 good men and women." I would go one step further and say, they should ALL be good men and women, but that is another discussion. 

The 100 good men and women comment is intriguing, because it implied 100 independents. And so the discussion, albeit somewhat constricted by the limitations of Twitter ensued, what was best; try and fix the current two-party system or flood the parliament with one hundred Independents.

I think many will agree the current system is deeply flawed. Only a rusted on fool would conclude that we have an over abundance of the best quality 'good' people in Canberra. We clearly don't and that goes for all parties, including Independents. Although it is fair to say there are many good people there, not all the apples are bad, we just don’t have enough of them. 

I want to touch on the 100 Good men and Women (#100GMW) idea. 

Some of the questions that spring to mind for me are. 

Who determines what good actually looks like? 

You can define what personal values look like, but that doesn't always mean the person can or will deliver what everyone demands. So does, that make them bad? 

So is good based on personal values or doing what is best for the country, the electorate or us as individuals? 

Even within the electorate people have different demands, different wants and needs.  What is often in the best interests of the country isn't always in the best interest of individuals, particularly in the short term. 

So in electing these people is ‘good’ based on the majority view of policies or personal attributes? 

We could have the majority view now,  if we eliminated preference voting as per the UK and got rid of the senate. Personal attributes are sometimes harder to determine.   

How are #100GMW independents organised? 

Hundred Independents governing, who leads? How are roles divided up? How are decisions reached? Because I think it would be a fair bet the #100GMW all have their pet projects and personal beliefs. We see this in the senate now with our current group of Independents. And before you scream, but they are not 'good', well sorry to disappoint, but some people actually think they are. 

I consider a good person acts with integrity, honesty and fairness. But acting with fairness doesn't always mean you can be fair to everyone. Just consider the challenges the current government has battled in trying to address the budget deficit and welfare spending. Or the debates that erupt over mining. On one side the people who need jobs and on the other those who will not support mines because of their commitments to the green agenda. 

I am naturally cautious about independents ruling. I've seen the negative side of that with councils and the potential for that to be the reality on a bigger scale in the ‘House of the Law Makers’ fills me with dread.  

It also raises another question and that is, is the electorate mature enough to move to a more independent structure in Canberra. I'm sure this will get some peoples backs up, but I doubt that it is, but I'll save that for another day. The experiment of ‘self-managed’ work groups are rarely successful. 

I also have a sneaky suspicion that the advocates for the #100GMW are really just like the rest of us. They have their personal agendas and they don't see either of the two major parties delivering on those personal wants, so they think a bunch of independents who think the same way as them will. 

I'm squarely in the camp of, let's try and fix what we have, and then build on that to improve it. That comes from my natural tendency toward 'process improvement" leading to the creation of "Centres of Excellence". Yes I know it’s a motherhood statement, but it says what I think parliament should be. Anyone who is familiar with process improvement thinking knows, you have to identify the initial cause of the problem and work from there. So where to start. 

For me there are glaring issues that should be looked at.   

These are not necessarily in order:

No 1: Fix the initial selection process at the grassroots level. So often we hear the person who gets the jersey is the party pick not the members pick,  

No 2: Eliminate political donations and that definitely includes Union donations,

No 3: Get rid of preference voting,

No 4: Get rid of the senate,

No 5: All political advertising to be subject to existing Truth in Advertising laws,

No 6: Any initiative that impacts on our sovereignty needs to explained very clearly and perhaps in some instances it should also to be subject to referenda, 

No 7: Increase the house of reps term to four years and preferably five, 

No 8: Have a robust feedback system so the the voice of the people is heard, 

No 8: Improved auditing of politicians performance.  

These are the key areas for me, but first and foremost it gets back to the independence of the selection process. We have to get the right people in the party to start with. We have too many career politicians who are using parliament as a stepping stone toward their next career move and certainly too many ex Union organisers and Union lawyers who are not representative of the majority of the electorate. Their experience in the real world is limited. 

When it comes to political donations, there is no such thing as a free lunch and we are seeing all too clearly the negative impact of political donations. The level of corruption and manipulation that is being exposed in the Union Royal commission is testament in case as were the ICAC investigations. And independents are not immune, just look at the mess the Palmer experiment has delivered to us in the senate. Money buys favours and those favours rarely benefit us.  

How anyone can support preference voting is beyond me. It never ceases to amaze me how a candidate can achieve the highest number of votes in an electorate and not gain a seat in parliament because of preferences. That's like an Olympic javelin thrower ‘winning’ the gold medal, and losing out because the officials combined the distance thrown by the silver medalist with the bronze medalist and awarding  the gold the second place getter. The senate is even worse. People sitting in judgement who achieved less than a 1000 votes, but who got there because someone did deals with umpteen other micro parties; lunacy. 

We elect a party to govern and to deliver on the policies we voted for. Far too often they are thwarted in that endeavour by  a hostile or feral senate. I know many of us were stunned when we heard a bunch of independents supported the opposition to vote down the reintroduction of legislation to place better controls over Unions. Hence, increase penalties for misuse of members' funds and stamp out legal practices. 

The best example I know of a one house parliament is New Zealand. They don’t have a senate, they function perfectly well without one and they get things done in half the time.

It's insane that political advertising is exempt from the laws governing truth in advertising. In essence, anyone with a grievance can run an ad based on lies and fear and get away with it!!! And worse still, people believe it. The most recent proof is the Union ad lying about foreign workers and the China FTA. It simply shouldn't be allowed. Trust me, we will be swamped with Union ads like this leading leading up to the next election. It's frankly criminal behaviour in my opinion.  

Our sovereignty concerns many in the electorate. I’m one of them. There are two issues that come up with regularity because they do have the potential to impact on our future. One is foreign investment; what, who and the basis of (sale or lease of assets). Two immigration; who, what and why. 

I think all parties need to be more open about this. They need to make it very clear exactly what are they taking to the electorate and why. They certainly aren't as clear as they should be and this creates concern and suspicion.  They must address this. 

The question of the term in office needs to be looked at. Three years is not enough time to address many of the problems we face today. As an example, the Labor government left a minefield for the new government to deal with. Addressing the economic challenges created as a result of a Labor's out of control spending and unfunded initiatives, coupled with the significant decline in our resources market was never going to be fixed in three years.  If we have the right people in Canberra then four to five years shouldn't be an issue.   

Lastly, those we elect need to spend more time listening to their supporters and we have to have a much better process to assess performance. If we do get it wrong and vote in the wrong people or as recently discovered end up with people who abuse, taxpayer funds waiting for an election to get rid of them isn’t acceptable. Elected members need to be accountable to their local party members and that means greater disclosure of personal spending, achievements etc. If our representative isn’t performing them we should be able to remove him or her. 

Whether we like it or not, we are an island, but we can't operate as an island. Some people out there would like us to just close the doors to investment, immigration and being a global citizen. Nice idea but we wouldn't last long. That said, we have to ensure we do the best for our country, our people and our security and that means getting the fundamentals right. It starts with who we elect to represent us. That's where we need to start. Fix the basics and build on that. 

I think we have a man in Tony Abbott, who is trying to do that, at least in some areas. He gets little thanks for it, but he tries. Yes, he has many faults, but he is the only one who is endeavouring to clean up Union corruption, fix parliamentary benefits rorting and get the best deals on our free trade agreements. Let's not forget he also told the UN he would stop illegals flooding in on boats and he wouldn't buy into their green climate scams. As for the leader of the opposition, just rate him on these five key points and you come up with a big fat zero. Same applies to the Greens leader and independents. So my efforts leading up to the election will be helping the best of the two major parties get back into office. 

Let’s not create a bigger mess voting in a heap of independents that will achieve nothing. It’s the wrong time, for the wrong  reasons and it diverts our attention from the most important challenge that we face. Keeping Labor out and that includes their partners, The Greens.