2013 elections

Andrew Holden, Age Editor-in-chief

The Age newspaper, owned by Fairfax Media limited, reported on 4 September that Roger Corbett, ₄ chairman of Fairfax Media said that Julia Gillard should have remained Prime Minister in preference to the "discredited" Kevin Rudd.

Mr Corbett said, "His colleagues sacked [Kevin Rudd] because they judged him to be incapable as Prime Minister."

The article continued:

'Referring to the damaging cabinet leaks that so badly derailed Ms Gillard's 2010 election campaign, Mr Corbett said: "[Mr Rudd], it's alleged, was active against the government during the elections. May be true, may not be.

'"I think that had a terrible effect upon Labor."

'The leaks led to a collapse in Labor's vote, which led to a hung parliament and forced Labor to enter into coalition with the Greens to form power. The Labor-Greens alliance has been a "very limiting factor" in the past three years, Mr Corbett said.

'And while this was going on, Mr Rudd himself had "destabilised" the Gillard government behind the scenes.'

Mr Corbett also praised Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. "[Mr Abbott's] a very sincere, nice type of human being, and I think he'll be very dedicated, focused in the job," he said.

Tony Abbott, whom Roger Corbett considers "a very sincere, nice type of human being", with less three days before polling begins and 10 hours before the pre-election media news blackout began at midnight on Wednesday, had still not released the costings for his policies, _{#fnSubj1" id="txtSubj1">1} plans to sack 7,000 Federal public servants. He also plans to give approval to the horrifically destructive East West Link project. _{#fnSubj2" id="txtSubj2">2}

Candobetter and a number of other credible commentators can only agree with Roger Corbett's praise for Julia Gillard (if not with his praise for Tony Abbott).

June 2013: The now 'discredited' Kevin Rudd ousts Julia Gillard in Age-orchestrated putsch

But didn't the same Fairfax Age newspaper of 22 June 2013, editorialise "For the sake of the nation, Ms Gillard should stand aside"? :

"It is time for Julia Gillard to stand aside as leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party, as Prime Minister of Australia, so that vigorous, policy-driven democratic debate can flourish once again. Ms Gillard should do so in the interests of the Labor Party, in the interests of the nation and, most importantly, in the interests of democracy. The Age's overriding concern is that, under Ms Gillard's leadership, the Labor Party's message about its future policies and vision for Australia is not getting through to the electorate. Our fear is that if there is no change in Labor leadership before the September 14 election, voters will be denied a proper contest of ideas and policies - and that would be a travesty for the democratic process.

"The Age does not advocate this lightly. We do so with all respect to Ms Gillard, ..."

Editor-in-Chief Andrew Holden, who wrote the editorial, also appeared in a short broadcast video (2:33) on the same page. He made the curious claim, with no supporting evidence. that it is necessary for Julia Gillard to stand aside "so that vigorous, policy-driven democratic debate can flourish once again."

Evidently, Andrew Holden does not wish for the debate to embrace the support given by Foreign Minister Senator Bob Carr and the Age newspaper to the United States' proxy terrorist war against Syria, which has cost, according to one estimate reported _{#fnSubj3" id="txtSubj3">3} in the Age, 100,000 Syrian lives since March 2011.

Why the Age newspaper itself could not have enabled the debate it claimed to have wanted, without meddling in the internal politics of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Caucus, was not explained.

The above argument was repeated in different guises:

"... [We are saying] Ms Gillard should stand aside ... because she has been unable to lift the party out of a desperately difficult political position. ...

"A big majority of the electorate appears to have stopped listening to Ms Gillard. Voters have been so distracted by internal and external speculation about Labor's leadership that efforts by the Prime Minister and her ministers to enunciate a narrative, a strategic vision, for the nation's future beyond this year have failed. ..."

Much of the editorial, in contrast to the self-fulfilling prophetic value judgements above, provided compelling reasons why Gillard should have remained Prime Minister and not been cast aside for Kevin Rudd :

'We ... [recognise] that in the three years she has occupied the office of Prime Minister - most of it under the vexing circumstances of a hung Parliament - Labor has implemented landmark reforms ...

'The polls in mid-2010 had indicated Labor was in danger of losing an election under Mr Rudd, and inside the party there was concern about his increasingly autocratic style. Ms Gillard said she challenged "because I believed that a good government was losing its way … I love this country, and I was not going to sit idly by and watch an incoming opposition cut education, cut health and smash rights at work". ...'

As Age Editor-in-chief Andrew Holden had demanded, Julia Gillard was subsequently ousted on 26 June and replaced by Kevin Rudd, but the promised improvement in Labor's approval rating never eventuated.

Age readers still to be given explanation

The Age is entitled to change its views, and is even entitled to promote views which may, through the course of events, prove to be mistaken. However, the public is entitled to be informed that what Roger Corbett said less than 3 days before the forthcoming Federal election is contrary to what the Age said on 22 June and why.

Unless this explanation is forthcoming, voters are entitled to assume that Roger Corbett's statements, ostensibly in support of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, so late in the election campaign, are no more than a ploy to harm Labor's electoral prospects.

#update_5sep13" id="update_5sep13">Update, 8:36AM, Thur 5 Sep: Hockey to give costings today

The Age reports, "Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey will unveil the Coalition's election costings on Thursday, leaving voters just hours to digest the numbers while also refusing to say when the budget would be back in the black under his management."

As noted in the Australian Financial Review :

"The timing of the Coalition's costings announcement comes after the electronic media blackout starting at midnight on Wednesday, which applies to all election campaigns. Labor will not be allowed to broadcast any television or radio commercials attacking cuts that may be contained in the documents." (emphasis added)

A poll in the Age article Hockey's 11th-hour costings asked "Should the Coalition have given voters more time to digest its costings?". The results of 5188 votes taken at 9:05AM were:

Yes: 69%

No: 27%

Not sure: 4%

Footnote[s]

#fnSubj1" id="fnSubj1">1. #txtSubj1">↑ The Herald Sun reported at 12:46PM on Wednesday, 4 September 2013, "The federal coalition is releasing its final policies on Wednesday (today) and will reveal its full costings 'very, very soon', Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says." Voters won't have sufficient time to digest the information and understand how it will affect them before they cast their vote on Saturday. (See also: #update_5sep13">Update of 9:10AM, Thursday 5 September, above.)

#fnSubj2" id="fnSubj2">2. #txtSubj2">↑ The construction of the East West Link would require the destruction of much of what remains of Melbourne's iconic Royal Park as well as many surrounding homes and will make Melbourne commuters even more dependent on private vehicles than they already are. It is not possible for the broader public to see the business case for the East West Link and compare it with the known business case for additional public transport because of "commercial in confidence" provisions in the East West Link contract.

#fnSubj3" id="fnSubj3">3. #txtSubj3">↑ As shown in Media Lies Used to Provide a Pretext for Another "Humanitarian War": Protest in Syria: Who Counts the Dead? of 25 Nov 2011 by Julie Lévesque in Global Research, the Western news media may have been exaggerating the number of dead for its own propaganda purposes. But, surely those opposed to war need to be able to accurately convey to the public, how many have been killed as a result of the support provided to the terrorists by Western nations? Nowhere on Global research could I find this figure. It certainly was not included in Professor Michel Chossudovsy's otherwise excellent Online interactive I-book Syria: NATO's Next "Humanitarian" War? of 11 Feb 2012. Given that death toll of the Iraq wars since 1990 is certainly at least many hundreds of thousands and, according to one estimate could be a many as 3,300,000, including 750,000 children, the figure of 100,000 dead may not be such a great exaggeration, after all. Certainly should Barack Obama and John Kerry achieve their goals, the eventual death toll will be much higher than 100,000.

#fnSubj4" id="fnSubj4">4. #txtSubj4">↑ Roger Corbett subsequently admitted he was a member of the Liberal Party.

Whilst the UK Parliament has acted to prevent that country's armed forces from participating in the planned act of war against Syria, the United States is apparently still prepared to take action "on its own" in the face of the evidence and ovewhelming domestic and international opposition.

We must act to stop this outrage!

Where: Outside State library, 328 Swanston St, Melbourne
When: 2:00PM, Sat 31 August.                            Be there!

Syria chemical warfare "Evidence" by "Brown Moses Blog" debunked

Saturday 31st Melbourne Syria Protest military attack plan

Dear AMRIS and friends,

There will be a rally on Saturday 31st at 2pm outside the State library, Melbourne (328 Swanston St Melbourne VIC 3000 - Cnr La Trobe St) to protest the planned military attack on Syria. Various groups will be involved. Layla will be speaking on behalf of AMRIS.

Please circulate this, an update on my previous email, in which the Mother Agnes link didn't work. Also a second article from today by Alastair Crooke, and below that a message from Robert Bekhazi on the dangers to Christians in particular from the threatened attack, and the assistance it will give to Takfiri groups:

Mother Agnes Mariam was interviewed by James Corbett yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSCCBnnHgfs&feature=c4-overview&list=UUvtTGZEcS8mbWdB7prg4QNw
(Also here)

She asks some important questions about the children killed in the 'chemical attack' last week. Where did so many children come from when that area had lost a lot of its population after the 'rebels' took over? I was disturbed by the fact that there were virtually no signs of women - mothers and grandmothers, aunts etc - showing care for the children or lying beside the children, also killed by the chemical attack. If the children had been in a normal family situation when there had been a chemical attack, then where were their mothers? It raises the question: had the children been kidnapped from Lattakia, for example, for this attack? The men around the bodies show little to no anguish. Is this because they are the children of 'infidels'? (This is a news report from Syria showing interviews with relatives of people killed by Takfiris in villages around Lattakia earlier in August. They show the enormous heart-felt grief one would expect from family members in this situation.)

Alastair Crooke, ex-MI6, warned against war in Afghanistan decades ago and has been warning about the use of propaganda for war purposes, the information war. His article, Straining Credibility, is an excellent reference.

He has also just written this article on the US committing an 'Act of War', which succinctly exposes the false pretext being used by the West, as well as the evident culpability of the 'rebels'. : US Attack on Syria Would be Illegal 'Act of War'.

Dr Jeremy Salt, Australian ME expert who spoke at the last AMRIS information night, presents an analysis of the current crisis, "The Guardian of what? The Media and War Propaganda"

On the AMRIS Youtube page, there is an interview with Jeremy about the media and war propaganda.

Regards,

Susan

Update, 12 July 2013: The Stalking of Julia Gillard by Kerry-Anne Walsh published by Allen and Unwin has already been reprinted 3 times, such is its public reception! Kindle edition (AU$9.99) also available. See also comment of 30 June by Barry Tucker of the Truth in Media Resource Centre.

Julia Gillard, almost uniquely amongst leaders of either the Labor or Coalition parties, tried to make it possible for the voting public to properly hold to account all candidates contesting the forthcoming Federal elections. That is why the ruling elites, its newsmedia and its glove puppets in the Federal Parliamentary Labor caucus felt threatened by her and removed her from office. (Article was originally published on 28 June 2013.)

See also: PM of great value discarded of 5 July 2013 - comment in response to poem Julia Gillard through the mass media looking-glass by brolga-brolga, Kevin Rudd's Press Club speech: full transcript of 12 July 2013 by PostGrowthEra.

Update, 5 July: Victorian Women's Trust condemns sexist treatment of former PM by mass media.

Early announcement of election date to enable thorough scrutiny of candidates by voters

Reports of 30 January 2013 of Prime Minister Julia Gillard announcing the election date a full eight and a half months in advance, provide a clue for the motives for the recent coup against her.

Julia Gillard's statements announcing the election so far in advance show, that, almost uniquely amongst leaders from all the major parties in recent decades, Julia Gillard was motivated by a sincere wish to allow proper informed discussion of the policies on offer by the different candidates contesting the federal elections.

The Guardian reported in the article Julia Gillard: Australian election will be held on 14 September of 30 January 2013:

Gillard said the election date allowed for the year to be one "not of fevered campaigning but of cool and reasoned deliberation". She said no surprises about the election date should mean "no excuses", a clear barb at the conservative opposition leader, Tony Abbott, whom she has criticised as announcing "platitudes not policies" and giving few costings for his promises.

"Australians are not interested in campaigns without content, [in] platitudes devoid of purpose," she said.

Gillard said she had made the announcement to allow all parties to have the chance to properly cost their policies.

The Australian article Julia Gillard sets September 14 election date of the same date reported:

Ms Gillard said Australians weren't interested in campaigns without content, or platitudes devoid of purpose.

"There is now clearly the time and certainty necessary for the people and parties contesting the election to lay out their fully detailed, costed plans for the timely consideration of voters," she added.

Further along, the Prime Minister expanded upon her reasons:

Ms Gillard said by announcing the date so far in advance, the opposition no longer had an excuse not to provide detailed costings ahead of the poll.

"They have two things that an opposition has never had before to enable them to do that," she said.

"One, they've got the benefit of a fixed election date now with several months notice.

"Two, because of what we've done with the Parliamentary Budget Office they've got more resources available to them than an opposition has ever had before in the history of the nation to produce proper costings."

Gillard's announcement was welcomed by Federal independent Parliamentarians Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeschott, independent Senator Nick Xenophon and the ABC election analyst Antony Green.

Three year fixed term parliaments would remove unfair electoral advantage to incumbents

The Australian Greens leader Senator Christine Milne also welcomed the announcement and called upon the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, to agree henceforth to have fixed three-year terms. Christine continued:

"Wouldn't that be a great thing for the Australian people so we didn't have all the game playing that has gone on in the past?"

Senator Milne was alluding to the established practice of the ruling party in the Federal Parliament using its incumbency to gain unfair advantage over its opponents by being able to suddenly announce election campaigns at a time that gives it the greatest advantage.

As an example, former Prime Minister John Howard was only able to win the election of 1998, thereby gaining what he claimed to be a mandate to subsequently implement his "never ever" Goods and Services Tax (GST) by abusing his position of incumbency. He did this by announcing a phony inquiry into "tax reform". The inquiry was really a vehicle to push his GST into Parliament as Liberal Parliamentarian Paul Zammitt, who resigned from the inquiry committee, complained.

As Howard had planned, the "inquiry" recommended adoption of the GST. He Immediately called an election before Parliament could scrutinise the report and just scraped back into power with a bare majority in the House of Representatives and only a minority in the Senate, having lost the poplar vote 51% to 49%._#fn1">1

John Howard's subsequent election victories of 2001 and 2004 were also helped by his further abuse of incumbency in setting the election date.

Had there been fixed term elections, John Howard almost certainly would have been voted out after his first term.

Julia Gillard has shown, by her actions, integrity not shown by Labor leaders, with the possible exception of Mark Latham, since Gough Whitlam and like-minded people lost control of the Federal Labor Party in the late 1970's.

The Age newspaper's editorial of last Saturday 22 July claimed that only by removing Julia Gillard would a more thorough debate of policy occur - as if the Age did not already have sufficient profile to make that happen should it have wished to do so.

Another justification given by the Labor Caucus and the Age newspaper is that the opinion polls showed that Labor could only win if the former failed Prime minister Kevin Rudd was leader. If this were the case then it is surely evidence that the public has been misinformed by the newsmedia.

Much, but not quite all, of what Julia Gillard gave the Australian public has been lost. There may still be time, for those with access to the Internet, to scrutinise and hold to account candidates from the major parties and minor parties and independent candidates. However, if Kevin Rudd were to give in to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's demands to hold the election earlier than 14 September, that would be much harder to achieve.

Examples of reporting, misreporting and arm-twisting in the Australian newsmedia

Kevin Rudd produces fresh uncertainty over federal election date in Question Time, Abbott wants Rudd to name election date of 27 June, Kevin Rudd produces fresh uncertainty over federal election date in Question Time of 27 June

#update_5jul13" id="update_5jul13">Update, 5 July: Victorian Women's Trust condemns sexist treatment of former PM by mass media.

The ABC reported: A women's rights group has accused Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of treachery for his treatment of predecessor Julia Gillard.

The Victorian Women's Trust has placed full-page advertisements in four Australian newspapers praising Ms Gillard's achievements and slamming both Labor and the Liberal parties for their actions over the past three years.

...

The statement says Mr Rudd orchestrated a treacherous "seek-and-destroy" mission against Ms Gillard, while Tony Abbott made opportunistic appeals to people's prejudices.

The trust's Mary Crooks [said]:

"We just want to put on the public record early in the piece the fact that this was a successful minority government, led by her (Gillard)," Ms Crooks said.

...

The advertisement also accuses seasoned reporters of becoming players in an aggressive campaign of sexist and chauvinistic abuse.

Ms Crooks says the mainstream media failed to engage in dispassionate reporting.

"I think there's been a hostile media, by and large, over the last three years, which I also argue has given licence to a lot of people across the community to speak very destructively and disrespectfully towards Julia Gillard and the minority government," she said.

The trust says the seams of contempt and sexism should be cause for reflection on what is needed to restore respect and "a fair go" for women.

...

Footnote[s]

#fn1" id="fn1">1. #fntxt1">↑ However, as a result of backsliding by a number of Australian Democrats Senators, who could have helped Labor block the GST legislation as most of the Australian public and most rank-and-file Australian Democrats party members wanted, John Howard was able to get his "never ever" GST legislation approved by the Senate and thereby made law.

Saturday 29 June 2013 was the Melbourne launch of the Stable Population Party Australia.
Its leader, William Bourke, gave the following interview.

Since its beginnings in 2010 this party has come a long way in terms of policy and presentation. Their website conveys a clear and positive message. Bourke and the other candidates for the next Federal election carry a business-sized card summarizing six hard to beat policies. The major parties and the Greens have nothing like this clarity.

A better quality of life

SPPA calls for "A better quality of life" and articulates six reasons to vote for a stable population:

to Relieve overstretched infrastructure, incluidng hospitals, schools, roads and public transport;
to Ease cost of living pressures, including housing, energy, water and transport;
to Protect our environment, including food, water and energy resources, native bushland and animal habitats;
to Promote education and training to increase job opportunities for all Australians;
to Minimise overdevelopment, including high-rise and sprawl;
to Create a more resilient economy, to sustain and enhance prosperity.

William Bourke speaks truly when he says, "Population is the everything issue." It touches on everything you can think of and more population makes for more impact.

Candidates for election

The Party is running five candidates in Victoria:
Lead Senate Candidate - Clifford Hayes

Senate candidate - Jill Quirk

Lalor candidate - Jonathan Page

Melbourne candidate - Michael Bayliss

Melbourne Ports candidate - Steven Armstrong

Write to the ABC and try to get population onto the election agenda. Here's how:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-26/what-election-issues-matter-to-you-abcmyvote/4583744

ABC News wants to know what issues will influence your vote in this year's federal election, and which policy areas you are interested in hearing about.

How can I get involved?

• Send
  a tweet using the #abcmyvote hashtag.
• Fill
  out the form below.

What will you use my submission for?

• Your submission will help inform ABC News' election coverage.
• It will provide data for the Vote
  Compass voter engagement tool.