Showing posts with label John Howard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Howard. Show all posts

Monday, 23 April 2012

RELIABLE AND COMPETENT (Spectator leader April 13)



“Relaxed and comfortable” was the mantra of John Howard’s government, but looking back at what was clearly Australia’s golden decade, “reliable and competent” might be a more accurate moniker.

By and large, the previous Coalition government could be relied upon to deliver its election commitments in a competent fashion, to the benefit of the economy and the community. Of itself, this sounds a rather mundane and unimpressive boast. Isn’t that what all governments are supposed to do? But as we get well into the fifth year of Labor’s tumultuous and destructive period in office, “reliable and competent” appear goals as distant and unattainable for this government to achieve as Thorpie’s recent quest for another Olympic gong.

“Politically unreliable” and “managerially incompetent” would be a more accurate description of almost every federal initiative undertaken. The Rudd era fiascos of pinks batts, the ETS, and Grocerywatch seem like quaint slip-ups when compared to the latest multi-million dollar mishaps of Gillard, Swan, Conroy et al.

Whether it be the disgraceful duplicity of the Australia Network tendering process, the ongoing pork-barreling of the NBN with its whiteboard-style choice of which lucky Labor electorate gets what and when, the teeth-grinding behavior of Fair Work Australia, the inexcusable refusal of the government to front up to the Craig Thomson allegations, the Machiavellian maneuverings over who gets what out of the mining tax, or the vast sums being squandered before the carbon tax has even been introduced to keep the energy companies onside, what typifies Labor’s actions is a sly disdain for the truth combined with breathtaking ineptitude and financial recklessness.

The list goes on. Unions running amok. Business disquiet over the mooted diesel rebate removal. The abandonment of genuine, much-needed tax reform. The stuff-ups over asylum seekers, cattle exports, and gaffes such as threatening PNG sanctions. At every turn, in stark contrast to its predecessor, this government manages to be either unreliable in its commitments or incompetent in their implementation.


It requires no effort of imagination to predict that the big ticket items, the MRRT, the carbon tax and the NBN, will be as clumsily implemented as all Labor’s other ill-prepared and rushed-through schemes. Lack of consultation, a failure to anticipate problems and a fingers-crossed-behind-the-back management style will continue to be their hallmark, with inevitable consequences.


A billion lost here, a couple of hundred million gone there. Taxpayers’ hard-earned wealth is being frittered away through errors of judgment at an alarming rate. Meanwhile, business groups warn that our overseas competitors are eagerly poised to take full advantage of our self-inflicted imposts, whilst inevitably, investment in exploration for new mines is heading to cheaper fields abroad.


The tragedy for Australian prosperity is that there is one area where the Gillard team will always remain reliable and competent; clinging onto power through whatever means it takes. Miraculously, the carbon tax “compensation” payouts will competently deliver a bucktload of cash at precisely the right time for the next election. You can rely on it.

Thursday, 12 January 2012

STUART REES DESERVES HIS OWN AWARD (Spectator leader Jan 13)

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/7570808/conscience-of-the-nation.thtml

Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees deserves his own special award. After all, as the founder of the so-called Sydney Peace Prize not only has he been handing out gongs for the past 14 years, but he’s also set himself up as an expert on who does and doesn’t deserve one.

Stuart’s award, which warrants being bestowed upon him at a glittering taxpayer-funded ceremony in the Great Hall of Sydney Uni, should be enscribed “for services towards the promotion of left-wing extremism, political bias and the unrelenting quest to create gratuitous offense and generate divisive controversy for no meaningful outcome.”

The award, of course, will be in recognition of Stuart’s sterling and relentless efforts to promote division and conflict by offering free PR and a bucketload of taxpayers loot to a dubious selection of “peace-loving” individuals, ranging from John Pilger and Hanan Ashwari to Noam Chomsky. (Common thread? Hatred of Israel, hatred of the US. Modus operandi? Complaining about complex and tragic political situations, but never coming up with any constructive solutions other than advocating violence towards Jews and/or Americans.)

Stuart’s most recent foray into the world of awards saw him pouring scorn and derision on John Howard for receiving the Queen’s Order of Merit in her New Year’s honours list.

“The invisible Buckingham Palace pundits overlooked his cruel record,” Rees sneered at the conclusion of a lengthy article attacking Howard both as a leader and as a human being, “and have given him an honour he does not deserve.” For Stuart, our Head of State recognizing our second-longest serving Prime Minister for his contribution to public service is undeserved.
Rees takes great exception to many aspects of Howard’s period in office, citing dark conspiracy theories about Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq war, his “cruel treatment of asylum seekers,” the failed referendum for a republic (it was all Howard’s fault, natch) and so on.

Stuart clearly sees little merit in the fact that Howard’s legacy was a well-functioning society, unencumbered with debt, that helped bring freedom to East Timor, sought to bring democratic values to Iraq and Afghanistan and is one of the most stable, prosperous, peaceful and envied country’s in the world.

Arguably, the Arab Spring, with its overthrowing of despots, owes more not to the whining efforts of Rees’s sorry collection of extremists, but rather, to the people of the Middle East desiring to share in the democratic values they get a glimpse of in only two of their neighbours; Israel and Iraq.


Strangely, in belittling the winner of four elections, Rees has chosen to ignore his own criticism of people who are disgruntled by awards he himself has doled out.

“We don’t think that derision is an appropriate form of commentary. When people have lost, they resort to character assassination,” complained Rees a few years ago, when yet again one of the recipients of his oxymoronic peace prize turned out to be someone loathed by the conservative side of politics.

Sound words. Worthy of an award.


Monday, 5 September 2011

HOWARD v HICKS (Spectator editorial)


This week, attractive ABC Newsreader Juanita Phillips suddenly started wearing glasses. But it's her employers who are clearly having problems seeing straight.

It's hard to think of a more myopic sense of perspective than that displayed by the decision to devote an hour’s "special" on Tuesday night to telling the “Australian story” of failed terrorist David Hicks, and only nine minutes and eleven seconds to interviewing former Prime Minister John Howard. Is this the public broadcaster’s idea of commemorating the tenth anniversary of 9/11?

Howard’s brief interview with the impressive and skilled Chris Uhlmann made for compelling viewing. It included as succinct a diagnosis of the problems plaguing the current government as you will find anywhere. On Gillard: “She lacks authority.” On the hung parliament: “The experiment of a new paradigm - this cosmopolitan Coalition - hasn't worked.” On Tony Abbott’s so-called negativity: “None of the big reforms of my government, none of them, were supported by the Labor Party in Opposition.” On industrial relations: “Well, it's blindingly obvious that one of the worst mistakes Julia Gillard has made is to re-regulate the labour market. It is affecting our productivity and it will therefore affect our competitiveness.” On the Greens: “They have a deep anti-Israeli streak in them which frightens and concerns a lot of people.” On the Independents: “I think both Oakeshott and Windsor, if they run (again), will lose their seats.” On China: “America and Australia will always be closer than China and Australia because we have shared values.” There was even a bit of friendly banter, as John laughingly admitted to Chris that: “You haven't lost your touch.”

All in a hurried nine minutes. Followed by a tedious, self-pitying, inaccurate and dissembling hour-long interview lauding the robotic David Hicks, built around such banalities as: “As a child, David was into the more natural side of things.”

It’s about time Auntie got her eyesight checked.