http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.auRSS feeds for Malcolm Turnbull MP60http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/184/Embarkation-Park-and-our-excursion-to-Canberra.aspx#Comments1http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=184http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=184&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/184/Embarkation-Park-and-our-excursion-to-Canberra.aspxRecently, we have stumbled upon our new favourite park – emBARKation park in Potts Point, or as we like to call it, BarkPark. It’s at the end of Victoria Street Potts Point, in a green space on the roof of the navy carpark. We love it because it’s full of people and dogs, as well as it being just down the road from one of our favourite café’s, where we occasionally are sneaked a bit of bacon. Clover Moore, the Lord Mayor (and proud owner of three Staffordshire terriers) said that "regular off-leash exercise helped dogs socialise and release pent-up energy, reducing nuisance behaviour such as uncontrolled barking." But mainly we like being able to chase birds without being choked, and Mellie, of course LOVES flirting with all the boys in the park… However, we don’t like those very tough stairs next to them - Daisy makes us run up and down them and we get very puffed! You can read more about the park here. This week we have been lucky enough to go on a short excursion to Canberra. This morning we dropped Malcolm off to his Parliament House office which looked very dog friendly with the big grassy hills but we could not see any other dogs so perhaps this is not the case…We love to walk around the lake here in Canberra and bark at all the ducks and swans and we even try to chase the birds, but they always manage to fly off just before we leap in the air and get pulled back to the ground by that leash! Don’t forget to keep warm this winter  Jojo Ps We have recently added a new "post a comment" section below so if you have any feedback or questions post away!Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:01:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:184http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/143/Rudds-big-fraud-all-symbols-and-no-substance.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=143http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=143&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/143/Rudds-big-fraud-all-symbols-and-no-substance.aspx Source: Sydney Morning Herald Right at the heart of the Rudd Government is an emptiness - a vacuum between the rhetoric and the reality; between the empathy and the action. All last year Kevin Rudd wandered around Australia, in and out of petrol stations, supermarkets and hospitals. He built the expectation that he could fix our problems - prices would be lower and waiting lists shorter. And when he wasn't doing that, he had Peter Garrett in tow with a couple of solar panels strapped to his back, ready to tell us about our new clean, green energy future. And since election day we have had one grand symbol after another. Kyoto ratified, a Sorry statement, even a new promise to disarm the world of nukes to provide a theme for Rudd's latest overseas trip. But symbols without substance are a fraud. And while Rudd loves the spotlight, he appears blinded by the harsh light of the reality of Government. Far from reducing petrol prices, Rudd has FuelWatch, a scheme his own expert departments say will reduce competition and put prices up. Far from greening Australia, Rudd has destroyed the solar panel industry by slashing the Howard government rebate. And, perhaps worst of all, by changing the medicare surcharge levy he has simultaneously added up to 1 million people onto public hospital waiting lists and increased the price of private health insurance for everyone else. The recent reports of a chaotic Prime Minister's office ring disturbingly true. There is a growing concern in the community that this new Government is not in control, that it is reacting from one crisis to another, focused on the daily news cycle instead of the long term. And that is why we have seen such a sharp collapse in business and consumer confidence to near record low levels, according to the Westpac Index, which began in 1974. Rudd says it is not his fault - but rather that of the "international oil shock" that has shattered consumer confidence. So let us look at another international shock: the September 11 attacks in New York, when the two mightiest buildings in the centre of the world's financial markets were destroyed. Western countries like Australia then appeared to be a facing a threat from terrorism to our very existence. The Westpac consumer sentiment index fell from 107.6 to 99.5. But by the next month it had rebounded, and by January it was 110. Since the Rudd government came to office the index has dropped 23.3 per cent. It is now at its lowest level since December 1992, when the nation was crawling out of Labor's "recession we had to have". Why has Australian consumer confidence taken a greater dive than after the September 11 attacks in 2001? It is because of a lack of leadership. Confidence has to be based on consistency and competence - a real ability to deal with the big issues and take decisive action. But as we look behind the facade of symbols and photo opportunities, what we see from the new government is a void. Where is the substance? Where is the consistency? Where is the predictability? The thought bubbles are starting to become a joke. Rudd announces his plans for an Asia- Pacific economic community based on the European Union. Freedom of movement across borders, a common currency, common commercial laws and standards - no wonder it was panned by both Hawke and Keating within 24 hours. And then we learned that his emissary to lead this great endeavour had been advised of the new project two hours before Rudd's speech. We don't have a Prime Minister - we have a Prime Commentator. Like the Peter Sellers character Chauncey Gardiner in Being There, when it comes to fuel, Rudd likes to watch. His soft-soaping and spin have run their course. Kevin Rudd was elected not because he had new ideas, but because he was new. But the novelty has worn off, and the emptiness of the new Government is taking its toll. adminWed, 25 Jun 2008 23:18:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:143http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/58/Rudd-exposed-on-inflation.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=58http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=58&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/58/Rudd-exposed-on-inflation.aspx It was like pulling teeth, but after 24 hours and four questions the Prime Minister finally confirmed that he stood by the five week old inflation forecasts in his own Budget. Yesterday Mr Rudd stated in Parliament that the inflation forecast for 2008-09 was 3.75 per cent. This represented an upward revision from the 3¼ percent stated in the Budget Papers. While many observers would have felt he had made a mistake, his failure to correct it gave rise to the concern that the Government was revising upwards its inflation forecast for 2008-2009. Finally today, Mr Rudd said, almost under his breath, that he stood by the Budget forecasts. He did not say that yesterday's statement was an error. He left open the suspicion that the Government was planning to revise upwards its inflation forecast, but had not made it public. Mr Rudd should understand that inflationary expectations are as significant as the actual inflation rate. As Prime Minister he is expected to be on top of this brief on such an important issue.  Clearly he is not. adminSat, 21 Jun 2008 06:52:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:58http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/57/Swan-allows-Treasury-to-be-ignored.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=57http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=57&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/57/Swan-allows-Treasury-to-be-ignored.aspx Wayne Swan must answer questions today about why Treasury advice has again been ignored by Government. The report in The Australian (20/6/08) concerning Treasury’s ignored advice regarding the issue of subsidies for the automotive industry is just the latest example of this occurring in the first six months of the Rudd Government. This is despite Kevin Rudd’s statement following the election that Treasury advice would be “brought to the centre stage” of policy development by Government. (29/11/07, Press Conference, Parliament House) If the Prime Minister’s charter to his Treasurer was to bring this Departmental advice to “centre stage”, why then is it being repeatedly ignored by the Government? Is it because of the weakness of the advocacy of the Minister that represents Treasury at the Cabinet table? Or does Mr Swan fundamentally disagree with the advice his Department provides, and accordingly, declines to support it in Cabinet? This latest example of Mr Swan and Treasury being rolled in Cabinet follows the Government’s decision to ignore Treasury advice on FuelWatch, reviews into the automotive and textile industries, and workplace reform. adminSat, 21 Jun 2008 06:51:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:57http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/56/Speech-at-the-launch-of-Anne-Hendersons-biography-of-Dame-Enid-Lyons.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=56http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=56&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/56/Speech-at-the-launch-of-Anne-Hendersons-biography-of-Dame-Enid-Lyons.aspx  Anne Henderson’s biography of Enid Lyons is a revelation of a world that has passed into history and a woman whose place in history has been neglected. Dame Enid Lyons was not just the first woman to sit in the House of Representatives or the first to hold Cabinet rank. She was a mother of twelve children, the teenage bride of a Tasmanian Treasurer and as the wife of Prime Minister Joe Lyons one half of a powerful and charismatic political partnership that captured the affection and attention of this nation like no other. Reading Anne’s book I constantly regretted that Enid Lyons agreed to become a Dame! Dame Enid Lyons sounds so formal, so stuffy, so conventional. And yet she was anything but that. She was the ultimate home maker – as she said in her maiden speech in 1943, when the subject of population was discussed she had not pondered it “with my feet upon the mantle-piece,” in other words, like all the blokes in the House of Representatives, “but knee-deep in shawls and feeding bottles.” And in reminding her audiences and her colleagues of her domestic credentials she never failed to puncture the self assurance, some would say pomposity, of public men who speak with such authority about family issues. Enid Lyons was also the ultimate super-woman - talk about work life balance! From the very beginning of her marriage as a child, 17, to Joe Lyons she combined relentless fertility in the home with constant political action and advocacy on the public platform. She was living in northern Tasmania, without a telephone for many years; she travelled with Joe and separately to serve their combined political mission. And while ambitious and determined she was not a cold political operative. She was wickedly funny, with a gentle mocking wit which was only occasionally cruel as when she described the wife of British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and I quote, “looks like a public building and behaves like a steamroller.” I should say a little about her husband, Joe Lyons, because while Enid achieved several firsts in her own right, her main contribution was as the equal partner of Joe Lyons. She married Joe, while she was a teenager, and when he was an up and coming Tasmanian Labor politician and Minister, the Treasurer and Minister for Education. But at 18 she was the wife of the Opposition Leader and for seven years thereafter.  He was Premier then for five years, lost an election, moved into Federal politics where he distinguished himself, as he had in Tasmania, for sound economic management. Now the context of the Labor Government in that day, led by Scullin was all about economic issues. It was the Great Depression and you had those advocating expansionary policies like Ted Theodore, the former Queensland Premier who was the Treasurer in the Scullin Government and was constantly mired in one political scandal after another. And of course you had here in Sydney Jack Lang, John Thomas Lang,  whose recklessness and charisma combined to create a formidable threat to the Labor Government, indeed to government itself. He was a remarkable man, I got to know him in his late 90’s when I was a young student and journalist and when I wrote his obituary I was struggling with a headline, and I could only sum it up with “Jack Lang: the man who knew how to hate” He was a formidable, powerful politician. Joe Lyons took him on; as he took Ted Theodore on and he made his reputation - perhaps this is a lesson for all politicians to remember - as a leader who was prepared to do things which were not always popular, but which were always prudent. He was a genuine economic conservative. His campaign for a bond issue, the “All for Australia” bond issue put the Australian nation in a position where it was able to refinance its loan obligations to British creditors. He enabled Australians to liberate themselves from foreign creditors. He resigned from the Scullin Government in January 1931 in protest at the return of his other archenemies, Ted Theodore to the cabinet and he moved over to the United Australian Party which was the main predecessor to the Liberal Party and he became Prime Minister in 1932. He took on Jack Lang in the following year and that was the year that Lang was sacked and if you look at the handsome red granite building in Martin Place which is the headquarters for the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, remember that was the Government Savings Bank of New South Wales and that was part of the price, the financial price that taxpayers and citizens on New South Wales paid for the financial collapse of this state during that struggle. In 1939 Joe Lyons died in office and he left Enid a widow and a single mother with 11 children. She was, within four years and MP in her own right. She won the seat of Darwin, which is now called Braddon in Tasmania in the 1943 election, which was the bleakest year for the conservative side of politics in Australia. The primary vote for the conservatives, for the UAP and the Country Party was a mere 33 per cent. It was a devastating election. She was the one bright hope and she gave enormous cheer to the non-Labor forces in the Federal Parliament. She was then one of the first members of the newly formed Liberal Party. She was, if you like, a founding mother of the Liberal Party, just the same way that Robert Menzies was a founding father. I have to say that one of the great traditions and features of the Liberal Party is the way in which equal representation of men and women is part of the organisational structure. For those of you who are members of the Liberal Party, or familiar with it will know that we have Male Vice- Presidents and Female Vice-Presidents right through the system. And that is owed to the leading role that Enid Lyons and many other women and women’s political organisations played in its foundation. She was a political super star. She had an enormous fan club, she was a very popular newspaper and magazine columnist and she wrote right through her life, not out of a desire for self promotion, but as much as anything out of a desire, not just to promote her political values and ideals but in order to keep the household together. It was a considerable financial struggle, this was a family that had enormous obligations with so many children, but very little in way of income beyond, initially Joe’s parliamentary salary, then Enid’s, and of course what she could generate from journalism. She also struck a great blow, as did Joe Lyons, in the defeat of sectarianism in Australia. They were both Catholics and of course leading Catholics on the conservative side of politics. Then there was to a large degree a sectarian divide in politics in Australia and there were few Catholics on the conservative side of politics. That is well and truly a thing of the past and it is interesting to note that when Lucy’s father Tom Hughes was Attorney General in the Gorton Government people remarked on this prominent Catholic moving into the cabinet. So it was something of note in 1968, but of course it is a non-issue today and that is very good. * * * * * Enid Lyons was a profoundly practical politician.  She spoke in the here and now, of the problems of the day and the policies they demanded. So without departing unduly from my task today, and in the spirit of Dame Enid, let me make a few points about the Liberal Party of 2008 and the challenges it faces in the years ahead. These are tough times for our Party – but we have had tough times before as Enid Lyons knew well. Our Party exists to provide good Government based on our Liberal principles. And yet we are in Government nowhere. Our supporters are entitled to feel let down – incompetent Labor Governments remain in office and unqualified Labor Oppositions win office. My certain belief is that our best chance to return to Federal Government is in 2010. Kevin Rudd did not deserve one term – we must not allow him to win another by default. But to win in 2010, we have to be leaders with policies that are consistent with our political philosophy. And I tell you my friends our political values are the values for our time. Because at the very core of our reason for existence is a commitment to freedom, to individual enterprise, to creating an environment where every person is best able to purse their own ambitions – their own pursuit of happiness. Labor believes that government knows best – we believe that Governments role is to enable us to do our best. Our vision for Government is to enable, to empower. Labor’s is to direct and to command. Now that political touchstone of freedom is easy for Governments to overlook – Liberal Governments are not exempt from that temptation. So while we should be proud of our achievements in the past, we must not be captured by them. We must challenge every policy, every programme, every regulation, every tax with this test: does this make Australia more free? Does it enable greater choice? Does it impose a burden or a restriction on freedom which is more than is absolutely necessary? That is a Liberal’s key performance indicator: it is freedom above all else. Now some people will say that pursuing freedom is not consistent with social justice.  That is as wrong today as it was when Lenin said cynically but most revealingly, “freedom is so precious it must be rationed.” A free society must be a fair society. We cannot as individuals have the freedom to pursue our ambitions if there is no safety net, if poverty or illness deprives an individual of every dignity, every opportunity. Our goal must be as Liberals then to strive for an Australia of which people can say: there is no country in the world where a man or woman is more free to pursue their dreams, no country more receptive to new ideas, no country more welcoming to enterprise and initiative. And it must also be to strive for an Australia of which people can say: there is no country in the world where a person who is set back by disability or illness or poverty has more support and encouragement to enjoy the opportunities of a free society. Those values of freedom, of equal opportunity are profound and they are enduring because they are human. And it was to human values that Enid Lyons always returned. She was fundamentally a woman in touch with human values, with the real world and I tell you that deep in our human DNA is the desire for freedom, to be ourselves, to be different, to make our own mark. If you doubt me, consider how technology has dramatically expanded choice and individual freedom and how universally that has been embraced. Freedom is in the spirit of the times and that is why our values are in the spirit of these times. The Labor Government, the new Rudd Government is the emptiest we have ever seen. There is a yawning gap, a vacuum, between the rhetoric and the reality,  between the empathy and the action. Where is the thread of principle that connects a Prime Minister who spent a year loitering around petrol station forecourts dripping with empathy for rising prices and then today, like ChaunceyGardiner, says “I like to watch.” Where is the substance in a Government that came to office as fiscal conservatives dead against protectionism and then gave $35 million to Toyota to build a car they were going to build anyway - $35 million Toyota said it did not know how to spend? Or which ignores the advice of Treasury and instead of inquiring into the motor industry via the expert and impartial Productivity Commission puts together a committee of trade unionists and industry lobbyists headed by a former Victorian Labor Premier. Where is the evidence based policy in a Government which seeking $3 billion of extra tax revenues, disguises it as a health measure based, so we are told, on the remarkable assumption that if one type of alcohol is made more expensive drinkers will not move to a cheaper alternative? What can we say of the hubris of a Government that underestimates that enterprising ingenuity of the Australian drinker? Our opportunity, our responsibility, is faced with a Government of spin and little  substance, faced with a Government that like Chauncey Gardiner is content with simply “Being There”  to be an Opposition of substance which clearly sets out those values for which we stand, which presents policies consistent with those values and which every hour of every day reminds itself that our duty to this nation is to enhance the freedom and the enterprise that has made it great and will make it greater still. All of us in public life stand on the shoulders of those who went before us and Dame Enid Lyons is in the forefront of those who made Australia the great nation it is. This is a worthy biography, it’s overdue, it’s been beautifully written by a woman who has a keen insight into the character, the qualities, the determination, the courage, and the essential humanity of Enid Lyons. I am deeply honoured Anne that you have asked me to launch this book. Thank you.  adminSat, 21 Jun 2008 06:48:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:56http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/121/Matter-of-Public-Importance.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=121http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=121&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/121/Matter-of-Public-Importance.aspx Source: Parliament House The Government’s failure to address cost of living and other economic pressures faced by Australians and the consequent collapse in consumer and business confidence Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (4.16 pm)—Right at the heart of this government is an emptiness, a gulf, a void, a vacuum between the rhetoric and the reality, between empathy and action. For all of last year, the Prime Minister wandered around Australia, around petrol stations, supermarkets and hospitals, expressing his great concern for rising prices and for hospital waiting lists. When he was not doing that, he was being followed by the member for Kingsford Smith, now his Minister for the Environment and Heritage, with a couple of solar panels strapped to his back, ready to set them up in any park to give a lecture on climate change. What have we seen since election day? We have seen a million people driven out of public hospital insurance onto public hospital waiting lists. We have seen the solar photovoltaic industry destroyed in one stroke. The props that Peter Garrett took around the country have been abandoned. Their use has passed. Now the government can show its real character. We have seen again and again its total impotence in dealing with rising prices and the economic challenges of our times. Today we had one excuse after another from the government. Why has business confidence collapsed? Why is consumer confidence at record lows? The Treasurer and the Prime Minister stood up and said, ‘It is because of international factors. It is the international shock of rising oil prices.’ Let us look at an international shock. Let us look at 9/11. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York when the two mightiest buildings in the centre of the world’s financial markets were destroyed, when we in the West appeared to be facing an existential threat from terrorism, the Westpac consumer sentiment index fell from 107.6 to 99.5. But by the next month it had rebounded and by January it was 110. That was an international shock; that was a blow and an existential threat to our existence which challenged financial markets and communities. We felt we were no longer safe, and again and again politicians and commentators said, ‘The world changed forever.’ The confidence of Australians changed forever too in November last year. Since the Rudd government came to office, that selfsame consumer sentiment index has dropped by 23.3 per cent. It is now at its lowest level since December 1992. The Rudd government has done more damage to Australian consumer confidence than the 9/11 attacks in New York in 2001. Why is that so? It is because of a lack of leadership. Confidence has to be based on consistency and competence. Yet what we see from the new government is a void, a vacuum. Where is the substance? Where is the consistency? Where is the predictability? We have a Treasurer who for six months in the lead-up to the budget said he was going to make sweeping cuts to expenditure. He was going to reduce aggregate demand dramatically and drive down inflation. He said he was going to deliver a budget that would deliver pain. He said it would be good for us, but that it was going to be a budget that would hurt. Instead, he delivered a budget which increased spending and increased taxes. He wimped out. He could not do it. He could not take the heat. The reality could not match his rhetoric because he did not have the courage of his own convictions. So it was that Goldman Sachs said, which the Treasurer cited as an endorsement and it was faint praise indeed, ‘The best thing that can be said about this budget is that it does not make inflation any worse.’ That was one of the kindest things said about it. But it was not the only example of this yawning gap between rhetoric and reality, between the empathy that the government portrayed when it was in opposition and the action today. Last year petrol price rises were John Howard’s fault. They were all John Howard’s fault, according to the Prime Minister, MrRudd. This year it is international factors. Last year there was not a petrol station forecourt which he did not drape himself over, weeping tears of compassion for the embattled motorists. He would fix it all. He was not just going to deal with macroeconomic policy. He was not just going to deal with inflation. He was going to stop petrol going up—and not just petrol but groceries as well. He went around and around the country citing long lists of prices. But we do not hear about them today. No, we do not, because what we have had today is nothing— the gap, the nothingness, the emptiness, the lack of principle, the lack of substance, the lack of policy. We have had Fuelwatch—an extraordinary contradiction of principle. We have a Prime Minister who said that he would put the advice of Treasury front and centre in his work in government. The mandarins of Canberra, a class from which he comes himself—he is a public servant—would give the advice to the government and it would be heeded, and yet what do we know? That every single department with any expertise in this matter, including his own, told the government: ‘Don’t do it. It will put prices up. It will reduce competition. It will make things worse.’ And the best they can wheel out is Graeme Samuel, who himself does not say it will reduce prices. No, Graeme Samuel says it is all about the website. It is so people can find out where the cheapest petrol is. Of course, you have to fix the prices; otherwise, by the time people get to the petrol station they might have moved. This is a weak, insipid justification for an extraordinary intervention in the free market. This comes from a Prime Minister who claimed to be developing policy based on evidence, and yet what we found was a policy that was based on nothing more than a desperate desire to be seen to do something. How oversold, how betrayed do Australian motorists feel? They know that this man positioned himself as the person who could reduce petrol prices, and instead he does nothing. Like Chauncey Gardiner in Being There, he likes to watch. This is the Prime Minister that likes to watch. Indeed, it is all about being there, and Peter Sellers is an inspiration for the Prime Minister. One wonders what the role of Dr Strangelove in the nuclear proliferation initiative might have been. But I think the real model is Chauncey Gardiner, just sitting there, watching and talking, talking about problems. When these great challenges of living standards and prices and battles with ever-rising prices and pressures are brought to bear, what does the Prime Minister do? He talks about the problem. He is a watcher of problems. He is not a doer and he has betrayed the Australian people by his inaction. This inert nothingness at the centre of his government is the reason why we have seen all of these indices of consumer confidence and business confidence collapse. But it is not all bad for the government. Things could be worse. The latest Sensis business index, which surveys small and medium enterprises, shows that there is one government in Australia in which small and medium enterprises have less confidence than the Rudd government. It is, of course, Morris Iemma’s government in New South Wales. So things could be worse. He could have slipped down below Morris Iemma. Having said that, Morris Iemma has been at it for a long time and is ably assisted by his many colleagues, including Mr Della Bosca. But we have to go back and look at the cynicism of the Prime Minister. He went to speak at Melbourne’s Cranbourne Secondary College on 11 July last year and he talked about the CPI for a while. He said: A cursory look at the CPI, however, indicates that much of this data is captured by the statisticians but that it often gets diluted when we focus on the aggregate CPI figure of a typical basket of goods and services. He said: It is clear that our families don’t go out each week and purchase a car, computer, or a plasma TV – for which prices have generally been falling – but they do buy their milk, bread, cereals, vegetables, fruit, and drinks every week – for which prices generally have been rising faster than the general CPI. So he delivered the very clear message that he was going to be able to do something about this. He would act, just as he would act with petrol. Yet what have we seen? In March 2008 the CPI release showed that the price of milk had risen by 2.4 per cent in the quarter, cheese 3.4 per cent, bread four per cent, poultry nearly five per cent, electricity six per cent, child care four per cent, automotive fuel 5.4 per cent, and preschool and primary education nearly six per cent. All of these prices are rising and rising, and yet all we have in the Lodge is Chauncey Gardiner, watching away, being there. He has got there. He has got into that position and all he can do is watch. This country desperately needs leadership. Confidence has collapsed not because of international shocks. We have had them in the past. Could there be a worse international shock than 9-11? If you think about it, the single most horrific shock we have had to our system since the Second World War was this existential threat from terrorism, because suddenly we feared that there could be buildings coming down in Sydney or Melbourne, bombs, dirty bombs. Terrorism was at our doorstep, and then we Australians felt it ourselves in Bali. It is an existential threat to Western society—and yet that threat itself did not impact upon consumer confidence, upon the confidence of Australians in their economic circumstances, as much as has the advent of the Rudd government. That is because, in 2001, John Howard was Prime Minister. In those days we had a government of substance, where the Treasurer spoke about what was going to be in the budget and he delivered. It was a government where there was consistency, clarity, coherence. Instead, what we have now is a confusing void and these extraordinary thought bubbles. What are we to say about a Prime Minister who stands up in front of an enormous audience in the Great Hall of this parliament and says that he wants to have an Asia-Pacific union and then compares it to the European Union? He does say that it will not be an identikit to the European Union but he gives the clear impression, in everything he says, that we should be heading in that direction—to some form of political union: open borders, common currency, shared political institutions. It is an extraordinary leap. It was derided and laughed at the following day by his Labor predecessors, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. It was genuinely unhinged. Then we learnt that the man he had sent off to lead the negotiations to bring this great vision—this thought bubble of his—into reality had only been told about this the previous day. So what does that say to us about the substance, the principle and the competence of the government? These confidence ratings—this plummeting business and consumer confidence—is a vote of no confidence in this government. It reminds us that confidence is a fragile thing, and once it has been thrown away it is very hard to regain.adminFri, 20 Jun 2008 05:51:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:121http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/59/Consumer-confidence-collapse.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=59http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=59&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/59/Consumer-confidence-collapse.aspx Today’s Westpac-Melbourne Institute Consumer Sentiment survey results are of great concern.  The level of the index fell by 5.6 per cent in June to 84.7, down from 89.8 in May.  Consumer confidence held up well throughout the Howard years, through the Asian financial crisis, the September 11 terrorist attacks, the tech bubble, SARS, and the worst drought in 100 years.  Yet since the Rudd Government came to office in November last year, the index has dropped 23.3 per cent and is now at its lowest level since December 1992 – when Labor was last in office.  The latest figures also show that the index has dropped 30.3 per cent below its level a year ago.  That is the second largest annual drop in the 34 year history of the index.  The largest fall on record occurred in July 1989, right before Labor’s “recession we had to have.” Economic analysts have today pointed to the rise in petrol prices as a key factor. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer spent much of last year promising they would be able to keep petrol prices lower. This continuing decline in consumer sentiment ultimately reflects a lack of confidence in the Rudd Government’s handling of the economy. adminThu, 12 Jun 2008 06:53:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:59http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/147/Fuel-and-emissions-not-just-hot-air.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=147http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=147&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/147/Fuel-and-emissions-not-just-hot-air.aspxIs the Australian motorist caught in a perfect storm? Petrol is at an all-time high, driven by insatiable and growing demand for oil in the developing world and the prospect of declining supplies from the oilfields of the world. At the same time, the need to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions threatens to add to the price of fuel. Kevin Rudd cynically exploited concern about rising fuel prices last year, promising that he would be able to keep petrol prices lower. But false promises always catch up with those who make them and so we now see Rudd twisting and turning in a net of his own creation. His first effort was a price-fixing scheme called FuelWatch whereby petrol retailers would have to set their prices a day in advance and not move them up or down for the next 24 hours. And as leaked cabinet correspondence revealed, all of the relevant Government departments advised against the scheme saying it would, in fact, push prices up. A host of senior ministers, including the Energy Minister, Martin Ferguson, argued against it on the same grounds. As FuelWatch flopped, the Prime Minister turned to a new target: high fuel prices were the fault of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. They should pump more oil to bring down the price, he said, and he would use his hitherto unknown influence with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and Venezuela, among other large producers, to get them to sell more of their finite and appreciating resource at a lower price. In other words to act against their own self-interest. And while he is in the mood for lecturing other nations, he could encourage the Chinese and Indians to stop subsidising oil prices and, by doing so, inflating demand and global prices. Good luck on both counts. Kevin Rudd is speared on his own spin. So let us leave the hollow posturing of the Prime Minister for a moment and focus on the real issue. The inexorable laws of supply (dwindling) and demand (growing) mean that the days of cheap oil are well and truly over. This does not mean there will not be plenty of retreats and advances in price along the way. But while the price line may be a jagged graph, the long-term trend will continue to head north unless there is either a significant increase in supply (improbable) or a significant decline in demand (unlikely, at least in the short term). And at the same time as the Australian motorist wearily fills up at $1.60 a litre, there is the prospect of further price rises caused by emissions trading. The Europeans chose not to include liquid fuels in the emissions trading scheme at the outset. Should Australia do the same? There have been two very significant changes in the economic environment since Dr Peter Shergold recommended its inclusion in his emissions trading report received and adopted by the Howard government last June. First, fuel prices have continued to rise. In the past year, the average price of unleaded fuel in Sydney has risen by 31 cents, the equivalent of a $132-a-tonne carbon price on petrol. If a carbon price is intended to promote more efficient use of fuel by raising prices - well the global oil market is already doing that. Second, most of the work done on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in Australia assumes it would commence with a low price, say, $10 a tonne rising over time to $50 a tonne. However, recent work by the International Energy Agency suggests carbon prices as high as $200 a tonne (equivalent to nearly 50 cents on a litre of fuel) would be required in order to achieve a global reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to 50 per cent of today's levels by 2050. All of this means that the key objective for policymakers must be to ensure a transition with as little pain as possible to an economy that is less carbon-intensive and in particular less dependent on oil and, where it uses oil, uses it much more efficiently. Whether or not fuel should ultimately be included in the scheme and, if so, whether the additional carbon cost on fuel should be offset by cutting fuel excise, are questions our policymakers will confront after the release of Professor Ross Garnaut's draft report and the Government's green paper next month. adminThu, 12 Jun 2008 01:33:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:147http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/122/Same-Sex-Relationships-Equal-Treatment-in-Commonwealth-Laws-Superannuation-Bill.aspx#Comments0http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=105&ModuleID=403&ArticleID=122http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=122&PortalID=0&TabID=105http://archive.malcolmturnbull.com.au/MalcolmsBlogs/tabid/105/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/122/Same-Sex-Relationships-Equal-Treatment-in-Commonwealth-Laws-Superannuation-Bill.aspx Source: Parliament House Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (6.36 pm)— I strongly support the object of this legislation, the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. Discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation is as abhorrent as discriminating against them on the basis of their religion or their race. That is why I was very proud, as a member of the Howard cabinet, in November last year—having never backed away from my commitment to equal treatment of and justice for people of the same sex who are living together— to be able to announce as part of our election commitment going into the election that the Howard government would recognise interdependency relationships for the purpose of eligibility for death benefits under the Australian government’s defined benefit superannuation schemes. That is essentially the object of the legislation in front of us today. There has been criticism from the current government’s ranks about the proposal to have this legislation considered by a Senate committee. This is important legislation. It will affect the lives of thousands of people. It will affect the lives of children and it will affect, in very complicated ways, different claimants in the event of somebody dying and there being a range of claimants on their superannuation benefits. So this is an area of some complexity. Having, in my days as a lawyer, practised in the courts and dealt with de facto cases, I readily understand the complexity of some of these issues. Government members should not regard the referral of this matter to a Senate committee, if the Senate chooses to do that, as being in any way designed to frustrate, obstruct or delay the passage of this legislation with a view to delaying the granting of the benefits, the granting of the justice, that this legislation seeks to confer. The key point that I wish to make now is that if the government wishes to have the benefits of this legislation available to people who would benefit from it, were it to be law today, it could choose to backdate the effective date of this legislation from whenever it chose. We know the tax laws and laws relating to superannuation are routinely—in fact, almost invariably— made effective as of the date of announcement. And it will take some months, often many months, for them to be passed into law. There is no reason why referral to a committee should defer the granting of the benefits that both sides of this House are committed to in terms of substance and in terms of the overall objective. That would ensure that those people who are concerned that they or their partner may die before this bill becomes the law of the land can have their concern set aside, and then the focus can be on the parliament getting the detail and the drafting right. This is the challenge I throw down to the government: if you are serious about delivering justice to people in same-sex relationships then you can say, as the government, that it will be effective as of budget night, the day after the election or whatever date you choose. It is entirely a matter for the government. It is the government’s liability. It is its money. The only consequence would be that there would be an additional number of people, probably a small number, who would benefit from the additional cost. In the scheme of the Commonwealth budget, having regard to the great objective of equality and equal treatment of people regardless of their sexual orientation, the additional cost is not something that I would imagine would delay or deter members on either side of this House. So let us stop the slur that suggests that the Liberal Party are homophobic or are trying to frustrate the object of this legislation. The Liberal Party are committed to this. We were committed to this at the time of the election; we are committed to it now. If the government are fair dinkum about it then they can make this change effective from whatever date they choose, and they could do so effective as of tonight, as of budget night or, as I said, as of the day after the election if they choose. Or—and here is a challenge—they could make it effective from the date I made the announcement on behalf of the Howard government which, as I recall, was 9 November 2007. I commend the bill to the House.adminFri, 06 Jun 2008 05:54:00 GMTf1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:122