Australians are paying for the Libs’ denialist ways: former PM

Font Size:

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has lashed out at the Liberal Party for its ineptitude in dealing with climate change, saying the party has failed to deliver “a coherent national energy policy”, for which Australians are now paying in the form of high energy bills.

“The Liberal Party has just proved itself incapable of dealing with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in any sort of systematic way,” Mr Turnbull told The Australian.

“The consequence … is without question that we are paying higher prices for electricity and having higher emissions.”

Mr Turnbull delivered this damning assessment in his first interview since relinquishing the Liberal Party reins in May last year. He said that his former party had been influenced by climate change denialists and believes that a true conservative would support the reduction of carbon emissions.

“Conservatives are practical,” he said. “There is nothing conservative, for example, [in] denying the science of climate change. That’s not a conservative position. That is just, well, that is just denying reality. You might as well deny gravity.

“We [need to] have an effective set of rules to govern our energy market and ensure a low cost and stable transition from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy.

“We are paying higher prices for electricity than we should, and we are having [more] emissions than we should, so it is a lose-lose. And if you talk to anybody in industry, the energy sector, they will confirm what I just said to you.”

He said his biggest regret was not defining a new national energy policy, consisting of reliable legacy generators and renewable energy sources that met lower emissions targets.

While talking about the 75th anniversary of the Liberal Party, Mr Turnbull stressed that he led a “progressive and reforming government”, in line with principal founder Robert Menzies’ vision of a party that was “genuinely progressive”.

“Menzies was establishing the Liberal Party at a time when people were rejecting both the authoritarianism of the left and the right, both communism and fascism, and the conventional laissez faire capitalism that people did not think served them well during the years leading up to the war,” he said.

Mr Turnbull said the term “conservative” has been “debauched”, had lost its true meaning, with his former party now more accurately described as “reactionary and populist”.

“I am conservative, but the difficulty is that the term has been completely debauched,” he said.

“Most of the people who claim to be conservatives nowadays would be better off described as reactionaries or populists.

“I mean conservatives respect tradition [and] build upon existing tradition as they embrace change.

“Donald Trump, for example, is not a conservative. Whatever he is, he is not a conservative.

“The space that people have often identified with a conservative approach is increasingly being occupied by populists, who are, whether you describe them as reactionaries or authoritarian populists I’m not sure, but there is certainly nothing conservative about it.”

Mr Turnbull refused to comment on losing the Liberal leadership, saying those details would come out in his forthcoming memoir, but did say he would have welcomed Julie Bishop as his successor.

“Yes, I certainly would have welcomed that … she certainly had the capacity to lead the party,” he said. “She is eloquent, she is persuasive, she is incredibly hard working, and I could not have asked for a more loyal or capable deputy.”

What do you think of Mr Turnbull’s comments? Do you think the Liberal Party philosophy has changed in recent years?

If you enjoy our content, don’t keep it to yourself. Share our free eNews with your friends and encourage them to sign up.

Join YourLifeChoices today
and get this free eBook!

Join
By joining YourLifeChoices you consent that you have read and agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

RELATED LINKS

How to balance your budget by cutting power bills

If you're shopping around to reduce your power bills, here's what to look for.

Climate change and ageing population creating ‘a perfect storm’

Climate change and ageing populations are interacting to create 'a perfect storm'.

Older Australians have put the Liberal Party on notice

Older Australians put the Liberal Party on notice, saying the party is damaged.

Written by Leon Della Bosca

Leon Della Bosca is a voracious reader who loves words. You'll often find him spending time in galleries, writing, designing, painting, drawing, or photographing and documenting street art. He has a publishing and graphic design background and loves movies and music, but then, who doesn’t?

Contact:
LinkedIn
Email

139 Comments

Total Comments: 139
  1. 0
    0

    All a bit too late now Malcolm. Maybe if you had been more decisive as PM then we wouldn’t be in this mess. You were there to lead the party but you ended up following the hard right membership you now decry as not “true” conservatives. Please stay retired.

    • 0
      0

      I certainly appreciate your sentiment, maelcollum, and agree with you that he should have done the right thing when he was Prime minister, but on the other hand, better late than nothing, – anything that can bring the current butterfly PM closer to the ground could help.

    • 0
      0

      He was ousted because he was not far right. They are controlled by the back benchers and have to bow or be sent packing.

    • 0
      0

      You all speak as if the PM is the power in the land rather than a mouth-piece for his/her party – there is NO inherent power in the PM position other than the support of the party…

    • 0
      0

      Turnbull couldn’t lie straight in bed. He never was a liberal, & should never have been in the party, let alone leader.

      If you believe anything he says you are a bloody idiot.

    • 0
      0

      Turnbull was bounced as leader for supporting and ETS and only installed as PM so long as he toed the party line.

    • 0
      0

      Has been, if you believe anything ANY lieberal says you are a bloody idiot.

    • 0
      0

      That, Farside, is The Way Of the PM ….. hardly THE power in the land despite common misconceptions to the contrary…

    • 0
      0

      The term ‘conservative’ is so loaded that it would be better not used, or, be retained only for troglodytes. In the Menzies sense Conservative related to Economic conservatism, social responsibility, libertarianism to a reasonable degree with regard to civil rights and to a solid but lesser degree in regard to the role of government and a laissez faire society. A fairly successful Australian re-definition of the balance between freedom of the individual and the harm that individual can wrought in society after Locke, Jefferson and many others.

      Balance is critical but maximisation of individual liberty within that balance is essential. Maximisation is a process not an end and in that it is inherently not conservative. Despite the term which Liberal politicians quite eagerly seem to adopt, the undercurrent in liberal thinking is not at all conservative.

      Liberal stance needs to take account of the best advice available. Certainly, a lot of scientists can be wrong. Scientists should have trained themselves to treat conjecture only as something to be dispassionately proven, identified as of general use and applicability or as false. Sometimes however they are the best people to call upon to make a best guess. Climate change theory is a mix of these things. There appears to be a considerable amount of solid data along with a fair amount of conjecture. This only means that those closest along with listening politicians should make a best guess. not everything they do will be the best course but it is likely to be a much better course than any made in ignorance.

      In climate change we have a solid advantage in taking up what we can of measures to ameliorate the condition regardless of its level of validity. Waste, waste in refuse, contamination, by-products and use of resources. Why would we want to waste? In doing so we, by definition, abuse the resource base and likely the quality of life of those who come after us.

      Whether you agree with everything espoused as climate change science or not the future has an investment in our behaviour now. Part of that behaviour does involve managing response to environmental compromise while maximising individual liberty and thereby the potential of all humanity.

    • 0
      0

      Climate change action is a problem for the Liberals/Nationals because of these issues:

      1) Our economy (Balance of Trade) relies heavily on the extraction of minerals & fossil fuels. Any short-term curbing of this will affect their so-called Surplus, without which they have nothing to show for their last 5 years in office, (not that voters seem to demand standards for politician’s productivity).
      Of course the long-term benefits of curbing the fossil fuel industry & seriously addressing climate change are not considered within the 3 year electoral cycle & they have clearly shown that’s all they really care about – winning office. So climate change will continue unabated with the LNP because they won’t put a price on carbon emissions, they dogmatically won’t stimulate the economy by giving some investment certainty for alternatives to be developed by non-fossil fuel industries & they & their mates are doing very nicely within the status quo.

      2) The LNP will never stand up to Industries like almond tree orchards or cotton farming by huge corporations in areas that feed water into the Darling River system, no matter how inappropriate it is to irrigate country that has such low average annual rainfall.
      The same can be said for CSG & coal-mining in arid areas (Adani’s mine) that pollute & waste huge amounts of fresh groundwater.
      Today there’s been reported yet another fish kill on the Darling, but no-one ever directly connects such events with all the water stolen by cotton, coal seam gas & coal mining, because the govt (or Labor) won’t do anything about curbing those industries. In fact they subsidise them & have every intention to continue to subsidise them.

  2. 0
    0

    What a sad man. The science is not settled and it is Australia’s growing reliance on the “free” energy sources that is costing us a fortune.

    • 0
      0

      What a lot of rubbish. The science is screaming at us. What is sad is that the children have to beg us to act. At least consider it is not worth the risk to do nothing if you cannot get onboard.

    • 0
      0

      What a sad man. Still believing that claptrap. No wonder “the party has failed to deliver ‘a coherent national energy policy’, for which Australians are now paying in the form of high energy bills”. It’s the denialists who are responsible for that.

    • 0
      0

      Roy W, the free energy is called that because you don’t have to dig up mountains of coal and transport it to these humungous machines to be burnt at 33% efficiency to produce electricity, – this is what costs, as those ageing monsters have been paid for decades ago.
      So the sources of Renewable energy, being the sun and the sun powered wind, are free, – not “free” but actually FREE.
      That they require very little maintenance as well, makes them even cheaper, – how can you get cheaper than free, you may ask, but maintenance is a biggy with the old coal dinosaurs, as is disposal of ash, water usage, insurance, and other such.
      Oh, and the Science IS settled, it is only extreme right propaganda that says otherwise, and it doesn’t work, – look at the American coal industry, – down to 14%, – 11% next year and credit lowered because they con no longer use the unsold coal as surety because Moodies don’t believe that they will sell that coal!

    • 0
      0

      Every business costs more at startup – that is the time of highest capital expenditure – and so it is with ‘clean energy’ – which is, BTW, beginning to make inroads…

      Whether this will result in ‘lower prices to the consumer’ is another story – I doubt it… once there is a cash cow coming in, those with their hands on its bell will not let it go…

      Public utility used to work ever so much more efficiently….

    • 0
      0

      “Climate change” may be settled but we are a long way from from a consensus on what may or may not be causing it. Therefore, an equally long way from resolving it! Hysterical teens not withstanding, it needs far cooler heads than that to make any difference.

    • 0
      0

      If I owned a power station 20 years ago and made 20 million$ profit by supplying energy 24hrs per day and then the Government ( of all persuasions ) came along and gave massive subsidies for people to fit rooftop solar, and to businesses to build wind and solar farms which supply the bulk of the energy supply during the daylight hours, then I still have to make my $20M but can only do it during the night time hours. But because the people with solar only use smaller amounts of my power I have to charge more to make my profit.

      And none of this takes into account the need to recycle the masses of solar panels and batteries every 10 to 15 years.

    • 0
      0

      If I owned a power station 20 years ago and made 20 million$ profit by supplying energy 24hrs per day and then the Government ( of all persuasions ) came along and gave massive subsidies for people to fit rooftop solar, and to businesses to build wind and solar farms which supply the bulk of the energy supply during the daylight hours, then I still have to make my $20M but can only do it during the night time hours. But because the people with solar only use smaller amounts of my power I have to charge more to make my profit.

      And none of this takes into account the need to recycle the masses of solar panels and batteries every 10 to 15 years.

    • 0
      0

      There are plenty of scientists in the world that have refuted climate change.
      The green scientists have been proven to provide false statistics.

    • 0
      0

      Paddington, The Science is not settled. Do some research. Why did 32105 Scientists sign a petition this year to be presented to the UN, stating that the data collection, modelling and predictions of the science of climate change is seriously flawed? To date none of the IPCC’s climate predictions have ever been realised. I will repeat None. Nada. Nothing. Do you ever see that reported? No. Why is that? Why don’t the media and Governments and the UN want you to know about this? The petition was presented to the UN and was promptly ignored. Why? Anyone that says the science is settled should wonder why 32105 Scientists are ignored or shut down for their views by the UN whilst a schoolgirl is believed. Why?

    • 0
      0

      Surely if climate change wasn’t a natural part of the planet we would still have megafauna wandering around.

    • 0
      0

      MarkAdel: “There are plenty of scientists in the world that have refuted climate change.”

      Bollocks. Nobody has refuted it at all; rather the reverse!

      Mary: Read here and weep:

      https://climate.
      asa.gov/

    • 0
      0

      Mary one of those “scientists” was Hugh Morgan formerly CEO of Western Mining whose qualifications were in Law. he is also a vocal member of the Liberal Party and one of their principal fund raisers.

    • 0
      0

      Mary one of those “scientists” was Hugh Morgan formerly CEO of Western Mining whose qualifications were in Law. he is also a vocal member of the Liberal Party and one of their principal fund raisers.

    • 0
      0

      My Solar System is Free, not only that my provider owes me $496 to date.
      paid for in 3 years so ongoing it’s a cash cow.

    • 0
      0

      Lookfar, Re renewables. Why is a wind turbine free energy? You need coking coal, chromium and iron ore, you need copper and aluminium, zinc coating to protect it. you need oils for lubrication, magnets, carbon fibre, fibreglass and concrete. That all requires things like mining, transportation, refining, manufacturing, maintenance and then the recycling of its components at end of real use which is 18 to 20 years. What is the cost to the planet of this wind turbine in CREATING Co2 emissions? Do you know? It is not free energy… It needs fossil fuels for it to be created. It needs fossil fuels to be maintained. It needs fossil fuels to be recycled and decommissioned. Lookfar, I would be glad to send you a report on the real CO2 footprint of a wind turbine over its lifetime. The report states that if a 2mw wind turbine operates at 100% efficiency then it would be CO2 neutral in 12 years.. Which is great! Both of us would love that outcome. The report stated that the average turbine is only producing 27% of its rated power output through out its lifetime due to variable winds. maintenance etc. The report concluded that the manufacture and running of a wind turbine is NOT carbon neutral. It adds to the humankind CO2 emissions. Wow Lookfar! A report that states that wind turbines are not free sustainable energy. Why are we not told this? Why are renewables promoted as free in emissions when they are not? Why do we jump on board with that and take it as truth without question? Just asking

    • 0
      0

      Tanker, Unfortunately Hugh Morgan was not a signatory. Research better. You still have 32105 actual scientists to discredit. I will ask you Tanker. Why does the UN ignore the petition of 32105 scientists that are stating that the data collection, modelling and predictions of the science of climate change is seriously flawed? Why would the UN deny their petition? Why are their views not allowed to be debated? If the science is proven then the UN could crush the 32105 with their “proven facts” that they sell to us.. The petitioners would have been discredited… But it didn’t happen. The UN swept it under the carpet. The petition was ignored, the media didn’t report it. Why? Please answer why Tanker..

    • 0
      0

      the science is well and truly settled, aside from those who are too dim-witted to read it

    • 0
      0

      Intellego. Why do you need to wish me to weep? Are you a misogynist? Do you think my thoughts, beliefs and integrity are less than yours because I am a woman? It seems that you are able to hide behind your avatar and throw insults time and time again without retribution. Well. We need to respect all views. And if we don’t like a persons view then we need to respectfully debate with each other without hate. We may not then agree but there should be respect for each other. Intellego, I feel you do not debate fairly on this site. If you disagree It seems that your first defence is to resort to bully, harass and use misogynism against women. I am offended by you belittling me and I am calling you out and I want an apology.

    • 0
      0

      Waiting for the first full bill here, so I can work out how quickly the solar panels etc will be paid off… maybe look for the best deal…

    • 0
      0

      The science is settled. Trouble is, it isn’t science. Scientific method requires every hypothesis to survive every possible attempt to discredit it before it becomes scientific fact which is then only a temporary situation until it can be disproved. For example, the once scientific fact that matter can be neither created nor destroyed had to be modified with the invention of the atomic bomb.

      In the case of so-called climate science, all evidence which supports the theory is given enormous credibility, that which contradicts is totally ignored. Billions are spent annually supporting the theory, virtually nothing is spent in examining the evidence which refutes it, something which is never mentioned by those who wish to argue that the so-called deniers are funded by the petroleum industry.

      If the science is so well established, why is it that opposition to the presentation of alternatives to the “settled science” is so intense that there are numerous examples of refusal to even publish arguments which oppose the doctrines of the new religion, however valid those arguments may be?

      Surely the case of Peter Ridd should open the eyes of the politicians at least. Even though Ridd successfully sued his former employer, James Cook University, for wrongful dismissal because he dared to contradict, with solid evidence, comments made by his employer on the fate of the Barrier Reef, the university is now reported to be appealing the decision to award Ridd $1.2 million in damages. The taxpayer will be footing the bill for the university’s appeal, Ridd will be on his own but, fortunately, he will be supported by those nasty climate deniers and, hopefully, the next outcome will be that Ridd will win again and costs will all go to the university. Poor old taxpayer who will have paid out several millions as a result of unconscionable conduct on the art of the university.

      Another terrible outcome of the Ridd case is that he was reported as having said that he was aware of the probable consequences of his actions but could afford to proceed because he was close to retirement. Surely this means that there are other “scientists” who do not accept that the “science is settled” but maintain silence for fear of losing their employment.

    • 0
      0

      The science is settled. Trouble is, it isn’t science. Scientific method requires every hypothesis to survive every possible attempt to discredit it before it becomes scientific fact which is then only a temporary situation until it can be disproved. For example, the once scientific fact that matter can be neither created nor destroyed had to be modified with the invention of the atomic bomb.

      In the case of so-called climate science, all evidence which supports the theory is given enormous credibility, that which contradicts is totally ignored. Billions are spent annually supporting the theory, virtually nothing is spent in examining the evidence which refutes it, something which is never mentioned by those who wish to argue that the so-called deniers are funded by the petroleum industry.

      If the science is so well established, why is it that opposition to the presentation of alternatives to the “settled science” is so intense that there are numerous examples of refusal to even publish arguments which oppose the doctrines of the new religion, however valid those arguments may be?

      Surely the case of Peter Ridd should open the eyes of the politicians at least. Even though Ridd successfully sued his former employer, James Cook University, for wrongful dismissal because he dared to contradict, with solid evidence, comments made by his employer on the fate of the Barrier Reef, the university is now reported to be appealing the decision to award Ridd $1.2 million in damages. The taxpayer will be footing the bill for the university’s appeal, Ridd will be on his own but, fortunately, he will be supported by those nasty climate deniers and, hopefully, the next outcome will be that Ridd will win again and costs will all go to the university. Poor old taxpayer who will have paid out several millions as a result of unconscionable conduct on the art of the university.

      Another terrible outcome of the Ridd case is that he was reported as having said that he was aware of the probable consequences of his actions but could afford to proceed because he was close to retirement. Surely this means that there are other “scientists” who do not accept that the “science is settled” but maintain silence for fear of losing their employment.

    • 0
      0

      The denialists are trying to convince the rest of us that burning more fossil fuels will have NO effect on the future. What kind of science is that?
      Einstein states in his theory of energy conservation: every action has an equal & opposite reaction.

      The denialists are clearly deluded or their vision is clouded by political &/or business interests. They must be very nutty professors indeed if they think Einstein got it so wrong!

    • 0
      0

      The Chief Scientist was asked what would be the effect on the climate if Australia effectively ended all emissions which are supposed to contribute to global warming. His reply was that the outcome would be virtually nothing.

      Those who have been labelled denialists by the zealots for their new religion do not argue that burning fossil fuels will have no effect on the climate, they argue that the effects of climate change are drastically overstated by the computer models used by the IPCC. The sea level has not risen, the Maldives did not go under water by 2000. A dam near Brisbane which should not have been built because it would never fill because of ongoing drought overflowed and flooded Brisbane, another one did the same in Townsville. Perth has not co-operated with yet another bogus prediction and is not yet a ghost city. Climate records in such places as Rutherglen in Victoria have been “homogenized” – which means rigged – to show that instead of minor global cooling in the last century there has been minor warming.

      Check out the internet by searching under “Earth is greening” and find dozens of articles supporting this fact, and one solitary report from the Scientific American stating the opposite. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, and maybe speculate why scientists are so willing to throw out the rule book, accept every tiny scrap of evidence which supports their faith and reject everything that contradicts.

      What is labelled as climate science is not science because it totally disregards the rules of scientific method which require every possible effort to be made to falsify any hypothesis before it becomes scientific fact, and even then can lose the status of scientific fact if at some later time it is disproved.

      The argument that denialists are deluded is nonsense. For ages it was argued, with zero supporting evidence that those who reject the bogus science are funded by the petro-chemical industry, that the climate change religion reduces receives massive support from governments is ignored. Donald Trump is reported to have discovered that in a year the US government spent between $20 and $30 billion.

    • 0
      0

      The Chief Scientist was asked what would be the effect on the climate if Australia effectively ended all emissions which are supposed to contribute to global warming. His reply was that the outcome would be virtually nothing.

      Those who have been labelled denialists by the zealots for their new religion do not argue that burning fossil fuels will have no effect on the climate, they argue that the effects of climate change are drastically overstated by the computer models used by the IPCC. The sea level has not risen, the Maldives did not go under water by 2000. A dam near Brisbane which should not have been built because it would never fill because of ongoing drought overflowed and flooded Brisbane, another one did the same in Townsville. Perth has not co-operated with yet another bogus prediction and is not yet a ghost city. Climate records in such places as Rutherglen in Victoria have been “homogenized” – which means rigged – to show that instead of minor global cooling in the last century there has been minor warming.

      Check out the internet by searching under “Earth is greening” and find dozens of articles supporting this fact, and one solitary report from the Scientific American stating the opposite. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, and maybe speculate why scientists are so willing to throw out the rule book, accept every tiny scrap of evidence which supports their faith and reject everything that contradicts.

      What is labelled as climate science is not science because it totally disregards the rules of scientific method which require every possible effort to be made to falsify any hypothesis before it becomes scientific fact, and even then can lose the status of scientific fact if at some later time it is disproved.

      The argument that denialists are deluded is nonsense. For ages it was argued, with zero supporting evidence that those who reject the bogus science are funded by the petro-chemical industry, that the climate change religion reduces receives massive support from governments is ignored. Donald Trump is reported to have discovered that in a year the US government spent between $20 and $30 billion.

    • 0
      0

      maxchugg, your last two sentences are quite a mystery to the English language. I was hoping those two sentences might summarise your lengthy post with a concise touche, but instead they make little sense at all & the mere mention of Trump’s name does nothing to give your argument any credibility (he DID invent fake news, you know).

      Is this English?: “…the climate change religion reduces receives…”

      That’s crappy science by you, stating that sea levels have not risen, because the Maldives did not go under water by 2000. How dare you prattle on about the rules of scientific method after that load of rot! How about a lot of other places – don’t they matter?
      Are you denying that the Kiribati Islands & other parts of the Pacific are NOT being inundated by an encroaching ocean?

      I used to live on an island & I sold up because of encroaching salt water. The local Council keeps on raising the fill level for new development. Salt water crosses roads & comes up the stormwater drains into the CBD on big tides. In the middle of a terrible drought! It’s a recipe for rusted out cars, I can tell you!

      The only reason some governments are spending money to try to mitigate the catastrophic effects of climate change is because business & insurers are demanding it.

      Had you considered that places that are “greening” are happening because what was permafrost has melted to allow for plants to grow? Or the treeline has expanded for the same reason?
      Has this happened to such an extent that it more than compensates for the increasing numbers of catastrophic fires around the globe OUTSIDE of the summertime? Or the deliberate clearing & burning of native forests around the world? Rainforests that are so dry they’re burning for the first time in their existence? Peat bogs on fire? That’s a hell of a lot of melted permafrost!

      I think your sources of information are sponsored by business interests that think they can’t adapt & remain profitable, or at least, not keep them in the luxury to which they’ve become accustomed. Yes, mitigation will cost us in the short term & growth rates ad infinitum may have to be reconsidered. I predict the cotton industry on the Darling River catchments will be extinct within the century. We’ll know by then we must conserve precious fresh water for human consumption, food production (no almond orchards, either) & healthy river environments to stop the continuing mass fish kills.

      Governments need to take responsibility & stop playing these shameful games.

  3. 0
    0

    The Liberal Party is a disgrace and is incapable of serving the public good. The sooner it fragments and disintegrates the better. This country is in a state of paralysis because of the unholy alliance between right wing reactionaries and the frightened voters who are afraid to embrace change.

    • 0
      0

      Unfortunately they are the best we now have.

    • 0
      0

      I predict in the next 30 years or so the Liberal Party, unless they re-invent themselves to appeal to the younger generation who will be coming into voting age, will go the way of the DLP and Australian Democrats into political irrelevancy . All us old dinosaurs who grew up in the Menzies era of ‘ “reds under the beds” will gradually pass away and the younger “climate change” generation will take over. The ALP have re-invented themselves several times so it can be successfully done.

    • 0
      0

      I predict the Labor party will be gone in 10 Years.

    • 0
      0

      Well – I predict the end for both majors – they are irrelevant to modern day Australia, and are flying in the face of public requirements in many ways – as if they are above the people as sovereign.

      I propose that all the relevant issues – immigration policy, power security, energy security (fuel etc), preferential treatment for some, social ‘plan’ (or lack thereof), infrastructure plan (or lack thereof) – all be put to a plebiscite – a binding plebiscite.

      Let The People Decide!! I, for one, am sick of government by minority special interest group – and that includes industry groups, too….

      Power To The People!!

    • 0
      0

      Trebor, how about including politicians salary increases to your plebicite list.

    • 0
      0

      “I predict the Labor party will be gone in 10 Years.”

      Joke of the week.

    • 0
      0

      Ah, yes, Eddy – I went to that one later….. an absolute necessity.

      Let the People Decide what their elected servants are worth…. and it sure ain’t income for life.

    • 0
      0

      @Eddy
      I sure hope they go the way of the dinosaurs Eddy.

    • 0
      0

      Spot on andromeda143. & very true Eddy.

      When the frightened older people drop off & the younger generation take their rightful place at the table, there will be a huge change for the better. At least they’ll vote for the future.

  4. 0
    0

    Mr Turnbull conveniently for himself has a very short memory, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. He is at last in his right place and for goodness sake should be the last of the has been “liberals” to cast stones.

    • 0
      0

      He has every right to speak just as you have. I prefer him to the far right in the LNP.

    • 0
      0

      Yes Paddington he has the to speak. We just don’t have to listen or afford him any credibility!

    • 0
      0

      The worst thing Turnbull did was let himself be bullied by the far right (I can have a vision of Tony seething in a pile of his own excrement).

      Turnbull didn’t have the courage, unfortunately, nor the lack of integrity to go back on his word. He could’ve just thumbed his nose at them as soon as he became PM. At that time, there’s no way the Libs would’ve changed leaders, considering that’s the only reason how Abbot won office from Labor (leadership instability & the crucifixion of Gillard/Rudd/Gillard). Turnbull missed his chance & paid the price for the rest of his time as PM. And Australia has also paid the price by our government having no energy policy.

      It’s amazing to look back & see how powerfully the media distracted everyone from thinking getting rid of Turnbull was not the last straw for leadership instability. “Vee haf vays to make you stupid” said the right wing media.

  5. 0
    0

    I agree with you Maelcolium, I was one who wanted him rather thab Abbott, but he is a fence sitter and a tree in the wind!
    He should indeed go back to Potts Pt and count his milions. Hjs attempts at being philosophical are not and will not mean anything ever.
    He had his chance to do something but the blithering rabble put him to the sword.

  6. 0
    0

    But we lost Julie Bishop in all the mess. I’ve no idea how when you have someone of her calibre, you end up with Scomo – and I voted Green!

    • 0
      0

      Good Grief! (to quote Charlie Brown)…

    • 0
      0

      I am not sure if that is a boast or an apology, flowerpot.

    • 0
      0

      to Septic (correct spelling); anyone who votes Labor or LNP needs to apologise

    • 0
      0

      Or those who voted for Clive Palmer or Pauline Hanson. These two hijacked the whole election. Morrison & the LNP were the beneficiaries, just as Palmer planned it.

      Palmer spent about $70 million on an election he had no desire to win a seat in (he was either absent or asleep last time he was in Parliament). Ironically & tragically, $70 million is what he still owes workers from his zinc mine in Qld. His type are vermin, parasites & a blight on society.

  7. 0
    0

    Funny that the country which now owns vast amounts of our country is soon to be the world leader in nuclear power and technology, whilst their satellite still plays with wind up rubber band aeroplanes lol.

    • 0
      0

      Ah yes – the old South Eastern Province – Austrochine….

      Soon it will be the shiftless Whitey who is making land claims because his ancestors worked this land… but all they do is sit around and drink booze and bash their women and children, and they wouldn’t work in an iron lung ….. how the goanna turns…

    • 0
      0

      which country is that Boomah? Certainly not China, which accounts for less than 2% of investment and is ranked only 9th with lower annual growth than all ranked above it. More than 97% of Australian companies are wholly Australian owned. Foreign owners of agricultural land represent less than 0.5% of all land and China is not in the top three.

      https://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/investment-statistics/Pages/statistics-on-who-invests-in-australia.aspx

    • 0
      0

      Don’t keep flooding this site with facts Farside, it spoils the entertainment.

    • 0
      0

      My studies of Asian Pacific Basin and Region issues make it clear that a region is an economic factor – ergo – when any nation has a massive economic ‘footprint’ in another – that is virtually (sic) the same as owning the joint or that percentage of it under that ‘footprint’.

      Think… think……

      This is part of Terrorism/Counter-terrorism studies, BTW.. and national security. Hence my comments on energy security, fuel etc, and all the other ‘securities’ – including immigration security as a national issue ….

    • 0
      0

      sorry Care Bear, I try to resist using facts but sometimes the urge is overwhelming in the face of “alternative facts” at best, and ignorant opinion at worst. On the plus side, most of the entertainers are not deterred from pushing their opinions.

    • 0
      0

      Consider what I said above in the light of ‘States Without Borders’ – an extension is that adherents to the ‘global economy’ are citizens of a ‘state without borders’ (same as IS which is a state of religious ideology), and thus should have no citizenship rights in a nation……

      Much work is needed here, grasshoppers, to resolve the current impasse of Offshore Vultures sucking the life’s blood out of nations….

      Lock the Gates!!

    • 0
      0

      Too late TREBOR the horse has bolted.

    • 0
      0

      Wow, Farside. The media would have us think otherwise. Who ARE the top three countries?

  8. 0
    0

    Turnbull was like a dog chasing a car, what was it going to do if it caught it. The only reason that Turnbull wanted to be PM was to please his wife as it was her dream, not his. He planned and plotted to achieve her goal and once in the job had no idea what to do. He was a lawyer and investment banker, not a politician and it certainly showed. Like Rudd, Turnbull is now trying to rewrite history. I disagree that he was of the far right, I believe that he as more left leaning and his policies aligned more with Labor than the Liberals.

  9. 0
    0

    Well what do you expect him to say? A twice failed leader hoisted by his own petard! He was irrelevant 18 months ago and he is just as irrelevant now. He left politics in a fit of pique, so he should stay out of it now.

Load More Comments

FACEBOOK COMMENTS



SPONSORED LINKS

continue reading

Australia

Enthralling, dystopian, sublime: NGV Triennial has a huge 'wow' factor

Refik Anadol: Quantum memories 2020 (render) custom software, quantum computing, generative algorithm with artificial intelligence (AI), real time digital animation...

Australia

Where to eat, drink and play on Kangaroo Island

Australia's third largest island is an oasis of pristine wilderness, premium produce and hidden secrets ripe for discovery. Easily accessible...

COVID-19

Will you need a vaccination to visit Australian venues?

State premiers have suggested that once vaccinations begin in Australia, those without vaccinations may be banned from visiting some venues...

Australia

Enjoy these islands while you can

Remarkable Rocks, Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Greg Brave/Shutterstock Freya Higgins-Desbiolles, University of South Australia I fell for Kangaroo Island from...

New South Wales

Four fabulous events announced for Mardi Gras 2021

Mardi Gras is famous for its world-class comedy, performances, vibrant colours and characters. And this year will be no exception....

Entertainment

Why the royal family retreats to Scotland every year

"To aim for the highest point is not the only way to climb a mountain," wrote Nan Shepherd in her...

Accommodation

The five stages of losing your Airbnb virginity

Airbnb was set up more than a decade ago - first called Air Bed & Breakfast - and now boasts...

COVID-19

Overseas travel remains unlikely this year

As the vaccine rollout in Australia gets closer, many thoughts may be turning to exactly how long we have to...

LOADING MORE ARTICLE...