This is not a joke. Tony Abbott himself has taken primary responsibility for women’s issues. I’m lost for words so I’ll keep this post brief.
The circus clown with the big ears had the audience in raptures a year or so back with his comment that women should stay home and iron, or something to that effect. He has never retracted that comment, which suggests he still carries that ideology.
Now let us remind you of his qualifications for the plum roll (and his ideologies):
“I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons.” Tony Abbott Four Corners 15/03/2010.
“While I think men and women are equal, they are also different and I think it’s inevitable and I don’t think it’s a bad thing at all that we always have, say, more women doing things like physiotherapy and an enormous number of women simply doing housework.” Tony Abbott Herald-Sun 06/08/2010.
“I won’t be rushing out to get my daughters vaccinated [for cervical cancer], maybe that’s because I’m a cruel, callow, callous, heartless bastard but, look, I won’t be.” November 9th, 2006
“I would say to my daughters if they were to ask me this question . . . [their virginity] is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don’t give it to someone lightly, that’s what I would say.” January 27th “The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.” 2010
It has been revealed that after having being defeated by Barbara Ramjan for the SRC presidency, Tony Abbott approached Barbara Ramjan, and after moving to within an inch of her nose, punched the wall on both sides of her head. news.com.au 09/09/2012
‘I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak’ cited 23/08/2012
Gaining momentum across everywhere but the mainstream media are allegations that Opposition leader Tony Abbott inappropriately touched Aboriginal author Ali Cobby Eckerman in an Adelaide cafe last March. First Nations Telegraph 20/06/2013.
Tony Abbott urges women to save their virginity for marriage and reveals mixed feelings about contraception in a new interview. The Australian 25/01/2010.
And who can forget his behavior: standing in front of people as they hold signs calling Julia Gillard a bitch or a slut; rubbing shoulders with people after they’ve said on air that Julia Gillard should be dumped at sea; supporting members of his party who suggested Julia Gillard should be kicked to death. He also failed to reprimand those in his party who said Julia Gillard needed a bullet.
He can’t even address a female by name; it’s either ‘her’, ‘she’, ‘it’ or someone with sex appeal.
His self appointment as Minister for Women’s Affairs just has to be a joke. It’s akin to having Andrew Bolt as Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
Follow @MigloCWSHARE THIS ARTICLE:
Categories: Politics
The Australian Independent Media Network 
Ahh the ole switching off lights or going to more efficient bulbs bandwagon like that really makes a difference compared to heating or hot water. Nothing you have said explains how a tax is somehow meant to lower co2 atmosphere concentration, it is 400ppm and continuing to go up. It has been said that if humans were to suddenly disappear, then it would continue to go up before it started to go down. Let me say this again, the level of co2 in the atmosphere is still going up and it is going up at an exponential rate, the carbon tax is making no real world difference to the actual level of co2 in the atmosphere. To affect climate change on a global scale and to make any difference requires a complete reorganisation of society and technology. Adaption, mitigation, and the newer proposed climate engineering are the three ways to deal with climate change. Carbon tax addresses none of these. The co2 level of 400ppm is continuing to go up, and I will say it again and again, the carbon tax is not going to fix this, and it never will, and the majority of Australians would agree with this.
You come across as a very simple thinker. You need to think about the whole of society. You think it is as simple as hooking a solar panel up to a battery and think you’re green? You think if you drive a hybrid vehicle you are green? Think about all the variables for a minute, manufacturing all these panels and batteries in China is a process that negatively affects the environment. There are so many variables that I can see straight through your simple thinking.
I completely disagree. We are adapting through things like crops which require less water, we are mitigating by changing our energy usage and how it is generated. We need to reduce emissions by whatever range of means we have at our disposal and pricing pollution most definitely DOES contribute to changing practices for both individuals and businesses. And I disagree that a majority of Australians ignore the scientists and economists as you suggest. I take the word of the experts rather than radio shock jocks, gossip columnists, and people in the employ of the fossil fuel companies.
Pricing pollution does jack to the level of co2 in the atmosphere and the burden of proof is on you, otherwise it is all moot. Carbon tax is just an idealistic for the principal of it rather than having any meaningful effect on co2 concentration.
I notice most of your “facts” are those put up by the Galileo Movement.
This article answers many of your assertions.
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/environment/galileo-movement-fabricates-science-to-fuel-climate-divide/
We have to reduce fossil fuel use. One way to do this is to shift away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy sources. The other way is to reduce energy demands through increased efficiency.
Both mechanisms have economic implications. In order to stimulate the private sector’s investment in renewables, governments can put a levy on fuels, which may be used to fund or subsidise new initiatives.
To reduce demand, there are a number of solutions available, but most seek to raise the cost of carbon through taxes. There are a number of schemes under consideration, and a number already implemented. According to the article Pollution Economics in the New York Times, more than 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are now subject to carbon pricing systems. About 60 other states, provinces or countries are considering similar approaches, according to a recent World Bank report.
Since a number of economic incentives are being tried, it seems too soon to declare them failures. It is interesting to note that while governments are having difficulty negotiating agreements on the global scale, regional schemes are already proving effective, flexible and popular. An important ingredient seems to be an accompanying tax reduction that makes the carbon tax revenue-neutral.
In the long term, unless we drastically reduce the rate at which we are still emitting greenhouse gases, we are very likely to incur huge costs as a result of climate change. Part of these costs will be in adaptation, and the inevitable disruption. In part costs will escalate due to turmoil and uncertainty throughout the economic world. There will also be costs that cannot be quantified, particularly when we try to value a human life and its loss.
We have to reduce our emissions. If we are to avoid draconian government intervention, carbon pricing schemes are a viable method of encouraging us to reduce fossil fuel use. Coupled with other measures to stimulate renewable energy development, putting a price on carbon may help us make the transition away from fossil fuels. And from our experience to date, it seems likely that carbon taxes, instead of bringing an economy to its knees, may well help transform an outdated system into one fitting for a sustainable century.
Carbox Tax (doesn’t matter if you call it a price or a levy at the end of the day it is a TAX), does NOT encourage reduced fossil fuel use, it only forces the bigger companies to pass down the increased costs to the customer. Fact. Renewable energy is great and all, but you need something other than solar or wind to provide the base load to the grid, and Australia in this case uses coal. Another fact.
Not fact Ben. I really wish you would read up on renewable base load power and anything else for that matter before calling it a fact, or if you do then provide the evidence or source.
A fact. The US has just joined the 10GW solar PV club, the fifth country to do so I believe.
Australia has far more solar capacity than 10GW and we are being embarrassed by other countries with far less sunshine. Abbott will ensure we go even further backwards and destroy the environment including water supplies whilst he’s at it.
Just because you call it a fact doesn’t make it one.
Just a reminder, , that we seem to have moved away from. Why price is put on carbon emissions.
The idea is to make the production of power using fossil fuel dearer. Yes dearer. The reason, we need to do this, is so renewals become economical.
This should lead to energy being produced, only by renewals, forcing coal and other fossil fuels out of the way. No fossil fuel, no emissions.
Now before one starts jumping up and down, in the ling run, this means we will have cheaper energy produced by the renewals. Yes, cheaper. Many industry;s will find ways, of decreasing their power bill to near nothing, even adding to the grid.
Why we need to price fossil fuels out of the picture, is because renewals are expensive to put in place, and cannot complete with coal at this stage.
The renewals, once established, are much cheaper to maintain, and run over time.
Just like the NBNCo, cheaper in the long run, and continues to be cheaper to maintain,.
The technology for renewals is now proven, and no longer experimental. One cannot say the same, for planting trees. or soil sequestration.
Could someone remind Mr. Morrison, that Labor was moving the boat people off shore, or did he not notice.
Once we move to power, produced by renewals, the production becomes more efficient and cheaper.
It is the change over that is expensive.
The fact is, when any industry finds themselves with higher costs, they look for cheaper methods. Yes, there is limit one can pass down the line.
We already have new ways of producing aluminum thanks to the increase power costs. A much simple method, using different science. Yes, and in the process, the factories are cheaper to build and run.
Will make all other mills obsolete.
We already have meat processors, that are now adding to the grid, their power bills disappearing altogether.
I live on the Central Coast, surrounded by power houses. My son, who works in the industry, has told me, many are already being mothballed, not reopening, as planned.
What surprised me, is how successful, that CEF suite of legislation has been
I have seen a couple of pie factories, on the coast, with their roof covered with solar panels. Wonder what their power cost are.
By the way, the CEF suite of legislation, was much more than a price on carbon, The price that was put on carbon was used to finance industry in finding cheaper w
Yes, demolition is always expensive, and often wasteful.
Ben, it is not a tax. All the experts agree on that. Are you saying the cost of your garbage collection is a tax. Some say it acts like a tax. I find that a little hard to understand.
Do not pollute, do not not pay. .
ABC 24
Shorten in Canberra, on NBN. First question, do we really need NBN.
Yes, we do.
ME, it is about more that solar power, anyway. Yes, it can meet base power, which is over exaggerated anyway.
Morrison getting irritated with questioning.
I think Morrison is feeling, no one is taking him seriously.
Why bother having weekly briefing, if nothing is to be announced.
Such arrogance!
I think Morrison might have a temper, and low tolerance threshold.
Last question called. Yes, Morrison deos need saving.
Besides Hydro power which is location specific and already exploited and where it’s not already any proposals to build dams are met with Greenies jumping up and down, what are the other forms of renewable energy to supply the base load of the grid then?
Fed Up, do you have any idea how expensive wind turbines cost and how much engineering goes into every single wind turbine? You do realise you still need to produce greenhouse gasses to manufacture ALL technology, including renewable technology?? Everyone here seems to think it’s as simple as a solar panel and that is just not the case. We buy solar technology from China. What I often see is that it is the less educated people with technology that somehow just seem to think that solar power will save us or something.
Fed Up, you seem to think it is a simple matter of simply ‘establishing’ everything and walking away and it will all run itself indefinitely. Please tell me you are joking. Power generation, regardless of the type, is a continual investment that needs money to go into it for more money to come out. Some types of power and cheaper or more expensive to generate per KW hour.
Ben you are accusing us of simplifying it, yet it is you who is doing it. I’m not going into pages of explanations but if you want I can get together a bunch of sources and papers on the subject.
Renewable is a viable alternative and in other countries and indeed the world it now makes up a significant percentage of the base load, and is increasing. It is now also cost competitive in many areas and because of that is being increasingly taken up.
As to buying solar China. That’s an own goal. You can thank John Howard for that.
I suggest Ben visits RenewEnergy website… lots of answers to his questions there…
Ben there is some validity in some things you say. I am moving over to johnlord’s article Murdoch vs Science if you would care to continue the discussion as I feel it a more appropriate thread for others to join in. Anyone else care to join me?
Ben, if you took the time to read what i said, you would see there, that i acknowledge the cost of setting up renewals.
I pointed out, this is the reason that coal and other fossil fuel power houses have to be made more expensive.
You will also find, once in place, they are cheaper to run. Maintenance will be cheaper as well. Even coal power
Yes, we did lead the world once in solar power. Not Labor’s fault, that many here gave up, and moved off shore to China.
Regardless of that, the cost has rapidly decreased in the last few years. Will become even cheaper, as time goes on.
ME, the trouble for Ben, when talking about replaying fossil fuel with renewals, it is simple. Not the complicated problem that Ben is tempting to make out.
What is also true, those fossil fuel, will be left in the ground, as they will have no monetary value.
One cannot harness the sun, wind or rain, to sell, off to make money out of.
One has only to look at how the petrol industry has held us to ransom, for over a century. Something appealing in that electric or even better, solar car.
At the beginning of last century, petrol and electric cars where vying for top place. The petroleum industry ensure they won..
Wonder what we would have now, if they stayed with the electric car.
Maybe there would have been fewer wars, fewer economies bought to the brink of disaster.
Ben, there are not many places in Australia, that are suitable for Hydro power, One really needs a permanent snow line for that.
What I would like to know, how Abbott got away with his carbon tax scare in Tasmania, and the allegation it was leading to increase cost for business.
How many fossil power houses are there in Tassie. How much carbon emissions would have been produced, that incurred a cost,
No one ask Mr, Abbott that question.
No, I did not say, that renewals would not required maintenance. I sad the cost of maintenance would be much less.
Twisting what people say, does not fool anyone.
Whoops sorry Ben, that should have been reneweconomy.com.au… lots of info there…
You still need a base load supply to the grid never the less, in which I was replying to the statement of base load being ‘overrated’. I don’t think it is overrated. In todays age people demand more and more continual up time of power with less and less brown/black outs. Much like how people demand better phone coverage and greater speed, yet those same people jump up and down when proposal to add a phone tower is put forward. The only renewable technology that can do base load is hydro power, and the only non-renewable technology with virtually no emissions that can do that is nuclear power. You can have solar and wind power, but what happens at night time? It might be getting better, but it’s not that good at harnessing moon-light as power, electric vehicles still don’t have the range yet, and a solar powered mass produced car will never happen unless your talking mega expensive triple-junction solar panels like NASA use. Fuel cell vehicles are by far the most promising technology for the future. Production of 20KW/hour+ lithium ion cobalt oxide battery packs is expensive and dirty manufacture process. I am not making anything simple, I think that going greener in an effective way is a very complex and difficult challenge more than people here make it out to be. I am just saying it how it is and know my engineering here.
You know that wind farms even need to compete with greenies with the concern of birds flying into the turbines? Everything is not clear cut that you are all making it out to be.
Mr Abbott’s regressive views on women are well known, and for anyone who actually made the effort to become as informed as possible before placing their vote would have know this too.
Sadly I think things became such a farce over the last year or so, people were just looking for a change. Of course I haven’t done a survey, so couldn’t say for sure.
I personally have never, nor do I think I would ever vote for the Liberal Party, and that was long before Tony Abbott and his 3 and 4 word slogans came to leadership of the party (which I think was a miracle in itself)
Their policies have not been consistent with my own values and honestly, I don’t think they are going to produce the best results for the majority of the country.
Saying that, I’m not declaring it a total failure. It’s not looking good so far though.
I’m lost for words too.
There is a petition to let Abbott know what we think of his appointment.
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/prime-minister-tony-abbott-appoint-somebody-qualified-to-be-the-minister-for-women
At least my two daughters (25, 28 ) think Rabbott-the-Hun’s a talentless jerk!