Based on Abbott’s speech I gather the next Coalition government will focus on building trust with the public, going back to basics, while planning for the future via tax reform. This makes sense given the black of hole of trust that currently exists between Parliament and the public. Abbott therefore will not be able to successfully implement radical conservative change without having the public trust that Howard enjoyed.

I’m attracted by devolving power back to the states  and Abbott’s principles based statements on individuals creating wealth not government and taxes not being the government’s money. While Abbott announced more spending cuts tonight, I gather more will be on the way thanks to the impending commission of audit.

It does seem that Abbott wants to replicate Howard’s approach when he was elected: steady the ship in the first term and then at the second term embark on significant reform. We will wait and see.

UPDATE

The health war is being won, but I don’t understand why people should have to pay for their health insurance using after tax income.

Almost 47 per cent of Australians now have private hospital cover, according to Private Health Insurance Administration Council figures released on Thursday. The last time a higher proportion of Australian had private cover was June 1988.

UPDATE

Meanwhile, NSW ALP is ripping itself apart

CRAIG Thomson has landed NSW ALP secretary Sam Dastyari in a bind, with the Coalition requesting an investigation into an alleged offer allowing the MP to exit parliament with his $95,000 entitlement, but without running against his old party.

Gillard of course claims she knows nothing. Is NSW ALP basically a criminal organisation?

Joe Hockey is giving Alan Jones a ‘yeah, but no yeah’ routine on ‘renewable energy’ subsidies, and defending socialised healthcare. Typical. Jones also gave a ringing endorsement to UKIP.

An Essential Vision report poll on Abbott’s socialist paid parental leave scheme found that most Coalition voters do not support Abbott’s scheme (36%) or any other scheme (38%).

If you have any doubts about Tony Abbott’s lack of fiscal discipline, then behold Joe Hockey. It seems fairly apparent that H0ckey and I assume Andrew Robb as well, are in disagreement with Abbott over a range of fiscal issues, including the NDIS.

If you want an example of what a Labo(u)r Lite character Tony Abbott has become, listen to his interview with Alan Jones’ this morning: Medicare (tick), renewable energy (tick), etc….

I’m hoping we will see some type of transformation post-election, otherwise we will end up with another Barry O’Fail cartoon character.

…or may be I’ve missed something….

A quick reality check regarding current Commonwealth and State disability support, care of the taxpayer:

So some quick math: $29.6 billion divided by 400,000 severely disabled clients = $74,000 per person per year. Do we really need to force tax payers to come up with another $3.2 billion  for Gillard’s new disability scheme, via a rise in the medicare levy, with total costs rising to $8 $15 $22 billion a year and likely growing at 5 7 per cent a year ad infinitum?

Seems on the face of it that there is already a huge amount of resources being devoted to disability care. So there should be sufficient scope to better utilise current resources, thereby avoiding the lazy option of a new tax.

Sounds unsafe

SECRECY surrounds three asylum seekers illegal immigrants who recently arrived in Australia after being separately accused of terrorism, murder and drug trafficking.

Fixed.

UPDATE

Article 1
definition of the term “refugee”

F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with
respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against
humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to
make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of
refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;
(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the
United Nations.

Further,

Article 31
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their
illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or
are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present
themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their
illegal entry or presence.