Prev
Next

To be fair we need to stop people dumping on Australia

Sophie Mirabella

by Sophie Mirabella

22 Nov 05:30am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Economics, Free Trade, Labor Party, Liberal, Liberal Party, Trade

57 comments

President Barack Obama’s speech to the Australian Parliament, like those of his predecessors, was indeed an historic occasion.

The only place people should dump on Australia

Amidst the hype and ceremony, I can’t help but wonder if a couple of Labor Ministers didn’t squirm a little in their seats as the President reminded us: “We seek trade that is free and fair. And we seek an open international economic system, where rules are clear and every nation plays by them.”

In a reference to the G20 and the World Trade Organisation, which just days earlier had welcomed Russia to its ranks, the President stressed: “We need growth that is fair, where every nation plays by the rules – where workers’ rights are respected and our businesses can compete on a level playing field… so no nation has an unfair advantage.”

The President is right.

But it is exactly this premise that Labor Ministers Craig Emerson and Brendan O’Connor attacked when they came out with all guns blazing to criticise the Coalition’s policy to strengthen Australia’s anti-dumping regime.

This column doesn’t allow for a detailed explanation of all aspects of our policy, which Tony Abbott and I released earlier this month.  But you can check it out here.
 
The bottom line is that, after extensive consultation, it’s very clear that Australia’s current anti-dumping laws are too cumbersome, slow and expensive to be truly effective. 

Firstly, let’s make one thing clear – anti-dumping laws are not an anathema to free trade. 

The dumping of goods for less than they could be sold for in their country of origin is not “trade”.  It’s an attempt to exploit our commitment to free trade and it distorts our domestic market.

And while cheap goods for consumers may seem an attractive proposition on the face of it, in the long term the practice of dumping drives competition down and ultimately prices up. 

Just as effective regulation of the financial sector helps preserve the integrity, strength and long-term stability of the system, so too a decent anti-dumping regime is essential for the well being and long-term stability of our local industries – particularly the manufacturing sector.

There’s been a lot of speculation about the future of Australian manufacturing.  I believe our manufacturers have the ingenuity, determination and ability to succeed – we can absolutely be a nation that makes things to sell on both the domestic and international markets.

But our Government must ensure that foreign government subsidies and the illegal activities of overseas businesses do not undermine our local industries. And that’s where a strong anti-dumping regime comes in.

Not only did Emerson’s and O’Connor’s attacks on our policy show an incredible apathy towards the plight of businesses affected by dumping, it also showed a stunning ignorance of the WTO’s anti-dumping agreement (to which Australia is a signatory).

Without getting too technical – their main gripe was with the “Preliminary Affirmative Determinations” (PADs) at the heart of our policy, which allow for swift action and shift the onus of proof on the offending overseas business, rather than Australian industry.  Yet, these PADs are entirely constituent with Article 7 of the WTO agreement. 

In their shrill attack on our positive policy solution, this Government demonstrates a failure to comprehend their responsibility to help facilitate as fair and level playing field as possible.

Business groups and trade unions like the Australian Steel Institute, the Australian Food and Grocery Council, AUSVEG, Ausbuy, and the CFMEU have all now endorsed our tougher stance on anti-dumping. 

We can only hope that this, coupled with the views of the Leader of the Free World, may prompt Emerson and O’Connor to rethink their dismissive attitude. For the sake of local industry, this Government needs to introduce more effective anti-dumping measures – like the ones we’ve worked with industry to develop and outline in our policy.

Most commented

57 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:36am | 22/11/11

      Glad to see you actually doing something constructive to help our manufacturing sector, Sophie.  It makes a pleasant change from your usual poisonous negativity.

      ’ I believe our manufacturers have the ingenuity, determination and ability to succeed – we can absolutely be a nation that makes things to sell on both the domestic and international markets.’

      I’d make one comment - we were and now we are not !

      The free market was grabbed with both hands by the friends of the LNP at the top end of town,.  In the meantime we’ve lost virtually every hi-tech industry, including our defence manufacturing.  These have surreptitiously been allowed to fade away, and boh side of politics are to blame !  The free market was supposed to open up large markets to our manufacturers, now we have few manufacturers left.  It must have been obvious to all and sundry that the playing field was not level.  All we’ve heard from the right side of politics has been blaming the unions for refusing to allow their wages and conditions to be screwed down to the lowest common denominator, while the prices of goods and services and housing are maintained at high levels.

      Our importers have taken full advantage of our poor anti-dumping laws.
      BTW
      ‘Yet, these PADs are entirely constituent with Article 7 of the WTO agreement. ‘
      Did you mean CONSISTENT ? Do you really know what you are talking about , or have you still got your mind on the polls ?

      Reply

    • Angry God of Townsville says:

      09:11am | 22/11/11

      No, I believe she wrote what she meant. It is the correct use of the term within the framing of this discussion.

      Did you mean to attack Ms Mirrabella on this minor issue because you could not drag yourself to completely agree with her. Your bias has led to yet another failure.

    • paul says:

      02:41pm | 22/11/11

      More to point congratulations to you ACROTEL for actually reading the article. You normally see the name of the person (liberal) start writing, attack, find anyone who agrees with the writer then attack them.

      I mean ofcourse you still found a way to give a backhand as thats just the sort of person you are. Well done lad!

    • dale says:

      06:11am | 22/11/11

      Funny stuff, Libs are now against the free market and for protectionism while labour is for the free market and against protectionism…

      It seems to me that both sides are the same and want the same outcomes but have to put on a show for the public.

      Reply

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:54am | 22/11/11

      @Dale, absolutely agree.  It boggles the mind.

      All they want is power.  I blame Howard - his success and ability to govern has meant a complaceny in the rest of the parliament that is only now really coming to light.

      It’s kind of like how we have no realistic spin options (go Xavier) after the disappearance of Warnie from our international scene.  Everyone was so busy cheering him on they forgot to develop the next generation.

    • Angry God of Townsville says:

      09:15am | 22/11/11

      Admit that you did not read the article. She has stated that the Libs position was not against Free trade, just uncompetitive trade that is designed to weaken certain sectors of our economy. That this type of activity is recognised as being existent in to the extent that the WTO has a series of guidelines should be enough for you to understand it is not just a local issue.

      It boggles my mind that the ALP’s astroturfers are unable to comprehend the English language, even when it is put so clearly to them.

    • Comrade RyaN says:

      10:07am | 22/11/11

      @Comrade Dale & Comrade Mahhrat: may I suggest you actually read the article before making complete fools of yourselves comrades!

    • dale says:

      10:36am | 22/11/11

      “Libs position was not against Free trade, just uncompetitive trade that is designed to weaken certain sectors of our economy”

      So that would be all manufacturing would it not? Farming and agriculture? lets just widen it to all imports.

      I do not have a side in politics, i dislike both sides with a passion. I just find it funny that both parties keep the same names but have left far behind the key values that once divided the two.

      Look around the world, all politicians want the same thing. what is that you ask? to stay in power no matter the cost, man woman or child be dammed!

    • Mahhrat says:

      10:56am | 22/11/11

      @Angry God:  I did read it, and I understand it.

      She wants free trade except when it doens’t benefit her and her supporters.

      Two lines, one after the other, bear this out:

      “Firstly, let’s make one thing clear – anti-dumping laws are not an anathema to free trade.”

      Then:

      “The dumping of goods for less than they could be sold for in their country of origin is not “trade”.  It’s an attempt to exploit our commitment to free trade and it distorts our domestic market.”

      The two statements are logically inconsistent.  If you want a free market, then suppliers must be allowed to market their goods in a way that is profitable to them.  To restrict how one business markets their goods in preference of another is not “free”.  To do so based on their country of origin is xenophobic at worst, and is certainly against the principles of “free trade” that she apparently wants to champion.

      I actually agree with Sophie’s point - we should bar the dumping of goods on our shores - it’s bad for competition.

      But the “Free Market” doesn’t breed competition in the long term, it breeds massive corporations who own the market, either as a monopoly or duopoly.  I submit Coles and Woolworths for your consideration.

      Sophie’s individual point here is fine - and I support it.  But her philosophy of the “free market” as a platform for her to obtain power is undermined by the good point she makes in this article.

      It is, at its source, a demonstration of the hypocrisy of all politicians - they are not interest in “free trade”, “climate change” or “social conscious”:  they are interested only in personal power.

    • acotrel says:

      11:26am | 22/11/11

      @Anger God

      ’ She has stated that the Libs position was not against Free trade, just uncompetitive trade that is designed to weaken certain sectors of our economy.’

      That’s how I read it too, and it’s an admirable stance.  I disagree with Sophie’s attack on the government because of her perception that they are failing to act efficiently in this area.  I’d rather have seen her call for bipartisanship on this issue.  We will get nowhere with LNP constant adversarialism, in the vain hope that Labor might drop the ball, and trip over. It just gets so bloody tiresome !

    • acotrel says:

      11:26am | 22/11/11

      @Anger God

      ’ She has stated that the Libs position was not against Free trade, just uncompetitive trade that is designed to weaken certain sectors of our economy.’

      That’s how I read it too, and it’s an admirable stance.  I disagree with Sophie’s attack on the government because of her perception that they are failing to act efficiently in this area.  I’d rather have seen her call for bipartisanship on this issue.  We will get nowhere with LNP constant adversarialism, in the vain hope that Labor might drop the ball, and trip over. It just gets so bloody tiresome !

    • TC says:

      03:45pm | 22/11/11

      No Dale. The Liberals are for free trade as long as its fair. Just because you are pro-capitalism doesn’t mean you believe there should be no regulation of industry. Dumping distorts free markets and is a tactic used by countries to destroy local industries. This is aparently just fine and dandy, according to the ALP.

    • TC says:

      03:45pm | 22/11/11

      No Dale. The Liberals are for free trade as long as its fair. Just because you are pro-capitalism doesn’t mean you believe there should be no regulation of industry. Dumping distorts free markets and is a tactic used by countries to destroy local industries. This is aparently just fine and dandy, according to the ALP.

    • frankr says:

      03:49pm | 22/11/11

      To the best of my knowledge, “dumping” occurs when a country produces too much of an item, that they cant get rid of and then export these items to an overseas country and sell them (dump them) for less than the actual cost of manufacture. there have been anti dumping laws in australia and around the world for decades.
      I’m afraid you looney lefties are frothing at the mouth again without knowing what you’re frothing about

    • Kipling says:

      06:41am | 23/11/11

      @Mahhrat, great post, could not agree more with what you wrote here.

      It also struck me as fairly funny that, in some way, Ms Mirabella is asking for some bipartisan support in a modern political landscape of opposing for the sake of opposing in the ongoing quest to gain power….

      Nothing in it for free trade, industry and most importantly, the average person on the street….

    • Fiddler says:

      06:15am | 22/11/11

      Can we also allow parallel importing?
      Cars cost two to three times what they do in America over here, and twice what they do in the UK and Japan (if anyone wants to pull out the RHD argument)

      I know that we have higher pay rates and a smaller market, but on the main it is just plain old price gouging and it certainly doesn’t only apply to cars.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      07:47am | 22/11/11

      Books, cameras, TVs, computer software…...

    • ShamWow says:

      11:25am | 22/11/11

      Parallel importing is filthy business, it’s just exporting our wealth overseas over time. Buying from Australian business’ fuels our economy and keeps people like you in work, we are all running in a race to the bottom and there is no prize when we get there.

    • Fiddler says:

      01:02pm | 22/11/11

      no it isn’t. When two cars coming from the same factory that costs the manufacturer the same amount of money cost drastically different, that is a filthy business. Why do holdens built in Australia cost more here than they do in the US?
      Ditto books, dvd’s. Try downloading software, Australia has been blocked by a number of countries so we have to pay the higher price.

    • ShamWow says:

      02:14pm | 22/11/11

      Because companies in the US don’t have to pay Australian wages, rents and taxes. The Aussie dollar is also artificially high which is making the issue more apparent. Parallel importing is filthy, you are inadvertently robbing the Australian people to save a dollar.

    • Fiddler says:

      05:23pm | 22/11/11

      no, middlemen who are protected by monopolies are making a mint out of us. Why do you think the falcon/commodore are the most popular cars on the market? Because far better cars (bmws etc) which should cost no more get their prices jacked up by greedy importers.

      We get ripped off, that’s all there is to it.

    • Dave says:

      06:31am | 22/11/11

      May I ask what examples people have of the apparent ruinous effect of this?

      This idea sounds to me like the same foot stamping and outrage behind the “milk price war” by Coles and Woolworths—in that case, that no one can really identify bad consequences, but have shared many theoretical examples of what “might” happen, and the sinister implications it will have.

      How exactly do you assess if someone is “dumping” or selling goods for “less than they could be sold for in their country of origin” when there are differences in supply and demand, regulatory requirements, compliance, etc. between different countries?

      Reply

    • ibast says:

      07:35am | 22/11/11

      People that advocate protectionism fail to comprehend that with it comes an increase in price of all goods, a decrease in quality of local goods and Australian manufacturing becomes less competitive on the international stage.

      On the flip side however is the oligopoly that drives towards an unspoken collusion, the example of which is the current petrol situation or the banks.

    • Nathan says:

      08:22am | 22/11/11

      I can give you a great example of Dumping on Senegal, its seems that developing nations are the victims of this the most.

      In Senegal their diet is very heavily tomato based. The US dumped excess tomato’s on Senegal at a reduced price, cheaper than local farmers could compete with. It drove them out of the business. The next year tomato’s showed on their shores but no longer at cheap prices. 

      When countries dump they generally price it lower than the country they are exporting to.

      The western world tells developing nations they have to open their economies up if they want funding from the world bank, imf etc this is what they get when they do it.

    • Kipling says:

      06:50am | 23/11/11

      The dollar milk campaign is obnoxiously transparent and obvious.

      Once the market is effectively cornered, as much as is possible, then Coles and Woolworths will cease their so called war and begin to drive prices back up again. Jesus, how hard is that to work out?

      It is very similar to the tactic originally used by these “supermarkets” when contracting farmers. They offered very high prices for reasonably long contracts. Once the contrac term was completed, the farmers alternative markets had dried up, the corporations then tell the hapless famer what price they will give from that day forth.

      This stuff is just the basics of running a corporation. It values neither the worker, the host country, its citizens, infrastructure or Government. The bottom line is the only consideration and when that falls off they will simply pack up and move on….

      As to dumping, it has already been pointed out, both by posters and in the original article, there have been laws in existence for sometime, as such, it would seem evident that there are checks and balances in place to ascertain when dumping is occuring.

    • JamesJ says:

      12:31pm | 27/03/12

      Look at most African countries, which fifty years ago would have had effective if not thriving agriculture. Most of them now have essentially nothing. And it’s mainly due to price dumping. When food from Western countries is sold for a pittance in African countries (or even given away), there are three outcomes:
      1. Poor and starving people will voluntarily pay more money for a commodity grown in their home country over an identical commodity grown overseas;
      2. Poor and starving farmers will voluntarily sell their product at a loss so that they can provide food to the people who are putting them out of business in the future; or
      3. They will not grow food, they will grow something they can sell, or abandon their farms altogether.
      And yes, eventually the industries will recuperate, but the fact a broken arm will mend is not permission for me to attack people walking down the street.
      You can point to situations like Zimbabwe where a majority of the farmers were killed or run off of their land because they were white, governments and war certainly can cripple industries. But most countries had food dumped on them. You can argue that we couldn’t have let them starve, but we let the famine in Africa happen last year (probably because we couldn’t solve it by killing someone evil like Kony), and we let famines occur regularly. If we are to dump food on them, we have to do it consistently, or else we are taking on a responsibility and then neglecting it.
      Humans do not have to obey the laws of nature, quite obvious as you read this from your monitor. We can harness the laws of nature, such as free market forces, but we are not forced to endure all the negatives associated with them. That is why we have anti-trust (anti monopoly) laws, and that is why we have anti-dumping laws, and that is why we have a multitude of other specific regulations. Viewing life as a dichotomy, of which one side must be irrevocably chosen is an assumption, and thus prone to incorrectness. ie: you can’t dismiss regulation as a tool simply because you use free markets as a tool.

    • old fart says:

      07:25am | 22/11/11

      for a moment, reading the title I thought that Sophie was acknowledging that the howard govt and the tony shambles had done nothing to stem the flow of visa overstayers, but no, she actually released a policy statement, dont believe that labor would have attacked, they would have been to gobsmacked by the flash of positivity from you lot

      Reply

    • Fiddler says:

      07:35am | 22/11/11

      what do you propose that we do to track them down? Immigration/AFP do checks on places where they believe overstayers/illegals are working. Are you recommending checkpoints and everyone needs to have suitable identification? That’d be an efficient way to track down the 60,000 in a country of 22 million

    • old fart says:

      08:36am | 22/11/11

      trhwe same as jurisdictions all over europe do, if they stay in a hotel there is a requirement for hotels to forward their details to police, if they stay longer than a week they need to report to police and provide evidence that they are self sufficient and place of residence.  In the case of work simple, no evidence of work visa, residency or citizenship? No work. and make it very unnattractive for employers to use them.  It’s better then saying it’s all to hard, wring our hands and look the other way

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      08:57am | 22/11/11

      They do that in Alabama and wanting to do it in Arizona, so already happening.

      I think Immgration/AFP do spot checks on building sites and fruit picking farms etc to catch them out.

    • Frank says:

      07:29am | 22/11/11

      umm Sophia the Cold War is over get over it, either join the roadshow or die writhing on the roadside

      Reply

    • Omac says:

      07:48am | 22/11/11

      Someone clear something up for me… the liberal party position is now *for* trade protectionism??

      A local Qantas mechanic can lose his job if a spanner jockey in thailand will work for a bowl of rice a day (and the local has to suck it up, no jobs for life, no guarantees, global economy etc etc)...
      ...but if a local business owner faces reduced profits/increased competition because an offshore business wants to undercut them on product prices - then we need new laws to stop it?

      I think this is momentous - it proves there is a wormhole through which we’ve all just travelled into a parrallell bizarro world - and have experienced no noticeable side effects! (Save confusion).
      Physicists of the world rejoice! Dimensional travel is proven.

      Reply

    • Mattb says:

      08:43am | 22/11/11

      I’ll clear that up for ya Omac. The party that you see in opposition currently isn’t the liberal party, it’s a mix of untalented leftovers from the Howard years and far right extremists. The party should, from now on, be referred to as the ‘populist party’, every position it takes depends on the crowd that it’s standing infront of at the time. This is how they structure it-

      Infront of an audience of manufacturing workers?- well lets talk trade protectionism.

      Infront of an audience of climate change believers?- well lets talk about action on climate change

      Infront of an audience of climate change deniers?- climate change is crap, BAD TAX, communism, democracy dead, umm but, let’s wait and see what the Chinese do, we shouldn’t do anything till they do!

      Infront of a big business luncheon?- the unions and fair work aust are bad

      Infront of your average worker?- workchoices is dead, buried and cremated, yeah, that’s right, buried THEN cremated!

      I’m sure there’s plenty of other examples, feel free to add to these. You starting to see a pattern emerging Omac?....

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      08:58am | 22/11/11

      Pretty much sums it up, unfortunately thats where politics in general is heading

    • PsychoHyena says:

      10:02am | 22/11/11

      Omac, I actually managed to work out how all this fits with Liberal Party policy. So the idea is to remove the competition, this is very similar to what is currently happening where say in media you have it dominated by News Ltd and PBL/ACP.

      Given that the Coalition is against the Occupy movement (and yes while the people involved in it are coming across as idiots the message behind it is sound) this fits in perfectly. If you can’t buy out the competition, legislate against it.

    • ibast says:

      12:27pm | 22/11/11

      That’s the Populist Peoples Party (formally known as the used car salesman and religious nutters party), to you.

      Sometimes also referred to as the No-mans party.

      Australia is heading to a coup faster than we realise

    • Jay Smith says:

      08:26am | 22/11/11

      “And while cheap goods for consumers may seem an attractive proposition on the face of it, in the long term the practice of dumping drives competition down and ultimately prices up.”

      Thanks Sophie! Now when you come up with a policy that applies the same principle to Coles and Woolies, I’ll believe you.  An entire class of people have disappeared from Australia thanks to market dumping by these two.  In today’s world, John Howard’s parents would have been someone’s employee, not the independant shopkeepers with the values that shaped him.  LNP’s support for big business has ultimately destroyed the independant Aussie, and almose erased an entire class from society.

      Reply

    • MarkS says:

      08:42am | 22/11/11

      Dumping is rubbish. If somebody wishes to sell you something cheap, smile & buy. There are many good economic reasons why it may be cheaper to sell overseas then inside your own country.

      For example, the farmers may produce a lot more produce then is required in their country. The sale of farm products in their country is dominated by a couple of major wholesalers & retailers. They buy the farm produce for damn all & sell it to their captive internal market at high prices. The excess they sell overseas for whatever they can get.

      The same sort of thing happens with TV shows. The Yanks produce lots for their market, inside the USA they sell at high prices. But then they sell them for bargain basement prices to Australia, simply because once they have made their money in their main US market, everything else is gravy.

      This idea that some Machiavellian plot is behind it to destroy Australian business is like most conspiracy theories bullshit. 

      Sophie is great, whatever she thinks just oppose it & you cannot go far wrong. Particularly when she & Bob Brown agree, then by opposing them you know you are on the side of sense & reason.

      Reply

    • TC says:

      03:50pm | 22/11/11

      Dumping is a well-known tactic utilised by global companies to destroy local industries. Business is conspiracy - how to get people to buy your products and not your competitors. Its so sweet how you Lefties hate companies like Qantas but think overseas companies are just sweetness and light. Ahhhh you funny Laborites. Suddenly supporting free trade without fairness just because your side of politics has been wedged on the issue.

    • nossy says:

      08:56am | 22/11/11

      Wont be long now Sophie before you and Malcolm battle it out for the Liberal Party leadership as Tones again slips way behind Gillard as Preferred PM in the latest Newspoll. Tones had his 15 minutes of sunshine but now grey skys are overhead again for him. Now what sort of decor do you want in the Lodge in 2019 Sophie?

      Reply

    • Blazes says:

      09:45am | 22/11/11

      With a 2 party-preferred of 57-43 to the Coalition? What an utterly ridiculous statement. Just silly. How were the coalition doing when Turnbull was leader again? Oh that’s right, same numbers but the other way round!

    • RyaN says:

      11:34am | 22/11/11

      @nossy: Still trolling, I heard this on the news this morning and the first thing that jumped to mind was that you will be on here trolling without a doubt.
      I guess we’ll have to wait for the day we actually vote for the PM rather than the party hey wink

    • nossy says:

      12:19pm | 22/11/11

      @Comrade Ryan - still up to your old Right wing tricks huh fella - but you know what nossy has noticed as have many others as Abbott star starts to set many of the old Right wing bloggers have dissappeared!  hahahahah only a few old hacks like yourself left Comrade Ryan!  Ohhh how sweet it is!

    • TC says:

      03:53pm | 22/11/11

      Nossy, you lot are seriously delusional. No-one votes for a party based on who is preferred PM. It is primary vote, actual voting intention in the House of Reps that matters. Besides, the incumbent is usually always preferred, better the devil you know and all that…

    • nossy says:

      05:14pm | 22/11/11

      @TC rubbish TC- the PM of the day is always most important - Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, John Howard - very popular PM’s in their own right and all 3 carried their respective parties to victory - Abbott a huge DUD fella and verified today by Newspoll showing him AGAIN trailing Gillard as PPM!

    • RyaN says:

      11:48am | 22/11/11

      “where workers’ rights are respected and our businesses can compete on a level playing field… so no nation has an unfair advantage.” 

      Yeah but we already have the carbon tax and clearly this means that our businesses don’t compete on a level playing field and all those nations that don’t have a carbon tax.

      Reply

    • PTom says:

      04:48pm | 22/11/11

      So why are you also not talking about the FTA with USA?

    • Farkin says:

      11:52am | 22/11/11

      the President reminded us: “We seek trade that is free and fair. And we seek an open international economic system, where rules are clear and every nation plays by them.” as long as the u.s.a don’t have to stick to it , Australia offered them free trade did they want it ? no . even when free trade was in place . its nothing for them to put on a tariff or 3

      Reply

    • nossy says:

      12:25pm | 22/11/11

      A chain is only a strong as its weakest link Sophie and so it is with the Liberal Party - we dont have o look far to find its weakest link - Tony Abbott come on down!  hahah PM Gillard has now easily overtaken the wonder boy of the Liberal Party as preffered PM made more shameful for Abbott by the fact he should be at this point be the Libs guiding light - but he isnt is he - Ohh how Malcolm Turnbull must be smiling - of the Liberal leadership hes saying “come to pappa. come to pappa!”  Ohhh how sweet it is!

      Reply

    • ShamWow says:

      02:42pm | 22/11/11

      Australia needs a Lang Law.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      03:21pm | 22/11/11

      Protect what market?? The Libs have enabled their corporate buddies to rape every industry we’ve had in the interest of ‘short term goals’ so they can get their yearly bonus cheque. The only thing left is the golden parachutes when there is nothing left to sell off or offshore to third world workers.

      Level palying field?? You might want to get your spirit level checked Soph….your’s is out a bit….

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      03:39pm | 22/11/11

      So Julia is ahead in the popularity stakes when compared with Tony Abbott! Big deal & hardly unexpected!
      We had just been treated to the Soapie to beat all Soapies.
      The macho, charismatic, sexy, attractive male lead, Barack Obama.
      The simpering female lead whocould not take her eyes or hands off him. The kissing, the cuddling, the adoring looks, the permanently half-open lips glistening in lip-gloss. She was almost panting in desire, adoration & veneration.
      But… let’s get things into perspective shall we?
      Julia whilst addressing the object of her desire told him a serious Porky Pie!
      She referred to the 60th Anniversary of the Signing of the ANZUS Treaty (September 1951)
      Julia claimed that, despite him having died on 5th July 1945, it was ALP Prime Minister John Curtin’s Treaty.
      No, it was not. In 1951, 6 years after Curtin’s death, when Robert Gordon Menzies was Prime Minister, that the ANZUS Treaty came into being. It was signed on Australia’s behalf by Percy Spender.
      The ALP had nothing to do with the ANZUS Treaty except, probably reluctantly whilst it was courting the Communists of Stalinist USSR, gave ther support to it.
      Julia can re-write her own personal history as much as she likes, she can embellish it & adorn it with imagined achievements till the cows come home. It won’t matter because no-one will read her memoirs, Biography or Autobiography & will only ever buy it when it appears on the $2 Clearance table at your local newsagent!
      But Julia has no right to re-write our History to suit her political ends. She has no right to lie about our History in order to impress a visiting US President to make the ALP & herslef look like the Great Achievers of History.
      Julia owes us all an apology for telling this latest lie.

      Reply

    • Stockinbingal dingo says:

      02:05pm | 23/11/11

      Lets not get too excited, the only poll that matters will be in 2 years. Who knows what will happen if the European economy collapses, but getting back to Ms Mirabella’s comments, good economies change with the times, we need to change, who wants to fund my plans for luxury leather goods for sale to the new rich in China?

      Reply

    • Travis says:

      09:34am | 22/02/12

      One wonders what you were doing in the 12 years you were in Government Ms Mirabella. How wonderful tarrif reductions have been for our car industry too. If the free market is so fabulous why is it that a completely “free” market does not operate anywhere in the world?

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter