Send Tony Abbott there instead

Of course, you can blame Kevin Rudd for the idea of shoving off genuine refugees to New Guinea.

But go back a step earlier, and even worse for its appalling hypocrisy is the Coalition for opposing sending boat arrivals to Malaysia (even when the deal proposed involved them having the right to work and would have UNHRC supervision to ensure they were not abused) but now happily sending them to Cambodia. 

Virak Ou, chairman of the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights, accused Australia of irresponsibly exporting its own problem.

“We mistreated our own people and have failed to protect the human rights of our own people … we don’t have the capacity or the will,” he said.

“There’s no reason for Australia to believe that Cambodia will protect the rights of refugees, which to me is very irresponsible of Australia.”

Cambodia’s opposition leader Sam Rainsy described the deal as a “disgrace,” saying Australian money will be diverted into the pockets of Cambodia’s corrupt leaders.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has condemned the agreement, saying Cambodia is a vulnerable nation still recovering for years of civil war and is still unable to provide for its own people.

However, the UN’s Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Flavia Pansieri said the UN would be willing to provide “support to ensure that standards are met.”

The UNHCR has only a two-person office in Phnom Penh.

Of 68 asylum seekers or refugees already living in Cambodia most are desperate to be relocated to another country, welfare groups say.

Tony Abbott simply played politics on refugees at their expense, escalating matters to a much worse position for them.  What's more, he is playing politics by not disclosing what is happening on the high seas so that the public is left in the dark as to whether his government is acting like a pirate or not.  

It is truly remarkable how, so early in a Prime Ministership, he has painted himself into a position where he has no chance of redeeming himself as a moral or popular Prime Minister.

Cynical political exercises resulting in nothing

Royal Commission fails to deliver Coalition the expected political advantage

Exactly.  As it says in the article:

''This was supposed to distract from what they were doing in budget
week,'' a senior Labor source said. ''There was a clear political ploy
to drag this stuff out to remind people how much they disliked the last
government but people seem to have moved on. People are more interested
in what this government is doing.''

Coverage of Mr Rudd's and Mr Combet's appearances, as well as
former Labor ministers Peter Garrett and Mark Arbib, was swamped by
reaction to the first Coalition budget and its lead up.

Watchers at the inquiry, headed by Ian Hanger, QC, said it
had unearthed no ''smoking gun'' despite speculation before the
hearings that a trail of warnings over the lethal scheme could lead
right to the top of the Rudd government.

This enquiry, together with the union royal commission giving creep Blewitt a venue to mutter about Gillard, have been examples of very nasty political fixes attempted by a petty and pretty much morally bankrupt government.   (See next post.)

Tony talks to Insiders this year...

Tony talks to Insiders last year

I was Googling to find a photo of Abbott on Insiders yesterday, and turned up the transcript from his pre election interview with Barrie Cassidy last year.  Some notable extracts (my bold):

BARRIE CASSIDY: Let's talk about some of the policies. We will start with the cuts to come. How severe will they be?

TONY ABBOTT: There will be no surprises and no excuses from a Coalition government Barrie. We've already put out a lot of the savings that we think are necessary. Joe Hockey outlined $31 billion worth of savings this week. There will be some additional savings to be announced later this week…

BARRIE CASSIDY: That is what I as asking about. How severe will they be?

TONY ABBOTT: Nothing like Labor's scare campaign. All eminently defensible because, let's face it Barrie, our first priority here is to build a stronger economy. And that means reinvesting taxpayers' dollars in things that will actually strengthen our economy rather than just build bureaucracies.

BARRIE CASSIDY: But you now know the size of these cuts, how significant, how big?

TONY ABBOTT: Look, there will be some further, relatively modest savings announced later in the week. But I don't think anyone is going to think at the end of this week 'my God there is this massive fiscal squeeze coming.' If anything, what they will think is that there has been a massive scare campaign, a massive campaign of exaggerations and even lies from the Labor Party.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Well put it this way, will the cuts impact on ordinary Australians?

TONY ABBOTT: Inevitably there will be some changes that people won't like, for instance the …

BARRIE CASSIDY: Ordinary Australians will feel it?

TONY ABBOTT: Ending the so-called School Kids Bonus.

BARRIE CASSIDY: We know about that one.

TONY ABBOTT: I don't believe the additional savings to be announced later in this week, will impact on ordinary Australians. And I want to give people this absolute assurance, no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions, and no changes to the GST (Goods and Services Tax).

OK, so no surprises, other than an abrupt plan to deregulate university fees and make many of them much more expensive, require repayments of HECS faster, introduce co-payment for Medicare, increase the cost of medicines, lengthen age pension eligibility by 3 years, treat anyone under 30 punitively if they can't get a job, cut funding to the States on health both immediately and in the future, etcetera, etcetera...

Tony Abbott doesn't even remember his own political history correctly

I must admit, I didn't mentally question this when I heard Abbott claim it in trying to explain off the post budget polling drop.  Lucky someone did:

John Howard 'took a big hit in the polls too' after first budget? Er, no Mr Abbott: The first post-budget Newspoll in 1996 showed a three percentage point increase in the Coalition's primary vote, to 50; a lift in Howard's approval rating, from 47 to 51; and an increase in his lead over Kim Beazley as preferred prime minister to a score of 53 per cent against Beazley's 24.

How embarrassing for our PM.

What a dilema for anti-Labor

I can't be the only person who's enjoying the obvious schizophrenia (in the common, useful, albeit mistaken sense of the word) that is happening to Andrew Bolt and the other anti-Labor columnists re the Abbott government.

One minute, he is taking the small government, anti tax, IPA line that the budget is a problem because it doesn't really cut spending at all;  next he's going with the line that "the Liberal's cure hurts" but is warranted.

Can someone give him a nudge and tell him that these aren't exactly consistent positions?  Or does he take the line that cutting down on welfare benefits is always warranted, regardless of it not having an effect on the budget bottom line? 

The funniest thing of all, though, was in Annabel Crabb's column on the obvious casting about for something positive to say that about a budget that's gone over about as well as the plague.   She noted this about Alan Jones:

Increased petrol taxes? And no tub-thumpers angry? Surely Alan Jones would stay strong. If Julia Gillard had hiked fuel excise, Alan Jones would instantly have recommended firing her into space, and hang the expense.

But on budget morning, when the Prime Minister reported for his Jonesian rub-down, he received nothing but approval for pricier fuel.

''There are legitimate reasons around the world for this,'' avowed Jones sternly. ''One is to stop the guzzling of a scarce resource.''

Hilarious.

More science - consider the Muon

My favourite particle: the muon | Mark Lancaster | Science | theguardian.com

 Most cloud chamber trails are caused by muons, a particle about which I had stored next to nothing in the cranial memory banks.

The article linked above is a really good summary of the history of their discovery, along with some background as to what they are.  Well worth reading.  A sample:

There are several hundred muons going through your head every second
minute. Fortunately, their low energies (and high mass) mean they are
harmless. These muons originate from the collisions of cosmic-rays
(primarily protons spewed out by stars) with the atoms in our upper
atmosphere. After their discovery it was observed that the number of
these muons decreased as you got closer to the earth and the natural
(and correct) conclusion was that they were not stable particles like
the electron but a bit fly-by-night (and day), and they decayed to other
more familiar particles (electrons and neutrinos) in about 2 millionths
of a second. At this point it was known what the mass of the electron
was and neutrinos were assumed massless, so by looking at the trajectory
and energy of the electron from the muon decay (or measuring the time
it took for the muon to decay) it became clear the the muon was a bit of
a porker. It weighed in at about 200 times the mass of the electron.

If you want maths with that, you can have a look at this article, which works through the question of why we see so many on Earth's surface if they decay so fast.  The answer is relativity:

The measurement of the flux of muons at the Earth's surface produced an early dilemma because many more are detected than would be expected, based on their short half-life of 1.56 microseconds. This is a good example of the application of relativistic time dilation to explain the increased particle range for high-speed particles.

Fascinating, hey?

Budget chickens home to roost

Some of the more interesting points from recent budget stories:

*  Lenore Taylor makes it clear that Tony Abbott does not understand his own budget.  Peta Credlin's crib sheet must have been a bit too simplified for its own good.

*  Pollbludger does a good summary of the dire polling for Abbott today in Newspoll and Nielsen.  I was particularly interested to note this (from Nielsen):

The deficit levy finds support, with 50% in favour and 37% against, but there’s a surprisingly narrow majority of 49% to 46% in favour of abolishing the carbon tax. The poll finds predictably strong opposition to the notion of increasing the GST, with 30% for and 66% against.

I think this indicates that it's plausible for Labor to argue that it is better to keep its carbon pricing scheme than to kick lower income people in the shins.  They should push this line hard.

As for the "deficit levy":   I think it would be more popular if it kicked in at a lower level.

*  Andrew Bolt has been frequently criticising the media for its "spiteful" attacks on Joe Hockey (he smokes cigars; his wife wears expenses dresses) but I do believe he was unable to bring himself to criticise Sinclair Davidson for running a "smoking Joe" banner at Catallaxy for a few days.   The handholding power of the IPA has created a strong bond, obviously.

*  Tony Windsor tweeted yesterday:

If you watched #insiders today you would have received a sense of why it would have been difficult to choose him as PM in Hung Parliament

Yes, hard to argue that Windsor's sense of not being able to trust Abbott is vindicated.

* There has been little attention given to this appalling example of twisted priorities - a Human Rights Commissioner is to be dropped, following the appointment of a new one (the "photograph me, please!" boy, Tim Wilson) as some sort of sop to the Andrew Bolt Right wing fanclub.  The problem is, the next Commissioner due to expire is the one for Disability, meaning that this role will be shared by someone else there.

Adam Creighton, the small government, anti tax favoured journalist of the Australian, got hit about the head something severe when trying to argue this was "no big deal" on The Drum last week.  Here it is, from the 15 minute mark. 

*  Speaking of Creighton, he's an utter lightweight, ideologically driven twit, as far as I'm concerned.  Here's how he ended his first column on the budget last week:

The Coalition’s budgets will only prove profound to the extent they kindle a conversation about the dysfunctional federation that leads to serious reform. It is, as Tony Abbott has written, the biggest problem facing Australia, not only because of the duplication in costs but the damage it does to political incentives.

The political benefit from spending more taxpayers’ money must be offset by the political pain of lifting taxes.

The states could, for instance, levy a uniform tax on land to raise whatever amount they wanted to spend on hospitals or schools. Of course, the more palatable option might be to run their own creaking, Soviet-style health and education systems more efficiently.

Yeah, Adam: it's like no one has been talking about maximising efficiencies in the State systems for the last 30 years, hey?  What evidence you got, mate, that the States are running "Soviet style"  health and education systems?  Idiot. 

Science Day Report

As I foreshadowed here late last week, I announced to the household on Friday night that I had declared that Saturday would be Science Day, and tried (with very limited success) to muster excitement about making a cloud chamber, crushing cans with air pressure, and (possibly) a secret evening fire act.  

So, how did it go?  Not too bad, really.  I can report as follows:

1.  Building a  mini cloud chamber:   I tried two containers, one an old round (and small) gold fish bowl, and the other a plastic container.  The design problem was how to seal the bottom.  I used plasticine like on one of the Youtube videos I had watched, but it doesn't seal so well when it is attached to a dry ice cooled metal plate.   It seemed that I could only get the right supersaturated (with isopropanol) layer to be just above the plate (perhaps less than a centimetre high) so that did limit the amount and length of trails you could see.  But yes! - we did watch vapour trails and I tried to explain about muons and cosmic rays and fusion in stars and stuff like that, to some glazed face reactions. I think I am going to have to make my own slideshow presentation about this and force them to watch it.  ("There will be a test afterwards", I like to keep threatening my kids after I try to explain something.  I actually did administer a written test once after the visit to the Macarthur Museum in Brisbane.)

I'm also happy to confirm that isopropanol is sold at Bunnings and costs about $8.  A kilo of dry ice was $10, and the plasticene $2.50. I think it is very cool that for $20 I was able to demonstrate at home  the invisible rain of muons and other particles.  The only trick is convincing children how impressive that is - a task that is beyond mere science!

I took a video of the second container, which did not work very well compared to the first, but you can see one little vapour trail.  Will post it tomorrow.

Update:



 2.  Crushing a beer can with air pressure.  There are many Youtube videos showing this,and it does work as advertised and makes a somewhat surprising crunch.  Everyone should try it.   We also did an olive oil can, but the seal wasn't perfect and while it did crush, it was less satisfying.

3.   Fun with CO2.  We had lots of dry ice left, and so did the usual bubbling water, but also put out flames by pouring it over the candle, etc.  But the trick that most impressed the household was floating soap bubbles on it. It does look odd:



4.  Firebreathing with cornflower.  Works well, and that was just using a couple of bar b que matches to light it.   I secretly showed one child, then the other, and then decided I would risk matrimonial disapproval and showed all three together.  She was OK with it, thankfully.

Here's the video, edited to remove me:

 

So, success all round, pretty much.  I'm available for parties for nerdy kids, you know. 

Gerard's "carbon pricing" jihad

The increasingly tedious Gerard Henderson has taken to task journalists who have written or said that Julia Gillard qualified her "no carbon tax" promise by saying she would put a price on carbon.  "Prove it!" he says, "she never did".

Curiously, there is a post by Brian on the old Larvatus Prodeo blog (which, in truth, was often nearly as boring and tedious to read as Henderson) which deals with this very same issue, and concludes that there are claims she specifically said she would "price carbon" on a Channel 7 video, but the station claimed copyright and the video is nowhere available.

Brian is somewhat skeptical of that, and concludes "we just don't know".

But read on.   In the comments to Brian's post, Jules usefully points out that the debate seems rather academic when you note that someone at The Australian thought that Gillard had not ruled out "pricing" carbon, because the election eve report on her interview with Paul Kelly  reads:

Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

This was their reading of her statement to Kelly:  "I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism. I rule out a carbon tax."

I wouldn't mind betting here that Gerard Henderson has not understood that an Emissions Trading Scheme is a way of pricing carbon.  

The Australian understood Gillard's promise to mean she could still legislate an ETS, and that this would involve a "carbon price".   Why has Gerard not got his y fronts in a tangle about how The Australian reported this?

As for Gillard's support for carbon pricing, from her first speech as PM in Parliament:

I believe human beings contribute to climate change and it is most disappointing to me, as it is to millions of Australians, that we do not have a price on carbon, and in the future we will need one. If elected as Prime Minister, I will re-prosecute the case for a carbon price at home and abroad.

Of course you can argue that she she broke a promise by introducing her scheme during her term of government before getting the silly "community consensus"; but it remains abundantly clear that she never ruled out "pricing carbon", and personally had always supported it.

She had much more consistency on this and other issues than the flaky professional windvane of a Prime Minister we presently have.

Australia Network stupidity

The Abbott government's decision to shut down the Australia Network is looking more and more like the triumph of petty, personal politics over good sense:

May should have been a milestone month for Australian international broadcasting, and arguably the most celebratory in the 13-year history of the Australia Network. ABC executives were due to sign a prized deal with the Shanghai Media Group, giving the ABC the most extensive access to Chinese audiences of any Western broadcaster, with a more expansive reach even than the BBC or CNN. 'Most importantly, the agreement will provide opportunities for promotion of Australian business, tourism, entertainment, culture and education', said Lynley Marshall, the chief executive of ABC International.

Instead, the DFAT-funded network is to be shut down. On the eve of its greatest triumph, the Australia Network has been told it can no longer compete.

In an ever more cutthroat field of international broadcasters that includes the BBC, CCTV, RT, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Iran's Press TV and al-Jazeera, the Australia Network had been making major strides. The Shanghai Media Group deal meant Australia was about to join the UK and US as the only countries with broadcasting rights in China.

Has anyone suggested this?

An article in the SMH argues that increasing the pension age to 70 is the fair thing to do, but gives short shrift to the question everyone asks - "what about manual workers who really can't be expected to cope with their line of work to that age?"  (The writer mentions that in Greece there used to be a large number of job categories allowing for very early retirement - down to 50!  But that approach seems bound to be open to all sorts of rorting.)

And I thought - isn't it possible to craft some sort of solution that involves an elective part pension (one half the normal rate, perhaps?) if you want to take it at 65, or perhaps 67 now that the decision to go to that age has already been made?   Maybe the argument against that is that it would encourage people to blow all their savings and superannuation early, and then maximise their government pension later.  But surely there would be some ways of giving incentives not to do that?  Maybe get a permanently lower pension if you take it earlier rather than later?   Get greater concessions in other ways if you hold off starting the pension until 70?  Maybe a free travel voucher for a $5000 holiday at 70 would be enough for some, and it could save the Commonwealth $60,000 between 67 and 70.  (Voucher only redeemable using Qantas would help that company too.)  Don't say I'm not giving this some deep and meaningful thought...

Yes, it may be extremely hard to live on half (or 3/4?) the current pension, but if it is limited to a few years before you go on the full rate, savings and family help (and a very short reverse mortgage?) may be able to help.

Someone's probably already thought about this, but if not, I claim credit.

Rundle on the budget

I quite like Guy Rundle's Crikey column on the Budget, although I think it goes off the rails on the Labor despair aspect at the end.  (He clearly wrote it before last night's Shorten speech, which I expect has left the party feeling the best about itself since about 2006.)   But from the first page, here's his key point, which I think even some of the Catallaxy group of economists might agree with:

For the weird thing about this budget is that it seems punitive to no great purpose. Howard and Costello did a lot of their cutting in the background — either programs which were amorphous but vital (such as R&D) or hidden from most but vital (such as indigenous health), while leaving the front end alone. This budget appears to go out of its way to hurt and affront people, without using the money to make any significant dent in the debt. Its significant frontline savings features seem designed to shape politically engaged sub-classes where none existed before.

Prime Minister Credlin has spoken

Don’t dismiss the double dissolution theatrics

According to Laura Tingle, Abbott's talk of double dissolution over the budget shouldn't be dismissed:

Coalition staffers may have been gobsmacked to hear Abbott’s chief of staff Peta Credlin declare that this was a budget she would take to an election. But this is really just the first shot across the bow of the Palmer juggernaut.

I plan on watching subatomic particles

Inspired by the segment in his show where Brian Cox made his own little cloud chamber out in the African bush,  I've checked out instructions on several web sites about how to make them, and want to make one this weekend.  I know where I can get dry ice not far from my home.  Not sure about the isopropanol of strong enough solution*, but I am inclined to try Isocol rubbing alcohol first even though it is only 64%.  (They recommend using 90% concentration if you can get it.)

I also have a large empty olive can which I want to use boil water, seal and pour cold water onto it.  (Actually, just doing it this way with an aluminium can looks pretty impressive too.)

For the evening, I might even try cornflower firebreathing.  

Yes, it is a weekend of science coming up.  It's a good thing I have children to do this with, otherwise my wife would think I am rather odd.  (Too late to worry about that, perhaps.)

* Update:  it looks like I can get a small bottle from Bunnings. 

A serious African problem

"Homophobia" gets thrown around as an accusation too lightly in the West, but when it comes to Africa, it seems to be increasingly becoming an entirely appropriate description for many of its governments and religious.

This article in Nature News  Homophobia and HIV research: Under siege paints a really bleak picture of what's going on, and not just in Uganda, which recently brought in severe punishments for homosexual activity.  For example:

On the morning of Saturday 12 April, ten police officers raided Maaygo, a men's health and HIV/AIDS advocacy organization in a residential area of Kisumu in western Kenya. Staff watched helplessly as the officers confiscated information leaflets and even the model penis used in condom demonstrations. The police arrested the organization's director and finance officer, as well as one of its members, for “illegally practising sexual orientation information”.

Another bad example:

Similar problems are plaguing research in Ethiopia, where same-sex encounters are punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Researchers are kept from studying MSM and HIV by the Ethiopian Public Health Institute, which must approve medical research in the country.

A programme run by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Ethiopian Public Health Association managed to pass the screening process in 2011 because it used terms such as 'most at-risk populations' rather than MSM or gay, says an Ethiopian advocate for gay and transgender health and human rights, who lives in exile in the United States and asked not to be named because of concerns about the safety of his family and friends. Once the government found out that the project would target MSM and related groups, the research was stopped, he says.

And how about this story from 2010 (even though the article says the situation in that town has improved a lot since then):

The trouble at Mtwapa centred on an HIV clinic run by the Kenyan Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), which conducted risk-group studies at the facility. On 12 February 2010, a mob of several hundred people charged the clinic, incited by two religious leaders — a Christian bishop and a Muslim imam.

The riot was based on misinformation. “It started with a rumour that two gay men were
getting married in the town,” says Eduard Sanders, an epidemiologist with the University of Oxford, UK, who has studied MSM in Mtwapa since 2005, and who witnessed the riot. “But when the mob couldn't find any hint of the wedding, it descended on the clinic because of its well-known research on MSM.”

Armed with sticks, stones and other weapons, the crowd surrounded the clinic,
demanding that the gay men come out. Police arrested people accused of being gay — possibly as a way of saving them from mob justice — and later released them. One KEMRI volunteer was severely beaten, according to the international group Human Rights Watch.

An article in The Guardian in January discussed Africa as being the most homophobic continent, which doesn't seem to be an exaggeration.  It opens with a quote from the Ugandan "ethics and integrity" minister.  He clearly would not appreciate that gay NFL player's kiss that was all over the internet this week:

Simon Lokodo cannot imagine kissing a man. "I think I shall die," he said last week.
"I would not exist. It is inhuman. I would be mad. Just imagine eating your faeces."

Chill, Simon.  Chill.  

Even South Africa, with strong legal recognition of homosexuality (same sex marriage has been in place since 2006), still seems to have a serious problem.  This study, which looked at "internalised homophobia" amongst men who had sex with men, notes at the end that such men are widely considered "un-African" and even amongst sexual health clinic workers are often considered to have caught HIV as God's punishment.

Although it seems there are plenty of left leaning gay rights advocates who blame this on colonialism and the imposition of Christian (or now, Muslim) mores on Africans who were formerly not so hung up about sex, I'm guessing that it would often have a cultural element too, quite independent of that.

In any event, it is obviously extreme, and to be regretted.

A strong budget reply

Bill Shorten and his enthusiastic cheer squad in the gallery certainly delivered impassioned and (pretty much) principled opposition to the Abbott budget.  Labor should be feeling justifiably heartened, and the government looked pained and uncomfortable.

I'm sure everyone with an interest in politics can't wait for some reliable polling to appear after this week.

Over him

It seems to me that trendoids have lost interest in Chris Lilley, as I haven't noticed much prominence being given to discussion of Jonah from Tonga on the usual suspects, like The Guardian. 

I've always been something of a Lilley skeptic - for every character that works there is one that doesn't, and his satirical targeting is often of very unclear purpose.   I see that News Corp is running a story about the Pacific Islander community backlash against the show.  I'm glad that's happening.  As far as I can tell, it's pretty insulting towards them.

Solar wind and lightning

High-speed solar winds increase lightning strikes on Earth

This interesting report begins:

Scientists have discovered new evidence to suggest that lightning on Earth is triggered
not only by cosmic rays from space, but also by energetic particles from the Sun.

Somewhat interesting to think that for religions which thought the Sun was a god, and lightning his or her vengeance, may have been a bit closer to the mark than previously expected. 

The unimpressive Hockey, and university policy from out of the blue

I'm starting to get the feeling that Joe Hockey has been rehearsing and retelling the line that the government hasn't broken promises that he's starting to believe it;  a sad example of the psychological trick of pretending a lie is the truth for long enough that you start to believe it.

He gave a woeful interview on the radio just now in which he tried to pretend the GP co-payment idea was an example of extra funding needed for health.  His problem is, of course, that it is destined for this medical research fund instead, so he had to pretend that it really does fund health because it may find a cure for cancer!

He also will not be honest and say flat out what everyone knows - he expects the States to ask for GST to be increased if they are to be the ones holding the can for long term hospital funding.

In other Budget commentary, I note that on The Drum last night, Judith Sloan made brief mention of the Budget being "really mean" towards "youth" - which is up to the age of 30.

This aspect of the Budget is (so far) attracting less attention than I expected.   I am rather surprised that Shorten and Labor have not yet come and condemned that change already as clearly too draconian and must be modified.

I was also listening to Christopher Pyne on the university deregulation idea.  He seems to think the youth will like it because they can go get a diploma easier which will then the basis for entry to an undergraduate course.  Just rather sounds like adding a rather unnecessary step if you ask me - at greater expense.

These changes seem to have come pretty much out of the blue, and have serious long term effects on students.   If he can come within 1 km of a university gate without risking getting egged, I'll be surprised.

I will also be very surprised if the youth vote does not collapse entirely for the Coalition.

Update:    thought I would see if I could quickly Google up the Coalition's election 2013 policies on tertiary education.  Here it is:

•We will ensure the continuation of the current arrangements of university funding.

•We will work with the sector to reduce the burden of red tape, regulation and reporting,freeing up the sector to concentrate on delivering results and services.

•We will review and restructure government research funding to make sure each dollar is spent as effectively as possible.

•We will ensure the sector has a stable, long-term source of infrastructure funding.

•We will work with the sector to grow higher education as an export industry and to support international students studying in Australia.

 Yep, nothing in there about doubling the cost of a university degree.  As one Professor from UQ says:

The 2014 budget is taking the higher education sector into uncharted territory. One imagines that a deregulated market for university fees cannot be good for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds but, as Bruce Chapman says, no-one really knows what the social effects of this will be. It is certainly true, however, that this will bring us much closer to a privatised higher education sector where those with the greatest ability to pay will receive the greatest benefit. It would be surprising if there was not a serious political objection to the implications of this initiative; there is every reason to see it as a measure which will increase inequities of opportunity.

Update:   Go back further to 2012, in an article in The Age, and you get Christopher Pyne claiming this:

Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne said reports the Coalition was considering raising fees were "wrong".
"While we welcome debate over the quality and standards in our universities, we have no plans to increase fees or cap places," Mr Pyne said.
But Mr Pyne's spokesman declined to comment on whether the party had plans to deregulate the capped fees universities can charge for courses.
"Our higher education policy will be released at the appropriate time before the next election," he said.

I don't believe it was.