Thankyou Craig Thomson

[buzzlightyear]

Bah Andrew Wilkie won't pull the plug on Labour. That guy (just like Windsor and Oakeshott) are trying to bathe in the power while they can, since they know in 2 years' time they will all be annihilated by their electorates.

Given that Wilkie got elected on Liberal preferences, then I wouldn't be so sure.
Denison in recent times is a Labor electorate and has been in Labor hands since 1987.
And lets not forget his promise to hold the government to account on Pokies legislation ie to get through the legislation through both House of Reps and Senate by May 2012 where he has promised to support a vote of no confidence if the government do not achieve this. He just reaffirmed this last Sunday on Insiders, although he did give himself some wriggle room.

As for the other two NSW independents, it will be a different scenario. Given their poisonous relationship with Abbott, they won't support him at all and are more likely to keep the government in place, especially as the deal they had was with Gillard.

 

[Empty Pockets]

Bill Shorten or Stephen Smith will be in the lodge shortly.

 

[Aaron_C]

Bill Shorten or Stephen Smith will be in the lodge shortly.

Bill Shorten.....he's the ALP's prodigy.

 

[StefanA]

Actually, I have to say I am not happy about the whole High Court thing.

It is pretty lame that legal statutes are written which are so poorly worded they not only burden the tax payer with the cost of a High Court judgement, but also waste thousands of Government manhours.

I don't want 7 people determining how Australia should be run. I want the majority doing so. If government policy formulation has to be run past the High Court, then what's the point of having government at all.

Obviously, the issue here is the statute, and a ridiculously unrealistic view on human rights. If 10 million economic opportunists rolled up on Australia's door step next week without ID, seeking asylum, according to the High Court, we have to treat them not by Australian law, but by UN Human Rights law, even if we have to take money from nursing homes and hospitals to pay for the 10 million.

It is all a bit of an indulgent silver service picnic for the legal class isn't it.

 

[Aaron_C]

Actually, I have to say I am not happy about the whole High Court thing.

It is pretty lame that legal statutes are written which are so poorly worded they not only burden the tax payer with the cost of a High Court judgement, but also waste thousands of Government manhours.

I don't want 7 people determining how Australia should be run. I want the majority doing so. If government policy formulation has to be run past the High Court, then what's the point of having government at all.

Obviously, the issue here is the statute, and a ridiculously unrealistic view on human rights. If 10 million economic opportunists rolled up on Australia's door step next week without ID, seeking asylum, according to the High Court, we have to treat them not by Australian law, but by UN Human Rights law, even if we have to take money from nursing homes and hospitals to pay for the 10 million.

It is all a bit of an indulgent silver service picnic for the legal class isn't it.

Well the entire 'Malaysia solution' was based on an exercise of Executive power by the Minister for Immigration....This was necessary because the Government could not pass the legislation required to bullet-proof their refugee solution (Greens etc.). Unfortunately the Court has struck it down but we have to control the excess use of executive power in any government dealing, not just with respect to human rights or immigration.

 

[cu@thetop]

It is all a bit of an indulgent silver service picnic for the legal class isn't it.

Not so. I'm a lawyer and I'm disgusted by it although I will reserve my full opinion until I read the full judgement.

Surely our government has rights to deal with uninvited guests in the fashion it chooses to protect our security/national integrity/social hegemony.

 

[BayView]

The good news about the Craig, BoB Brown and Julia scene is it has given us the "year we had to have" (and have now hopefully gotten it out of our system) of:

1. everyone thinking the Greens would be a beneficial arm to Gubbmint,
2. everyone wanting the first female PM
3. everyone wanting another Labor gubbmint for a change from the Libs
3. we got to see dodgy pollies like Craig in action and our awareness has now been re-sparked - don't trust any of the deehedds.

Can we please just get back the Libs running the Country on their own now?

They might not do it 100% right, but it's less damaging than what we have now, and we might get another welfare clean-out, get rid of the tree-hugging fanatics and a few less boats.

 

[josko]

The good news about the Craig, BoB Brown and Julia scene is it has given us the "year we had to have" (and have now hopefully gotten it out of our system) of:

1. everyone thinking the Greens would be a beneficial arm to Gubbmint,
2. everyone wanting the first female PM
3. everyone wanting another Labor gubbmint for a change from the Libs
3. we got to see dodgy pollies like Craig in action and our awareness has now been re-sparked - don't trust any of the deehedds.

Can we please just get back the Libs running the Country on their own now?

They might not do it 100% right, but it's less damaging than what we have now, and we might get another welfare clean-out, get rid of the tree-hugging fanatics and a few less boats.

here, here BV.

Kathy Jackson has been gagged by HSU and then was admitted to hospital.

KATHY Jackson, the union leader at the centre of the controversy over Labor MP Craig Thomson, has had a breakdown and been admitted to the psychiatric unit of a Melbourne hospital.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/unio...s-breakdown-20110903-1jrq3.html#ixzz1WwOQKcNj

And this...

Just hours earlier, another senior union office holder, Michael Williamson (Craig Thomson's mentor) had withdrawn her authority to speak to the media.

"Had withdrawn her authority to speak to the media.""

This is what happens when you speak out publically against your Union. You get gagged.

I can't see the HSU continuing long term now. Apparently membership was pretty poor anyway.

Regards JO

 

[tom32]

Not so. I'm a lawyer and I'm disgusted by it although I will reserve my full opinion until I read the full judgement.

Surely our government has rights to deal with uninvited guests in the fashion it chooses to protect our security/national integrity/social hegemony.

Not if a past government (Howard with Beasleys support) has enacted regulation which continues to protect the rights upon expulsion it would seem.

I must say I am surprised the gov is this incompetant as they could have drafted regulation before this challenge which would have prevented all this.

As I said in another thread re: the initial injunction; sure an injunction is easy to get when peoples lives hang in the balance and the law in question is untested, but surely the government would not be so incompetant as to not leave holes in its own law?

And then on reading it, to me this decision would not preclude PNG if Australia was still administering and so protecting these refugees rights and yet this morning the soliciter generals office is apparently saying this would also mean PNG is out of the question? I imagine Labor must be so incompetant that they cannot even understand the advice being given to them at this point. Surely the soliciter generals ofice has only said it is possible refugees to PNG could also be challenged but the ratio of this recent case to me (and I imagine anyone with even bush lawyer understanding of the law) in no way would extend as far as centres run and administered by Australians.

Yes the regulation it now seems allows a judicial review of the ministers actions but even with this new light shed on external processing, in the case of a judicial review of refugees being sent to PNG, I would expect that the court would find this acceptable. We will never know I guess for sure as before this ever goes ahead or otherwise one would like to think the regulation will be fixed.

 

[StefanA]

Wow, amazing stuff re Kathy Jackson. The drama just keeps going.

I am in two minds re her though. She and her ex have been in the upper echelons of the union for a long time, so she must have known about all the dirt for a long time. I would believe her referral to the police was politically motivated; otherwise she might have done it well before now.

Anyway, a great way to gain sympathy for her cause and further tarnish public opinion about the HSU and her enemies. I wouldn't liike to be in her shoes though.

I thought the line from her partner was interesting "could be due to the stress of recent events, but I am not a doctor"

 

[Aaron_C]

She must have woke up to a dead horse head on her bed. I think most people would be in a psychiatric ward after that.

 

[josko]

Wow, amazing stuff re Kathy Jackson. The drama just keeps going.

I am in two minds re her though. She and her ex have been in the upper echelons of the union for a long time, so she must have known about all the dirt for a long time. I would believe her referral to the police was politically motivated; otherwise she might have done it well before now.

Anyway, a great way to gain sympathy for her cause and further tarnish public opinion about the HSU and her enemies. I wouldn't like to be in her shoes though.

I thought the line from her partner was interesting "could be due to the stress of recent events, but I am not a doctor"

I agree that she must have known regarding her ex. Guilt is probably a large reason as to why she has had this breakdown. hence the reference by her partner. Yet she was married to the guy, and has felt the need to speak up about Craig Thomson...knowing that the investigation would have to lead to her ex and her involvement....

If it were you and your spouse...would you publicise it or divorce them? Lot's of speculation there.

Sounds a little similar to Gillard's situation with her ex....but we'll never know with that one. Gillard's gagged the press and made sure of that.

Regards JO

 

[josko]

She must have woke up to a dead horse head on her bed. I think most people would be in a psychiatric ward after that.

Powerful book/movie, The Godfather. One of my favourites.

Regards JO

 

[josko]

Not if a past government (Howard with Beasleys support) has enacted regulation which continues to protect the rights upon expulsion it would seem.

I must say I am surprised the gov is this incompetant as they could have drafted regulation before this challenge which would have prevented all this.

As I said in another thread re: the initial injunction; sure an injunction is easy to get when peoples lives hang in the balance and the law in question is untested, but surely the government would not be so incompetant as to not leave holes in its own law?

And then on reading it, to me this decision would not preclude PNG if Australia was still administering and so protecting these refugees rights and yet this morning the soliciter generals office is apparently saying this would also mean PNG is out of the question? I imagine Labor must be so incompetant that they cannot even understand the advice being given to them at this point. Surely the soliciter generals ofice has only said it is possible refugees to PNG could also be challenged but the ratio of this recent case to me (and I imagine anyone with even bush lawyer understanding of the law) in no way would extend as far as centres run and administered by Australians.

Yes the regulation it now seems allows a judicial review of the ministers actions but even with this new light shed on external processing, in the case of a judicial review of refugees being sent to PNG, I would expect that the court would find this acceptable. We will never know I guess for sure as before this ever goes ahead or otherwise one would like to think the regulation will be fixed.

Agree and yes, the Government is completed incompetant.

I also agree with what Stefan says, but it was the High Court's job to ascertain whether any laws were broken by the implementatation of this policy...whether International or Domestic.

No emotion attached, unfortunately.

Regards JO

 

[Aaron_C]

You need to look at the actual wording of the Migration Act section in question:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s198a.html

Nowhere there does it say that the destination HAS to be a 'UN sanctioned refugee camp'.

 

[Dazz]

Kathy Jackson has been gagged by HSU and then was admitted to hospital.

When that dirty shovel turned up on her doorstep at 3:30am, she commented later in the morning to the waiting media that "whatever mental pygmy did that, I can assure you it hasn't and won't affect me at all".


It's been what - a week now, and she's already in a psych ward. Confirmation perhaps that intimidation by some union thugs does work in the real world ??

 

[tom32]

Nowhere there does it say that the destination HAS to be a 'UN sanctioned refugee camp'.

Which means PNG is potentially fine if administered by Australia where we can ensure all of part 3a is adhered to.

Malaysia where we have no control over what occurs and that advice to our own government has been that parts of 3a cannot be guaranteed is not an option without changing the regulation.

 

[billiejoe87]

The good news about the Craig, BoB Brown and Julia scene is it has given us the "year we had to have" (and have now hopefully gotten it out of our system) of:

1. everyone thinking the Greens would be a beneficial arm to Gubbmint,
2. everyone wanting the first female PM
3. everyone wanting another Labor gubbmint for a change from the Libs
3. we got to see dodgy pollies like Craig in action and our awareness has now been re-sparked - don't trust any of the deehedds.

Can we please just get back the Libs running the Country on their own now?

They might not do it 100% right, but it's less damaging than what we have now, and we might get another welfare clean-out, get rid of the tree-hugging fanatics and a few less boats.

I don't think a truer word has been said. I myself voted for ruddy, as in my opinion Work Choices and people I knew personally being affected by that particular legislation ruined the liberals at the time for me (Even though I thought overall John Howard was a sound prime minister but that is just opinion).

I never had a particular problem with Rudd, I do however find Julia Gillard excruciatingly bad as a politician. I personally cant stand this minority government which just seems to be bowing to the greens. I think some people wanted change, particularly people in their 20 somethings who had never been old enough to properly experience a labour government and wanted something new which is full fair enough, but I'm sure many have now changed their minds.

To be honest I'm not overly fond of Tony Abbott either, but I honestly don't think he needs to say or do anything, just sit back and allow Gillard/Swan and co to keep digging themselves deeper holes. You don't even need to mention anything in particular that this government has done, it just seems like it's so ingrained in the current government to be lousy in pretty much everything they are doing. I always considered myself a centre-left person and am pro choice for abortion, support gay marriage and most immigration yada yada, but after this, I'd have trouble voting labor ever again. This is not to say I agree with shock jock antics from the right wing, like the way Alan Jones treated the Prime Minister for running late on morning radio and the way some of his colleagues try and use scare tactics to convince people there is no climate change and the Carbon Tax will destroy Australia etc. But even without these few right wing loonies, I still think many people would feel the same way about where they feel the country is heading.

For what it's worth I also don't think Tony Abbott is the best man for the job either. I find what I like about the state liberal government in NSW is that O'Farrell is a centre-right politician rather than far right like Abbott. I find Religion is too important to Tony Abbott and endemic to the way in which he vocally expects people to live their lives for him to ever be a forward thinking politician. However look what he's up against. Can you really blame people for voting for the lesser of two (Metaphorically speaking) evils?

Personally, I believe the liberals need someone like Peter Costello (Unfortunately who doesn't seem to ever want to run for the tob job again) who has excellent experience with the Australian economy to help give people some peace of mind on where the country is heading. I work in banking/finance as a broker and see straight up how scared people are. In fact, since Labor in general has been in power I've never seen so many people fixing their interest rates on their mortgages due to gut fear on what labour are doing to the economy. I've heard directly from dozens of people since midway through Rudd's term, reference Labour scaring the hell out of them. These are not all people in either say Mosman or Penrith end of the scale either. These are people from all classes and walks of life.

 

[tom32]

For what it's worth I also don't think Tony Abbott is the best man for the job either. I find what I like about the state liberal government in NSW is that O'Farrell is a centre-right politician rather than far right like Abbott. I find Religion is too important to Tony Abbott and endemic to the way in which he vocally expects people to live their lives for him to ever be a forward thinking politician. However look what he's up against. Can you really blame people for voting for the lesser of two (Metaphorically speaking) evils?

Agree Tony Abbot is not the right man for the job and that OFarrell appears to be a fantastic asset to the people of NSW.

Tony Abbot has convinced me he is just not competant to be a prime minister not disimilar to the likes of Swan.

At least Julia Gillard has a handfull of braincells to rub together. That said I will vote liberal but it has nothing to do with Abbot, as you say it is the choice we are left with... If Labor put up someone like Lindsay Tanner against Tony Abbot I would find myself voting Labor I suspect.

 

[Deltaberry]

I hate shock jocks

Shock jocks from the right give Liberal a bad name, such as Abbott and Alan Jones. Ironic that the name Liberal is meant to be being liberal in your thoughts. Not sure why these people think abortion, gay rights etc should be prohibited.

And Labor is just as bad

That said, what different is the Labor anyway? They're just as conservative in many of these things.

Where's the reformist?

At the end of the day, if they're all going to be somewhat conservative, I'd rather have someone of talent and vision lead the country. Someone who has the boldness and guts to undertake substantial reform that frees up industrial red tape and other reforms.

Bring back Howard

I'd suggest Howard was a reformist - and WorkChoices is something that helps make this country more competitive. I'm sorry if you're going to lose your job because of WorkChoices because, frankly, all this garbage about upholding your liberal and democratic values means we as a country either keep up or get dropped. So stop wanting it both ways - you want a free market but you want to protect yourself from competition. Get real lefties and get a real job!

People think Howard's old guard - maybe he was. But he was a free market thinker. He deregulated the industrial system even as Treasurer, abolished compulsory uniosm (cmon what are we, soviets? Compulsory uniosm.. HAH), deregulated Treasury notes, removed centralised fixed-wages. He was socially conservative which I didn't like - but at least he wasn't economically spastic.

Blowing money is not "visionary" or "reformist"

No sorry spending kazillion dollars on stupid wires is not "visionary" - anyone knows how to spend money. Make me PM and I'll start a space program. Hey we'll be the first non-major power to have a space program. Aren't I reformist?

Don't think Costello would have cut it
Guy has no vision apart from preceding over record budgets. Where's the economic reform?

Swan/Gillard ugh
Yuk what are these...?

They talk about lack of reform during Howard eras, but they embark on the least reforms. How do you position a country so it has a strong innovative workforce? Making "big fat taxes" (as the all talk Abbott rightly pointed out) is NOT innovation. The big fat taxes are still funded by selling dirt to China and India.

So no - Carbon Tax is not reformist

NBN is not either - as pointed out above. Want me to build a space program? How about robot warriors in case we go to war with Christmas Island?

Asylum seekers? Boring... don't understand how these small-time social issues make national headlines.

The Economist was spot-on
In short the Economist was right. We have a great opportunity through no skill of our own (thx to dirt in ground) and we're not capitalising on it because we have political tyre kickers in charge who do nothing but play up little social issues stay in power.

Makes you wonder if houses prices really will crash as suggested by the Economist (given they have such good perspective).