Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Pushka]

I'm thinking the CL is going to be jammed with the Pollies retiring, not being re elected, and the bright young things who will take the place.

 

[777]

For example when interviewing Nicola Roxon after her draft bill to curtail Freedom of Speech there was not one question on it.Laughable if it wasn't so serious.

This was the interview about the terms of the royal commission into child abuse? I've seen this particular talking point bounce around the right wing echo chamber but it would be good to remember that there were a hell of a lot of people who thought the questions trying to get to the bottom of the fuzzy details of the royal commission were worthy of a full five minutes or whatever was allocated.

As someone who knows a few families in the Hunter that have been affected by the events that led to the Royal commission and knows some journalists who rightly pursued the story for years, this recurring cheap shot would be laughable if the actual topic of the interview wasn't so... how did you put it..? ... serious.

 

[SQ421]

Provided you don't defame someone whom has a bit of money....... (from the SMH 2005)

What was the outcome of that case? I'd think (and I hope!) a news outlet is protected form litigation while repeating allegations, as long as it doesn't pass them as facts and does the needful to state that the allegations are in fact allegations.

Since the article dates back to 2002, and the court action to 2005, the court action, its outcome, and the penalty imposed, if any, would've been under the laws existing then. Not under the new laws bring proposed via the bill in question.

And on a tangent, I've found that people with public profile tend to seek extracting the most out of the written law far more than us commoners. How many of us would've shrugged and paid the speeding fine and gotten on with our lives that Marcus Einfeld contested, lost, and was incarcerated for?

 

[amaroo]

And on a tangent, I've found that people with public profile tend to seek extracting the most out of the written law far more than us commoners. How many of us would've shrugged and paid the speeding fine and gotten on with our lives that Marcus Einfeld contested, lost, and was incarcerated for?

I bet the soon to be ex-member for Dobell regrets the day he decided it was a good idea to have a go at SMH

 

[eastwest101]

What was the outcome of that case? I'd think (and I hope!) a news outlet is protected form litigation while repeating allegations, as long as it doesn't pass them as facts and does the needful to state that the allegations are in fact allegations.

Which case do you want to pick? Fairfax lost a lot of the cases or had to settle.

But I maintain that defamation law is only part of the laws that affect freedom of speech, obviously there are others like anti-discrimination laws.

And on a tangent, I've found that people with public profile tend to seek extracting the most out of the written law far more than us commoners. How many of us would've shrugged and paid the speeding fine and gotten on with our lives that Marcus Einfeld contested, lost, and was incarcerated for?

Yes I agree - and what if the ICAC inquiries has done their job properly in 2003 in the first place? Anyway its a bit OT but here is a quick summary of the history of the court cases.

Eddie Obeid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SQ421]

I bet the soon to be ex-member for Dobell regrets the day he decided it was a good idea to have a go at SMH

I wonder just how delusional he is to proclaim his innocence with as much conviction as he does.

OTOH, I'd have lost all faith in due process, and the free and fair (not, "fair and balanced") media, if, the man is indeed found to have been set up.

 

[SQ421]

Which case do you want to pick? Fairfax lost a lot of the cases or had to settle.

But I maintain that defamation law is only part of the laws that affect freedom of speech, obviously there are others like anti-discrimination laws.

My understanding (and IANAL) is that a "defamatory" statement can be made if substantiated with facts. From the wikipedia link you posted, it seems Fairfax was found to have made unsubstantiated allegations. Considering the subsequent lack of appeal in the High Court of Australia, I assume that either Fairfax thought it wasn't worth the $$$ clearing their name, or that the legal advice given to the effect that overturning that particular decision upon appeal was unlikely.

Tangentially relevant is the article Andrew Bolt was recently sued for, its content and context.

Yes I agree - and what if the ICAC inquiries has done their job properly in 2003 in the first place? Anyway its a bit OT but here is a quick summary of the history of the court cases.

Wollongong would have a lot less eyesore high-rises if that had happened!

 

[drron]

I've always found the argument that the particular bill curtails Freedom of Speech to be a bit of a misdirection, especially the way Ackerman, Bolt, Devine and Co go about rallying against it.
An interpretation of the specific text within the bill applied taken as far out of context as possible to create FUD. I read something along the lines that asking someone "how's it going" might be an offence under the new laws.

Not to mention, here, in Australia, there is no enshrined right to free speech.

Here's what Dept. of Immigration defines as "Freedom of Speech" on their page that lists Five Fundamental Freedoms afforded to all Australians.



As such,there's already existing restrictions on just how free one can be with their speech. The proposed law, from what I have read, seeks to rationalise the multiple existing laws around this into one.

Well I certainly dont think this is well written.and of course even Nicola Roxon backed down from the original wording and Mark Dreyfus seems to be back tracking even further.
I guess you think it is fine that the burden of proof was totally reversed so that the accused had to prove their innocence instead of being innocent until found guilty.Pretty disgusting and it has not only been right wing commentators that have thought it was an attack on Freedom of speech.And for the record I firmly endorse Winston Churchill's view of freedom of speech.

Now to a more recent ABC version of the truth.The amazing response to the leaked discussion paper on Australia's north by the LNP coalition.I really loved how everyone on ABC 24 last night was ridiculing tax concessions for those in the North.Funny that if I work in Mt.Isa or Broken hill I get a tax rebate for working in a remote area-it is already part of the tax law that Wayne Swan administers.Amazing that none of his ministers nor ABC journalists are aware of this.

 

[amaroo]

I wonder just how delusional he is to proclaim his innocence with as much conviction as he does.

Always easy when you are spending someone else's money!

I see Eddie & his tribe share the same view on life:evil:

 

[eastwest101]

Now to a more recent ABC version of the truth.The amazing response to the leaked discussion paper on Australia's north by the LNP coalition.I really loved how everyone on ABC 24 last night was ridiculing tax concessions for those in the North.Funny that if I work in Mt.Isa or Broken hill I get a tax rebate for working in a remote area-it is already part of the tax law that Wayne Swan administers.Amazing that none of his ministers nor ABC journalists are aware of this.

I agree with markis10's comments about the burden of proof.

And also correct about the remote area zone allowances aren't huge, but they are there, in existing tax law.

I don't know which is worse - that the ABC journalists are not even aware of this, or that nearly all the ALP politicians are also ignorant of this.

ABC news and journalistic standards have been a complete joke since Kerry O'Brien left, although Chris Ullhman sometimes does ask some uncomfortable questions. They are now so far out of touch with Australia that they don't even realise how out of touch they are any more.

 

[amaroo]

For example when interviewing Nicola Roxon after her draft bill to curtail Freedom of Speech there was not one question on it.Laughable if it wasn't so serious.

TBH you don't need to look any further than the "red underpants" on the head minster - end of story.....wait, there was no story!

stephen conroy red underpants - Google Search First class example of the type of person who should never be given a seat in parliament - let alone......a cabinet position.

Can't wait for Sales hard hitting interview regarding the spectacular returns the mining tax is generating......Oh, really - prices were down!

 

[amaroo]

although Chris Ullhman sometimes does ask some uncomfortable questions. They are now so far out of touch with Australia that they don't even realise how out of touch they are any more.

This bloke is brilliant - very disappointing that he was replaced with the easy sales:!:

 

[SQ421]

Well I certainly dont think this is well written.and of course even Nicola Roxon backed down from the original wording and Mark Dreyfus seems to be back tracking even further.

So, a bill was proposed, discussed, and is being further worked upon before being enacted into Law. Parliamentary process is working.

I guess you think it is fine that the burden of proof was totally reversed so that the accused had to prove their innocence instead of being innocent until found guilty. Pretty disgusting and it has not only been right wing commentators that have thought it was an attack on Freedom of speech.

A concept lost on the Leader of the Opposition and his friends in the blogosphere Akerman, Bolt and Devine, when it comes extending the same presumption to the Member for Dobell who, might I had, is yet to be found guilty of anything. The Leader of the Opposition went so far as to suggest that the Member for Dobell be removed from the Parliament while the allegations were probed further, effectively disenfranchising the citizens of the Division of Dobell. Then we also got the comic relief of watching two grown men run for the door as if a laxative had just kicked in; all in an effort to give us the impression that Abbott would never accept a "tainted" vote. This, from a man who had no qualms about counting Slipper's vote as his own until such a point that Slipper decided to watch out for his own future and accepted the Speaker's chair. At which point, suddenly, Slipper went from someone who was "doing great work for Members of Fisher and for us there in Canberra" (Abbott's Quote from the 2010 Campaign) to someone who "has had problems for a while and we in the Liberal Party have been well aware of them, which is why we were getting rid of him" (Abbott's more recent Quote). At least the presumption of innocence (or perhaps, wilful ignorance) was offered to Peter Slipper, while it was convenient!

Now to a more recent ABC version of the truth.The amazing response to the leaked discussion paper on Australia's north by the LNP coalition.I really loved how everyone on ABC 24 last night was ridiculing tax concessions for those in the North.Funny that if I work in Mt.Isa or Broken hill I get a tax rebate for working in a remote area-it is already part of the tax law that Wayne Swan administers.Amazing that none of his ministers nor ABC journalists are aware of this.

While not an excuse, it is nothing new for the leaders to be unaware of or be knowingly ignorant of the very laws they administer. I get the same cringeworthy feeling every time the wannabe Prime Minister bleats on about "illegal" arrivals and "turning back the boats".

Either Tony Abbott (he of yeoman Ministerial Experience) is absolutely not aware that
a) There is nothing illegal about seeking asylum, nor anything illegal about the manner i which it is done
b) Navy won't tow the boats back to Indonesia, in fact, Navy is required to offer assistance to any vessel in distress in times of peace.

So, here we have, Tony, claiming he'll order Navy to tow back the boats, putting sailors in a position of disobeying orders or potentially being charged with crimes against humanity for which, "I was merely following orders" has not been an acceptable defence since the fifth decade of the 20th century.

I don't think he's unaware of those facts. I do think he's willingly ignoring the facts to pander to the voters swayed by three word slogans, who happen to be too dumb to comprehend the fourth.

 

[Pushka]

Couldn't every misdeed you are attributing to Abbott apply equally to Gillard? I think it offensive calling other voters dumb simply because their concept of reality is different to yours.

 

[SQ421]

Couldn't every misdeed you are attributing to Abbott apply equally to Gillard?

Which one, specifically? I don't really recall her saying she'll turn back the boats or implying that seeking asylum was illegal. If she has implied that, then yes she is in the wrong.

That she "lied" about a carbon tax? For that statement to be a lie when she uttered it, she'd have had to known that there would be a hung parliament. And if that's the case, maybe she can pick my numbers for the next week's lotto.

Not to mention, in the same sentence, she continued ".. and I remain committed to putting a price on Carbon."

---

 

[Pushka]

I think her plan to put asylum seekers in Malaysian "prisons " was one of the most inhumane solutions proposed. Hell, for once I agreed with the Greens.

Perhaps ask the independents if they feel Gillard has done all that she promised to do if they kept her in power. As far as slogans go, Ruddy had one of the best as did the Labor party several years ago with "it's time". So perhaps they are better at the slogan influence than anyone.

 

[SQ421]

I think her plan to put asylum seekers in Malaysian "prisons " was one of the most inhumane solutions proposed. Hell, for once I agreed with the Greens.

I think once Asylum seekers have sought asylum from Australia, putting them anywhere other than Australian soil is inhumane.

Then again, it could be worse, the Government could be excluding Australian soil from Australian Migration Zone.

 

[Pushka]

I think once Asylum seekers have sought asylum from Australia, putting them anywhere other than Australian soil is inhumane.

Then again, it could be worse, the Government could be excluding Australian soil from Australian Migration Zone.

Then why slam Abbott when Gillard has tried (but failed, surprise surprise) to do things more abhorrent.

 

[drron]

SQ421 you should read this-
Human Rights Day Oration - delivered by the Honourable James Spigelman AC QC

James spigelman is no right wing commentator.very definitely from the left.Yet this is what he said about Nicola Roxon's proposed Bill in his Human Rights Day Oration-

There may now have elapsed sufficient time for us to debate the issue dispassionately, and not on the basis of whether or not you like Andrew Bolt. The focus of that debate was not on the existence of a racial vilification provision, but on the breadth of the conduct to which section 18 C extends, namely, conduct “reasonably likely … to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person".

None of Australia’s international treaty obligations require us to protect any person or group from being offended. We are, however, obliged to protect freedom of speech. We should take care not to put ourselves in a position where others could reasonably assert that we are in breach of our international treaty obligations to protect freedom of speech.

And of course I presume you know Tony Abbott and Peter Slipper well.If not your comments are pure speculation.
By the way it is well known here in the Electorate of Fisher that Peter Slipper would not have won preselection for the 2010 election except for the fact that it was just after the merger of the Liberal and National parties and part of the deal was that no sitting member could be opposed.

Contrast that to the case of Craig Thomson who was preselected although the allegations of his misuse of Union funds was well known and had been printed in that bastion of right wing journalism-the Sydney Morning Herald.

 

[SQ421]

Then why slam Abbott when Gillard has tried (but failed, surprise surprise) to do things more abhorrent.

I'm slamming him for continually ignoring facts (and law) to pander to the ignorant voters by playing to their fears of an Australia being overrun by "illegal" asylum seekers.

Malaysia, Manus Island, Nauru are mere vessels for us to hide our shame.

IMO, the only leader in recent times to show any morality on that issue was Kevin Rudd. I feel Turnbull may have been the other, but sadly, we'll never find out.