Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Skyring]

Please explain this "Pacific Solution" to me and how it differs from current policy.

It worked. Cheers.

 

[Moody]

So you agree when Tony Abbott's assault case was thrown out the judiciary got it right.
I did not imply that you are a moron just that you really don't know the status of liberal party machinations in the seat of Fisher.Your accusations are those of the ALP hence my statement.

The judge had no choice in the sexual assault claim because there were apparently 7 witnesses standing behind the appellent who saw him tap her on the back to "get her attention" rather than goose her to humiliate her in public. No doubt the same 7 would testify that Tony Abbott didn't punch the wall beside his opponent's head whilst at uni either.

How is this relevant?

 

[RooFlyer]

So how does the LNP get around their signature "turn back the boats" policy not being welcomed by Indonesia? What we hear again from a high ranking Indonesian politician (Vice President no less) is it isn't going to happen.

Serious question rather than criticism of the policy ... How they will handle this as the policy seems to be at odds with the country they need to cooperate with (at least publicly)? Do TA and Julie Bishop know something we don't or this will turn into a non core promise?

Three years of calling the Prime Minister a liar could backfire as the LNP could be setting themselves up for a return favour here, right?

Way I see it ... We have boats coming from Indonesian ports, with Indonesian crews, under Indonesian 'flags' coming into Australian waters. What exactly does Indonesia have to "agree" to, or "welcome", to have returned to them boats under their flag, with their nationals crewing, coming from their ports?

If say an Australian yacht, crewed by Australians set out from Sydney bound for NZ, and it was found (for example) that the crew were escaped prisoners, does anyone think that the Kiwis would have the right not to allow the yacht to land (if they chose to) or that Australia would be obligated to take the yacht, and its crew, back? The passengers are irrelevant - Australia takes the boat back, no questions and no 'agreement' necessary.

If under some convoluted argument, Indonesia can "refuse" the people smuggler's boats, surely Australia has equal, if not greater authority - legal and moral - to do just the same thing?

We were at virtually nil boats position pre 2007, but then you-know-who came up with their 'compassionate' solution. How many have died since, do you think?

 

[amaroo]

So how does the LNP get around their signature "turn back the boats" policy not being welcomed by Indonesia?

I'm guessing it will have something to do with foreign aid (read - donation) Indonesia country brief – Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

It might rise & fall with the tide......of boats

 

[amaroo]

Serious question rather than criticism of the policy ... How they will handle this as the policy seems to be at odds with the country they need to cooperate with (at least publicly)? Do TA and Julie Bishop know something we don't or this will turn into a non core promise?

Three years of calling the Prime Minister a liar could backfire as the LNP could be setting themselves up for a return favour here, right?

Don't forget the East Timor Solution......pity she didn't pick the phone up & discuss it with locals.

Gillard unveils 'East Timor solution'

 

[drron]

The judge had no choice in the sexual assault claim because there were apparently 7 witnesses standing behind the appellent who saw him tap her on the back to "get her attention" rather than goose her to humiliate her in public. No doubt the same 7 would testify that Tony Abbott didn't punch the wall beside his opponent's head whilst at uni either.

How is this relevant?

Because I knew you would reply as you did and it shows your bias.

The difference in the Ashby case is that the decision is being appealed..So lets go to the media with the original judges finding.

He found Mr Ashby acted in combination with fellow staffer Karen Doane and former federal minister Mal Brough to "advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough".
Mr Brough has been preselected as the LNP's candidate for Mr Slipper's Queensland seat of Fisher in the federal election.
Justice Rares also found Mr Ashby and Mr Harmer had included allegations in the originating claim that Mr Slipper misused cab vouchers "for the purpose of injuring Mr Slipper and for no legitimate forensic purpose".

Mr. Brough had already been preselected so how did it advance his cause.
Next the cabcharge vouchers.Since that judgement the Federal police have charged Mr. Slipper for misuse of cabcharge vouchers which seems to go against the judges description of the relevance of the vouchers.

And Ashby's case was so weak the Attorney general gave him a generous out of court settlement.

So back to your original comment-

Slipper's comments were in a private text between him and that scurrilous liar Ashby, which were leaked by co-conspirator Mal Brough in a smear campaign that was rightly thrown out of court. Were they pretty? No. Were they directed at someone in particular? No. Were they ever meant to be seen by anyone except the dishonest and scheming Ashby? No. So what is their relevance?

Peter Slipper solved a numbers problem for Julia Gillard, as well as rubbing Mal Brough's nose in it. (Mal was actively white-anting Slipper as he wanted his seat, but the party convention was to endorse sitting members). He has had issues with expenses whilst a coalition member, but at the time they were all resolved and Tony Abbott publicly backed him. There are now 3 trips to wineries that are the subject of investigation (again - all occuring pre Tony Abbott's endorsement and whilst he was a coalition member), and regardless of the outcome of that case he is a dead man walking as the leaked texts have done their work.

The texts may have been private but were to Mr.Ashby the complainant so relevant to the case.
What lies did Ashby tell?
There was no convention at the time not to oppose sitting members unlike 2010.On top of that Mal Brough was preselected for Fisher on 29/7/12 and the judgement was on 12/12/12.
The main grounds that Peter Slipper used for his claim of abuse of process was that Ashby and Brough did this to destroy his political career.Peter Slipper destroyed his political career when he accepted the position of Speaker on 24/11/11.Mr. Ashby made his claims public in April 2013.This is one of the reason's the judges decision is being appealed.

So Mal Brough had pre selection all ready.Having Peter Slipper resign as speaker would not have given the Liberals the majority in the House as has now been established.so what political advantage was to be gained?another of the reasons for the appeal.

And if it was a political conspiracy wouldn't the lawyer be involved?But here is his comment on the decision-

In a statement issued after the ruling, Mr Harmer said he had assisted Mr Ashby as an individual who could not afford to run very expensive litigation in the courts.
'This is the sole reason we took on James Ashby's case. Politics played absolutely no role in the decision to take on James as a client,' Mr Harmer said.
'As I swore in my affidavit, and as recognised by his Honour in his decision, my political views are not consistent with the conservative side of politics.'
Mr Harmer said his law firm was conscious of its professional obligations and took 'no role in politics'.
'Whilst of course we respect the court's decision, we are shocked and disappointed by it.
'Neither myself, nor this firm, are part of any conspiracy.'

And when the decision was announced I googled the judges name as I doubted that anyone could really damage Peter Slipper's reputation and I found this obviously by a very right wing commentator but written well before the verdict-

Annabel Crabb in the SMH has written in relation the Peter Slipper / Federal Government / James Ashby case: “One suspects the judicial process will – as it is designed to do – test the accusations in light of all the evidence available, including the testimony of those best placed to comment.” (Click here to read the full article)
It made me laugh when I read that. Based on previous form Justice Rares is there to make sure the allegations are tested to the very minimum at best, if ever tested at all. Slipper and the government might file a section 31A application for summary judgement to have the case kicked out before it ever goes to hearing. It would certainly be crossing their minds. If that was to happen I am sure Justice Rares would oblige and dismiss the matter.

Got it right though.link here-
Peter Slipper strikes it lucky and lands corrupt federal court judge Steven Rares to hear his sexual harassment case. | Kangaroo Court of Australia

 

[tgh]

This matter of aspirational immigrants is a huge sleeper.
I don't really care how he does it or how much it costs .
I suspect I'm not an orphan in this wish.

 

[HarryB]

If under some convoluted argument, Indonesia can "refuse" the people smuggler's boats, surely Australia has equal, if not greater authority - legal and moral - to do just the same thing?

The two flaws with this argument are Australia's desire to not upset an important neighbouring country and Indonesia's lack of concern for those who transit their country seeking asylum in Australia. I think Amaroo's answer might be one angle the LNP could possibly try.

 

[RooFlyer]

The two flaws with this argument are Australia's desire to not upset an important neighbouring country and Indonesia's lack of concern for those who transit their country seeking asylum in Australia. I think Amaroo's answer might be one angle the LNP could possibly try.

Well, OK ... but I would hope (potential) Prime Minister Abbott keeps Australia's interests front and centre and isn't afraid to push back when our large neighbours (or any foreign power) first cry 'upset'. Actual upset Vs real upset are two very different things.

I understand TA has said his first visit will be to Indonesia. Sounds promising.

 

[Major]

When I first saw this thread and noticed it had gone viral after a couple of days I thought it would be good for at least 5000 posts.
I still think it has a fair chance of getting there

Nearly 2000 to go

 

[Danger]

What are people's thought on Perth radio host Howard Sattler's interview with the prime minister yesterday?

Sattler sacked over PM interview - The West Australian

Sattler was immediately suspended by radio station 6PR following the interview and has now been sacked.

Personally, I think it's spot on the money and applaud 6PR for its action. At the end of the day, like her or hate, disagree with her policies or don't, say she's done a bad job or a good one, she remains the prime minister of our country. She is not a criminal. She was put into the position, firstly, by the very same process that saw Keating take over from Hawke, and then through a federal election. The office of the prime minister of this country deserves a fundamental and underlying degree of respect. Sattler crossed the line. Schoolkids throwing sandwiches crossed the line. Larry Pickering's cartoons cross the line.

Sadly, it says more about Australia as a nation then it does about the government of the country.

 

[Pushka]

I think it says more about the quality of journalists. It was also a slur on men suggesting that if they chose more "traditional female" work then they must be homosexual. On the other hand is being called homosexual an insult?

I remember when Rudd was PM then all sorts of pressure was put on Terese Reyne (sp) to lose weight and dress better.

 

[Conrad_S]

Sattler may well be guilty of poor judgement but...
Go as hard as you like on the policy.
The bullying and abuse of individuals of any political flavour that masquerades as comment in the last few years is a very poor reflection on all of us. I think it escalated during the Howard years and has peaked since the last election.

 

[Pukka]

What are people's thought on Perth radio host Howard Sattler's interview with the prime minister yesterday?

Sattler sacked over PM interview - The West Australian

Sattler was immediately suspended by radio station 6PR following the interview and has now been sacked.

Personally, I think it's spot on the money and applaud 6PR for its action. At the end of the day, like her or hate, disagree with her policies or don't, say she's done a bad job or a good one, she remains the prime minister of our country. She is not a criminal. She was put into the position, firstly, by the very same process that saw Keating take over from Hawke, and then through a federal election. The office of the prime minister of this country deserves a fundamental and underlying degree of respect. Sattler crossed the line. Schoolkids throwing sandwiches crossed the line. Larry Pickering's cartoons cross the line.

Sadly, it says more about Australia as a nation then it does about the government of the country.

It was a ridiculous interview and he deserved to be sacked but thanks to Julia and co he probably stands a very fair chance of claiming unfair dismissal as he obviously wasn't counseled after the incident and I presume he wasn't given a job description that said don't ask anyone if their partner is gay.

Ironic ?!

 

[Pukka]

Nearly 2000 to go

I'm guessing at least 250 posts on Election Day and the same the next day I think 5000 is a certainty

 

[Pushka]

It would be interesting to see if Fair Work Australia takes on his case. But I think his dismissal will stand as instant dismissal is allowed when you bring your employer into disrepute.

 

[cove]

Story doing rounds is Julia will be gone before June 30th. If that is the case I pick June 26th as her departures lounge date.

 

[Pukka]

It would be interesting to see if Fair Work Australia takes on his case. But I think his dismissal will stand as instant dismissal is allowed when you bring your employer into disrepute.

In an ideal world yes I agree but presumably his job description is to interview people ie ask questions and he did say that it wasn't his view just a rumour so personally I think that ( bringing employer into disrepute)might be hard to prove but that's just the ridiculous situation we have to work with at the moment; like Ive said before no one wants to sack a good employee. I reckon he'll get some sort of payoff for sure.

 

[Pukka]

Story doing rounds is Julia will be gone before June 30th. If that is the case I pick June 26th as her departures lounge date.

So who's replacing her for a couple of months Kev13?

 

[Pushka]

My date is two days after the next poll. Sometime next week. But who would want the poisoned chalice?