Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[ReLoad]

The Leader of the Opposition's job is to be negative until the correct time comes to release their policies. What is the point of releasing a policy more than 9 months out from an election? Either the current Government will steal it and claim it as theirs, or the Policy just sits there and rots because the Opposition don't have Government to bring it to life.

Perhaps that's where I am failing at seeing Dr No as a credible alternative candidate to lead our country; I was always taught that the oppositions role in politics is to provide a viable alternative to the sitting government. To me that doesn't mean be negative on every single thing that the government does. - Please don't get me wrong, I dislike the current labour government equally as much; Wayne Swan would fail grade 2 maths.

But Tony Abbott is "Auto No" Its just like auto-correct on your phone, except his instant response is no.
There is negative politicking, and then there is negative politicking, Tony has taken it to new lows, and it sucks I'm certainly not Robinson Crusoe in thinking that.

Maybe I'm wrong about Auto-No, still he has 6 months to change my attitude, and I'm all open and willing to hear him have a go at it.

 

[Pushka]

Perhaps that's where I am failing at seeing Dr No as a credible alternative candidate to lead our country; I was always taught that the oppositions role in politics is to provide a viable alternative to the sitting government. To me that doesn't mean be negative on every single thing that the government does. - Please don't get me wrong, I dislike the current labour government equally as much; Wayne Swan would fail grade 2 maths.

But Tony Abbott is "Auto No" Its just like auto-correct on your phone, except his instant response is no.
There is negative politicking, and then there is negative politicking, Tony has taken it to new lows, and it sucks I'm certainly not Robinson Crusoe in thinking that.

Maybe I'm wrong about Auto-No, still he has 6 months to change my attitude, and I'm all open and willing to hear him have a go at it.

I've never thought the Opposition's role was to demonstrate an effective alternative government until the election round begins.

And just maybe Abbott keeps saying no because the current Government give him plenty of ammunition to do that!

 

[drron]

As to policies and announcement times.In 2007 the writs for the election were issued on 17/10.
K Rudd announced his policies at his campaign launch on 14/11.
The election was 24/11.

And now the ALP is demanding Tony Abbott release his policies 7 months before the election!

Of course i agree on one thing.Kevin Rudd hardly ever said no.But he did utter usually 536 words that meant the same thing.

 

[Skyring]

Perhaps that's where I am failing at seeing Dr No as a credible alternative candidate to lead our country; I was always taught that the oppositions role in politics is to provide a viable alternative to the sitting government. To me that doesn't mean be negative on every single thing that the government does.

If you check Hansard, you'll find that 95% of the time, Coalition and ALP vote together on legislation. Go check. There might only be a few bods in the chamber, but they are supporting each other.

On a few items where there is a clear policy difference, then both sides will muster all their troops just to make sure. Of course those are the issues that generate heat and excitement and media interest.

It is the function of an opposition to scrutinise government policy and administration and to highlight shortcomings. Gillard did exactly the same thing in opposition, and now she's holding the reins, surprise, surprise, surprise, she's doing some of the things she railed against most bitterly from the other side of the chamber. Nor is her government quite as open and forthcoming and transparent as the ideal she held up as an example when she was a shadow minister asking questions of Howard and his crew.

Government and Opposition do this little dance, regardless of which party is in power. Neither side likes to sing the praises of the other, and both sides love to highlight any failing of the other.

That's understood. What I find harder to understand is when people who aren't even members of a political party do exactly the same thing. Like fans at a sporting fixture, I like to think of it. The home team can do no wrong, the opposing side is full of evil.

I listen to what someone says about politics and I take note of what they say. If it's constantly tipped to one side, then they are singing the team song and their views may be discounted, because there is never going to be any balance or objectivity.

 

[Moody]

I listen to what someone says about politics and I take note of what they say. If it's constantly tipped to one side, then they are singing the team song and their views may be discounted, because there is never going to be any balance or objectivity.

Hoist by one's own petard, Skyring?

 

[Skyring]

Hoist by one's own petard, Skyring?

Sure. I'll admit it. I'm a big fan of Bob Carr. I like his style. I reckon he could win against Tony Abbott.

 

[moa999]

The more i read the grievances of conservative supporters about the last election result the more convinced they have no idea how the Australian system of democracy works. The term coalition simply means an alliance of separate political parties. The Liberal, National, Country Liberal NT, Liberal National Party (Qld) and Nationals (WA) (5 separate registered political parties) if they chose to act together and support each other are a coalition. The same term applies to any the Labor party and any party or parties it might chose to align with - in this case The Greens.

AFAIK there is no system in Australia for "registering and regularising" a coalition agreement beyond voting together in parliament. In some states the Liberal and National parties enter into a coalition agreement formally (which is basically just an agreement between them) even when they are out of office. In other states and at other times the agreement only applies if and when they can form a government together. In some cases such as with the Nationals in WA in this federal parliament and recently in South Australia they act independently of the Liberals entirely. From memory an election or two ago the National party in South Australia actually had a minister in a Labor state government.

Basic maths: The parties that support the government got a larger share of the vote in the last election than the parties that form the opposition. That is true both in first preference and two party preferred terms.

While I agree there is no fixed definition of 'coalition' I disagree with most of the rest.

The Liberal/NP coalition has a joint party room and act as a single voting party in the house/senate
The Labor party is merely supported by the Greens and Independents to form government and ensure supply... I don't see any of them in the Labor party room.

Either way, the last election happened, we should now be focussing on the next.

 

[moa999]

Sure. I'll admit it. I'm a big fan of Bob Carr. I like his style. I reckon he could win against Tony Abbott.

I like his style, but being a long serving NSW Premier over the Obeid era, there is way too much mud
Carr stuck in the mire | thetelegraph.com.au

 

[vetrade]

There have been a few posts in this thread about the shoplifting /assault charges against Mary Jo Fisher which deserve to be put in some sort of perspective......not least because if it hadn't been for the political connection she would almost certainly been treated with some semblence of the compassion she deserved given that she was suffering from clinical depression at the time - and received treatment for it.

Given her known emotional frailty, certainly the way Ms Fisher was treated by her political opponents, and apparently some members of the SA police, was tantamount to abuse and therefore reprehensible - especially as suicide in such cases is not unheard of (I should add I have no knowledge as to whether Ms Fisher was suicidal or not). How a depressed person accused of shoplifting $92.00 worth of goods can end up saddled with $215,000 in legal fees is surely an abuse of process and a blight on all those involved - especially since it is common practice for such people to be simply issued a warning by the police and referred for counselling. And anyone who saw the stick-thin figure of Ms Fisher would surely wonder how a charge of assaulting a security guard could be credibly laid.

It is a relatively common occurrence for otherwise law abiding people (particularly women) suffering from depression to shoplift. These people are very rarely inherently dishonest and their shoplifting should be interpreted as a "call for help" when they don't know who they can turn to or who feel otherwise powerless.

I suggest Ms Fisher deserves to be excluded from further discussion in this thread.

 

[amaroo]

I suggest Ms Fisher deserves to be excluded from further discussion in this thread.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, unlikely to happen......see post 273......

Mental problems......IMO not something we should be posting about.

 

[medhead]

Chris Bowen has already done that-
Australian mainland to be excised from migration zone - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Mainland removed from zone for asylum seekers

And Reith excluded Australian soil from the migration zone before that. As for getting stick into Gillard over migration, she's only implementing Abbott's preferred policy - "Stop the Boats". Support Abbott's position and attacking Gillard is ethically dubious.

 

[drron]

And Reith excluded Australian soil from the migration zone before that. As for getting stick into Gillard over migration, she's only implementing Abbott's preferred policy - "Stop the Boats". Support Abbott's position and attacking Gillard is ethically dubious.

Now I was just answering a post.I was not supporting either policy.Though as you know there are some differences between the 2 policies so I would think there are grounds for supporting 1 side and criticising the other.

 

[oz_mark]

Sure. I'll admit it. I'm a big fan of Bob Carr. I like his style. I reckon he could win against Tony Abbott.

Bob Carr? You mean our unelected foreign minister?

 

[medhead]

There have been a few posts in this thread about the shoplifting /assault charges against Mary Jo Fisher which deserve to be put in some sort of perspective......not least because if it hadn't been for the political connection she would almost certainly been treated with some semblence of the compassion she deserved given that she was suffering from clinical depression at the time - and received treatment for it.

Given her known emotional frailty, certainly the way Ms Fisher was treated by her political opponents, and apparently some members of the SA police, was tantamount to abuse and therefore reprehensible - especially as suicide in such cases is not unheard of (I should add I have no knowledge as to whether Ms Fisher was suicidal or not). How a depressed person accused of shoplifting $92.00 worth of goods can end up saddled with $215,000 in legal fees is surely an abuse of process and a blight on all those involved - especially since it is common practice for such people to be simply issued a warning by the police and referred for counselling. And anyone who saw the stick-thin figure of Ms Fisher would surely wonder how a charge of assaulting a security guard could be credibly laid.

It is a relatively common occurrence for otherwise law abiding people (particularly women) suffering from depression to shoplift. These people are very rarely inherently dishonest and their shoplifting should be interpreted as a "call for help" when they don't know who they can turn to or who feel otherwise powerless.

I suggest Ms Fisher deserves to be excluded from further discussion in this thread.

What a load of rubbish. Fisher was quoted in yesterday's paper specifically saying that her political opponents did not use her problems to get to her. When Abbott was is full swing against Thomsen last year or whenever. The government mentioned that he was entitled to the presumption of innocence and noted that there was another member (as it turns out this was fisher) of the parliament that was enjoying precisely that presumption. So the whole basis of your post is false. Both case show us the difference between the government and the opposition. In particular they highlights Abbott's win at all cost mentality, his born to rule attitude and failure to accept the result.

 

[Major]

Bob Carr? You mean our unelected foreign minister?

Yes...that's the one. I think Paul Keating summed it up when he called them "unelected swill"

 

[Alanslegal]

It's only a freaking handful of boats that make it to Australian territorial waters, what's that, 1000 or so boat people. And yet over 40,000 people are here illegally per year (via breaching their visas) yet little or no attention is ever paid to them. Unless most of those 40,000 are well off enough to not work, a lot of those aliens would be stealing our jobs via the black cash economy.

Because we are so afraid of boat people and been brainwashed that they are 'bad' , 'queue jumpers', 'probable terrorists' that this is a huge political issue and both sides of governments spend hundreds of millions, if not in the low billions, protecting our borders from these so called 'bad' people.

Again, no mention in the media or more importantly the politicians of those 40,000 illegals per annum who arrived by air travel.

PS our family are ex-refugees and we're lucky enough to be here, having not to be blown up by western bombs, threats of being shot by the local corrupt armies, let alone being lost in the jungles or death via starvation so there have been and continue to be genuine refugees, we were one of them. My uncle tried escaping via a boat and perished at sea. Death with a bullet would have been speedier. So as an ex-refugee this boat people issue drive me nuts and both sides of governments waste so much money on this issue, when it could be resolved much more humanely but more importantly at lower cost IF both sides take the politics out of it.

 

[medhead]

Now I was just answering a post.I was not supporting either policy.Though as you know there are some differences between the 2 policies so I would think there are grounds for supporting 1 side and criticising the other.

Yes you were just answering a post and I think you may have mixed up Australian soil and Australian mainland. As we know Australian soil was excluded from the migration zone shortly after the Tampa incident.

I really don't think Malaysia or Nauru is a significant difference in policy. Aside from the question of meeting treaty obligations. In theory the Malaysia solution is preferable IMO. If you wish to call people queue jumpers you really need to have a defined queue. Nothing would stop the boats quicker than people knowing they are going straight back to the end of the queue. Hardly surprising Abbott would block it, much better to play politics than provide a solution.

BTW I agree that clinical staff are in a parallel universe. It's probably the last remaining industry where some operational staff are resistant to improving safety systems.

 

[Hvr]

It's only a freaking handful of boats that make it to Australian territorial waters, what's that, 1000 or so boat people. And yet over 40,000 people are here illegally per year (via breaching their visas) yet little or no attention is ever paid to them. Unless most of those 40,000 are well off enough to not work, a lot of those aliens would be stealing our jobs via the black cash economy.

Because we are so afraid of boat people and been brainwashed that they are 'bad' , 'queue jumpers', 'probable terrorists' that this is a huge political issue and both sides of governments spend hundreds of millions, if not in the low billions, protecting our borders from these so called 'bad' people.

Again, no mention in the media or more importantly the politicians of those 40,000 illegals per annum who arrived by air travel.

PS our family are ex-refugees and we're lucky enough to be here, having not to be blown up by western bombs, threats of being shot by the local corrupt armies, let alone being lost in the jungles or death via starvation so there have been and continue to be genuine refugees, we were one of them. My uncle tried escaping via a boat and perished at sea. Death with a bullet would have been speedier. So as an ex-refugee this boat people issue drive me nuts and both sides of governments waste so much money on this issue, when it could be resolved much more humanely but more importantly at lower cost IF both sides take the politics out of it.

I so agree, we don't have a "refugee problem" in Australia. Especially compared to countries like Malaysia, Thailand, Pakistan etc where they are counted in the hundreds of thousands.

The 'push' factors haven't yet kicked in and on the next few years there will be a lot more people seeking refuge in Australia. We must not treat them like we currently do.

We are wasting their talents and potential to do good for Australia. If we spent as much time ensuring they fitted into Australia as we do vilifying them then this country would be so much better off.

As mentioned above the incredible discrimination shown to people who arrive by boats compared to those who arrive by plane is amazing. Still it is easier to discriminate against those we've been taught to hate rather than people we've gotten to know.

 

[medhead]

It's only a freaking handful of boats that make it to Australian territorial waters, what's that, 1000 or so boat people. And yet over 40,000 people are here illegally per year (via breaching their visas) yet little or no attention is ever paid to them. Unless most of those 40,000 are well off enough to not work, a lot of those aliens would be stealing our jobs via the black cash economy.

Because we are so afraid of boat people and been brainwashed that they are 'bad' , 'queue jumpers', 'probable terrorists' that this is a huge political issue and both sides of governments spend hundreds of millions, if not in the low billions, protecting our borders from these so called 'bad' people.

Again, no mention in the media or more importantly the politicians of those 40,000 illegals per annum who arrived by air travel.

I had read that there were more like 150000 in Australia at any one time who had illegally overstayed their visas. But that was a while ago so I'm not sure if the number is still current.

But you're absolutely correct that the silence on this issue is deafening.

 

[Pushka]

I think I read somewhere that currently 30,000 NZ make their home Australia each year. Asylum seekers are pretty minuscule but a target for scare tactics on both sides.