Oct 9 - The real vote on the Aviation Reform Group
Bottums Up
Andu,
Please bear with my fanciful scenario and answer a few questions.
Labor is successful in October's election and withdraws Australia's troops from Iraq. George Dubya gets shiity and decides to invade, enslaving all Australians and removes all the rights we have come to cherish. We work for peanuts, are not allowed to own property, and are in essence an occupied people.
Our Australian way of life is no longer, and life here is intolerable. The only option of escape is to go west, as the US has also occupied Hong Kong and there is the threat to the region of a nucular (to emulate Dubya) holocaust.
Please bear with my fanciful scenario and answer a few questions.
Labor is successful in October's election and withdraws Australia's troops from Iraq. George Dubya gets shiity and decides to invade, enslaving all Australians and removes all the rights we have come to cherish. We work for peanuts, are not allowed to own property, and are in essence an occupied people.
Our Australian way of life is no longer, and life here is intolerable. The only option of escape is to go west, as the US has also occupied Hong Kong and there is the threat to the region of a nucular (to emulate Dubya) holocaust.
- What country would you try to escape to for the safety, well being and future of your family?
- Would you try to settle in Europe or would some where like India or Saudi be acceptable?
- How many countries would you pass over between here and your country of choice?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
‘****su-Tonka’, it’s as much a waste of time my debating with you as it is you debating with me – we’re both so damn sure we’re right we won’t listen to the other side. The difference between us, (IMHO, at least), is that you are still a True Believer – and I saw what a succession of ‘True Believers’ did to my country’s economy from 1975 on. (Was it you who said you got your university degree ‘for free’ under a Whitlam Government, where your children will be burdened for many years with repaying a student loan? It may surprise you to learn that nothing comes for free, and every taxpayer – including the many who were not lucky enough to get a university education – were burdened with your ‘student loan’.)
I don’t believe there’s a totally honest one among either Front Bench. (It’s simply impossible to get to the Front Bench on either side of the House without being beholden to the faceless men who pull the strings from behind the scenes in both parties. They couldn’t afford to let a man with no debts to repay [or no skeletons in the closet] into a position of power.)
But maybe they’re all being crooks to some degree isn’t quite as bad a situation as many would think it is at first glance. Look at the absolute disaster Jimmy Carter made of US foreign policy in trying to be ‘Mr Nice Guy’. Did that buy America respect? Quite the opposite, if my recollections are correct.
Sadly, the people represented by nice guys are all too often sold down the river as the nice guys get stomped on by the not very nice guys they have to deal with in world politics. (When oh when will Australian politicians get it into their heads that they were elected by Australians to represent Australia’s interests, and not those of the UN?)
I’m seriously unimpressed – appalled would be a better word – at what John Anderson has allowed Dick**** Smith to do to Australian aviation. I also think that huge mistakes have been made – and continue to be made - in the helicopter purchases being made by the Australian Army, and these mistakes could have consequences so grave should we ever go to ‘real’ war they don’t bear thinking about.
However, I can’t help myself… I simply know it in my gut that a Latham government will send the Australian economy into another tailspin, and, like an earlier writer on this thread, I believe that Howard’s mob, for all the undoubted faults, will do a less bad job of it than Labor – particularly Labor under the leadership of a tyro like Latham.
I don’t believe there’s a totally honest one among either Front Bench. (It’s simply impossible to get to the Front Bench on either side of the House without being beholden to the faceless men who pull the strings from behind the scenes in both parties. They couldn’t afford to let a man with no debts to repay [or no skeletons in the closet] into a position of power.)
But maybe they’re all being crooks to some degree isn’t quite as bad a situation as many would think it is at first glance. Look at the absolute disaster Jimmy Carter made of US foreign policy in trying to be ‘Mr Nice Guy’. Did that buy America respect? Quite the opposite, if my recollections are correct.
Sadly, the people represented by nice guys are all too often sold down the river as the nice guys get stomped on by the not very nice guys they have to deal with in world politics. (When oh when will Australian politicians get it into their heads that they were elected by Australians to represent Australia’s interests, and not those of the UN?)
I’m seriously unimpressed – appalled would be a better word – at what John Anderson has allowed Dick**** Smith to do to Australian aviation. I also think that huge mistakes have been made – and continue to be made - in the helicopter purchases being made by the Australian Army, and these mistakes could have consequences so grave should we ever go to ‘real’ war they don’t bear thinking about.
However, I can’t help myself… I simply know it in my gut that a Latham government will send the Australian economy into another tailspin, and, like an earlier writer on this thread, I believe that Howard’s mob, for all the undoubted faults, will do a less bad job of it than Labor – particularly Labor under the leadership of a tyro like Latham.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiley,
Actually I really will listen to solid coherent arguments about why you think you are right. So far I haven't heard anything resembling that from either you or your cohorts.
There is nothing wrong with the Liberal Party philosophy - it's just that it was abandoned completely about 15-20 years ago.
[You are confusing me with someone a little older v.v. the degree. I will be paying for the privlege of a M.Bus. for some years, unlike in enlightened socially progressive countries like Ireland. Education is always the key that differentiates progressive countries and forms cohesive societies. The 'new brand' of Liberal Politics we see from the Howard regime either have no grasp or a complete grasp of that concept - if you get my drift.]
I would say that President Carter is in fact now one of the few American ambassadors able to garner international respect - why else is he parachuted in as a diplomatic firefighter when an outcome is absolutely positively required overnight?
Your pragmatic line equating to: 'Sure their crooks, but they are the best crooks of a bad bunch' is really a sad indictment of the lack of idealism that dominates the Liberal 'true believers' and what you are prepared to allow government be. I think Graeme Richardson (A total embarassment to the ALP I admit) said it best : 'Whatever it takes'. Just because it is the status quo it doesn't make it right or anywhere near acceptable. Bad things happen when good people do nothing.
I am not a true believer in the context you suggest.
But I do believe - and have always believed - that Australia has a unique place in the world to be able to stand apart and stand up for what is right - nearly 100% of the time it works out in the long term to be more beneficial than all the short term gains perceptions anyway. Instead we sell out the icons that make Australia unique and envied to fall in line with the US. Pathetic.
If you are going to gamble away Australia and it's identity so you can compete in the international commodities market with an economy smaller than that of Californias, you will lose. The brazeness of the US with its own protectionist tarrifs propping up inefficient fat industries preaching the benfits of free trade to Australia is almost pornographic in its obscenity. And what does Howard et al do? To 'allow' us to participate in this one-sided rout, we go to war with the US in Iraq as part of the Coalition of the Gullible - with: no objective, no exit strategy and no validity.
If you vote for the incumbent Government you endorse that philosophy. You say: 'We just love what you are doing for Australias image in the world - you have made Australia a much safer place, and chosen the right battles for our sons and daughters to fight for, with the right allies and for the right reasons. You have kept Australias voice an independant one and not succumbed to the polarised unilateral stand of the bullying US. And you have done all this with the highest ethical ministerial standards, probity and accountability. Give us some more!!'. Let me bend over to help you'.
If my standing up for Australias independence as a culture and nation makes me a crazy commie in your twisted view of the World, well paint me red comrade.
Actually I really will listen to solid coherent arguments about why you think you are right. So far I haven't heard anything resembling that from either you or your cohorts.
There is nothing wrong with the Liberal Party philosophy - it's just that it was abandoned completely about 15-20 years ago.
[You are confusing me with someone a little older v.v. the degree. I will be paying for the privlege of a M.Bus. for some years, unlike in enlightened socially progressive countries like Ireland. Education is always the key that differentiates progressive countries and forms cohesive societies. The 'new brand' of Liberal Politics we see from the Howard regime either have no grasp or a complete grasp of that concept - if you get my drift.]
I would say that President Carter is in fact now one of the few American ambassadors able to garner international respect - why else is he parachuted in as a diplomatic firefighter when an outcome is absolutely positively required overnight?
Your pragmatic line equating to: 'Sure their crooks, but they are the best crooks of a bad bunch' is really a sad indictment of the lack of idealism that dominates the Liberal 'true believers' and what you are prepared to allow government be. I think Graeme Richardson (A total embarassment to the ALP I admit) said it best : 'Whatever it takes'. Just because it is the status quo it doesn't make it right or anywhere near acceptable. Bad things happen when good people do nothing.
I am not a true believer in the context you suggest.
But I do believe - and have always believed - that Australia has a unique place in the world to be able to stand apart and stand up for what is right - nearly 100% of the time it works out in the long term to be more beneficial than all the short term gains perceptions anyway. Instead we sell out the icons that make Australia unique and envied to fall in line with the US. Pathetic.
If you are going to gamble away Australia and it's identity so you can compete in the international commodities market with an economy smaller than that of Californias, you will lose. The brazeness of the US with its own protectionist tarrifs propping up inefficient fat industries preaching the benfits of free trade to Australia is almost pornographic in its obscenity. And what does Howard et al do? To 'allow' us to participate in this one-sided rout, we go to war with the US in Iraq as part of the Coalition of the Gullible - with: no objective, no exit strategy and no validity.
If you vote for the incumbent Government you endorse that philosophy. You say: 'We just love what you are doing for Australias image in the world - you have made Australia a much safer place, and chosen the right battles for our sons and daughters to fight for, with the right allies and for the right reasons. You have kept Australias voice an independant one and not succumbed to the polarised unilateral stand of the bullying US. And you have done all this with the highest ethical ministerial standards, probity and accountability. Give us some more!!'. Let me bend over to help you'.
If my standing up for Australias independence as a culture and nation makes me a crazy commie in your twisted view of the World, well paint me red comrade.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said, and on the FTA, Why is it that we have to sign a legal doc to achieve free trade, would not the opposite be true, that be not signing, we have Freedom of/to trade, without apply restrictions etc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HotDog,
I see your well researched response to Michael Moores production of a movie, payment of independant factual auditing of his sources, is that he is:
?
Keep shooting the messenger.
I take it you have never done any military service or have children in the service? Oops. Thats right. Of course not. You are a Liberal voter. You don't have to do that. Its for others.
I see your well researched response to Michael Moores production of a movie, payment of independant factual auditing of his sources, is that he is:
that fat slob
Keep shooting the messenger.
I take it you have never done any military service or have children in the service? Oops. Thats right. Of course not. You are a Liberal voter. You don't have to do that. Its for others.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was me!
Wiley,
That was me who said that my children will be landed with a considerable debt to achieve the same sort of education I received for free. Yes, you are correct, it's not really free, the tax payers fund it. That means, however, it's available for everyone, not just the wealthy. Just like roads, public health, old age pensions, etc.
I currently send my children to private schools, because I can afford it (the Catholic education system is great for this). I cannot, however, afford to put my children through Uni. The current cost of a degree in Law, Medicine, Dentistry, etc is in the order $120K. That's right! Increase that by 25% next year, and see if you can afford it.
As for 1975. Well, Whitlam was ousted by Malcolm Fraser. Fraser was a good PM. But as my financial advisor told me, Oz market is but 0.5% of the worlds economy and bigger forces outside Oz governments drive our economy. Saying that Labor bankrupt Oz's economy is BS, and no amount of saying it over and over makes it more right.
The real question is will Labor be better. I'm willing to give them a try. They've got three years to do something, including get rid of dick, before the next election.
DP
That was me who said that my children will be landed with a considerable debt to achieve the same sort of education I received for free. Yes, you are correct, it's not really free, the tax payers fund it. That means, however, it's available for everyone, not just the wealthy. Just like roads, public health, old age pensions, etc.
I currently send my children to private schools, because I can afford it (the Catholic education system is great for this). I cannot, however, afford to put my children through Uni. The current cost of a degree in Law, Medicine, Dentistry, etc is in the order $120K. That's right! Increase that by 25% next year, and see if you can afford it.
As for 1975. Well, Whitlam was ousted by Malcolm Fraser. Fraser was a good PM. But as my financial advisor told me, Oz market is but 0.5% of the worlds economy and bigger forces outside Oz governments drive our economy. Saying that Labor bankrupt Oz's economy is BS, and no amount of saying it over and over makes it more right.
The real question is will Labor be better. I'm willing to give them a try. They've got three years to do something, including get rid of dick, before the next election.
DP
Last edited by DirtyPierre; 3rd Sep 2004 at 20:40.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: mexico
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andu
"how many more boatloads of high-paying hopefuls would have set out from Indonesia over the last three years".
My sincere apologies, when you mentioned Indonesia, I thought you meant Indonesia.
As Cap Claret is alluding to, according to the United Nations Refugee Convention, the mode of transport (commercial jet) and the "very large amounts of money" they paid to reach Australia has no relevance to whether or not they are seeking asylum. Similarly, it does not matter how many other countries they flew over en route.
Latham, if elected, is compelled to treat asylum seekers according to international law and convention, something the present government has not done. However, being a politician, he will twist the situation, muddy the waters and deceive the people in order to make it a political issue supporting his agenda of the day. Why would you expect anything more.
"how many more boatloads of high-paying hopefuls would have set out from Indonesia over the last three years".
My sincere apologies, when you mentioned Indonesia, I thought you meant Indonesia.
As Cap Claret is alluding to, according to the United Nations Refugee Convention, the mode of transport (commercial jet) and the "very large amounts of money" they paid to reach Australia has no relevance to whether or not they are seeking asylum. Similarly, it does not matter how many other countries they flew over en route.
Latham, if elected, is compelled to treat asylum seekers according to international law and convention, something the present government has not done. However, being a politician, he will twist the situation, muddy the waters and deceive the people in order to make it a political issue supporting his agenda of the day. Why would you expect anything more.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it you have never done any military service or have children in the service? Oops. Thats right. Of course not. You are a Liberal voter. You don't have to do that. Its for others.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wont have a defence force? Right. Based on what? More Liberal propoganda? I seem to recall the defence force being significantly stronger in ODF deployable numbers before 1996.
Same scare campaign as the 'ALP will increase Interest rates'.
Even most liberal voters know that the government doesnt set the bench rate.
HotDogWould I be correct in guessing that you earn more than 52K a year - so you have had a tax cut and agree with John Howard that unless you are a high income earner you don't deserve one? (Just a 'baby bribe' instead). Yes - masters of economic management this lot..... when it comes to buying votes that is.
Frankly I would rather listen to what Bernie Fraser has to say about Howards nonsense and economic 'credentials'.
Same scare campaign as the 'ALP will increase Interest rates'.
Even most liberal voters know that the government doesnt set the bench rate.
HotDogWould I be correct in guessing that you earn more than 52K a year - so you have had a tax cut and agree with John Howard that unless you are a high income earner you don't deserve one? (Just a 'baby bribe' instead). Yes - masters of economic management this lot..... when it comes to buying votes that is.
Frankly I would rather listen to what Bernie Fraser has to say about Howards nonsense and economic 'credentials'.
Last edited by Shitsu-Tonka; 4th Sep 2004 at 11:45.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Army size?
****su-Tonka
You're right to an extent in refuting Hotdog's post re shutting down the ADF. The Defence bill each year as a proportion of Commonwealth outlays since the mid-1970s (ie Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard governments) has been about the same +/- a tiny little bit.
A Latham government won't slash Defence spending a la Whitlam but I fear a little bit for the army if the 'Sea Air Gap' nonsense comes to dominate thinking again. The army was incrementally reduced in strength (by very rough and iffy measurements I grant you if we talk solely in number of RAInf battalions) from 9 Bns of RAR in 1972 to the mid-1980s 6 Bns of RAR down to the nadir under Minister Ray (I think) of 4 ARA Bns of the RAR plus 2 RRes Bns. Also Mr Hawke's government eliminated the FAA's FW strike capability and organic fleet air defence - defence of the 'Sea Air Gap' my a#se!
So Mr Bomber Beazley has recently suggested we need another infantry battalion. Would they be so cynical as to reclassify 4RAR as light or motorised or mechanised infantry instead of (CDO) and say "Look we have another infantry battalion!"? Hope not but you never know. Frankly given the 'bare cupboard' we saw in 1999 I'd have thought that anyone trying to claim good defence credentials would arge for a massive increase in the size of the army - battalions, troop lift, battlefield mobility, logistical tail, the whole works 'n' jerks.
Didn't Mr Latham claim he'll keep the budget in surplus for each year of the next parliament? If so, imagine a 10% real increase in defence spending. Does it really amount to much as a proportion of total Commonwealth spending? Less than 1 percent, methinks.
Oh and by the way to add fuel to the argument before I sign off, Mr Dawkins as Education Minister in the Hawke ALP government oversaw the introduction of HECS. It's probably the least unfair way of helping fund the tertiary system but they also turned very good regional CAEs into 'Dawkins Universities' that now struggle to compete with the Group of 8. Should we start asking why tax payers fund everyone Tom Dicky & Harriet through a Bachelor of Leisure Studies at University of Western Buggery? Should universities be ultra elite centres of excellence.... I don't know the answer but the fact is the ALP opened the door to overt university fees in 1989 (called by whatever name).
PPRuNers I am not voting coalition this time; this government doesn't deserve it, so please don't read my criticisms of the ALP as meaning I'm a Lib stooge. I've just reread my post and the last paragraph is a bit unclear - much like my essays of old! But I'm too tired to clean it up....
Good night one and all, sleep tight.
You're right to an extent in refuting Hotdog's post re shutting down the ADF. The Defence bill each year as a proportion of Commonwealth outlays since the mid-1970s (ie Fraser, Hawke, Keating and Howard governments) has been about the same +/- a tiny little bit.
A Latham government won't slash Defence spending a la Whitlam but I fear a little bit for the army if the 'Sea Air Gap' nonsense comes to dominate thinking again. The army was incrementally reduced in strength (by very rough and iffy measurements I grant you if we talk solely in number of RAInf battalions) from 9 Bns of RAR in 1972 to the mid-1980s 6 Bns of RAR down to the nadir under Minister Ray (I think) of 4 ARA Bns of the RAR plus 2 RRes Bns. Also Mr Hawke's government eliminated the FAA's FW strike capability and organic fleet air defence - defence of the 'Sea Air Gap' my a#se!
So Mr Bomber Beazley has recently suggested we need another infantry battalion. Would they be so cynical as to reclassify 4RAR as light or motorised or mechanised infantry instead of (CDO) and say "Look we have another infantry battalion!"? Hope not but you never know. Frankly given the 'bare cupboard' we saw in 1999 I'd have thought that anyone trying to claim good defence credentials would arge for a massive increase in the size of the army - battalions, troop lift, battlefield mobility, logistical tail, the whole works 'n' jerks.
Didn't Mr Latham claim he'll keep the budget in surplus for each year of the next parliament? If so, imagine a 10% real increase in defence spending. Does it really amount to much as a proportion of total Commonwealth spending? Less than 1 percent, methinks.
Oh and by the way to add fuel to the argument before I sign off, Mr Dawkins as Education Minister in the Hawke ALP government oversaw the introduction of HECS. It's probably the least unfair way of helping fund the tertiary system but they also turned very good regional CAEs into 'Dawkins Universities' that now struggle to compete with the Group of 8. Should we start asking why tax payers fund everyone Tom Dicky & Harriet through a Bachelor of Leisure Studies at University of Western Buggery? Should universities be ultra elite centres of excellence.... I don't know the answer but the fact is the ALP opened the door to overt university fees in 1989 (called by whatever name).
PPRuNers I am not voting coalition this time; this government doesn't deserve it, so please don't read my criticisms of the ALP as meaning I'm a Lib stooge. I've just reread my post and the last paragraph is a bit unclear - much like my essays of old! But I'm too tired to clean it up....
Good night one and all, sleep tight.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was late in the afternoon. Mike Scrafton had been answering questions, on and off, since 9am. Now it was after 4. When the official transcript came out the next day, I did the sums. Scrafton's interrogation had lasted five hours in a 7½-hour hearing. The five politicians on the Senate committee asked him 620 questions. Fifteen minutes from the end, Labor's Robert Ray, the ex-Hawke/Keating minister, went to the heart of what had become obvious. "Would you agree not all your evidence today can be crystal clear? That some recollections are vague and some are accurate, that it is a mix?"
Scrafton, without pause: "Yes, I think that's true."
Ray: "That then leads to the question: do you know of any motive that would cause you to misrepresent your evidence?"
Scrafton: "There's nothing I gain from what I've come forward and said. I've seen sufficient Senate inquiries and estimates hearings to know exactly what I'd be subject to through this process. I have nothing to gain from this. I'm not coming back to [work in Canberra]. There is an air of notoriety and a lack of anonymity which is not good for a public servant. No, there's nothing I gain personally from having done this."
Nor is there. Scrafton is not a Labor activist, a Labor stooge nor a member of any political party. Nor has he ever been, so far as we know. He was a federal public servant for 18 years. Almost his entire career was in defence. He was good enough at what he did to reach the senior executive service. He headed up the East Timor policy unit in 1999. The former Howard defence minister John Moore made him his chief-of-staff, under secondment four years ago, and Scrafton agreed to stay until the 2001 election after Moore quit in December 2000 and was replaced by Peter Reith.
Scarred by the children overboard affair, Scrafton gave up his defence career last December. He now works in Melbourne for the Victorian state public service. Tony Abbott, as grubby as ever, is shrill in seeing this as Scrafton's partisanship. Yet politicians like Abbott are responsible for that "air of notoriety and lack of anonymity" Scrafton talks about in the workings of the Commonwealth public service these days.
However, what Scrafton really did three weeks ago, if you believed him, was show up his Prime Minister as a liar. Either Scrafton is right in his account of what he said to John Howard on the phone three years ago about children overboard, or Howard is right when he repudiates Scrafton. There is no room for compromise. One or the other has lied about the detail of their phone calls on the night of November 7, 2001 - three days before the 2001 election.
However, it was Scrafton in the dock this week, not Howard. It was Scrafton who had to prove himself under public interrogation, not the Prime Minister. Howard did a runner. He called the election last Sunday and closed down the Parliament from 4.59pm Tuesday (the precise timing has to mean something, though nobody's sure what). The House never sat at all, the Senate for one day only. Howard the coward evaded parliamentary scrutiny altogether. And when the Senate committee met on Wednesday to grill Scrafton, the Prime Minister was the man who wasn't there. In his stead we got Queensland's Senator George "Soapy" Brandis.
In a superb piece of irony, the Government's designated chief defender of Howard's truthfulness was outed on the Nine Network the night before the Senate hearing as having boasted 15 months ago to a group of Queensland Liberal colleagues that Howard was a "lying rodent" whom he and others would have to "cover his arse again" on children overboard. Brandis denies the accusation unequivocally, a denial Labor's John Faulkner dismissed with contempt at the Scrafton hearing.
When Brandis produced what he said were Telstra records of all telephone calls - including mobile calls - to and from the Lodge on the night of November 7, 2001, he refused to make the records public for "security" reasons.
Ray: "So they can be given to you but not tabled in this committee? We have offered for people from the Prime Minister's office to come and give evidence if they wish, not to take second-hand evidence from you in some closest."
Labor Senate leader John Faulkner: "I do not believe anything the Prime Minister's office says about anything. And I do not believe anything the Prime Minister has ever said about anything. He is a known liar. Senator Brandis knows that, and says it."
Brandis did not respond.
Scrafton was rarely anything but forthright. The picture he drew of a public service, timid if not cowed, makes a travesty of the Government's constant assertions of its independence and the quality of its advice.
The Democrat leader, Andrew Bartlett: "Do you believe there is a culture at high levels within Defence and the public service of avoiding saying things ministers or governments do not want to hear?"
Scrafton: "Do I think some senior people find it difficult or reluctant to provide advice on occasions? Yes ... My experience is there is an increasing tendency to represent material, not intended for public usage, for political reasons or for public explanation reasons. The whole experience I had during "children overboard" involved a lot of finding positions to deny evidence...
"I think evidence of poor advice comes from the fact Defence knew, certainly from the second week of October, 2001 [that is, three weeks before polling day] that almost certainly the event [children being thrown overboard] had not occurred, but at no point did anybody put formal advice before Government to make it unequivocal. Part of why they did not do that, I think, was because they did not think [such advice] would be received very well."
Bartlett: "Without getting too starry-eyed about the good old days of frank and fearless advice, because I imagine it always looks more rosy in retrospect, how big a problem is it that ... you just do not say things because it will stuff your prospects for the future?"
Scrafton: "Put simply, from within Defence's perspective, I would say on the one hand there is nowhere near the rigour and analysis put into the advice that goes forward now. It is much more tailored, I think, in lots of ways, to what wants to be heard. There is not the same strength internally to critically filter out bad advice."
Scrafton was adamant about what he'd told Howard. When the Liberals' Alan Ferguson asked if he could not be sure how many times the Prime Minister had phoned him on November 7, 2001, and that wasn't it possible he "could not recall clearly a lot of other events", Scrafton said: "I suppose the answer to that is, I do not know if you have ever been in the position of having to explain to a prime minister that the position he has been taking [on children overboard] for a month is wrong. That is not something that somebody with my length of time in the public service would ever forget."
And when Brandis, a barrister, kept boring in, ad nauseam, on how many phone calls there'd been from Howard, Scrafton told him: "The very salient issue burnt on my mind from that evening is what I said to the Prime Minister. There was more than one phone call. My recollection is that there were three. I am not prepared to go to the grave fighting over that. But I have no doubt whatever as to what I said."
The only other two witnesses called at Wednesday's hearing were both from the military. Their evidence backed Scrafton's credibility.
Major-General (ret.) Roger Powell made it clear he did not want to be there, and although he would at all times "be frank and forthright" in his answers, he would "not be drawn on any matter" he felt would "harm the reputation" of the "profession of arms". His evidence concerned a post-election internal defence inquiry in December 2001 in which, among other Reith staff, he'd interviewed Scrafton who had told him, "off the record", of his phone conversations on the night of November 7, 2001, with the Prime Minister.
Powell told the hearing: "I do not have a strong recollection of the detail. I only recall a clear understanding of the fact that, if what Mr Scrafton told me was accurate, the Prime Minister would have been in no doubt that children had not been thrown overboard."
A second officer, Commander Michael Noonan, was present during Powell's interview with Scrafton. He confirmed Powell's recollection of what Scrafton had told him three years earlier. "I did not have any reason to think there was anything but a frank and honest conversation between the general and Mr Scrafton. I felt he had been very open with the general." Remarkably, none of this was made public at the time.
Wednesday's hearing adjourned until after the October 9 election. John Howard's credibility is still in the dock. Voters give their verdict before the committee does. And depending what voters do, we might never hear of the matter again. Never ever.
Alan Ramsey
http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/0...?oneclick=true
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, hoWARd is a liar alright.
I remember in the last few months of 2002, hoWARd was asked repeatly if Australia was going to join the "co-ilition of the killing".
He kept saying, "it is a hypothetical question", "it is hypothetical" etc. etc., it was pathetic to lisyen to. He kept saying this crap right up until Christmas.
And guess what?
On the 6th of January, ONLY about 10 days since it was a hypothetical question, a couple of fully loaded war ships left Sydney for the waters off Iraq.
Why the 6th of January? Because most Australians, including the media, were off on holidays. That is why this sneaky little turd did it at that time - no big uproar in Parlement and the general public doing other things.
Of course, if needed, such as an in the case of Austarlia being invaded, you could probably have a war ship ready to go in a matter of hours. But don't tell me, in this case that on Christmas Eve, it was "hypothetical".
This had been planned for months, and hoWARd just lyed his ar$e off to the Austalian people, who he obviously thinks are a bunch of morons and has absolutely no respect for.
I remember in the last few months of 2002, hoWARd was asked repeatly if Australia was going to join the "co-ilition of the killing".
He kept saying, "it is a hypothetical question", "it is hypothetical" etc. etc., it was pathetic to lisyen to. He kept saying this crap right up until Christmas.
And guess what?
On the 6th of January, ONLY about 10 days since it was a hypothetical question, a couple of fully loaded war ships left Sydney for the waters off Iraq.
Why the 6th of January? Because most Australians, including the media, were off on holidays. That is why this sneaky little turd did it at that time - no big uproar in Parlement and the general public doing other things.
Of course, if needed, such as an in the case of Austarlia being invaded, you could probably have a war ship ready to go in a matter of hours. But don't tell me, in this case that on Christmas Eve, it was "hypothetical".
This had been planned for months, and hoWARd just lyed his ar$e off to the Austalian people, who he obviously thinks are a bunch of morons and has absolutely no respect for.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comrad ****su,
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
your a raving
idiot.
You are seriously trying to say that Labor looks after defence just as well / better than the coalition?
While you're are ripping bits from hansard. Why don't you rip the bits where he can't explain why the alleged phone call was 52 seconds long.. oh that's right, because it doesn't suit your purpose.
It's a shame people as stupid as you associate with the aviation industry.
wit, haven't you got a small corner that you can off to and die??
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
your a raving
idiot.You are seriously trying to say that Labor looks after defence just as well / better than the coalition?
While you're are ripping bits from hansard. Why don't you rip the bits where he can't explain why the alleged phone call was 52 seconds long.. oh that's right, because it doesn't suit your purpose.
It's a shame people as
stupid as you associate with the aviation industry. wit, haven't you got a small corner that you can off to and die??
Last edited by Pass-A-Frozo; 8th Sep 2004 at 07:17.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAF - you do neither yourself nor the Government's cause any good by resorting to abuse. What they can't stand is rational argument - so let me have a go, for all the good it will do.
Let's get some ground rules understood first though. As a relatively educated audience, Im sure we can all accept that politics - like life - isn't all black and white. However, the great bulk of the electorate isn't particularly sophisticated, nor engaged when it comes to matters political and economic. That, combined with the dominance of the ten-second media grab, is why the arguments are mostly grossly over-simplified. Ergo, when it comes to interest rates, the message is "Howard - good. Latham - bad" - even though the truth is probably somewhere in between.
So, that understood, why vote for Howard? Probably the biggest reason is he lives in the real world. He's flint-hard, pragmatic, and in most cases will do "whatever it takes" to get the right outcome as he perceives it. That could be on trade policy, illegal immigrants or war on Saddam Hussein.
Paradoxically this realism - what I see as his greatest strength - is also what his enemies hate most about him. (Note that when I say enemies, I'm not talking about your average Labor voter. I'm talking about your real rusted-on, venomous Howard-hater - the likes of Philip Adams, Tony Kevin, Margo Kingston and our very own Mr ****su-Tonka.)
Having said that Howard lives in the real world, my thesis is that these people largely live on an entirely different planet from most of us. For the purposes of this illustration, why don't we call it "Planet Adams", after it's most long-standing, bilious and vocal resident. What would life be like there, you ask? Well, let me give you just a taste.
On Planet Adams, the Prime Minister of Australia is Public Enemy Number 2 (the President of the USA having nabbed top billing). It is perfectly acceptable - nay, compulsory - for residents to routinely refer to the PM as a rodent, a creep and a liar. Of course, that rule only works one way. Should members of the Government dare to question the motivation or agenda of, for example, the 43 self-appointed guardians of the public good, or perhaps disgruntled ex-staffers, then they are to be attacked as "playing the man" - resorting to personal attacks rather than a policy critique. Remember that next time you hear the "R" and "L" words bandied about. My guess is that you won't have to wait long.
Part of this strategy is to obfuscate on the issues. Therefore, all you ever hear about children overboard is that "Howard lied". Now it is true that children (on SIEV4, anyway) were not heaved over the side. However, as the logs of the HMAS Adelaide show quite clearly, the boat was subsequently sabotaged by the passengers - causing it to sink and putting everyone, not just the children, into the water. That's a bit inconvenient though, so we won't get into that - that liar Howard is the only issue here, remember.
Also on Planet Adams, the nation's present economic success has absolutely nothing to do with the Government, or eight years of good management by Howard and Costello. Apparently everyone in the world's doing well. The countries to our north - recovering from the Asian economic crisis which Australia curiously avoided - were presumably just unlucky.
This world view would have you believe that if Simon Crean became Treasurer on Ocotber 9 (and never forget that's exactly what we're talking about here) then the good times would just keep on rolling.
Now Mr Tonka will no doubt say that I'm just regurgitating propaganda - and to some extent he's right. It's that black and white portrayal again. There's no doubt that some of the success we currently enjoy is as a result of the structural reforms of the Hawke and Keating Governments. But is it true to say that economic success or failure has absolutely nothing to do with the Government? Was Paul Keating responsible for 1 million unemployed and 17% interest rates all on his own? Of course not. Underlying fundamentals had something to do with it. But did he contribute to them with ill-judged fiscal responses? Absolutely.
Therefore, when the Government seeks to draw a distinction on economic management, it's quite entitled to do so, and to claim some credit for record low unemployment, unprecedented economic growth and a huge reduction in public debt. Similarly, the statement that "average interest rates have been higher under Labor than the Coalition" isn't propaganda - it's a historical fact.
What about foreign policy? On Planet Adams, we're hated around the world for our alliance with the US. From where I sit, we're on the same sheet of music as the United States and Britain, (not to mention Singapore, Japan, South Korea.....etc.) Particularly in the case of the former two, they are our greatest historical allies, and the nations with which we have the most congruent world view. I'm sorry, but if the price of that alliance is being disliked by the Germans (not that I think for a minute that that's true), then I'm afraid I think we've picked the right team.
A corollory of this argument is that we're even more hated in the region than we used to be. Presumably that's why under this Government, our trade with China has increased by 300%, we've signed a free trade agreement with Thailand, done the courageous thing in East Timor but stayed on speaking terms with Indonesia, and now have unprecedented influence in the South Pacific.
On Planet Adams, the big old cuddly UN will fix all the world's problems. Nothing must be done without their imprimatur. Therefore, we should all return to our homes and wait for the UN to follow up their spectacular successes in Rwanda, Somalia, the Balkans and the Middle East. World peace will be delivered shortly.
By contrast, Howard lives in the real world. He knows that 10 years of violated Security Council resolutions on Iraq turned out not to be worth the paper they were written on. The UN squibbed it in the end, and vested interests meant nothing would ever have been done about Saddam. However, on Planet Adams, because the French and the Russians wouldn't give us approval, that would have been it. Presumably poor old Hans Blix would still have been chasing shadows while Saddam relaxed in the palace in Baghdad.
Howard also knows that a UN resolution to authorise the successful Solomon islands operation would never have been possible - because Taiwan is a donor to the Solomons, China just wasn't interested in helping. So on planet Howard, we do what we did in Iraq - put together a coalition of like minded nations and get on with the job. Fortunately there was still enough of a government there to invite us in. God knows what would have happened on Planet Adams.
On Planet Adams, the US is not the victim of September 11 - it's actually all their fault! Terrorism is nothing to do with Islamofacism, religious hatred, woefully low education standards and the fatuous oligarchies so prevalent in the Muslim world - it's actually caused by McDonald's and Coca Cola trying to take over the world.
Meanwhile, residents of the planet cry crocodile tears and fill acres of newsprint over David Hicks (a man who watched 9/11 on TV and went out and picked sides) but never mention Sergeant Andrew Russell. He's the Australian SAS member that died in Afghanistan while putting the skids under the repulsive Taliban, and helping to root out Al-Qaeda from their caves. Remember that Howard commitment? Didn't think so.
I could go on, but I've lost the rage (and probably the audience). If I can summon it up again, I might deal with the rubbish about the $100 000 uni degrees.
But that's it in a nutshell. If you think that the times demand a hard PM, with runs on the board on issues from defence to the economy, then vote Howard.
If you think that Australia needs a violent, foul mouthed yob from Western Sydney as PM instead, then good on you - vive la democracy! I'm off to lock in my home loan for three years on fixed interest.
Let's get some ground rules understood first though. As a relatively educated audience, Im sure we can all accept that politics - like life - isn't all black and white. However, the great bulk of the electorate isn't particularly sophisticated, nor engaged when it comes to matters political and economic. That, combined with the dominance of the ten-second media grab, is why the arguments are mostly grossly over-simplified. Ergo, when it comes to interest rates, the message is "Howard - good. Latham - bad" - even though the truth is probably somewhere in between.
So, that understood, why vote for Howard? Probably the biggest reason is he lives in the real world. He's flint-hard, pragmatic, and in most cases will do "whatever it takes" to get the right outcome as he perceives it. That could be on trade policy, illegal immigrants or war on Saddam Hussein.
Paradoxically this realism - what I see as his greatest strength - is also what his enemies hate most about him. (Note that when I say enemies, I'm not talking about your average Labor voter. I'm talking about your real rusted-on, venomous Howard-hater - the likes of Philip Adams, Tony Kevin, Margo Kingston and our very own Mr ****su-Tonka.)
Having said that Howard lives in the real world, my thesis is that these people largely live on an entirely different planet from most of us. For the purposes of this illustration, why don't we call it "Planet Adams", after it's most long-standing, bilious and vocal resident. What would life be like there, you ask? Well, let me give you just a taste.
On Planet Adams, the Prime Minister of Australia is Public Enemy Number 2 (the President of the USA having nabbed top billing). It is perfectly acceptable - nay, compulsory - for residents to routinely refer to the PM as a rodent, a creep and a liar. Of course, that rule only works one way. Should members of the Government dare to question the motivation or agenda of, for example, the 43 self-appointed guardians of the public good, or perhaps disgruntled ex-staffers, then they are to be attacked as "playing the man" - resorting to personal attacks rather than a policy critique. Remember that next time you hear the "R" and "L" words bandied about. My guess is that you won't have to wait long.
Part of this strategy is to obfuscate on the issues. Therefore, all you ever hear about children overboard is that "Howard lied". Now it is true that children (on SIEV4, anyway) were not heaved over the side. However, as the logs of the HMAS Adelaide show quite clearly, the boat was subsequently sabotaged by the passengers - causing it to sink and putting everyone, not just the children, into the water. That's a bit inconvenient though, so we won't get into that - that liar Howard is the only issue here, remember.
Also on Planet Adams, the nation's present economic success has absolutely nothing to do with the Government, or eight years of good management by Howard and Costello. Apparently everyone in the world's doing well. The countries to our north - recovering from the Asian economic crisis which Australia curiously avoided - were presumably just unlucky.
This world view would have you believe that if Simon Crean became Treasurer on Ocotber 9 (and never forget that's exactly what we're talking about here) then the good times would just keep on rolling.
Now Mr Tonka will no doubt say that I'm just regurgitating propaganda - and to some extent he's right. It's that black and white portrayal again. There's no doubt that some of the success we currently enjoy is as a result of the structural reforms of the Hawke and Keating Governments. But is it true to say that economic success or failure has absolutely nothing to do with the Government? Was Paul Keating responsible for 1 million unemployed and 17% interest rates all on his own? Of course not. Underlying fundamentals had something to do with it. But did he contribute to them with ill-judged fiscal responses? Absolutely.
Therefore, when the Government seeks to draw a distinction on economic management, it's quite entitled to do so, and to claim some credit for record low unemployment, unprecedented economic growth and a huge reduction in public debt. Similarly, the statement that "average interest rates have been higher under Labor than the Coalition" isn't propaganda - it's a historical fact.
What about foreign policy? On Planet Adams, we're hated around the world for our alliance with the US. From where I sit, we're on the same sheet of music as the United States and Britain, (not to mention Singapore, Japan, South Korea.....etc.) Particularly in the case of the former two, they are our greatest historical allies, and the nations with which we have the most congruent world view. I'm sorry, but if the price of that alliance is being disliked by the Germans (not that I think for a minute that that's true), then I'm afraid I think we've picked the right team.
A corollory of this argument is that we're even more hated in the region than we used to be. Presumably that's why under this Government, our trade with China has increased by 300%, we've signed a free trade agreement with Thailand, done the courageous thing in East Timor but stayed on speaking terms with Indonesia, and now have unprecedented influence in the South Pacific.
On Planet Adams, the big old cuddly UN will fix all the world's problems. Nothing must be done without their imprimatur. Therefore, we should all return to our homes and wait for the UN to follow up their spectacular successes in Rwanda, Somalia, the Balkans and the Middle East. World peace will be delivered shortly.
By contrast, Howard lives in the real world. He knows that 10 years of violated Security Council resolutions on Iraq turned out not to be worth the paper they were written on. The UN squibbed it in the end, and vested interests meant nothing would ever have been done about Saddam. However, on Planet Adams, because the French and the Russians wouldn't give us approval, that would have been it. Presumably poor old Hans Blix would still have been chasing shadows while Saddam relaxed in the palace in Baghdad.
Howard also knows that a UN resolution to authorise the successful Solomon islands operation would never have been possible - because Taiwan is a donor to the Solomons, China just wasn't interested in helping. So on planet Howard, we do what we did in Iraq - put together a coalition of like minded nations and get on with the job. Fortunately there was still enough of a government there to invite us in. God knows what would have happened on Planet Adams.
On Planet Adams, the US is not the victim of September 11 - it's actually all their fault! Terrorism is nothing to do with Islamofacism, religious hatred, woefully low education standards and the fatuous oligarchies so prevalent in the Muslim world - it's actually caused by McDonald's and Coca Cola trying to take over the world.
Meanwhile, residents of the planet cry crocodile tears and fill acres of newsprint over David Hicks (a man who watched 9/11 on TV and went out and picked sides) but never mention Sergeant Andrew Russell. He's the Australian SAS member that died in Afghanistan while putting the skids under the repulsive Taliban, and helping to root out Al-Qaeda from their caves. Remember that Howard commitment? Didn't think so.
I could go on, but I've lost the rage (and probably the audience). If I can summon it up again, I might deal with the rubbish about the $100 000 uni degrees.
But that's it in a nutshell. If you think that the times demand a hard PM, with runs on the board on issues from defence to the economy, then vote Howard.
If you think that Australia needs a violent, foul mouthed yob from Western Sydney as PM instead, then good on you - vive la democracy! I'm off to lock in my home loan for three years on fixed interest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass-A-Frozo,
Your style of argument reminds me so much of Dick Smith - long on rhetoric, short on facts.
I will let your credibility in this way speak for itself with respect to your criticism of an article by Alan Ramsey - NOT by me.
Your posting history is here for all to see and consider.
There is no one blinder than one who refuses to see - you cannot shoot ALL the messengers - that would just be a dictatorship wouldn't it?...... comrade.
[Thanks for the personal abuse by the way - nice touch!]
SwingWing
Your post whilst erudite contains a few falsehoods, myths and a nice sprinkling of propoganda.
As you have spent some time on it I will too before replying to it and addressing those points.
(You may well want to reconsider your comments on Andrew Russell from SASR. The treatment by this government of veterans from recent campaigns, especially those from Swanbourne, are cause for nothing but shame by the Howard government)
Your style of argument reminds me so much of Dick Smith - long on rhetoric, short on facts.
I will let your credibility in this way speak for itself with respect to your criticism of an article by Alan Ramsey - NOT by me.
Your posting history is here for all to see and consider.
There is no one blinder than one who refuses to see - you cannot shoot ALL the messengers - that would just be a dictatorship wouldn't it?...... comrade.
[Thanks for the personal abuse by the way - nice touch!]
SwingWing
Your post whilst erudite contains a few falsehoods, myths and a nice sprinkling of propoganda.
As you have spent some time on it I will too before replying to it and addressing those points.
(You may well want to reconsider your comments on Andrew Russell from SASR. The treatment by this government of veterans from recent campaigns, especially those from Swanbourne, are cause for nothing but shame by the Howard government)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****su,
Well then . What do you think I should do. What I won't do is what you do. That is delete your posts when you come off looking like an idiot.
You arguments are not full of "fact" or anything close to it. It's full of political advertisements, book ads and nothing close to an informed opinion.
As I've said in the past , perhaps you should learn at least a little economics before trying to offer a view on it.
Yes, the Reserve Bank sets interest rates. However as you know monetary policy is directly linked to fiscal policy and usually is cause and effect. Get out your economics text book and read up on "crowding out" . When the government SPENDS a lot , they go into deficit. They have to get the money from somewhere, that money comes from people's savings and investments. When the goverment starts taking credit out of the market money becomes scarce the price of money goes up. That being Interest rates.
The Reserve bank sets the cash rate for overnight money market loans, however this is not the sole determining factor in mortgage rates.
This is why Latham will destroy the Australian economy and force hundreds of thousands to default on morgages. A $10 billion deficit will drive rates through the roof. You talk of lies and trust, lets have a look at Labour in government. Keating saying the books were looking fine and there would be a small surplus when the truth was a $10 billion hole in the books. They can't be TRUSTED with the purse strings.
On a positive note though , your vote for Latham will help my investment scheme though. I'll be able to afford a much nicer house when the prices crash after interest rates force everyone to sell up and head back to the cheap seats.
The most amusing part of your latest post is where you declare that Swingwing's post contains a sprinkling of propoganda... I think the term "Pot this is Kettle Over" comes to mind. You started this thread as one huge "sprinkling of propoganda". But it's better than free book advertising like your first post. Not sure how you get around the no advertising rule on that one.
As for posting histories, yours to is available, and everyone can see that you rarely actually talk about aviation anyway.
What I also find interesting is that you copy hundreds of words from a newspaper article under your name and post it (obviously to support your view) but don't wish to talk about the sustance of it because "it wasn't my work" .. If you post it, you can talk about the substance of it.
I'm looking forward to your next economic pearl of wisdom, or defence opinion.
Well then . What do you think I should do. What I won't do is what you do. That is delete your posts when you come off looking like an idiot.
You arguments are not full of "fact" or anything close to it. It's full of political advertisements, book ads and nothing close to an informed opinion.
As I've said in the past , perhaps you should learn at least a little economics before trying to offer a view on it.
Yes, the Reserve Bank sets interest rates. However as you know monetary policy is directly linked to fiscal policy and usually is cause and effect. Get out your economics text book and read up on "crowding out" . When the government SPENDS a lot , they go into deficit. They have to get the money from somewhere, that money comes from people's savings and investments. When the goverment starts taking credit out of the market money becomes scarce the price of money goes up. That being Interest rates.
The Reserve bank sets the cash rate for overnight money market loans, however this is not the sole determining factor in mortgage rates.
This is why Latham will destroy the Australian economy and force hundreds of thousands to default on morgages. A $10 billion deficit will drive rates through the roof. You talk of lies and trust, lets have a look at Labour in government. Keating saying the books were looking fine and there would be a small surplus when the truth was a $10 billion hole in the books. They can't be TRUSTED with the purse strings.
On a positive note though , your vote for Latham will help my investment scheme though. I'll be able to afford a much nicer house when the prices crash after interest rates force everyone to sell up and head back to the cheap seats.
The most amusing part of your latest post is where you declare that Swingwing's post contains a sprinkling of propoganda... I think the term "Pot this is Kettle Over" comes to mind. You started this thread as one huge "sprinkling of propoganda". But it's better than free book advertising like your first post. Not sure how you get around the no advertising rule on that one.
As for posting histories, yours to is available, and everyone can see that you rarely actually talk about aviation anyway.
What I also find interesting is that you copy hundreds of words from a newspaper article under your name and post it (obviously to support your view) but don't wish to talk about the sustance of it because "it wasn't my work" .. If you post it, you can talk about the substance of it.
I'm looking forward to your next economic pearl of wisdom, or defence opinion.