PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

CoodaShooda 14th May 2013 21:15

Listened to parts of Swan's speech on radio while driving to and from the shops last night.
Apart from the meaningless, inaccurate political rhetoric, it struck me that most of what he was announcing were state responsibilities. Health, education, inner city infrastructure. Didn't hear anything about defence, trade or foreign affairs.
Anyone who thinks it would be a good thing to have Australia controlled by a central government based in Canberra would be well served to look at how poorly they managed the NT between 1911 and 1978 and again since their takeover of aboriginal communities through the intervention.

Fliegs. I don't think Katter's standing a candidate up here. The Hunters and Fishers Party may have to be the go.

SOPS 14th May 2013 21:57

Just as an aside, I'm in London at the moment. There is an interesting article in the papers, where a senior minister in the ex labor government has admitted they encouraged immigration from "non EU" countries and even set out search parties (his words) to find them. This he says, was to push multiculturalism on the community...his words again. I will find the link shortly.
Does any of the above sound familiar? Are we following a familiar pattern here, perhaps by a different method?

CoodaShooda 14th May 2013 22:21

Sounds like the International Labor Organisation's dream of a unified world, governed by...............the ILO.

If all countries were multicultural, we wouldn't need individual states, would we?

And if the ensuing society was dysfunctional, then it would obviously need a strong government, with draconian powers, to control it.

Stands to reason, dunnit. :E

Buster Hyman 14th May 2013 23:45

...experience for crews??
I thought the ";)" might have given it away... I'm not even going to contest your "personal jet" assertions.

As for the $150k female earners, well, we can afford to give it to them now that Julia has taken away the tax cuts & the Plasma...sorry...baby bonus! :p

parabellum 15th May 2013 00:46

Your missing the point Fleigs, by paying the bonus to women earning up to $150,000 pa the LNP are trying to encourage many more of 'right kind' of babies!;)

Worrals in the wilds 15th May 2013 02:02

Because what the country really needs is more yuppies. :hmm::}

david1300 15th May 2013 04:16

This editorial probably sums it up quite well
VOTERS are often asked to take governments on trust and invest in promises made and forecasts outlined.
Once given, trust is only renewed if that initial investment is repaid - which is why Treasurer Wayne Swan faces a Herculean task selling his sixth Budget.
A year ago Mr Swan pledged he was going to deliver a string of surpluses this year and beyond but he has now recanted on that, citing what he calls an unprecedented series of unforeseen circumstances which have written off $60 billion in revenue over four years.
This year, Mr Swan accepts this outcome but then returns to the trust well by insisting new Treasury calculations have found a path to a surplus in 2016/17.
The Australian public can be excused for being sceptical about this, especially when they are being told what was a plan to share the benefits of the mining boom a year ago is now an excuse for putting those benefits back on the shelf.

At the same time other international forces have rubbed out the carbon compensation due next year.
Mr Swan points to the global economy still posing a significant risk to the future, just as the long tail of the 2008 financial crisis as well as commodity and currency price movements wiped out his revenue estimates for this Budget.
These uncertainties simply point to the need for caution and prudence, something that was missing last year and may still be found wanting this year.
There is no evidence the risks this year are any less.
Along with most Australians, we support the key objectives of this Budget, to provide a new, more equitable schools funding plan, roll-out universal disability care and boost urban infrastructure.
Indeed, both sides of politics broadly endorse these aims, although ways of achieving the goals and details of just what to fund might differ.
The disability care scheme looks like proceeding but schools and infrastructure are far from settled.
There's no national schools funding, with just one state having signed up, and some of the infrastructure plans - such as the much needed Brisbane Cross River Rail - still sketchy works in progress and far from shovel-ready.
The government's latest political trick of outlining decade-long "spending and saving" road maps developing and implementing its schools and disability proposals looks too clever.
If we can't trust estimates from a year ago, it is a big ask to expect Australians to agree to 10-year projections.
It is probably as it appears - a campaign device to wedge the Coalition. Voters will be justifiably wary of such strategems as much as they might support the principles of what's on offer.
Mr Swan's miscalculations of a year ago have left him no room to even think about handouts to voters in the lead up to the September election.
As much as he makes a virtue out of his claims not to be motivated by politics, you can be sure the public will shrug wearily when they discover the Budget has nothing to ease the pressures of making the household budget stretch.
Basing a Budget on providing jobs and growth should go without saying, rather than being the central point. Australians see these fundamentals as the core business of government and look to our leaders to find ways to enhance opportunity and lighten the daily burden.
This Budget boasts about what is expected of government but holds out little else.
The Gillard Government has also failed to give business any more room to move, despite acknowledging the impact of recent events on corporate profits. In fact, new moves to tighten tax rules and wind back concessions will hurt company balance sheets even more.
While some of these measures might be worth considering, it is hardly the time to squeeze the private sector further.
This is particularly unacceptable when the size of government itself remains steady.
Voters will be hard-pressed to renew trust in Mr Swan and the Gillard government which provides a golden opportunity for Tony Abbott and the Coalition tomorrow night.
Responsibility for election comment is taken by Michael Crutcher, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld, 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND. (ACN 009 661 778).

EDITORIAL: Swan poses a question of trust | The Courier-Mail

david1300 15th May 2013 04:30

Now this is clever - Wayne Swan 'a waste of space Oddity'

parabellum 15th May 2013 05:38

Your choice Worrals, Yuppies or Bikies? :}

Captain Sand Dune 15th May 2013 11:07

Your choice Worrals, Yuppies or Bikies?
Yeah, their standards have decreased over the past few years!:E
Apparently a child needs to be conceived this week if they are to make the cut off for the end of the baby bonus. The ferals will be going for it this week then! Probably notice a drop in break ins and assaults for a week or so while they're on the nest.

david1300 15th May 2013 11:29

And if I was G&O I wouldn't book any leave for the fortnight leading up to the cutoff date. You'll be full-time busy with C-sections:8

sisemen 15th May 2013 13:31

No comment on Eileen bawling her eyes out in the House?

Seems to me it was an outburst of pent up emotions over the past few years rather than the NDIS.

Can't think of too many other female national leaders that have given way to that level of emotion.

Andu 15th May 2013 13:35

According to Bolt or Blair, she was laughing and giggling about something or other within minutes of the tears.

david1300 15th May 2013 13:55

Originally Posted by sisemen (Post 7844002)
No comment on Eileen bawling her eyes out in the House?

Seems to me it was an outburst of pent up emotions over the past few years rather than the NDIS.

Can't think of too many other female national leaders that have given way to that level of emotion.

Thought you would never ask :O Mrs1300 said, on watching the news, that even she can cry without tears when needed. (She didn't say anything about faking orgasms, but the tone of voice said it all - there are some things girls can do on demand)

Here are the first and latest comments from a news item in the Courier Mail. The 140+ in between were much the same:


chuboy 15th May 2013 23:20

Opposition blocks bid to be with sick baby | News.com.au

david1300 15th May 2013 23:42

What rubbish, Chuboy. This is a quote from the story:

THE Coalition has refused to allow a federal Labor MP to return to Sydney to look after her sick 14-month-old baby, forcing her to sit in parliament to watch Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's Budget reply speech tonight.
The Daily Telegraph has learned the Coalition yesterday knocked back a request from the government to "pair" member for Greenway Michelle Rowland after she sought permission to urgently return to Sydney from Canberra this afternoon.

What pathetic reporting. The Coalition cannot refuse to allow any Labor MP ... She can go if she chooses, and, I guess, gets the OK from her 'boss'. All that means is that Labor can no longer be assured of a majority on the floor. Michelle Rowland, or her boss, has chosen her priority - her allegiance to the ALP is greater than her allegiance to her sick child.

chuboy 15th May 2013 23:49

Well, I didn't write the article, so don't blame me for pathetic reporting. In fact I've come to expect nothing less from News Ltd.

Nevertheless, I agree with the premise of the report - that for a party which purports to be family-friendly the Opposition did themselves no favours in deciding not to allow Ms Rowland a pair.

david1300 15th May 2013 23:54

Not blaming you Chuboy - just expecting or hoping for (vainly in this case) some considered comment from you with the link, rather than simply posting a wrong and provocative headline.

chuboy 15th May 2013 23:59

Fair enough, I will include some next time.

I just read that the Opposition has decided to grant Ms Rowland a pair today. All manner of excuses as to why the Chief Whip didn't grant one yesterday, including, curiously, that they had no idea Ms Rowland's child was ill. (You will note from the link above that the Chief Whip expressly acknowledged the ill child in the letter when he denied the request for a pair.)

But they are 'following it up'.

david1300 16th May 2013 00:50

Some of the budget detail that may have been missed when looking at the big picture:

In the new budget, the most damning number of all is the projected $3.2 billion blowout in the cost of processing asylum seekers since the February budget forecasts. This is an extraordinary admission of failure. When Labor won office in 2007, the number of illegal boat arrivals was close to zero. The annual cost of border protection was $100 million. It blew out to $1 billion a year and has continued to grow. The cumulative cost of this failure is more than $10 billion.
Also up in credibility smoke is the government's carbon price of $29 a tonne, now revised down to $12 a tonne. This, too, is detached from reality, when on the European commodity exchange where carbon credits are a commodity, carbon is trading at $3.50 a tonne.

Read more: Paul Sheehan SMH column on budget

Two major policy failures that have cost, and are continuing to cost us $billions

sisemen 16th May 2013 01:05

The revised story on the link that chuboy posted gives more of the true picture than the original slant. The request was for a pair so that she could visit a "sick family member" who had "flu". Yep. I know what I would have done in the circumstances as well and, as david has pointed out - she could have gone anyway if it was that important. The 'cruel' ones were her own party whips.

chuboy 16th May 2013 01:52

To clarify - the request was specifically for the infant child. It is acknowledged explicitly in the Opposition Whip's rejection letter.

If Ms Rowland had walked out and been absent after the rejection of a pair, she would not have been fulfilling her duties as a parliamentarian if she did. Is that suddenly acceptable? We would expect a person in any other job to continue on with the job in the absence of 'cover' if they are being paid to do so!

I find it hard to defend the Opposition's actions at any rate as it they had nothing to lose by allowing the pair and, politics aside, it is the decent thing to do.

To add to the furore (from The Australian):

Mr Oakeshott said Mr Pyne had told parliament Liberal MP Alex Somlyay had gone home sick and an independent MP should pair him. But Mr Oakeshott said he had later seen Mr Somlyay in the corridors of parliament.

He said Mr Pyne had told parliament "the right thing to do if they (the crossbenchers) had any integrity at all would be for one of them to absent themselves from the vote or vote with the opposition to ensure the MP for Fairfax is paired".
I think the Libs may have miscalculated this one.

Ovation 16th May 2013 02:36

If there's one thing the ALP have perfected (apart from wasting billions of taxpayers dollars) it's their ongoing contempt for the institution of parliament. Between Gillard, Swan and Wong (and Rudd) our economy is heading down the toilet and even a fool would understand their final act of barstardry has been to frame a budget that will undermine any possiblility of recovery for years to come.

I find it hard not to believe that the pairing episode has been manufactured by Albanese and McTernan to apply pressure on Abbott on the eve of his budget reply speech, and perpetuate the ALP lies about TA being a misogynist.

So what are stuck with until 14 September is a minority Labor government, who have consistently and deliberately misrepresented the truth in all matters, and even if they spoke the truth I and many others would simply not be listening.


chuboy 16th May 2013 02:52

Originally Posted by Ovation (Post 7845183)
I find it hard not to believe that the pairing episode has been manufactured by Albanese and McTernan to apply pressure on Abbott on the eve of his budget reply speech, and perpetuate the ALP lies about TA being a misogynist.

I have to disagree there. If this were a scheme to bait the LNP, then Labor would be relying upon the opposition being mean-spirited enough to reject the request - surely long odds when we're talking about a mother tending to a sick infant.

Unless you are suggesting that Albanese and McTernan have provided a fraudulent letter to the media with a fake signature on it, I find it hard to believe anyone is responsible for 'manufacturing' the controversy except Mr Entsch himself.

Ovation 16th May 2013 02:57


CoodaShooda 16th May 2013 04:47


The Opposition does not have to grant a pair.

I agree that by refusing a request based on compassionate grounds is not a good look. But it is hardly worth the top political billing being given to it by several media outlets at the moment.

As I understand it, the child fell ill on the weekend. The mother returned to Canberra for the Treasurer's Budget address, so it wasn't urgent then. The father took time off work to care for the child.

Wednesday, she decided she wanted to go home and requested the pair. Couldn't have been too urgent as she subsequently spent time in radio studios being critical of the refusal of the pair.

Thursday, same again. So urgent is her child's condition that she again spends her time traipsing around studios telling her tale of woe.

A poor decision by the Opposition, no doubt fed by its policy during this Parliament to not grant automatic pairs; for obvious reasons.

Grubby opportunism by the government to further its "Abbott is a mysoginist" line.

Sadly, by encouraging the left media to make a meal of this, it will end up being her mothering skills that becomes the story in other quarters, rather than a minor spat over who has to attend Parliament on any given day.

david1300 16th May 2013 05:32

Meanwhile more "crazy" legislation is passed
So the Australian mainland is no longer part of Australia for refugee status:

All asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will now be subject to transfer to Nauru or Manus Island for processing after the Senate passed legislation excising the Australian mainland from the migration zone.
Previously, asylum seekers who made onshore applications for refugee protection could be released into the community and would not be subject to the government's no advantage rules.
The change means that anyone making it to the mainland by boat will be subject to the same conditions (including detention on Manus Island or Nauru) as those who arrived at Australian territories including Ashmore Island, Christmas Island and the Cocos/Keeling Islands.
Being processed onshore gives people access to much greater support.
The Gillard government has succeeded where the Howard government did not. It tried the same thing in 2006 but failed after a backbench revolt by moderate Liberal MPs.

I think this shows that at least the Howard govt backbenchers were more compassionate in reality than the current ALP whimps. But more importantly, the other planks of the Howard govt policy platform were firm, in place and working, so at the time this proposal was arguably overkill.

Now that the Gillard refugee policy platform is in tatters, like so many shards of timber floating out in the ocean from wrecks that never made it here, and people drowning along the way, they furiously implement an uncoordinated single solitary piece of "crazy" legislation making Australia no longer part of Australia (for the purposes of this legislation)

Sweet September, please hurry and get here.

chuboy 16th May 2013 05:39

Compassionate? Really?

CoodaShooda 16th May 2013 05:43

"More compassionate". Yep. :E

Ovation 16th May 2013 09:06

Just in case it hasn't been noticed, Michelle Rowland has seemingly found enough time to do TV and doorstop interviews. If she was genuine, she would be at home looking after her sick child, but no, she's neglecting the childs needs by being out there in the public bagging the LNP to anyone who'll listen.

Another example of how low the ALP is prepared to go.

If you can tolerate this sort of crap, here is the link to her SMH interview Rowland SMH Interview


sisemen 16th May 2013 15:39

Was it just me or was Tony Abbot's reply to the budget totally Prime Ministerial?

The clue was the way in which the red witch sat sulking opposite.

CoodaShooda 16th May 2013 21:20

An impressive display, when taken in context with labor's continued negative narrative of him.
However, I'm surprised McTernan has not already trotted out Abbott's interview where he talked about honesty to counterpoint last night's claim that an Abbott government would be open and honest.

Seaeagle109 17th May 2013 12:24

Shameless stolen from the Dive-Oz website; just like certain people have done with Australia's wealth.

In a Sydney Nursing home an old priest lay dying. For years he had faithfully served the people of the nations capital.

He motioned for his nurse to come near. "Yes, Father?" said the nurse. "I would really like to see Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan before I die",whispered the priest. "I'll see what I can do, Father", replied the nurse.

The nurse sent the request to Canberra and waited for a response.

Soon the word arrived; Julia and Wayne would be delighted to visit the priest.

As they went to the hospital, Wayne commented to Julia,"I dont know why the old priest wants to see us, but it certainly will help our images". Julia agreed that it was the right thing to do at this time.

When they arrived at the priests room, the priest took Julia's hand in his right hand and Wayne's hand in his left. There was silence and a look of serenity on the old priests face.

The old priest slowly said, "I have always tried to pattern my life after our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ".

"Amen", said Julia.

"Amen", said Wayne.

The old priest continued, "Jesus died between two lying thieving bastards; and I would like to do the same...."

Worrals in the wilds 17th May 2013 13:04

Cute. IIRC it's a good modern variation of a very old joke (or true quote :confused:) by a British notable who visited a French king, one of the many Louis XXVABCs that reigned prior to the 1789 revolution.

The king showed him a portrait of Christ on the cross, with the king's portrait on one side and his father's (the former king) on the other. The response from the Pom went something like 'you have educated me Sire; although I knew Christ had been crucified between two thieves I never knew their names.' :E

On a more banal and non-political note, this made me laugh, particularly the standard outrageous NT News front page. I think the Courier Mail could learn from their sister publication. In these uncertain times you sometimes need a good laugh...:}
26 Everyday Occurrences In Australia

Captain Sand Dune 19th May 2013 07:33

CRUCIAL in-home care service that provides meals for veterans and war widows has been axed by the Federal Government.

Despite a boost in defence spending of more than $5 billion in the next three years, the Commonwealth has withdrawn the funding for the Home and Community Care program.

The program provides assessment, co-ordination and home-care services tailored to the needs of ex-servicemen and women and war widows.

The move has been criticised by the RSL.

The State Government estimates more than 1500 Victorian veterans and widows will miss out on meals and more than 1500 recipients will no longer benefit from activities' groups when the funding runs dry next July.

State Health Minister David Davis has written to Veterans Affairs Minister Warren Snowdon, urging him to reconsider the cut.

Mr Davis said Victoria's war veterans deserved respect and dignity, and stripping them of these services was a slap in the face.

"This is a sad decision and it is the wrong decision," Mr Davis said.

"The purpose of this funding is to make sure we provide a high level of tailored support."

While many of the recipients will still be eligible to receive similar in-home care, Mr Davis said the veterans and war widows would be required to apply for the services through the general HACC program. That is expected to add further strain to the system.

The RSL's Victorian president, Major General David McLachlan, said the service was extremely important. He urged the Federal Government to continue to fund the program.

"Everyone wants to stay in their own home, but we need to offer these people support," he said.

"HACC has been able to assist these veterans and war widows by looking at their requirements and tailoring support to their needs."

Gen McLachlan said most of the recipients were World War II veterans or widows who had served Australia.

"You would think the Government could keep it going for the small number of veterans until they go to their final resting place," he said.

"It's providing care for the veterans that have given so much and who we can thank for the way we live life today."

The Government will save more than $25 million by axing the program. It says the money saved will be reallocated for veterans' mental health.

Mr Snowdon's spokeswoman, Lidija Ivanovski, said the Federal Budget had made no changes to the veterans' home-care program but the money had been reallocated.

"Veterans have the same right of access to Home and Community Care services as other Australians," she said. "This will not change."
$25 million eh? WTF!!!!:mad: For the welfare of those who have defended this country.
How about taking $25 million from those who contribute nothing yet demand everything?
How about taking some from the massive amounts allocated to the welfare of illegal immigrants?
How about taking some from the even larger amounts doled out to generations of ferals on welfare. And don't get me started on the industry that is aboriginal welfare.
Fcuk this government!!

500N 19th May 2013 07:36

Captain Sand dune.

Last 5 sentences. Very well said.

Why are we looking after every AS, deadbeat, feral and lazy bugger
but can't look after those who have served or supported those who
have ?

Worrals in the wilds 19th May 2013 09:41

I agree Captain. Dreadful; it's not like there are all that many left. Why kick them now they're in their nineties? :ugh:

It says the money saved will be reallocated for veterans' mental health.
I think that's the crux of it. Many younger Afghanistan, Iraq and even Timor veterans have come home very broken. Of course veterans always did, but these days PSTD and its resulting conditions (depression, anxiety and hunting down noisy neighbours with a crossbow :eek:) is a recognised problem, one that's no longer solved by ignoring the sufferers and letting them either drink themselves into oblivion or suffer in silence.

Many of the Vietnam guys also need assistance, and they're getting better at standing up and demanding it. Although ageing (sorry fellahs :}) they've got another twenty or more years of life expectancy, and they're not going to put up and shut up. A veteran who returns from combat unable to work, sleep or relate to his (her) family is disabled as much as the veteran who returns with a physical injury. Either way, they're disabled veterans and they should be looked after.

Many of them need help and assistance, and as veterans that should be provided by the government without question. If that requires a budget increase to cover their care then IMO so be it. That's the price of going to war. If they don't want to pay then they shouldn't be sending our people into these situations.

However, as always the government doesn't want to pay. They want to chuck a certain amount of money (i.e. as little as possible) in the Veterans' Affairs budget and allocate it accordingly. My guess is that as more younger veterans need to use the system, the government is trying to poach money from the older veterans' kitty. After all, they're old; they can't do much. Why would they matter? There are more voting ferals than voting veterans. :yuk:

As always, it's about the numbers. Here's a thought; do the decent thing and add the $25 million to the veterans' budget. It's a drop in the frigging bucket compared to the wastage we've seen on ceiling batts, meddling in areas of state government responsibility like health and education and general pork barrelling. :mad:

The federal government has been happy to charge off to war, so let's see them foot the bill. The total bill, not just the media-friendly, crowd pleasing part with the cosy chats with the US Prez, fancy aircraft and big tanks. Foot the bill for the people who come back Changed, without stiffing the ancient vets (and their widows) who literally defended Australia.

SOPS 19th May 2013 09:56

By my count, stopping just eight boats would pay for our veterans to be fed and looked after, I really really really hate this government, and despise that red bogan.

david1300 21st May 2013 00:19

t's good to see the Greens also have their problems
Strong tensions within the Greens have emerged just months from the federal election, with party leader Christine Milne being accused of running a dysfunctional office and allowing a culture of intimidation.
The accusations follow the resignation of a highly regarded senior employee and come after Senator Milne conceded last month that September's poll would be an uphill battle for the party, which risked losing two Senate spots.

Read more: Greens hit by rising internal strife

sisemen 21st May 2013 03:02

Ah well. That's more good news.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:45.

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.