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)

sisemen 24th Apr 2012 15:21

You may well be right Andu - particularly with the unthinking 'I want to change the world' Y generation and the rusted on supporters.

However, I think that this government has gone beyond the tipping point and this incident (not particularly important in itself) will be seen as yet another example of the Gillard government incompetency by a team of extreme lightweights.

"They can't get anything right" - that's probably the message that gets hammered home.

rh200 25th Apr 2012 00:57


Bill Shorten isn't as stupid as you might imagine, sisemen. He knows that his initial comments making Tony Abbott seem to be a fool will be widely broadcast in the Labor-compliant MSM, while the retraction might rate a one column correction on the TV and radio equivalent of page 97 'below the fold'.
But they should also know the average punter expects Tony to put his foot in his mouth and is used to it. Whilst golden child Shorten is supposed to be slick. Those comments will be rolled out from know and to the end of time, to bug him. Its not the bit about getting it wrong, its the anybody who wants to be PM bit.

RJM 25th Apr 2012 08:09

Caught out trying to con us (I say):

On ABC Lateline this week, both Attorney General Nicola Roxon and Anthony Albanese parroted the same two excuses for whisking Slipper back into the Speaker's chair still with the unproved allegations of sexual harrassment hanging over him.

These excuses were A: that requiring Slipper to remain stood down would encourage a 'perverse response' of people trying to make politicians staznd down by making false accusations against them, and B: they tried to make a case of moral equivalence between allergations against Turnbull in relation to the HIH crash over which Turnbull wasn't stood down and was acquitted, and the harrassment allegations against Slipper. On the Turnbull matter they implied that the allegations against Turnbull involved the entire $500 million of the insurer's failure when the sum concerned in the Turnbull allegations was a tiny fraction of that.

On A, people might make false allegations for a hundred reasons other than to force a politician to stand down. In the way of anyone makking false allegations against Slipper or anyone else are statutes with heavy penalties (disingenuously not mentioned by the Attorney-General or Albanese). Here are two federal examples, section 41 of the 1914 Crimes Act and section 137.1 of the 1995 Criminal Code:

Crimes Act 1914

41 Conspiracy to bring false accusation

(1) Any person who conspires with another to charge any person falsely or cause any person to be falsely charged with any offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, shall be guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

Criminal Code Act 1995

Division 137—False or misleading information or documents

137.1 False or misleading information

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person gives information to another person; and

(b) the person does so knowing that the information:

(i) is false or misleading; or

(ii) omits any matter or thing without which the information is misleading; and

(c) any of the following subparagraphs applies:

(i) the information is given to a Commonwealth entity;

(ii) the information is given to a person who is exercising powers or performing functions under, or in connection with, a law of the Commonwealth;

Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

Attorney-General Roxon would know the law of defamation - so she is dissembling, as is Albanese; standard procedure for the Gillard government. The tactic might wash in student politics which is the usual level of this government of in-bred apparatchiks, but in the adult world it's called being deliberately deceptive.

sisemen 25th Apr 2012 09:45

What do you expect RJM? It's the equivalent of being caught with your hands in the cookie jar. And their mindset is the equivalent of the average 5 year old with a response of "It was the other boy that did it".

Considering that most of them have spent their entire working lives (and some probably earlier) immersed in politics, working for politics or unions, talking politics, and politicking it really appears that they have learnt nothing. To be no good at your chosen profession is a very, very sad state of affairs.

To quote Albanese "My life is devoted to fighting Liberals" - just a pity that he's no good at government or policy.

One could almost feel sorry for the true believers having to stick their necks out to try and support and apologise for them (almost - but not quite :E)

david1300 25th Apr 2012 10:03

@Lex T. In your post #750 you said:

"Back to the matter of Mr Slipper and there seems to be a certain double standards shown here by some.

Although I have always believed that everyone is innocent until proven guilty it looks like this has been going on for years even as far back as 2003.If this is correct and the then leader of the Liberal party was aware then how is this a problem for only the current Prime Minister?

If this story is true then it looks to be as though the inherent problem is one of indifference or political expediency at best.

When the facts come out and if he is found guilty of any improper acts or behaviour I think the question has to be asked why nothing was done about it in 2003."

In 2003 the only activity of Slipper that that was brought to the attention of the PM's Office that has been publicly reported is that Slipper was filmed in a compromising situation with another man indicating that he was having a same-sex relationship with this man. As far as I am aware Slipper was not married at the time (if he was, it was to his previous wife, not his current wife).

Are you suggesting that same-sex relationships are scandalous and politicians should be excluded from holding office because of their same-sex relationships? Maybe check with Penny Wong and Bob Brown how they would feel about this.

Or if Slipper was married at the time do you suggest that adulterous politicians should be excluded from holding office because of their adulterous relationships? Maybe check with Craig Emmerson (then married) how he felt/feels about this will he was in a sexual relationship with Gillard.

sisemen 25th Apr 2012 10:33

The answer David?


there seems to be a certain double standards shown here by some.

RJM 25th Apr 2012 11:03

Unfortunately, there is no presumption of innocence for Mr Slipper. My advice, from an experienced industrial lawyer, is that Mr Ashby is accusing Mr Slipper of an 'Adverse Action' under s. 351 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which provides that the onus of proof is on the employer (Slipper) to prove that his action (putting the hard word on Ashby) was not intended to do what the complainant Ashby claims it was intended to do.

This reversal of the onus of proof is friendly to complainants and unfriendly to employers. It's a controversial provision of the new Fair Work Act.

Guess who drafted the Fair Work Act and insisted on the reversal of the onus of proof?

Julia Gillard. Ha ha.

Here's the provision:

Commonwealth Consolidated Acts

FAIR WORK ACT 2009 - SECT 361

Reason for action to be presumed unless proved otherwise

(1) If:

(a) in an application in relation to a contravention of this Part, it is alleged that a person took, or is taking, action for a particular reason or with a particular intent; and

(b) taking that action for that reason or with that intent would constitute a contravention of this Part;

it is presumed, in proceedings arising from the application, that the action was, or is being, taken for that reason or with that intent, unless the person proves otherwise.

Clare Prop 25th Apr 2012 12:48

Another lovely example of Gillard being Hoist by her own petard

I wonder how she would pronounce that?

7x7 25th Apr 2012 13:46


Another lovely example of Gillard being Hoist by her own petard

I wonder how she would pronounce that?
At a guess, hyperbowlicly.

Worrals in the wilds 25th Apr 2012 14:48


Another lovely example of Gillard being Hoist by her own petard
I wonder how she would pronounce that?
'Screwed.' :}

parabellum 25th Apr 2012 22:44

Sky News earlier full of the prospect of another Liberal MP stepping forward to be the next Speaker, didn't get the name, nothing in the on-line papers at the moment. What is he hoping to achieve? Is he expecting to be bought off or is he seriously disenchanted, does he have 'history'?

CoodaShooda 25th Apr 2012 23:16

ABC TV ran it too but little info other than another facing disendorsement/unsafe seat preselection at the next election.

Has apparently been a Deputy Speaker in the past.

(Although how the libs could rate any incumbent seat as unwinnable at the moment is beyond me.)

Another snout in the trough; although it might be a case of the libs taking the piss and making another demonstration of labor's desperation to hold power and lack of ethics.

Noted too that ABC TV and Radio have yet to acknowledge the reverse onus of proof implicit in Ashby's allegations.

Edit
Apparently its Patrick Secker from SA. Lost preselection last month and no doubt looking for a larger pension.

Will labor pick up another liberal reject?

sisemen 26th Apr 2012 01:13

Secker has the backing of Windsor - so no real surprises there then.

Meanwhile, back at the trough....


Lawyers for embattled Labor MP Craig Thomson have asked a Senate committee not to publish Fair Work Australia's report into the Health Services Union.
Mr Thomson had previously said he had nothing to hide, but his legal team is now arguing the release of the report could prejudice any legal action taken against him.
Oops, sorry! Innocent until proven guilty.

parabellum 26th Apr 2012 02:52

Secker on the mid day news now emphatically denying he will run for speaker! More ALP dirty tricks?

Lex Talionis 26th Apr 2012 06:08


Lost preselection last month and no doubt looking for a larger pension.
Is there are politician who isn't thinking of that?

Secker on the mid day news now emphatically denying he will run for speaker! More ALP dirty tricks?
What about Lib party tricks for that matter?

The last thing mr Abbott would want is this to happen so what are the chances of Mr Secker getting a nice call from Lib HQ and after a cosy little chat releasing a statement that he had never considered the position?

The entire premise of the speaker coming from either side is flawed and should be changed.I believe that the speaker should be sourced from some other area independent of both the government or the opposition.

parabellum 26th Apr 2012 07:51


I believe that the speaker should be sourced from some other area independent of both the government or the opposition.
Couldn't agree more - I believe a few top jobs should go to people who have proved themselves elswhere, Speaker could go to the Chief Justice for a period of three to five years, Govenor General could go to the retiring Chief of the Defence Forces, again, for three to five years.

sisemen 26th Apr 2012 08:18

I'd go along with that as well.

Ex CDF for GG also makes a lot of sense. Already made an oath to HM Queen and proved it by long service. Saves getting one of those "progressive" types that are in favour of a Republic :E

Situation would, of course, change were we to go down the republican route. Even then the ex CDF would still be a good choice for President. That would leave the PM as "top dog" and would kill the clamour for a popularly elected President and kill the clamour for not having an ex pollie in that job.

Worrals in the wilds 26th Apr 2012 08:29


The entire premise of the speaker coming from either side is flawed and should be changed.
It isn't, if members of parliament from both sides of politics remember the promise they made to their electorates; to serve with integrity and honesty.

Appointing a speaker from outside the house really moves away from democracy in general and the Westminster system in particular.

Julius Caesar used similar arguments when he siezed control from the Roman Senate. Caesar was orginally appointed Dictator for five years by the Senate (from memory :\) but refused to step down. When you look at most of the leaders who followed him there wasn't much improvement with respect to integrity or public interest. :ooh:

The trouble with appointing people to power is that they don't always want to give it up. My personal opinion is that both Howard and Bligh would have hung on for grim death if they thought it were possible. It wasn't possible because of the Westminster system; be very careful before you advocate moving away from it. It may be flawed (what system isn't) but it guarantees the separation of powers. If a Chief of Defence or a Chief Justice of the High Court is guaranteed a berth there's no room to move if they turn out to be lousy.

If we've gotten to the stage where we can't trust the House of Reps to produce a decent, honourable person who acts like they're supposed to and in the interest of the country then the democratic system has failed in Australia...or we need some new pollies; again, from both sides of politics. That's up to the demos. If the demos is apathetic or fails to demand integrity from their pollies, then they get the pollies they deserve.

FWIW I don't think the demos is apathetic any more. I think it has been for the past ten years or so, but that's starting to change. I was listening to a gen Y FM station's night time show last night that usually has 0% interest in politics. Most of the time it's all about clubs, celebs, new music and similar pleasant inanities. Last night they were talking politics.

To me that's illustrative of the community mood at the moment. When even Davo and Dinger are discussing the Speaker's position between the Latest Hot Downloads and Rhianna gossip, it says to me that there's a new wind blowing.

Hope so, anyway.

We need to remember that the vast majority of MPs are not dishonest, not racketeers, not criminals. They might be fervent party supporters, but that's a long way from being a house that's unable to appoint a credible Speaker. There's been a lot of noise about a minority of MPs who don't make the grade, but that doesn't mean the rest of the House is corrupt.

RJM 26th Apr 2012 09:06


but that doesn't mean the rest of the House is corrupt.
All the more reason for the lot of them to do whatever they can to regain the public's respect and trust.

Worrals in the wilds 26th Apr 2012 09:20

Correct. Otherwise they're first through 150th to the wall when the wipe out comes. That's what they were elected to do and they should get off their arses and do it. :*

Shorten didn't help himself on the Sky (via the ABC) about thirty seconds ago when they quizzed him about his position on Slipper. 'I haven't seen the PM's press release but I support the PM.' 'Hang on, you haven't seen it but you support it'? 'I support the PM's position' [even though I don't know what it is]. :eek:

Honestly, they're not worth feeding! :mad:

Are you the one who's gonna stand up and be counted?
Are you the one who's gonna be there when we're shouting?

Stand up, stand up and be counted!
Stand up, stand up and be counted!

P.S. If all you get is a green screen, right click, select setting and disable hardware accelerator. There's a whole bunch of bad 1980s haircuts you don't want to miss out on and we don't want any green on here....:E:}


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23.


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