Australian Federal Election 2010

[Hallo Alfie]

Joe Hockey makes a point:

Mr Hockey said Australia's reputation in the region was "in tatters".

"Not only did we insult the East Timorese by not asking them about the East Timor Solution, not only did we offend the Papua New Guineans by saying we're going to reopen Manus without getting government approval from them, not only did we stop food supplies to Indonesia overnight, we've now entered into a deal with Malaysia and the Government has acted ultra vires (beyond their powers)," he said.

"How extraordinarily embarrassing for us."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-01/gillard-cactus/2865836

Tony Abbott:

Mr Abbott told reporters in western Sydney this morning the court decision had led to "the complete chaotic collapse of the government's border protection policy".

"This is typical of a government that just can't get anything right," he said.

There was now "a consistent and confirmed pattern of failure and incompetence".

"Julia Gillard's year of decision and delivery has turned into a year of of broken promises, backflips and big-time bungles," Mr Abbott said.

"This is a government which this morning is almost dying of shame at its own incompetence."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...says-tony-abbott/story-e6frf7jx-1226127220803

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Now she is attacking the High Court and its Chief Justice.
This is truly incredible, what lengths won't she go to in order to save herself?

Ms Gillard said the High Court's decision was "deeply disappointing" and contradicted precedents set by other courts in challenges to the Migration Act.

"Yesterday the asylum seeker and refugee law of this country changed - changed from how it had been known and understood before with a different interpretation," she told a press conference in Brisbane.

"The High Court's decision basically turns on its head the understanding of the law in this country."

Ms Gillard was critical of Chief Justice Robert French, saying he had made different rulings on the same law in the past.

"[He] considered comparable legal questions when he was a judge of the Federal Court and made different decisions to the one that the High Court made yesterday."

Wasn't she talking about the separation of powers recently on another matter?

I wonder if she will call for an inquiry into the judiciary too?

Who will she blame next???

Worst Prime Minister and worst government ever!

 

[a_unique_person]

If you look at the legislation being passed in parliament, there is good governance happening, the result of a lot of hard work.

Gillard is free to question the judgement, as it made the years that Howard sent refugees to Nauru illegal.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

If you look at the legislation being passed in parliament, there is good governance happening, the result of a lot of hard work.

Gillard is free to question the judgement, as it made the years that Howard sent refugees to Nauru illegal.

Speculative at best and an outright attempt at deception at worst. The ruling made separate mention of Nauru, please look it up and then show to me how you can decicively claim illegality.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Rumble rumble rumble rumble rumble

THE federal government is split and Julia Gillard faces fresh doubts about her leadership as she grapples with the problem of where to send asylum seekers after the High Court torpedoed the Malaysia plan and potentially ruled Manus Island and Nauru off limits as well.

The party was alive with chatter last night about possible replacements for Ms Gillard, including Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith, although no moves were imminent.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-split-over-asylum-20110901-1job8.html#ixzz1Wjlox4W4

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The Age: headline

Judges attack 'irresponsible' PM

AUSTRALIA'S judges have launched a withering attack on Julia Gillard, branding her criticism of the High Court's judgment on the Malaysia deal ''irresponsible'' and her reflections on the Chief Justice ''extraordinary, unfair and curious''

the Judicial Conference of Australia, representing the nation's judges and magistrates, warned her behaviour could upset the separation of powers between executive and judiciary.

I think I mentioned previously that there was some irony in her actions and her whining about separations of powers last week.

This is getting worse and worse for her. Spot fires everywhere: $17k in dresses, a fradulent ex lover, bullying of the nations press (left and right), failed policy, large doses of stupid comments etc - she must be pining for the Thomson affair to return, at least with that the fingers weren't pointed directly at her.

And she has only been in government for 12 months. Worst PM ever

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The Sydner Morning Herald

The masters of spin are all spun out as Julia Gillard runs out of options, writes Lenore Taylor.

But every time a prime minister has to publicly declare ''I'm not going anywhere'', as Julia Gillard did on Friday in response to reports she had been asked to stand down, it underlines that their position is weak.

Labor was at first so shell-shocked by the High Court disaster, so stunned by the king-hit to its already pummelled credibility, they couldn't even spin it. The masters of spin were spun out.

Senior figures who have for weeks been stoically reciting that they were ''working through the issues'' and ''rebuilding the electorate's trust through delivery'' and ''seeing through the tough times'' couldn't find a slogan to explain away the debris of their policy or the state of the government. Most of what they did say can't be printed, but the recurring theme was disbelief that everything they touched turned to ''****''.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVChkuZNlxw&feature=youtu.be

Clarke and Dawe.

 

[Noztradamus]

Rumble rumble rumble rumble rumble
~~~~
The party was alive with chatter last night about possible replacements for Ms Gillard, including Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith, although no moves were imminent.[/I]
~~~~~

What effect will her Reality TV series have?

 

[wombatwal]

What effect will her Reality TV series have?

What, is she playing herself?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Reality TV? Or do you mean the sitcom?

If the latter, I can't see it having any effect except a negative one in the eyes of those watching it. That said, I have never seen an episode. To further satirise someone who many already believe to joke cannot be good.

 

[a_unique_person]

Some sane comments on the refugee 'debate'.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2867052.html

The High Court's stunning decision on the illegality of the offshore processing of asylum seekers should have profound implications for our national politics, but I am not holding my breath.
I am not referring to its implications for the credibility or electability of the Gillard Government, which seems to preoccupy so many journalists. That impulse - to abandon the task of explaining complex public policy for scriptwriting political soap opera - is part of the disease. It prevents us asking some hard questions about the nature of our policy framework and political discourse.
The disease is not just that so much of the community, and our political class, seem xenophobic and racist when it comes to flows of desperate people fleeing conflict. It is that this 'debate' operates at the level of fantasy, and is so disdainful of basic facts.
The first fantasy is that any government can "stop the boats", short of violent military action that would trash a slate of international laws and bring shame to the nation. No-one can plausibly claim that the lull which happened during the final Howard government was due to harsh Australian policy. It had more to do with an improvement in conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq; when they deteriorated again, and were joined by the brutal endgame to the Sri Lankan war, flows restarted.
Pushing boats back towards Indonesia, as Tony Abbott threatens, will simply result in crews scuttling their boats - either forcing the Navy to pick them up or endangering innocent lives. The most likely result is tragic death, needless diplomatic tension with an important neighbour, and detrimental impacts on service morale.
The second fantasy is that asylum seekers are some kind of threat to our national security or our 'borders'. This has been institutionalised in the bizarre idea of 'border protection' and the title of the renamed Customs service. A border is not a 'thing' that requires protection. It is an imaginary line on a map. This line can be breached, or travelled across, but not threatened as such.
Security is about threats to actual people, and - by and large - the only security issue asylum seekers pose is the insecurity they themselves suffer as stateless and vulnerable people. The small minority of cases that may attract an adverse security assessment from ASIO can be managed with existing domestic police and intelligence procedures. Such assessments are a judgement about uncertainty - we need better due process for those who receive them, and have binding non-refoulément obligations in any case.
Yet whether it be plans for offshore processing, or a reintroduction of the temporary protection visa, governments seek to treat the problem with a 'deterrence' model only appropriate for military threats from heavily-armed states. That numerous government officials and security analysts seem to have swallowed the 'border protection' kool aid is an indictment of their rationality.

That Abbot makes 'stop the boats' his number one issue is a real warning signal to Australians. We live in a country with a number of urgent issues that need to be addressed now.


* An aging population - this is imposing an increasingly expensive load on our country, in terms of health and welfare.
* Turbulent economic times - we could still be heading for a global depression
* Global Warming - we need action here and abroad to address this long term issue, but it has to start now
* Manufacturing - the 'two speed' economy and high dollar are causing huge cracks in the established economy, which will cause instability.
* Housing - For the Australian on the average wage, owning a home is now an impossible, or crushingly expensive, dream, mostly due to the negative gearing inducing speculators invest in property at a loss so they can claim a tax benefit.

These are the challenges we face.

At the same time, Australians have never been better off in terms of income and standard of living.

Yet somehow, Abbot is winning votes on the absurd 'stop the boats' policy. Dealing with refugees is difficult, just ask any other country in the world. There are wars and people fleeing them everywhere. We should know, many of those refugees are coming from Afghanistan and now northern Pakistan.

Abbot reduces this complex and global issue to 'stop the boats'. Do we really need someone this simple minded and fanatical running our country.

The irony is that the Malaysian solution is no worse than Nauru. Most of those in Nauru were granted refugee status, but only after torturing them mentally.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...ly-difference-can-we-make-20110903-1jrom.html

Remember the Age's poll and question?
Well a skeptical question finished number #1

The very point of Australia's carbon tax is to reduce global warming. How much will reducing 5% of Australia's around 1.5% contribution of global CO2 emissions reduce global temperature by? If the amount is negligible (which it is), then given the present economic turbulence, what is the probability of Australia's carbon tax inspiring major emitters like USA, China and India to make ACTUAL cuts to their C02 emissions (as opposed to mere carbon intensity) and economic growth?

Well here is the answer...

Victoria University climate scientist Professor Roger Jones has calculated that if the rest of the world did not act and Australia reduced emissions until 2020, then did nothing else, Australia's policy would knock 0.0038 degrees off the global temperature rise by 2100.

Australia's carbon tax will help 0.0038C over the next 90 years.

And when everyone else is backing away (eg. USA( or not doing anything (China, India), is it worth it? Why?

 

[a_unique_person]

If you read the extended answer, you will see that the most popular question has a much more complex answer than you seem to have read. It's worth it, is the answer. I am more than happy to pay for it.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

If you read the extended answer, you will see that the most popular question has a much more complex answer than you seem to have read. It's worth it, is the answer. I am more than happy to pay for it.

But I'm not, nor is most of the country. Too much pain for absolutely nothing. This will undermine the economy, give our economic competitors an edge, cost jobs and and businesses etc and for what gain? Stuff all of nothing; this tax does absolutely nothing to mitigate climate change.

 

[a_unique_person]

But I'm not, nor is most of the country. Too much pain for absolutely nothing. This will undermine the economy, give our economic competitors an edge, cost jobs and and businesses etc and for what gain? Stuff all of nothing; this tax does absolutely nothing to mitigate climate change.

That's not true, if you read the article, it is a good explanation of what it can do. Abbot has spooked everyone about a tax that is not going to cause anything like the economic damage he is claiming. He is being quite an alarmist. We will do our bit. Australians should be wondering why housing is so expensive, that is a far greater economic burden on the average Australian. Manufacturing has been suffering, and we don't have the tax yet.

Like I said before, we didn't wait to see if the US was going to fight Hitler before we joined in WWII.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Like I said before, we didn't wait to see if the US was going to fight Hitler before we joined in WWII.

What would Godwin say about now?

At any rate, there is no reason to undermine our economy for no point. Gillard is selling our economic future for 0.0038C over 90 years to save the climate while not actually doing anything to save the climate. Insanity!

Moreover, most of the electorate do not want this tax; they believe it is being pushed on them without a mandate, they believe they have been lied to; they know it will cost jobs and they know it will do nothing to mitigate any climate change. And people wonder why some are angry - look to Gillard for the answer to that question.

Yet Gillard would arrogantly try and force this upon them anyway. The sooner she is gone the better. She is not listening.

Worst Prime minister in the worst government ever.

 

[a_unique_person]

We won't undermine our economy. We have never been so wealthy, our dollar actually needs to come down, it is so strong. The tax will have little negative effect on our economy. Abbot is just an alarmist.

'worst government ever'. Who puts out these inane three word catch phrases anyway. I'm guessing it's Textor and Co.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

We won't undermine our economy. We have never been so wealthy, our dollar actually needs to come down, it is so strong. The tax will have little negative effect on our economy. Abbot is just an alarmist.

How many billions of dollars sent overseas for zero return will have "little negative effect on our economy"? Or to ask it another way, how many billions per year do you think would be too many?

'worst government ever'. Who puts out these inane three word catch phrases anyway. I'm guessing it's Textor and Co.

You guess wrong, this was all mine - others seem to have picked it up.

 

[lionking]

We won't undermine our economy. We have never been so wealthy, our dollar actually needs to come down, it is so strong. The tax will have little negative effect on our economy. Abbot is just an alarmist.

Alfie avoids talk about our power economy. If the Libs were in power it would be all their doing of course