Australian Federal Election 2022

[facthunter]

Normally yes. Even with that advantage the outcome desired was not achieved. Are we witnessing Newscorpse? Nev

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

Oh. I just re-read that post. Does that mean I am a dreaded commie socialist?

If you are, we all are.  Comrade.

 

But that's ok.  We live in an era where even the most reactionary right-wingers are socialist.  Keith Shitt wanted to hand out great gobs of taxpayer's money to the fossil fuel industry, so he must be a communist.  And Gerry Harvey is a major beneficiary of the socialist largesse of the Peoples LNP.

Mind you, Albo wants to pay child care for families earning up to half a million bucks, so he might be a bit pink too.

[Yenn]

It is going to upset our new member, who is LNP, having beaten the Labor candidate. The electorate includes Biloela and it seems that the Tamil family will at last be going home there. I think that is our members home town.

We have heard nothing about the toxic working environment at parliament. Surely Brittney Higgins will now get her day in court. I hope so.

All the talk is now about how the LNP can recover from this defeat. Nobody seems to worry about how the LNP can look after Australia. That is what the problem with our politics is. Keep or get power, never think about looking after Australia.

The Labor party didn't win this election, they got it handed to them because there were independents, who would not vote for Scumbags lot.

Now we will have a referendum about the Uluru statement, to see if it goes into the constitution. I cannot see how they can put in statements about the Aboriginal original inhabitants, unless they completely change the constitution, which is just the legal framework which controls how the country is run. Unless of course they will treat the constitution with the same disregard as the LNP has done.

[old man emu]

22 minutes ago, Yenn said:

Brittney Higgins will now get her day in court.

A little bird told me that the matter will have parallels with the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard matter.

 

The text of the Uluru Statement won't go directly into the Preamble to the Constitution, however the concepts it describes will frame the wording of a new Preamble. Once again, it is up to us to learn the function of a Preamble to an Act of Parliament. Unless we know that, then we can expect to be arguing about red herrings. 

 

What is a preamble?

A preamble to a constitution is a short piece of text designed to introduce the constitution. Preambles are also used in other documents, most notably in Acts of Parliament.

Why is a preamble necessary?

A constitution forms the most basic law of an organisation, nation or state. By their very nature, constitutions are often long and extremely detailed Ñ after all they are subject to intense legal and moral scrutiny and must stand the test of time. While a preamble has limited legal authority, it is the first part of the document usually read. As such, it serves to explain the nature of the system and the vision of the people.

Do all constitutions have preambles?

Many do. Australia, however does not have a preamble to the Constitution itself. The text commonly referred to is the preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 which was passed by the British Parliament to give the new Constitution legal force. Here it is:

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

 

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

 

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

 

Then the document goes on to set out the ins and outs that are legal as a result of the Constitution.

 

Does a new Australian constitution need a new preamble?

A new constitution for Australia will need to be enacted as an Act of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament as a result of a referendum of the people. The existing preamble is a part of an Act of the British Parliament and would no longer apply. Many people believe that it would be desirable to draft a newer, more complete version of the preamble to reflect contemporary Australia.

 

The new "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act" would not require any alteration to its entirety, just the insertion of a few lines of explanatory text. To be quite PC, a new Preamble should make reference to the fact that non-indigenous people have worked and fought to create the Nation that is Australia in the first quarter of the 21st Century.

[willedoo]

Here's one of those lefty, commo, arty farty, pinko ideas:

 

Supposing Labor gets a majority of seats, perhaps a majority of one or two. There's no denying that several of those seats were only won because of the hard work of the Greens. The Greens did the hard yards to get a high primary vote in many seats; quite a lot were only slightly below Labor's vote. It was the high Green primary vote sending most preferences to Labor that enabled Labor to win those seats on preferences.

 

So considering that Labor won on the back of the Greens, why not offer them a coalition of sorts, including a couple of cabinet seats, even though Labor has a majority. And maybe include a Teal or two. That would be the proof of whether Labor is fair dinkum about inclusiveness, bringing everyone together etc., and all the other feel good stuff they've been saying.

 

There is a precedent of sorts. I seem to remember Howard winning an election where the Libs had enough seats to govern without a coalition with the Nationals. Naturally enough, Howard didn't think twice about including the Nats in government. That was a formal coalition, but there's nothing in the constitution preventing Albo from having whoever he wants on the government benches. He could appoint coalition members to his front bench if he wanted to.

[kgwilson]

I reckon the reason that a lot of aged care and health care services were farmed out and privatised is that government agencies were not managing them well and the cost was skyrocketing. Private enterprise is invariably better at managing business at reduced cost than government could ever be. But they are not in it just to provide a service, they are in it to maximise their investment with the highest possible return for shareholders.

 

This is where State Owned Enterprises come in but they tend to work on the same principles and want to therefore provide a return to their single shareholder, the government. If they were more competitive than private enterprises then that may have an effect of keeping the costs of aged care down across the board. This doesn't happen though as the government doesn't channel the profits back in to the industry, they use it somewhere else, usually to reduce the effects of their failures elsewhere. If they don't make a profit by keeping their costs below private enterprise then you get private enterprise calling "Not fair" and so the saga continues without benefit to anyone.

[willedoo]

43 minutes ago, old man emu said:

A little bird told me that the matter will have parallels with the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard matter.

 

The text of the Uluru Statement won't go directly into the Preamble to the Constitution, however the concepts it describes will frame the wording of a new Preamble. Once again, it is up to us to learn the function of a Preamble to an Act of Parliament. Unless we know that, then we can expect to be arguing about red herrings. 

 

What is a preamble?

A preamble to a constitution is a short piece of text designed to introduce the constitution. Preambles are also used in other documents, most notably in Acts of Parliament.

Why is a preamble necessary?

A constitution forms the most basic law of an organisation, nation or state. By their very nature, constitutions are often long and extremely detailed Ñ after all they are subject to intense legal and moral scrutiny and must stand the test of time. While a preamble has limited legal authority, it is the first part of the document usually read. As such, it serves to explain the nature of the system and the vision of the people.

Do all constitutions have preambles?

Many do. Australia, however does not have a preamble to the Constitution itself. The text commonly referred to is the preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 which was passed by the British Parliament to give the new Constitution legal force. Here it is:

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

 

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

 

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

 

Then the document goes on to set out the ins and outs that are legal as a result of the Constitution.

 

Does a new Australian constitution need a new preamble?

A new constitution for Australia will need to be enacted as an Act of the Australian Commonwealth Parliament as a result of a referendum of the people. The existing preamble is a part of an Act of the British Parliament and would no longer apply. Many people believe that it would be desirable to draft a newer, more complete version of the preamble to reflect contemporary Australia.

 

The new "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act" would not require any alteration to its entirety, just the insertion of a few lines of explanatory text. To be quite PC, a new Preamble should make reference to the fact that non-indigenous people have worked and fought to create the Nation that is Australia in the first quarter of the 21st Century.

Crikey ome, you're preambling on a bit there.

[willedoo]

This morning, Albo was giving his first press conference in the role of PM before boarding the flight to Japan. As usual, among the press mob were a few carrying on like idiots (or like a pack of rabid dogs), competing to get in that one question that would give them their 15 minutes of fame in their otherwise forgettable career. Albo nipped it right in the bud with one interruption and roused on them. He said 'You will not get the call earlier because you yell. On day one, get that clear'.

[facthunter]

Pubescent reporters who want to BE the News. PATHETIC.. Nev

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, willedoo said:

On day one, get that clear'.

In other words, "When I was Leader of the Opposition, you could please your bosses by making a mockery of me. Now I'm PM, I'm telling you to show some respect to the Office. I'm the Boss now."

[red750]

If they are waiting for Australia Post to deliver postal votes, they'll be waiting till Christmas.

[facthunter]

It's a wonder someone hasn't started "we was robbed of our election." There's now,  in 1,000 days we will be rid of them.    Doesn't voting count when the result doesn't suit your side?  Australia is NOT the USA (yet). Nev

[old man emu]

7 hours ago, facthunter said:

in 1,000 days we will be rid of them

Just as in the Arabian Nights or Anne of a Thousand Days

[Marty_d]

On 23/05/2022 at 2:42 PM, willedoo said:

Here's one of those lefty, commo, arty farty, pinko ideas:

 

Supposing Labor gets a majority of seats, perhaps a majority of one or two. There's no denying that several of those seats were only won because of the hard work of the Greens. The Greens did the hard yards to get a high primary vote in many seats; quite a lot were only slightly below Labor's vote. It was the high Green primary vote sending most preferences to Labor that enabled Labor to win those seats on preferences.

 

So considering that Labor won on the back of the Greens, why not offer them a coalition of sorts, including a couple of cabinet seats, even though Labor has a majority. And maybe include a Teal or two. That would be the proof of whether Labor is fair dinkum about inclusiveness, bringing everyone together etc., and all the other feel good stuff they've been saying.

 

There is a precedent of sorts. I seem to remember Howard winning an election where the Libs had enough seats to govern without a coalition with the Nationals. Naturally enough, Howard didn't think twice about including the Nats in government. That was a formal coalition, but there's nothing in the constitution preventing Albo from having whoever he wants on the government benches. He could appoint coalition members to his front bench if he wanted to.

 

I don't know why both sides of politics treat the Greens like pariahs.  They seem to think that if the public suspects them of ever talking to the Greens they won't get a vote.  However with climate change the number 1 worry for a high percentage of voters, that just doesn't hold true any more.  All of the teal independents were funded by Climate 200, everyone knew it, and they got voted in.  That says to me that the old paradigm of blue collar for Labor, white collar for Liberal, just no longer holds true.  Now people are looking for climate action + socially progressive, or they're looking for socially conservative + free market.  So if Labor want to stay relevant they need to start building bridges with both the Greens and the teal independents and become the progressive/climate action option, otherwise their primary vote will continue to fall.

[old man emu]

Don't forget that the Teals are still of a Conservative bent. Just because they have chosen to barrack for climate change, ICAC and female equality doesn't mean they won't be Rightist in relation to other  international or internal matters. In fact there seems to be more right-leaning people who have been elected that left-leaning, if you class LNP as right-leaning and Labor the other way.

 

We live in interesting times. 

[willedoo]

Who knows what the political landscape will be like in three years time. It's hard to see it looking good for the coalition. They are starting this term with the lowest percentage of seats for their combined parties in seventy years. Queensland MP's will make up at least a third of their party room, and will be the dominant numbers in the coalition. Added to that, they will be kicking off this term with a leader arguably less popular than the one they just lost. They would need Labor and the Teal Independents to perform badly over the next three years to have any chance of clawing their seats back to win government.

 

The first thing they will need to do is establish their future direction as a party. They've lost the centre/moderate section of their vote base, but they will have a lot of internal pressure to move further to the right now that a lot of their moderate MP's are gone. There will also be the challenge of trying to market Dutton to the public.

 

Dutton himself would only be taking on the job if he thought he could make a success of it. Making a leadership run immediately after a big loss can sometimes put the nail in the coffin of aspirations for the top job of PM. The career ending risk of being a temporary leader is probably what's stopping other nominees for the Liberal leadership ballot. The smarter ones would realise it's not quite their time, and sit back to watch the skittles fall. Howard would be one of the few to resurrect himself after losing the leadership.

[old man emu]

When Whitlam got in, the Labor Party sought to right a lot of what it saw as social injustices. That was just on 50 years ago. The things they brought in, and the things that Hawke and Keating did have now become the norm. So too, some of the things that Howard introduced. Since 2000 the things that are on people's minds are different - climate; security - militarily and economically; integrity, and equality. You have to admit that Australia is a safe, stable nation. That's why Labor has moved to the centre, and sometimes puts a foot to the right. I can't see Labor having to put out anything that is radically different from what most Australians want. The uniformity of wants was pretty clearly indicated by the support for Greens and Teals. Labor's approach might be to pour oil on troubled waters.

 

We think of the Greens as a tree-hugging, anti-development mob of nutters, but consider the Green's stand on preserving the Murray-Darling Basin. Surely, apart from the global agricultural corporations who are sucking the river systems dry, those who live along, and because of, the rivers would agree with the Green's stand, but at the same time might be more inclined towards the Nationals on more matters than that.

 

Perhaps Labor's best approach to governing would be to champion the idea of Democracy and, instead of paying corporations to overcharge the taxpayer for investigation and reporting on matters, spend time on the ground, gathering local knowledge and experience and applying that to solving problems. That method can be applied to everything that falls under the remit of the Federal Government. 

[Marty_d]

5 hours ago, old man emu said:

Don't forget that the Teals are still of a Conservative bent. Just because they have chosen to barrack for climate change, ICAC and female equality doesn't mean they won't be Rightist in relation to other  international or internal matters. In fact there seems to be more right-leaning people who have been elected that left-leaning, if you class LNP as right-leaning and Labor the other way.

 

We live in interesting times. 

Fiscally conservative or socially conservative?  That's why I said climate action + socially progressive - obviously I don't know where they stand on every issue but if they're after equality action it would seem that they may be at least partially progressive socially.

The problem with the LNP is that with the moderates gone, what's left is more socially conservative than not.  Very glad to see the back of Abetz (fairly certain he's gone), but would have been even gladder to see Voldemort gone and Frydenberg leading.

[old man emu]

6 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Fiscally conservative or socially conservative? 

Fiscal, social, militarist - they are all ingredients in the stew, aren't they? The final taste will depend on the proportion each one has of the whole.

[facthunter]

IF the  voters of Kooyong don't want him ,why should we? Back in the black and on track and they never got there. It was a projection. All spin and self praise and ridicule of  others. Ambitious and full of entitlement. Suffering from a superiority complex.  Another Cock of the Walk becoming a feather duster. How the mighty have fallen.  Nev

[rgmwa]

It will be interesting to see if Morrison gets a shadow portfolio. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets relegated to the back bench to keep him away from the cameras and stop him reminding people of one of the reasons they booted the Liberals out.

[Yenn]

What I ask is the reason for the LNP to have lost the election?

When we know the answer to that question, it may throw some light on what the LNP needs to do for the next time round.

Did they lose because too little was done about climate change? I think that contributed to their defeat. Was Scumbag's dislike the reason? Now that i think is more likely.

All the rorts from way back and also the poor handling of the Covid finances contributed, but the blatant lieing was in my opinion a real cause. Coupled with his attacking China quite un-necessarily about Covid and causing reprisals financially from China. He appeared to be copying Trump and that didn't go down well.

During the election he didn't have anything much to put forward except that Labor was bad, and he was wonderfull.

Both leaders seemed to want to spend a lot of times with children, but at least Albo didn't risk causing them serious harm by falling over on them.

Most people I have talked to were of the opinion that Scumbag could not be trusted and they were not going to vote for him.

Again I think we have seen a party disregarding all the signs and continuing on into oblivion, by backing a man who is not wanted. In 2007 it was John Howard, who lost his seat to an ex ABC reporter, This time another ex ABC reporter has dislodged a LNP blue ribbon seat holder. Pity that Zoe Daniel didn't run against Scumbag.

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

What I ask is the reason for the LNP to have lost the election?

I think the answer is contained in one word, "arrogance", and from that arrogance came "perceived dishonesty".  

 

You mention "poor handling of COVID finances". A lot of ordinary people were saved by those grants, but when it was exposed how Lib allies profited unreasonably then the rest of us were outraged. Keeping the Hawaii trip secret was a show of arrogance, more to Parliament than to the electorate, but it still rankled. I'll not rehash all the things that ScoMo did that stunk, but eventually the straw was loaded that broke the camel's back. Strangely, those things did not seem to affect the overall voting in his electorate. He had a 5.8% swing against him, with some booths with double digit swings. I must say that I grew up in that electorate, but left long, long ago. Still, my heart goes back there and it breaks when I realise that its people voted the way they did. Perhaps it is no longer the home of the comfortable working class. 

[willedoo]

3 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Keeping the Hawaii trip secret was a show of arrogance, more to Parliament than to the electorate, but it still rankled.

The worst part of that was the PM's department lying to the media by denying he was in Hawaii, then later having to admit it when they were caught out. No wonder Albo is sacking the department heads and employing new people. How could he have ever trusted the old team. They showed Australia they were as dishonest as their boss. I think in the end, the country finally realised scummo was a very dishonest person leading a low quality crooked government.

[willedoo]

Also his pig headed, arrogant, condescending personality didn't help.