Election 2016

[old man emu]

Well, someone had to start this.

 

I accept that everyone has a political allegiance, but can we refrain from sniping at member's affiliations. Let's just agree that everyone's opinion is worth hearing, and if it contains a debatable point, then let's debate the point, not the poster.

 

Personally, I'm dreading the next nine and a bit weeks. For me, all the advertising will be as relevant as ads for incontinence pads. I have not heard a politician make a speech worthy do a high school debating competition for years. No party seems to have an established platform which reflects its core beliefs. I wonder if any party has any core beliefs beyond scrambling after power.

 

I'm sick of "captain's calls" and invisible Ministers. If Joe Blow has been appointed Minsiter for this and that, he's the one who should be facing the Press and making announcements pertaining to his ministry. The PM should take a step back and delegate management of portfolios. The PM's role is to speak to and for the Nation, and internationally, as the head of the electorate - the People, not simply the leader of one side of the political fence.

 

 

[robinsm]

sharpen the palings then no one can sit on the fence

 

 

[fly_tornado]

labor's super tax

 

 

[fly_tornado]

this is classic turnbull

 

https://t.co/pbS8BscLJ4

 

 

[spacesailor]

Don't harp on about superannuation, the NZ government had a beautiful holiday on the loot they took from scrapping superannuation,

 

Left my neighbour without a pension & less than 10 years to retirement, I beat them by leaving before it happened and took it all with me LoL.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Mal ambushed

 

[ATTACH]47903._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[Bruce]

I watched Turnbull in Darwin saying how they would nurture Australian businesses and innovation and employment and technology.

 

All the time he is the direct line manager to these CASA lot who are doing the exact opposite to Jabiru.

 

 

[Bruce]

The only thing you can say in his favor is that he might be the least worst of the 2 alternatives.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I'm not very keen on either major side of politics, nor many of the minor parties either to be honest.

 

This leaves me somewhat in limbo!

 

 

[S.Drifter]

Cull all career politicians and replace them with people experienced in whatever field the portfolio requires. Anyone handling our money should have owned and run their own business profitably before being let anywhere near the cheque book. Salaries should be performance based, you cock up you fix it out of your own pocket and the super walks. Some of these monumental stuff ups are walked away from with maybe a bit of a slap on the wrist yet they line up at the super trough as if nothing has happened Peter Garret springs to mind.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Mal ambushed[ATTACH=full]43046[/ATTACH]

Oh, that's disturbing.

 

 

[Marty_d]

They're all short sighted. All we hear is "the economy" and that strange bloke "Jobson Growth"... (I yell it like a battle cry every time I hear some LNP stooge use the 3 word slogan).

 

Meanwhile we've got coral bleaching, rising ocean acidification, increase in severe weather events, the prospects of hundreds of thousands of refugees from disappearing Pacific islands... when is someone, apart from the Greens, going to bite the bullet and admit that climate change is THE most important issue facing us, not just ecologically but economically?

 

As much as I want Labor to win given their policies so far (negative gearing for example) - my vote is going to the Greens. There's more important things than fiddling round the edges of economic policy and if the major parties won't face it then they don't deserve my vote.

 

 

[Bruce]

The biggest things I want a vote on are not even up for discussion..

 

The excessive level of immigration, the excessive military spending, the excessive level of bureaucracy and the excessive interference with free speech.

 

There is no party for me to vote for anymore.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

How did David Feeney ever get preselected in the labor party? He's clearly a liberal

 

 

[dutchroll]

How is free speech being interfered with excessively, Bruce?

 

 

[M61A1]

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity.

 

That little gem (cut and paste from HRC) right there would be a reasonable start.....having the term "offend is waaaay to vague and leaves the door open for a world of hurt.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Section 18C refers to vilifying conduct in public on the basis of race, religion, etc. Section 18D provides free speech protections, and specifically exempts the conduct if it was during the course of artistic work, or academic debate, or in the public interest, or was a fair and accurate report in good faith, or was a fair comment on a public matter and the person genuinely held this belief. There are so many "get out of gaol free" cards in 18D. Also it states that while it's unlawful, it's not a criminal offence (necessarily).

 

So I could publicly say "a lot of aborigines in the country spend their welfare money on booze" and the aborigines can be as upset and hurt about it as they like. I have done absolutely nothing wrong under Section 18C.

 

What I can't do is publicly (ie, to a big crowd of people, or a national newspaper audience) say "all Jews are filthy pigs and Hitler should've finished what he started". That would probably be unlawful under 18C if anyone could be bothered complaining, and it would demonstrate that I was an a*sehole of course. Most complaints made under 18C are resolved with negotiation.

 

I personally think there are enough defences and free speech safeguards in 18D to nullify concerns about 18C, though I'd be open to changing the wording a bit.

 

One of my great concerns about the times we live in at the moment, and I've seen it a lot, is that people seem to be increasingly hiding behind the "free speech" thing using it as an excuse to be real b*stards, but at the same time be totally free from any criticism. If you dare criticise them over their views, you get a broadside of "I have a right to say blah blah blah.......!" Yes of course they do, but they can't demand a right to be respected for it!

 

Summary: I'd be open to minor changes to it, but I don't think it needs to be scrapped or have major amendments, and I actually think the protections in 18D are reasonable.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The problem is, no one is in it for the long term. They have 3 years to break promises, lie (or at least twist the truth into a pretzel), obfuscate, dodge blame, point fingers, then get ready for the next election by making promises (often impossible or contradictory), pork-barrelling, and shrilly claim that the other party will ruin the country if elected. Plus, of course, in recent history anyway - armouring their back or sharpening the knife.

 

Where's the opportunity or incentive to plan long-term? Nation build? Be pro-active on issues that may not affect us right now but will do so years or generations down the track? Our old grannies would say "a stitch in time saves 9" but no government would be caught dead throwing a few billion at an issue that won't happen in the current term of office - unless it's on defense spending of course.

 

 

[M61A1]

Section 18C refers to vilifying conduct in public on the basis of race, religion, etc. Section 18D provides free speech protections, and specifically exempts the conduct if it was during the course of artistic work, or academic debate, or in the public interest, or was a fair and accurate report in good faith, or was a fair comment on a public matter and the person genuinely held this belief. There are so many "get out of gaol free" cards in 18D. Also it states that while it's unlawful, it's not a criminal offence (necessarily).

So I could publicly say "a lot of aborigines in the country spend their welfare money on booze" and the aborigines can be as upset and hurt about it as they like. I have done absolutely nothing wrong under Section 18C.

 

What I can't do is publicly (ie, to a big crowd of people, or a national newspaper audience) say "all Jews are filthy pigs and Hitler should've finished what he started". That would probably be unlawful under 18C if anyone could be bothered complaining, and it would demonstrate that I was an a*sehole of course. Most complaints made under 18C are resolved with negotiation.

 

I personally think there are enough defences and free speech safeguards in 18D to nullify concerns about 18C, though I'd be open to changing the wording a bit.

 

One of my great concerns about the times we live in at the moment, and I've seen it a lot, is that people seem to be increasingly hiding behind the "free speech" thing using it as an excuse to be real b*stards, but at the same time be totally free from any criticism. If you dare criticise them over their views, you get a broadside of "I have a right to say blah blah blah.......!" Yes of course they do, but they can't demand a right to be respected for it!

 

Summary: I'd be open to minor changes to it, but I don't think it needs to be scrapped or have major amendments, and I actually think the protections in 18D are reasonable.

Can't really argue with that. I have a lot of trouble though, trusting those who enforce such laws to actually carry out the intent of the law. It can take deep pockets to prove your innocence these days.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Can't really argue with that. I have a lot of trouble though, trusting those who enforce such laws to actually carry out the intent of the law. It can take deep pockets to prove your innocence these days.

Well I can't argue with that either!

 

 

[Bruce]

Here's Assange, an Australian, hiding in the Equadorian embassy in London, in reasonable fear of being tortured in Guantanamo Bay, for revealing trivia that powerful people wanted kept secret, and I'm ashamed of how we fail to protect him and the free speech he exercised.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Here's Assange, an Australian, hiding in the Equadorian embassy in London, in reasonable fear of being tortured in Guantanamo Bay, for revealing trivia that powerful people wanted kept secret, and I'm ashamed of how we fail to protect him and the free speech he exercised.

Yeah that's probably fair enough in many respects. I don't know that there has been any wholesale attack on free speech in western countries though. A few things have ticked a few people off here & there, but mostly you can still say what you like and if you're not stealing state secrets or inciting a lynch mob, it seems unlikely you're going to be penalised for speaking your mind.

 

 

[old man emu]

The problem is, no one is in it for the long term. They have 3 years to break promises, lie (or at least twist the truth into a pretzel), obfuscate, dodge blame, point fingers, then get ready for the next election by making promises (often impossible or contradictory), pork-barrelling, and shrilly claim that the other party will ruin the country if elected. Plus, of course, in recent history anyway - armoring their back or sharpening the knife.

Where's the opportunity or incentive to plan long-term? Nation build? Be pro-active on issues that may not affect us right now but will do so years or generations down the track? Our old grannies would say "a stitch in time saves 9" but no government would be caught dead throwing a few billion at an issue that won't happen in the current term of office - unless it's on defense spending of course.

I think that this is the crux of the matter. No Party has presented a political credo. Remember in the 60's Bob Santamaria's political commentary TV program, "This I believe"? I wish the political parties would publish their political manifesto so that we knew what they really believed in.

 

Now here's a howler: Who are the long term maintainers of government? The Public Service. Good or bad, the PS provides a permanency to government. Get the right (ie, competent) people to run things and we could save a motza by not having to fill red and green couches under a hill in Canberra.

 

OME

 

 

[Bruce]

Here's a sad thing about Assange... I never took any notice of the stuff he disclosed because it was all so boring. Especially compared to aeroplanes.

 

Since then I've found that there never have been secrets worth much.

 

For example, the so-called "atomic bomb" secrets were just not true. There never were any secrets worth a rats. The difficulty was to convince stupid generals etc that it would work and then to find the squillions to pay for it.

 

And as for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, I don't know anybody who really believed they existed.

 

I thought the Liberal pollies did a good job of pretending how they believed. Now there's a secret... they kept it real secret how they knew it was all crap.

 

That's just the sort of secret that should be exposed.

 

 

[M61A1]

Section 18C refers to vilifying conduct in public on the basis of race, religion, etc. Section 18D provides free speech protections, and specifically exempts the conduct if it was during the course of artistic work, or academic debate, or in the public interest, or was a fair and accurate report in good faith, or was a fair comment on a public matter and the person genuinely held this belief. There are so many "get out of gaol free" cards in 18D. Also it states that while it's unlawful, it's not a criminal offence (necessarily).

So I could publicly say "a lot of aborigines in the country spend their welfare money on booze" and the aborigines can be as upset and hurt about it as they like. I have done absolutely nothing wrong under Section 18C.

 

What I can't do is publicly (ie, to a big crowd of people, or a national newspaper audience) say "all Jews are filthy pigs and Hitler should've finished what he started". That would probably be unlawful under 18C if anyone could be bothered complaining, and it would demonstrate that I was an a*sehole of course. Most complaints made under 18C are resolved with negotiation.

 

I personally think there are enough defences and free speech safeguards in 18D to nullify concerns about 18C, though I'd be open to changing the wording a bit.

 

One of my great concerns about the times we live in at the moment, and I've seen it a lot, is that people seem to be increasingly hiding behind the "free speech" thing using it as an excuse to be real b*stards, but at the same time be totally free from any criticism. If you dare criticise them over their views, you get a broadside of "I have a right to say blah blah blah.......!" Yes of course they do, but they can't demand a right to be respected for it!

 

Summary: I'd be open to minor changes to it, but I don't think it needs to be scrapped or have major amendments, and I actually think the protections in 18D are reasonable.

On that subject, an article in the Australian this morning talks of an audit of Australian universities by the Institute of Public Affairs reckon that 79% of our universities have strong restrictions on free speech.

 

Apparently Murdoch University has a $50 fine for members who use insulting language.

 

UQ list sarcasm as a form of bullying.

 

Pretty poor form for institutions that should embody free speech and open debate.