Australian Politics: The Albanese Times

[lionking]

The ******* Greens have voted with the Coalition to defeat the affordable housing bill. So much for their alleged principle. Scum.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lionking

The ******* Greens have voted with the Coalition to defeat the affordable housing bill. So much for their alleged principle. Scum.

They have a habit of letting the perfect get in the way of the good.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by psionl0

They have a habit of letting the perfect get in the way of the good.

True.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

They have a habit of letting the perfect get in the way of the good.

True, but the Labor bill was pretty far from good.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

True, but the Labor bill was pretty far from good.

It was better than what we are left with now. Yes I’m repeating myself, but the Greens put back carbon abatement by a decade, and they have done the same for social housing.

[arthwollipot]

Nick McKim just referred to the Housing Bill as a "steaming pile of neoliberal rubbish".

sauce

[The Atheist]

I can see this being a popular move by Albo: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65692534

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I can see this being a popular move by Albo: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65692534

Yep. I'm thinking so. But I'm also thinking that "two-way mobility" is a joke. Mobility will end up being almost entirely in one direction.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yep. I'm thinking so. But I'm also thinking that "two-way mobility" is a joke. Mobility will end up being almost entirely in one direction.

What???

There aren't tens of thousands of Australians queuing up to move to India?

I'm shocked.

[arthwollipot]

Yeah I'm going to come out and say it. There aren't tens of thousands of Australians queueing up to move to India.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I can see this being a popular move by Albo: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-65692534

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yep. I'm thinking so. But I'm also thinking that "two-way mobility" is a joke. Mobility will end up being almost entirely in one direction.

I can predict many people coming to Australia to live or study. Both will bring big $ to Australia. Maybe two-way trade would improve as well. Cannot see much else happening.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by rjh01

I can predict many people coming to Australia to live or study. Both will bring big $ to Australia. Maybe two-way trade would improve as well. Cannot see much else happening.

I'll take that bet - what you're doing is introducing a system we've had here for years, and which has enabled hundreds of thousands of Indians to move to NZ.

The amount of money flowing in is negligible and in no way makes up for the harm they do to the rental market. Indian students and migrants created an explosion of the sickening habit of hot-bedding, and you'll see the same thing happen in Aussie.

While I couldn't give a flying **** how many Indian students share a bed, it forces rentals up and creates health hazards for large - mainly brown - families.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'll take that bet - what you're doing is introducing a system we've had here for years, and which has enabled hundreds of thousands of Indians to move to NZ.

The amount of money flowing in is negligible and in no way makes up for the harm they do to the rental market. Indian students and migrants created an explosion of the sickening habit of hot-bedding, and you'll see the same thing happen in Aussie.

While I couldn't give a flying **** how many Indian students share a bed, it forces rentals up and creates health hazards for large - mainly brown - families.

The quote says only 3% of students are hot bedding so that is hardly worth mentioning. That is a shame for Australia, not the students. Needs to be fixed by the Government by means other than keeping these students out of Australia.

Students need to spend money on
- Education. The cost of a degree, even for an Australian is a 6-figure sum.
- Food. They need to eat.
- Housing. This needs to be provided so that they do not need to hotbed.
- Other. This includes clothing, entertainment, medical, and anything else I have not thought about.

This money would be partly used to employ Australians.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'll take that bet - what you're doing is introducing a system we've had here for years, and which has enabled hundreds of thousands of Indians to move to NZ.

The amount of money flowing in is negligible and in no way makes up for the harm they do to the rental market. Indian students and migrants created an explosion of the sickening habit of hot-bedding, and you'll see the same thing happen in Aussie.

While I couldn't give a flying **** how many Indian students share a bed, it forces rentals up and creates health hazards for large - mainly brown - families.

The biggest problem with foreign students (not just Indians) is they enrol in vocational training courses. That alone is not a problem, but the fact that the system is not properly regulated certainly is. Visa conditions allow students to work only 20 hours a week, but this is never checked. This is probably a plus as they do the hospitality, factory, cleaning etc jobs that most Australian citizens are unwilling to do.

The vocational colleges are often owned by Indians (this is factual) and the evidence is that the students falsify time sheets and are issued with certificates without being competent. So what? People might think. Well these students are leaving training as qualified cooks (possibly not so bad) and qualified motor mechanics (not good).

The other problem is that once qualified, the pathway to PR is quite easy.

Five universities here have now put restrictions on Indian students, even banning those from certain Indian states.

https://thewire.in/world/australia-u...ications-india

Quote:

At least five Australian universities have placed bans or restrictions on students from some Indian states in response to a surge in fraudulent applications from people whose primary purpose is to seek to work after applying to cheaper educational institutions.

So not universal praise for this plan. It looks like yet another Albanese policy that has not been thought through and could have adverse consequences.

[arthwollipot]

The army's new infantry fighting vehicles could be built overseas to meet urgent strategic needs

Quote:

Lucrative construction work on new high-tech army infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) could be sent overseas under an option being considered by the Albanese government to acquire the lethal land capability more urgently.

When releasing its Defence Strategic Review last month, Labor confirmed it would slash the massive LAND 400 Phase 3 project from 450 IFVs to just 129, as part of a sweeping overhaul of the Australian Army.

The ABC can reveal the German and Korean companies bidding for the rescoped program have been asked to provide options for an Australian build, or complete overseas production of the IFVs with local support.

What "urgent strategic needs" is Australia facing right now that requires lethal land capability?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The army's new infantry fighting vehicles could be built overseas to meet urgent strategic needs

What "urgent strategic needs" is Australia facing right now that requires lethal land capability?

Exactly. Name the threat Albo, I dare you.

We all know the never-to-be-stared threat is China, but there is no way that threat could be even articulated. As I have said repeatedly, we are China’s mine, shipping millions of tons of easily accessed unprocessed ore (we have up on processing ore ages ago) at relatively cheap prices. Why would they attack us? They don’t even need the land.

All this massive defence spending is not able to be justified. Labor used to be the party of moderation when it came to defence spending. No longer.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lionking

All this massive defence spending is not able to be justified. Labor used to be the party of moderation when it came to defence spending. No longer.

It's one of the few ways in which Albo has disappointed me.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by lionking

The vocational colleges are often owned by Indians (this is factual) and the evidence is that the students falsify time sheets and are issued with certificates without being competent. So what? People might think. Well these students are leaving training as qualified cooks (possibly not so bad) and qualified motor mechanics (not good).

The other problem is that once qualified, the pathway to PR is quite easy.

Sounds like you're exactly the same path as NZ.

Nothing like repeating your little brother's mistakes.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Sounds like you're exactly the same path as NZ.

Nothing like repeating your little brother's mistakes.

Not sure we had to copy from you. It’s been this way for decades and stems from the general laziness of public servants.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lionking

Not sure we had to copy from you. It’s been this way for decades and stems from the general laziness of public servants.

Hey!

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lionking

Exactly. Name the threat Albo, I dare you.

We all know the never-to-be-stared threat is China, but there is no way that threat could be even articulated. As I have said repeatedly, we are China’s mine, shipping millions of tons of easily accessed unprocessed ore (we have up on processing ore ages ago) at relatively cheap prices. Why would they attack us? They don’t even need the land.

All this massive defence spending is not able to be justified. Labor used to be the party of moderation when it came to defence spending. No longer.

Of course they wouldn't, whilst you continue to sell them ore etc. And on the basis that you'll continue to sell them cheap ore whatever China does to the likes of the Uighurs and Taiwan and the rest of the far east, I'm sure China will be quite happy to leave you alone.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Of course they wouldn't, whilst you continue to sell them ore etc. And on the basis that you'll continue to sell them cheap ore whatever China does to the likes of the Uighurs and Taiwan and the rest of the far east, I'm sure China will be quite happy to leave you alone.

Oh for goodness sake, you want Australia to boycott China? You have to be joking. To start with Taiwan is a much bigger trading partner than Australia, and other Asian countries are happy to have China as a trading partner. All these countries are dwarfed, of course by the US.

Give me a break.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tners_of_China

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lionking

Oh for goodness sake, you want Australia to boycott China? You have to be joking. To start with Taiwan is a much bigger trading partner than Australia, and other Asian countries are happy to have China as a trading partner. All these countries are dwarfed, of course by the US.

Give me a break.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tners_of_China

Oh dear. No I don't want Oz to boycott China, in fact I don't give a damn if you do or not, I was just pointing out that should OZ actually decide to take a stand against China for eg humanitarian reasons, China might not be so friendly.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Oh dear. No I don't want Oz to boycott China, in fact I don't give a damn if you do or not, I was just pointing out that should OZ actually decide to take a stand against China for eg humanitarian reasons, China might not be so friendly.

So which virtuous countries have done this? I posted a link to those trading with China. Maybe Monaco is leading the way……

Meanwhile back in the real world, major trading nations use the art of diplomacy to encourage change.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by lionking

So which virtuous countries have done this? I posted a link to those trading with China. Maybe Monaco is leading the way……

Meanwhile back in the real world, major trading nations use the art of diplomacy to encourage change.

So you define trade boycotts as diplomacy - ok, you do you.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Lplus

So you define trade boycotts as diplomacy - ok, you do you.

I didn’t say that. Re-read my post.

Anyway back to the topic, where is the “urgent strategic need” requiring the building of military vehicles overseas?

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The army's new infantry fighting vehicles could be built overseas to meet urgent strategic needs

What "urgent strategic needs" is Australia facing right now that requires lethal land capability?

If the Army does not get this equipment, the government might lose votes. If they are built in Australia they will cost heaps more, as we do not build such things normally so do not have the expertise or hardware to do so. Another vote loser. This will not be a problem if they are built overseas.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by rjh01

If the Army does not get this equipment, the government might lose votes. If they are built in Australia they will cost heaps more, as we do not build such things normally so do not have the expertise or hardware to do so. Another vote loser. This will not be a problem if they are built overseas.

Generally, Australia has dropped the ball regarding supporting/having local manufacturing industries, and is getting worse.

If we are ever involved in another war, we'll be in deep trouble, because we've foolishly exported our manufacturing capabilities to other countries.

If you don't have local industry, you can't switch that industry to a war footing.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by lionking

Anyway back to the topic, where is the “urgent strategic need” requiring the building of military vehicles overseas?

I wonder if the justification has something to do with Ukraine.

We've donated weapons already, as far as I know, so could this be in order to donate more?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I wonder if the justification has something to do with Ukraine.

We've donated weapons already, as far as I know, so could this be in order to donate more?

If that’s the case (and it might well be) the government should say so.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The army's new infantry fighting vehicles could be built overseas to meet urgent strategic needs

What "urgent strategic needs" is Australia facing right now that requires lethal land capability?

Reading more than just the headline, it says:

"When releasing its Defence Strategic Review last month, Labor confirmed it would slash the massive LAND 400 Phase 3 project from 450 IFVs [Infantry Fighting Vehicles] to just 129, as part of a sweeping overhaul of the Australian Army."

So, Albo is *cutting* defence spending.

Furthermore, to get those 129 made, he's trying to get them made cheaper.

"The ABC can reveal the German and Korean companies bidding for the rescoped program have been asked to provide options for an Australian build, or complete overseas production of the IFVs with local support."

[lionking]

Re the Voice. Government is deliberately not giving details of the Voice referendum, having learnt their lesson from the failed republic referendum. When asked about what would happen if the government failed to act on a recommendation by the Voice, all Albo would say is “it would be a brave government which ignored the Voice”. Really? Regardless of the issue.

The other thing the government is silent about is the power of the Voice to take disagreements to the High Court. This is what one of the architects of the Voice has to say.

https://www.fairaustralia.com.au/voi...hear_the_voice

“

Quote:

Why would we restrict the Voice to representations that can’t be challenged in court?” she told a Melbourne audience.

The lack of detail and clarification will be why I think the referendum will fail. Who wants decisions of government constantly appealed to the High Court?

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by lionking

Re the Voice. Government is deliberately not giving details of the Voice referendum, having learnt their lesson from the failed republic referendum.

Based on what this says the details seem pretty straightforward.

We're being asked if we want to add the proposed section 129 to the Constitution. In terms of how the Voice would work, the only say that we have in the matter is that the body would have a constitutionally protected right to make representations to parliament as given in the proposed s129(ii).

Quote:

When asked about what would happen if the government failed to act on a recommendation by the Voice, all Albo would say is “it would be a brave government which ignored the Voice”. Really? Regardless of the issue.

The closest thing I've found to that comment is this interview on Insiders (A transcript is here) where the following exchange:

Originally Posted by Insiders 31/7/2022

SPEERS: One of the concerns that's often raised, and I think you've kind of addressed it in your speech and also in this interview, is that it won't deliver a practical difference. You've argued that it clearly will, with greater input from Indigenous Australians. Let me ask you, I guess, in a practical, real-life example, if the Voice to Parliament were to say these grog bans that have come to an end in a lot of remote communities here in the Northern Territory, that they should be maintained, would that happen?

PRIME MINISTER: Well, it would be a very brave government that said it shouldn't. The thing about the Voice and consulting people directly is that you will have a clear process whereby people can have input to matters that affect them directly. So, to take that as an example, at the moment I've had discussions with Chief Minister Natasha Fyles and we've had discussions with Linda Burney about how to progress to make sure that communities are kept safe.

So the comment is about a specific issue and not a general "didn't act on a recommendation".

As far as I can tell the voice isn't going to be a body that requires the government to follow the advice they give. You can choose to not follow the advice given by the body. The Solicitor-General's advice (direct link) states quite clearly that Parliament is not required to consult with the voice before legislating anything (18.(a)). The same line of thinking is given for the Executive branch as well (19.)

Quote:

The other thing the government is silent about is the power of the Voice to take disagreements to the High Court. This is what one of the architects of the Voice has to say.

https://www.fairaustralia.com.au/voi...hear_the_voice

“

Quote:

Why would we restrict the Voice to representations that can’t be challenged in court?” she told a Melbourne audience.

The lack of detail and clarification will be why I think the referendum will fail. Who wants decisions of government constantly appealed to the High Court?

The solicitor-general released advice on this back in April. The actual advice is Submission 64 (linked to the main submissions page in case the earlier posted direct link doesn't work). Paragraph 18 (b) of this advice states that the proposed amendment doesn't create an enforcible obligation for Parliament to consider or follow representations. Paragraph 19 makes a similar argument for the Executive, but that depends on the legislation passed by Parliament about the Voice.

When it comes to government decisions being appealed to the HCA the advice given was:

Originally Posted by Solicitor-General 19(c)

Litigation about the validity of decisions made by the Executive Government (whether by Ministers or public servants) has been common at least since the 1970s, including litigation in which it is alleged that decision-makers failed to consider mandatory relevant considerations. The suggestion that a consequence of empowering the Voice to make representations to the Executive Government will be to clog up the courts, or to cause government to grind to a halt, ignores the reality that litigation concerning the validity of decisions of the Executive Government is already very common, and that it does not have either of those consequences. Accordingly, even if proposed s 129(iii) did not empower the Parliament to legislate to specify the legal effect of representations of the Voice (which in my view it clearly does), proposed s 129 would not pose any threat to Australia’s system of representative and responsible government.

Which seems to suggest that we won't be seeing any real changes when it comes to the Voice potentially using the courts to challenge decisions made by the Executive. I guess one of the questions is why would you expect to see a constant series of appeals to the HCA greater than what we currently see?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Wildy

As far as I can tell the voice isn't going to be a body that requires the government to follow the advice they give. You can choose to not follow the advice given by the body. The Solicitor-General's advice (direct link) states quite clearly that Parliament is not required to consult with the voice before legislating anything (18.(a)). The same line of thinking is given for the Executive branch as well.

The problem is that the Solicitor General is not a High Court judge and can't predict how they would rule on a dispute between the Aboriginal community and the government.

Albo could have short circuited this by inserting the words "non binding representations" in the proposed section 129(ii). Instead he dug his heels in and claimed that the opposition isn't genuine about their criticisms. Although this is true, there are many other Australians who are concerned about the wording of the change and Albo has disregarded them completely.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by psionl0

The problem is that the Solicitor General is not a High Court judge and can't predict how they would rule on a dispute between the Aboriginal community and the government.

Albo could have short circuited this by inserting the words "non binding representations" in the proposed section 129(ii). Instead he dug his heels in and claimed that the opposition isn't genuine about their criticisms. Although this is true, there are many other Australians who are concerned about the wording of the change and Albo has disregarded them completely.

Exactly. Constant High Court cases launched by a body with ample funds could paralyse government.

[rjh01]

Is there anything that says the government of the day must accept any advice given by the voice? If not then is there any reason any challenge to the High court would be anything other than a waste of time?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Is there anything that says the government of the day must accept any advice given by the voice? If not then is there any reason any challenge to the High court would be anything other than a waste of time?

High Court injunctions can put a stop to government action until the matter is resolved, which can take years. The High Court cannot veto laws, but it can decide them to be unconstitutional. With the Voice written into the Constitution if the referendum gets up, it’s inevitable the HC will become involved.

And since when has a waste of time deterred people from going to courts?

[arthwollipot]

I didn't see a thread about this specifically. Perhaps there should have been.

Ben Roberts-Smith loses mammoth defamation battle against newspapers, reporters

Quote:

A defamation case by war veteran Ben Roberts-Smith against three newspapers has been dismissed, after a judge found defences of substantial or contextual truth had been established over alleged unlawful killings, bullying and domestic violence.

The Victoria Cross recipient sued The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Canberra Times and three journalists in the Federal Court over a series of stories published in 2018.

Mr Roberts-Smith said they contained false allegations of war crimes in Afghanistan, bullying of his former Special Air Service Regiment (SAS) colleagues and domestic violence against a woman in a Canberra hotel room.

Publisher Nine Entertainment relied on a truth defence, and both sides called current and former SAS witnesses.

Justice Anthony Besanko today ruled the publisher had established the substantial truth of the imputations linked to allegations of unlawful killings in Afghanistan, and had established the contextual truth of imputations linked to allegations of bullying and domestic violence.

He ordered the proceedings be dismissed.

So it's true. He's a war criminal and a scumbag.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by lionking

High Court injunctions can put a stop to government action until the matter is resolved, which can take years. The High Court cannot veto laws, but it can decide them to be unconstitutional. With the Voice written into the Constitution if the referendum gets up, it’s inevitable the HC will become involved.

And since when has a waste of time deterred people from going to courts?

Can you give examples of the High Court putting a stop for years to Government actions until the matter is resolved?

Also read the last paragraph in this post. It contradicts what you have said. It has sources, you have none.

Originally Posted by Wildy

<snip>

Which seems to suggest that we won't be seeing any real changes when it comes to the Voice potentially using the courts to challenge decisions made by the Executive. I guess one of the questions is why would you expect to see a constant series of appeals to the HCA greater than what we currently see?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I didn't see a thread about this specifically. Perhaps there should have been.

Ben Roberts-Smith loses mammoth defamation battle against newspapers, reporters



So it's true. He's a war criminal and a scumbag.

I started a thread in Social Issues.