Australian Politics: The Albanese Times

[Wildy]

So what would you measure then?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Wildy

So what would you measure then?

An interesting statistic would be the NPP vote where N was the number of parties that won at least one seat in the House of Representatives. You could calculate this by not distributing the preferences of parties who that got elected. (You would still distribute preferences to see who won each seat).

[arthwollipot]

I don't think that's how it works...

UAP candidate plans to sue party over campaign costs it won’t reimburse

Quote:

Jamal Daoud claims United Australia party ‘mismanagement’ forced him to pay for election materials in Sydney seat of Reid


A disgruntled United Australia party candidate has vowed to sue the party claiming its “mismanagement” forced him to spend thousands on campaign material which it now refuses to reimburse.

Jamal Daoud, who ran for the UAP in the inner-west Sydney seat of Reid, revealed on social media on Thursday that he was “in the process of suing” and encouraged other candidates to come forward in the hope of starting a class action.

Daoud told Guardian Australia one other candidate who was disendorsed by UAP was prepared to join, while he claimed others were out of pocket by as much as tens of thousands because they had signed agreements acknowledging the party would receive public election funding, not them.

But some UAP candidates in neighbouring Sydney seats have reported no issues with support from the party, blaming Daoud for incurring unauthorised costs.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I don't think that's how it works...

UAP candidate plans to sue party over campaign costs it won’t reimburse

At least he didn’t win, or else we would see his miraculous conversion to a “true” independent, which has been the pathway of so many mediocre politicians who used minor (and sometimes not minor) parties to get into parliament only to desert them against the wishes of the voters. This is odious and should be changed, but won’t.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Quote:

Daoud told Guardian Australia one other candidate who was disendorsed by UAP was prepared to join, while he claimed others were out of pocket by as much as tens of thousands because they had signed agreements acknowledging the party would receive public election funding, not them.

If these contracts did not provide for reimbursement of election expenses then that is just another reason for us to be grateful they did not get elected.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by psionl0

If these contracts did not provide for reimbursement of election expenses then that is just another reason for us to be grateful they did not get elected.

There is so much wrong in just this one story.

[arthwollipot]

And the new government continues to reverse the mistakes of the previous one:

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus orders Commonwealth to drop charges against lawyer Bernard Collaery

Quote:

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus has ordered the Commonwealth to drop the prosecution of lawyer Bernard Collaery, four years after he was charged with conspiring to release classified information about an alleged spying operation in East Timor

Mr Collaery was charged in 2018 for allegedly helping his client, an ex-spy known only as Witness K, to reveal details of the classified ASIS mission.

The Canberra lawyer was facing the prospect of jail, with his trial date set for October 24 in the ACT Supreme Court.

But Mr Dreyfus confirmed this afternoon that he had now determined the Commonwealth prosecution should end.

"It is my view that the prosecution of Mr Collaery should end. I have therefore decided to exercise my power under section 71 of the Judiciary Act not to proceed with the prosecution of Mr Collaery," he said in a statement.

"In taking this decision, I have had careful regard to our national security, our national interest and the proper administration of justice."

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I don't think that's how it works...

UAP candidate plans to sue party over campaign costs it won’t reimburse

With a name like Daoud, it's surprising he was even allowed BE a candidate for the UAP.

[The Atheist]

Albanese is certainly the most-popular Aussie Pm in eons this side of the ditch: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...tralia-by-2023

Given we're in the midst of an historic brain drain to Australia, it's actually not that great for the country, but excellent news for Kiwis wanting to move there.

Do you mind if we just call it a day and become a state?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Do you mind if we just call it a day and become a state?

Heh I'm not sure that is a majority consensus in NZ.

I'm sure the Australian government wouldn't mind. Politicians are always in favour of more politicians in Canberra.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Albanese is certainly the most-popular Aussie Pm in eons this side of the ditch: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...tralia-by-2023

Given we're in the midst of an historic brain drain to Australia, it's actually not that great for the country, but excellent news for Kiwis wanting to move there.

Do you mind if we just call it a day and become a state?

There was an invitation for New Zealand to become a state of Australia in the 1890s (check the Australian Constitution for more information). Was this invitation ever withdrawn or expired? So what would it take for New Zealand to become one? I am sure New Zealand could get 12 Senators + its share of MPs. Due to its population it should ask for 24 Senators.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by rjh01

There was an invitation for New Zealand to become a state of Australia in the 1890s (check the Australian Constitution for more information). Was this invitation ever withdrawn or expired? So what would it take for New Zealand to become one? I am sure New Zealand could get 12 Senators + its share of MPs. Due to its population it should ask for 24 Senators.

Senators aren't allocated by population. They're a fixed number based on state.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by rjh01

There was an invitation for New Zealand to become a state of Australia in the 1890s (check the Australian Constitution for more information). Was this invitation ever withdrawn or expired? So what would it take for New Zealand to become one? I am sure New Zealand could get 12 Senators + its share of MPs. Due to its population it should ask for 24 Senators.

Originally Posted by Wildy

Senators aren't allocated by population. They're a fixed number based on state.

That is only true for "original" states. The numbers could be different for new states. (For example, the NT would get far fewer than 12 Senators if it became a state).

BTW NZ only has about 62% of the population of NSW (about 5M vs 8M) so not only would it be unsuccessful in requesting more Senators than NSW but it would be entitled to far fewer members in the House of Representatives than NSW.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That is only true for "original" states. The numbers could be different for new states. (For example, the NT would get far fewer than 12 Senators if it became a state).

BTW NZ only has about 62% of the population of NSW (about 5M vs 8M) so not only would it be unsuccessful in requesting more Senators than NSW but it would be entitled to far fewer members in the House of Representatives than NSW.

You are right. I thought New Zealand had a bigger population, but that is not correct, it is smaller. So they get only 12 Senators. Mind you that might upset the ratio of MPs to Senators. So something needs to be done about that.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Heh I'm not sure that is a majority consensus in NZ.

Sadly, it wouldn't even be, because Kiwis aren't the greatest thinkers.

All our biggest companies shift to the ASX, half our supermarket business, 90% of banking and a massive number of other sectors are dominated by Aussie companies, and most of our best and brightest move there and run your bloody country for you! Christ, your mining alone would be tits up nut for all the Kiwi engineers and tradies. We're basically already a state, but without the economic and social benefits we'd get by becoming one.

Originally Posted by rjh01

So they get only 12 Senators. Mind you that might upset the ratio of MPs to Senators.

And we have selling points on both sides of the House. Our voters are very volatile, often handing out gigantic majorities, so you could one election 60/40 to the left and the next the exact opposite.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by rjh01

You are right. I thought New Zealand had a bigger population, but that is not correct, it is smaller. So they get only 12 Senators. Mind you that might upset the ratio of MPs to Senators. So something needs to be done about that.

Section 24 of the constitution has a formula that has to be followed such that there are approximately twice as many members in the House of Representatives as there are in the Senate. This is sometimes known as the "nexus".

Heh, in 1967 the Holt government held a referendum to alter the constitution to get rid of the nexus. Although this change had bipartisan support, the then DLP and other minority parties campaigned against the change with the slogan "do you want more politicans in Canberra?". Needless to say, the referendum failed.

[arthwollipot]

Especially in Canberra.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Especially in Canberra.

Actually, ACT residents didn't get to vote on that referendum. Territorians wouldn't get the right to vote in constitutional referenda until the constitution was successfully altered in 1977.

[arthwollipot]

‘Jobs for mates’: political appointments to government boards rife in Australia, report reveals

Quote:

Grattan Institute report calls for fundamental reform after finding 21% of federal board positions were politically connected


One in five lucrative and powerful federal government board positions have been handed to politically connected individuals, according to a new report warning Australia has developed an “insidious jobs-for-mates culture”.

The Grattan Institute has released a report revealing a shocking level of politicisation in government appointments to public boards, tribunals, advisory councils and agencies.

Painstaking research showed about 7% of those appointed by the federal government to 3,600 public roles have a direct political connection.

The problem was particularly acute for plum board positions – those considered well-paid, prestigious and/or powerful – handed out by the commonwealth. A staggering 21% of people appointed to plum positions were considered political appointments.

That included 22% of the 320 members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – which acts as a crucial and independent check on government – a figure that had increased in the final years of the Coalition government. The report said the AAT offered a “full trifecta of powerful, prestigious and well-paid positions”, rewarding members with salaries from almost $200,000 to nearly $500,000 a year.

...

Of the 21% identified as politically affiliated appointees to federal government business enterprise boards, 93% were linked to the Coalition. The trend was the same in states where Labor had been in power.

...

The attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, had already signalled a willingness to tackle politicisation at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Last month, Dreyfus said he was considering abolishing the AAT and was subjecting the body to a “very serious review”.

“The Liberals have repeatedly undermined the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by using it as a Liberal party employment agency,” he told the Nine newspapers.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

‘Jobs for mates’: political appointments to government boards rife in Australia, report reveals

Labor should not be too keen to mount this high horse. Federal Labor stacked Fair Work Australia with a heap of unionists when last in power.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lionking

Labor should not be too keen to mount this high horse. Federal Labor stacked Fair Work Australia with a heap of unionists when last in power.

That was then, this is now.

[arthwollipot]

Total facepalm.

Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change, Hollie Hughes, on ABC's Afternoon Briefing:

Quote:

What I am concerned about, Ms Plibersek, the member for Sydney, doesn’t really understand the first thing about agriculture in our country, let alone support mining. And the best environmentalists are very often the farmers.

But listening to some of the commentary around today, I am very concerned for what sort of legislation they are going to want to introduce that could impact farming land will stop but also impact our ability to continue to mind, to also look for these coal and gas reserves because the whole world is looking for those of the moment.

But this Labor government seems intent on turning the lights out, shutting down at industry, for an issue that is a global issue. Climate change is not Australia’s problem, it is not a regional problem.

Source

It's official. The Coalition learned absolutely nothing from the election.

[arthwollipot]

Apparently this is the fourth time since WW2 and the fifth in the last hundred years that Labor has formed government from opposition.

Source

Parliament starts sitting tomorrow, so that'll be fun.

[arthwollipot]

A Territory Rights bull will be introduced to Parliament next week. This will overturn the federal ban on the Territories making their own assisted dying legislation.

[arthwollipot]

Today is a day of ceremony for Parliament, which will be officially opened by the Governor-General this afternoon. Right now, a few administrative issues are being decided. It looks like Sue Lines has been nominated as President of the Senate.

[arthwollipot]

Milton Dick, who once featured in /r/AbsoluteUnits, is Speaker of the House.

[arthwollipot]

The Guardian blog has been doing a Q&A.

Quote:

Why are prayers read before parliament, in a secular nation?

Good question! It’s one which is often asked, given how often the prayers are shown – and there are also people asking why the politicians attend a church service ahead of parliament.

Each sitting of the parliament has begun with a prayer in both chambers since federation (1901) and it is mostly because of tradition – the UK and other common law parliaments, like Canada, also begin parliamentary sittings with this tradition.

In Australia, the prayers are part of the standing orders. So in order to be changed, there would have to be an amendment to the standing orders. Attempts to do this in the past (and replace prayers with a moment of prayer or reflection) have failed. Despite being a secular nation, and the most recent census showing Australia’s population is increasingly non-religious, religious bodies are still very powerful in Australia and as a general rule, politicians don’t want to cause waves. Parliamentarians do not have to attend the prayers.

(Prayers are not read in the federation chamber (the second chamber of the house of representatives))

In 2010, the standing orders were changed to add an acknowledgement of country before the reading of prayers.

As to why do the politicians attend an ecumenical church service before the opening of parliament? It is much the same reason. The service rotates through different churches of different faiths, but it is a practice which dates back to when Westminster members attended church before parliament.

Church and state may be seperate, but they tend to be bedfellows in Westminster tradition – mostly because of royal decree – and those traditions continue today.

There are many things we do in the Australian parliament because that is the way they have always been done, with members importing the traditions from the UK as part of federation. And no one seems willing to try and buck that tradition.

Source

[arthwollipot]

So welcome to the first full day of parliamentary proceedings. It's getting off to a good start:

Quote:

Pauline Hanson has kicked off her contributions to the 47th parliament in typical fashion, storming out of the acknowledgement of country during the opening formalities of the Senate’s first proper sitting day.

As is tradition, the Senate President read out the Lord’s prayer to begin the day’s proceedings at 9.30am, followed by the Indigenous acknowledgement.

Just as newly-installed president Sue Lines said she acknowledged “the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area”, Hanson’s voice appeared to ring out in interjection.

The Senate’s cameras did not switch to the back of chamber, but it was reported by AAP that Hanson had called out ““No, I won’t... I never will.”

We’ve contacted Hanson’s office for comment.

Greens senator Lidia Thorpe, a DjabWurrung Gunnai Gunditjmara woman, tweeted that Hanson was “ignorant”, claiming she “disrespectfully stormed out of the acknowledgement of Country in the Senate”.

Source

Quote:

Further to Pauline Hanson’s interjection in the parliament, in the very opening seconds of the Senate’s first sitting morning during the Indigenous acknowledgement of country, her office claimed the acknowledgement “perpetuates racial division”.

From this point forward, Senator Hanson will refuse to acknowledge country in the Senate,” a spokesman for the One Nation senator said.

Senator Hanson will also oppose a motion in the Senate today for the Aboriginal flag to be displayed in the Senate. Senator Hanson considers that only one flag, the Australian national flag, truly represents all Australians.”

To back up her argument, Hanson claimed the acknowledgement is not “any sort of indigenous Australian tradition, given that at most it has only been in use for the past 25 years (and in Parliament only 12 years).”

Source

Quote:

Pauline Hanson only just managed to retain her senate seat, after a very strong vote for the Legalise Cannabis Australia party.

Preferences got her across the line. But it was close.

Source

[Wildy]

Honestly I'm not surprised she did that.

[arthwollipot]

It's certainly in character.

[arthwollipot]

Ooooo, sick burn.

Quote:

I thank very much the Leader of the Opposition for the question and I congratulate him on his election as leader of the Liberal Party and wish him well as leader of the opposition and I hope he stays there for a very, very long time.

Source

[arthwollipot]

The Government's all-important climate change bill is passing through the House right now. The Independents and Greens are proposing amendments. The Independent amendments are largely administrative, and are being agreed to by the government. The Greens amendments radically change the bill - from 43% by 2050 to 75% by 2035, and are being rejected by the government. The opposition is proposing no amendments - they are just blanket voting against everything.

The Greens and Independents have already said that they are supporting the bill, so it will definitely pass with the amendments that have been agreed to.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The Government's all-important climate change bill is passing through the House right now. The Independents and Greens are proposing amendments. The Independent amendments are largely administrative, and are being agreed to by the government. The Greens amendments radically change the bill - from 43% by 2050 to 75% by 2035, and are being rejected by the government. The opposition is proposing no amendments - they are just blanket voting against everything.

The Greens and Independents have already said that they are supporting the bill, so it will definitely pass with the amendments that have been agreed to.

Finally some honour from the Greens. I will never forgive them for voting against Gillard's climate bill because it "didn't go far enough", and have subject the nation to 10 years of NLP inaction on the climate.

[arthwollipot]

And the bill has just passed. There were cheers in the chamber.

[Wildy]

Looks like the Greens learnt something in the years of crappy coalition government.

I guess the challenge now is dealing with the Senate.

[arthwollipot]

"The Coalition of yesterday, the Noalition of today."

Nice one, Albo!

[lionking]

There’s now a massive gap between Morrison and the second and third worst PM (Abbott, McMahon, take your pick).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-...grab/101336646

Quote:

Scott Morrison says he secretly took joint control of several ministries as a safeguard against COVID-19
He admits he used the extra powers on a matter unrelated to COVID to overrule one of his ministers
Mr Morrison says he did not feel it was necessary to tell cabinet about the power grab

Of course Morrison did not disclose this. It was reported in a new book.

And this is another reason you cannot seperate Morrison from his religion. He really thinks, because of his faith, he is better than just about everyone (fundy pastors excluded). He has not only treated the public with disdain but also his own Ministers by keeping the whole thing secret.

I wonder what he told the GG to get sworn in (it looks like there might be a fourth portfolio)?

He should now resign from parliament.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by lionking

And this is another reason you cannot seperate Morrison from his religion.

What crap. There is no indication that a PM wouldn't do this if they were an atheist. Considering that all MPs think that they are better than their constituents once they get elected, I would say that it is at least equally likely that an atheist PM would make the same grab for power.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by psionl0

What crap. There is no indication that a PM wouldn't do this if they were an atheist. Considering that all MPs think that they are better than their constituents once they get elected, I would say that it is at least equally likely that an atheist PM would make the same grab for power.

Well I think that Morrison has a very high opinion of his moral superiority, as do many fundamental Christians. The second sentence of yours makes no sense. Why has no other PM behaved in this manner? (And please don’t cite the open Whitlam-Murphy double act for a couple of weeks).

[lionking]

Another issue connecting religion with the Morrison secret power grab. There has been a lot of commentary about the Governor-General’s role in all of this. Appointments to the ministry by convention go from the Executive Council to the GG. Not in this case. Also the GG publishes all ministerial appointments in the Government Gazette. Not in this case.

Would it be a major surprise that the GG is a Pentecostal? It shouldn’t be as he is.

Another interesting “coincidence” is this:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-...gram/100975582

Quote:

The Governor-General David Hurley personally lobbied Prime Minister Scott Morrison about a leadership program that was later allocated more than $18 million in federal funding.

This article goes on to point out that Hurley’s foundation isn’t yet operational.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven and I believe that these two fundy Christians are in cahoots.