Australian Politics General...

[mullokintyre]

Maybe Albo's first blunder. I thought he wanted to work with the cross bench, it doesn't make sense to get them offside.

Agree Horace, he is going to need to keep the cross benchers at least talking to him.
Its instructive that neither the of the "main" opposition parties in the coalition have had their staffing allocations reduced.
It smacks of previous attempts by the coalition to limit the effectiveness of independents.
In politics, you only save money if the voters think its a great idea and it may generate votes.
Most of the general public will not have known many staffers each members has, and the amount saved will be taken up by permanent additions to the library staff.
Don't know how its going to reduce flack @sptrawler , they have already pissed off the greens the teals, and Bob Katter.
Unless if your suggesting that it will reduce the level of research by cross members into the proposed and current legislation.
Perhaps the "main " opposition parties will provide them with research when it suits them.
Love to know who first put this gem of an idea up.
Mick

 

[mullokintyre]

Interesting move by the new Govt, saves money, reduces flack and antagonism.
Good move IMO, gives the media a lot less ammo, excellent maneuver
Just shows what a popular forward thinking Govt can achieve, it's about time the crossbench was put in their place, they received sod all votes, they should have sod all staff to research and keep the Govt honest.?

Crossbench fury as government cuts staffers from four to one

The Senate’s new kingmaker, David Pocock, said the decision was “bad for democracy and terrible for transparency”.

www.smh.com.au

Independents and minor parties are up in arms after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cut their staffing allocation to a quarter of what it was in the previous parliament, leaving them with only one adviser each to work through reams of legislation and threatening the new government’s relationship with the crossbench.
The previous government gave permission for crossbench MPs and senators to have two advisers and two assistant advisers, plus the electorate office staff each member can employ.

@sptrawler there is an old saying in trading about never falling in love with a stock.
It could also apply to governments.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe Albo's first blunder. I thought he wanted to work with the cross bench, it doesn't make sense to get them offside.

As Mick said, it reduces the opportunity for the crossbench to pull to bits any of their proposals, give them less research resources.

 

[SirRumpole]

As Mick said, it reduces the opportunity for the crossbench to pull to bits any of their proposals, give them less research resources.

Labor reckons the Parliamentary library will be expanded to help the Members out.

Who knows unless you are an Insider. I gather the need to reduce spending was a factor. There are probably a lot of hangers on sucking up taxpayers money in everyone's staff.

 

[mullokintyre]

Labor reckons the Parliamentary library will be expanded to help the Members out.

Who knows unless you are an Insider. I gather the need to reduce spending was a factor. There are probably a lot of hangers on sucking up taxpayers money in everyone's staff.

I doubt reducing spending was really a factor, it was a convenient scapegoat.
If they were really keen on reducing spending, they would have cut all the pollies positions down to one or maybe two.
They could have achieved a much bigger result , left everyone else without the dirt digging staff, but used the Public servants in each ministry to do the "fact finding".
Then you could really save some money.
Yea. nah. Just typical political Bull$hit.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

but used the Public servants in each ministry to do the "fact finding".

Hmmm well, I'm sure that the previous government stacked the Public Service to their advantage over 9 years.

It will no doubt happen again but I'm not sure that the Public Service are as unbiased as they should be.

 

[The Triangle]

I love it. Drain the swamp. No voters in Australia have an ounce of sympathy for these ?? at the trough. These staffers spend most of their time on party affairs anyways. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking they are actually working for Australians.

 

[PZ99]

I don't think it's supposed to save money. I said previously once the teals had bashed the LNP in the last election they'll target Labor in the next one.

If "fact finding" is enough to bring down the two major parties then bring it on I say...

 

[Knobby22]

Also he now has a bargaining chip. You want 2 staffers? Pass this legislation

 

[Knobby22]

Also he now has a bargaining chip. You want 2 staffers? Pass this legislation

Also the numbers only went up from one under the coalition in 2007 ( I believe to 2). It was Morrison who took it to 4 and that was a deal to get support.
They have access to the library and the clerks who will serve them if they require information.

Also if people think Albanese is some wet behind the ears Trudeau type figure they have a shock coming.
He is as hard as nails.

 

[basilio]

I'm not impressed with the Governments decision to cut the staff of Independents. Jacqui Lambie is a down to earth politician who I have a lot of respect for. She presents a very simple cogent argument. Essentially she has a ton of legislation to evaluate fairly and she wants staff who understand her community when considering the options she faces when deciding how she will vote. Quite a compelling argument I thought.

The decisions I make in the Senate matter, and I trust my staff to guide me through them​

Jacqui Lambie


Prime minister Albanese has decided to sack three of the four people who work for me with no consultation and no notice

‘I hire people who are smart, but also decent. I need to trust them … I’m not an expert on everything. Nobody is. Not even the PM,’ says independent Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian
Tue 28 Jun 2022 02.01 BSTLast modified on Tue 28 Jun 2022 02.04 BST



The leader of the party of the worker has decided to sack three of the four people who work for me. He’s done it with no consultation, no negotiation, no notice it was coming and no opportunity to appeal.

You might think: well, if you’re good at the job, you shouldn’t need a team around you that big.

But that’s not how this works. I’m not an economist. I’m not a lawyer. I’m a regular person who occasionally makes the final decision on whether a government’s idea should become law.

When I’ve got to decide whether a bill should pass, it’s my staff who take the daily calls from industry groups and community organisations and who work directly with the people who’re going to be affected by a change.

They weigh up the arguments for and against what the government wants to do, and help me figure out who to believe.
It’s a huge job.

Independents say crossbencher staff cuts will ‘slow down’ Labor’s legislative agenda
Read more
Take an example. When the Morrison government wanted to ban mobile phones in detention centres, it was my staff who set up the survey to ask people what they think.

They read and summed up the 90,000 responses we got back, and explained the points people were making to me. Hundreds of thousands of words, tens of thousands of emails and submissions – and a handful of staff to get through it all. Ultimately, it was that survey that convinced me to say no to the laws.

The prime minister says I should use the Parliamentary Library instead. But it’s apples and oranges.

The people who work in the Parliamentary Library aren’t working with me from daybreak to dinner. You can’t take them with you into the Senate chamber if you’re going through bills and amendments on the fly.

If I go to them for help in assessing what a bill means for Tasmania, they have no idea, because none of them spend any time there.

The decisions I make in the Senate matter, and I trust my staff to guide me through them | Jacqui Lambie

Prime minister Albanese has decided to sack three of the four people who work for me with no consultation and no notice

www.theguardian.com

 

[sptrawler]

I'm not impressed with the Governments decision to cut the staff of Independents. Jacqui Lambie is a down to earth politician who I have a lot of respect for. She presents a very simple cogent argument. Essentially she has a ton of legislation to evaluate fairly and she wants staff who understand her community when considering the options she faces when deciding how she will vote. Quite a compelling argument I thought.

The decisions I make in the Senate matter, and I trust my staff to guide me through them​

Jacqui Lambie


Prime minister Albanese has decided to sack three of the four people who work for me with no consultation and no notice
View attachment 143411
‘I hire people who are smart, but also decent. I need to trust them … I’m not an expert on everything. Nobody is. Not even the PM,’ says independent Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian
Tue 28 Jun 2022 02.01 BSTLast modified on Tue 28 Jun 2022 02.04 BST



The leader of the party of the worker has decided to sack three of the four people who work for me. He’s done it with no consultation, no negotiation, no notice it was coming and no opportunity to appeal.

You might think: well, if you’re good at the job, you shouldn’t need a team around you that big.

But that’s not how this works. I’m not an economist. I’m not a lawyer. I’m a regular person who occasionally makes the final decision on whether a government’s idea should become law.

When I’ve got to decide whether a bill should pass, it’s my staff who take the daily calls from industry groups and community organisations and who work directly with the people who’re going to be affected by a change.

They weigh up the arguments for and against what the government wants to do, and help me figure out who to believe.
It’s a huge job.
View attachment 143412
Independents say crossbencher staff cuts will ‘slow down’ Labor’s legislative agenda
Read more
Take an example. When the Morrison government wanted to ban mobile phones in detention centres, it was my staff who set up the survey to ask people what they think.

They read and summed up the 90,000 responses we got back, and explained the points people were making to me. Hundreds of thousands of words, tens of thousands of emails and submissions – and a handful of staff to get through it all. Ultimately, it was that survey that convinced me to say no to the laws.

The prime minister says I should use the Parliamentary Library instead. But it’s apples and oranges.

The people who work in the Parliamentary Library aren’t working with me from daybreak to dinner. You can’t take them with you into the Senate chamber if you’re going through bills and amendments on the fly.

If I go to them for help in assessing what a bill means for Tasmania, they have no idea, because none of them spend any time there.

The decisions I make in the Senate matter, and I trust my staff to guide me through them | Jacqui Lambie

Prime minister Albanese has decided to sack three of the four people who work for me with no consultation and no notice

www.theguardian.com

Hard times call for hard decisions.
The last Govt didnt make them, someone has to.

 

[moXJO]

Hard times call for hard decisions.
The last Govt didnt make them, someone has to.

I can see Bas point, namely less informed members. But at the same time, they survived previously without them.

 

[SirRumpole]

I can see Bas point, namely less informed members. But at the same time, they survived previously without them.

'Google it mate' .

 

[basilio]

I can see Bas point, namely less informed members. But at the same time, they survived previously without them.

That is one perspective. Sure people can "survive" on an oily rag. The issue and balance of discussion IMV is
" What quality of decision making should be the basis of Parliamentarians final decisions" ?

IMV one cannot and should not compare individual Labour or Liberal politicians need, particularly when they are in Government, with the current range of independents. Why ?

Essentially all of the current major party politicians leave the analysis of major legislation to appropriate core Ministers and their Departments. The Ministers have a policy idea. Departments produce legislation on their request. Parliament then votes on it. So normal members just don't have any real need to assess new legislation in detail. They are mostly following the party line

How good is the legislation ? Will it address the needs the area demands ? Are there any unintended ( or possibly intended) consequences that would hurt constituencies ? Big business lobby groups are all over legislation that can affect them. General public not so much.

The Independents POV is that they need the resources to think through the implications of major pieces of legislation and highlight areas which can be reconsidered/improved if they are going to make a considered vote. Otherwise they would just be waving the legislation through blindly which undermines the opportunity for a thoughtful debate. It is totally unrealistic to ask or expect public servants to offer critical analysis of bills the current Government is proposing. The best they will do is slowly repeat the words of the legislation. So suggesting the independents should go to such resources is a bit ingenuous

The new Labour Government is intent on making many new decisions that will require much legislation. IMV it would be in everyone's interest to enable proper independent scrutiny of the proposals. It really does make more sense to get legislation right the first time instead of waiting for issues to fester unnecessarily.

 

[mullokintyre]

One of the strongest attributes of a robust civil society is that when illegal acts are comiited, the treatment is the same , no matter the person who has allegedly been wronged.
Its why even the worst criminals should get a fair trial, just as the best citizens should.
I am not a great famn of right wing muck raker Avi Yemeni from rebel news, but his treatment by the VicPOL thugs has finally come home to roost.
I did not ever expect to see the following from VicPol but there it is.

Not once, not twice, but three times he has been targeted by Vicpol.
Will be interesting to see what Yemini and Rebel news do with this admittance about illegal detention.
Its about time the Stasi 's that pretend to serve Victorian citizens are brought into line.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

One of the strongest attributes of a robust civil society is that when illegal acts are comiited, the treatment is the same , no matter the person who has allegedly been wronged.
Its why even the worst criminals should get a fair trial, just as the best citizens should.
I am not a great famn of right wing muck raker Avi Yemeni from rebel news, but his treatment by the VicPOL thugs has finally come home to roost.
I did not ever expect to see the following from VicPol but there it is.
View attachment 143963
Not once, not twice, but three times he has been targeted by Vicpol.
Will be interesting to see what Yemini and Rebel news do with this admittance about illegal detention.
Its about time the Stasi 's that pretend to serve Victorian citizens are brought into line.
Mick

So, any action taken against the arresting officers ?

A slap on the wrist probably.

 

[mullokintyre]

Yemini started supreme court action last year.
It was due to to trial in a few weeks.
Vicpol sought an out of court settlement, that Yemini accepted on the issuing of a grovelling appology.
I am not sure if there were any punitive damages sought or conceded, but I would expect that he would demand at least they pay his costs.
It remains to be seen exactly what consequences here might be for the various officers involved or those in charge.
Given that the MSM has given it no publicity yet, perhaps Vicpol are hoping to sweep it under the carpet like the Niccola Gobbo screwup.
Mick

 

[sptrawler]

So, any action taken against the arresting officers ?

A slap on the wrist probably.

Yes for being caught arresting him, I'm sure they could have coerced him out of view.

 

[mullokintyre]

And hot on the heels of grovelling from VICPOL, we have the quashing of the conviction of Jason Roberts origibally charged and convicted of being an accessory in the Silk Miller police murders.
Roberts is no Angel, but as the courts have uncovered, the Police in their eagerness to get a conviction, cut corners, hid exculpatory evidence, and were less than conistent in their evidence.
It is now the third overturning of a conviction in the past three years in Victoria due to allegations of police misconduct in recent years, with accused getaway driver Faruk Orman and convicted drug trafficker Zlate Cvetanovski freed in the wake of the scandal involving gangland barrister-turned-informer Nicola Gobbo, widely known as Lawyer X.
And whatever peoples opinions on the Character of George Pell, the High Curt decision to overturn the convictions against him showed the Victorian Justice system has effectively removed the word Justice from its repertoire.'
it will take a long time for the public to have a level of respect and/or confidence for Vicpol and the Victorian courts system that it once enjoyed.
Mick