Australian Politics General...

[sptrawler]

27 August 2021, just under 12 months ago.

Wellcamp, it sounds too good to be true, built on Wagner land, by the Wagner family building group, to service the Wagner family airport. Paid for by the taxpayer, with no open tender. Smells of a taxpayer funded holiday resort, when the virus quarantining isn't required.
Carparks anyone.
I would like to see what would have been said, if the Libs had suggested it.?

My post from the 27 August 2021, just to clarify for @Knobby22 . Queensland has had a corruption watchdog for 30 years FFS, was anything said? No, will anything be said? very probably No.
Should it be investigated, well if it was independent of government I would definitely think so.
It didn't make sense then and it is closing down now and will become a Wagner Family facility according to the Guardian article, which is great if you're related. ?
Nothing to see here @Knobby22 duh, we need a CCC so it stops shonky deals, yeh give me a break.
Be like me Knobby, cynical of both sides, they are as bad as each other.

Only my personal observations.

 

[sptrawler]

@Knobby22 to further illustrate the nonsense surrounding your fascination with a Government appointed corruption watchdog.
Criticising me, for being critical, just IMO shows your lack of actually wanting an effective corruption watchdog.
But it does show your blind following of the media circus, no matter what it promotes, as long as it aligns with your party politics.
Try thinking outside the square.
The corruption watchdog should be separate and independent of politics IMO.
If you see that as being against a corruption watchdog, well that is obviously a problem you are carrying, not me.

I think Mark McGowan has done and is doing a great job in W.A, but here is an article concerning our corruption watchdog and political interference.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national...-corruption-commissioner-20200415-p54jug.html

WA Labor will introduce an extraordinary law which will reappoint CCC commissioner John McKechnie by naming him personally in the legislation governing the powerful corruption watchdog.

But prominent upper house MP Nick Goiran has accused the government of incompetence and of ignoring the recommendations of the WA Inc Royal Commission.
The three-line amendment, which has been seen by WAtoday, changes section 9 of the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act to override the legal processes for the appointment of a Crime and Corruption Commissioner.

This means the requirement for the Premier to appoint a commissioner who has the bipartisan support of the CCC's parliamentary oversight committee, and who is recommended by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the District Court, would be abandoned.

Instead, the Act will be changed to name "John Roderick McKechnie ... commissioner for a period of five years commencing on 28 April 2020".
Labor planned to present the changes to Parliament on Wednesday.
The laws governing the appointment of a CCC commissioner were put in place in 2003 as a check on the government's power over the independence of the corruption watchdog and to prevent the post being filled by political appointees.

The requirement for the appointment of corruption commissioners to have bipartisan support originated in the recommendations of the WA Inc Royal Commission.

WA Inc - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So @Knobby22 as I said it should be completely separate from Government and should have the power to investigate and prosecute if there has been an abuse of a public officers position, the way it works presently is a f%^ng joke.

As you said, NSW and to a lesser extent Victoria.
"to a lesser extent Victoria"? what a limp excuse for an overseeing corruption body and its limp enforcement, if indeed there is any enforcement.
But hey you take the moral high ground, it fits well in todays talk a lot and do FA society.

 

[Knobby22]

@Knobby22 to further illustrate the nonsense surrounding your fascination with a Government appointed corruption watchdog.
Criticising me, for being critical, just IMO shows your lack of actually wanting an effective corruption watchdog.
But it does show your blind following of the media circus, no matter what it promotes, as long as it aligns with your party politics.
Try thinking outside the square.
The corruption watchdog should be separate and independent of politics IMO.
If you see that as being against a corruption watchdog, well that is obviously a problem you are carrying, not me.

I think Mark McGowan has done and is doing a great job in W.A, but here is an article concerning our corruption watchdog and political interference.
https://www.watoday.com.au/national...-corruption-commissioner-20200415-p54jug.html

WA Labor will introduce an extraordinary law which will reappoint CCC commissioner John McKechnie by naming him personally in the legislation governing the powerful corruption watchdog.

But prominent upper house MP Nick Goiran has accused the government of incompetence and of ignoring the recommendations of the WA Inc Royal Commission.
The three-line amendment, which has been seen by WAtoday, changes section 9 of the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act to override the legal processes for the appointment of a Crime and Corruption Commissioner.

This means the requirement for the Premier to appoint a commissioner who has the bipartisan support of the CCC's parliamentary oversight committee, and who is recommended by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Judge of the District Court, would be abandoned.

Instead, the Act will be changed to name "John Roderick McKechnie ... commissioner for a period of five years commencing on 28 April 2020".
Labor planned to present the changes to Parliament on Wednesday.
The laws governing the appointment of a CCC commissioner were put in place in 2003 as a check on the government's power over the independence of the corruption watchdog and to prevent the post being filled by political appointees.

The requirement for the appointment of corruption commissioners to have bipartisan support originated in the recommendations of the WA Inc Royal Commission.

WA Inc - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So @Knobby22 as I said it should be completely separate from Government and should have the power to investigate and prosecute if there has been an abuse of a public officers position, the way it works presently is a f%^ng joke.

As you said, NSW and to a lesser extent Victoria.
"to a lesser extent Victoria"? what a limp excuse for an overseeing corruption body and its limp enforcement, if indeed there is any enforcement.
But hey you take the moral high ground, it fits well in todays talk a lot and do FA society.

Well then, you will be for an independent strong one like in NSW then. Good.
The Attorney General has shown it is definitely needed.

 

[sptrawler]

Well then, you will be for an independent strong one like in NSW then. Good.
The Attorney General has shown it is definitely needed.

Of course it's needed, it just has to be absolutely removed from political interference and be given the ability to prosecute, otherwise it is another gravy train for political stoogies IMO.
The last thing we need is more political committees made up of political appointees, to oversee political behaviour, in the name of open and honest politics.
I'm not affiliated to any party and never have been and I don't believe BS from either party, like I said put the police in charge of political corruption and give them the laws and people to enforce honesty and openness, without political affiliations.
What is being done presently is a whitewash IMO. It attracts people into politics for personal gain IMO. How many would go into politics, if they couldn't feather their nest?
Just don't try and convince me, that the current model of corruption watchdogs, is the way it should be.
Maybe I set a bar higher than you and I have lost many friends through life, by setting the loyalty and honesty bar high, I give it and expect it in return.
As has been proven over and over, many laws are enacted that affect the constituents, but there are clauses inserted to ensure politicians aren't affected, how could that happen if they are there to represent the best interests of their constituents?
like I said neither side has my confidence, because both sides are self serving, it is just who the organ grinder is that changes. ?

 

[sptrawler]

WOW a newly appointed female minister sacked for bullying, it must have been pretty out there, as the Premier had only been back in Australia for one day. So being a female minister it must have been an extreme case of bullying one would think.

'I had to take action': NSW minister Eleni Petinos sacked by Premier after anonymous complaint by staffer

Eleni Petinos denied any wrongdoing after a complaint in her office but Premier Dominic Perrottet now says her position has become untenable.

www.abc.net.au

The Premier has now lost one of the seven Coalition women in his 26-person cabinet.

Her sacking comes as the Trade Minister, Stuart Ayres, has been under increasing pressure over the former Deputy Premier, John Barilaro's appointment to a lucrative trade role in New York.
Documents released publicly to the parliament, have called into question his involvement in the recruitment process and whether he misled parliament.
Mr Ayres, who is also the deputy Liberal leader, maintains the process was conducted at arm's length from Government and the Premier is standing by his Minister.

I guess the strong ICAC commission in NSW will sort it out.

 

[JohnDe]

Nothing stands still forever, looks like we are closer to becoming a republic. As usual, it will be interesting to see what system we will adopt, and there looks to be the added inclusion of a legislated indigenous voice in Parliament. Not sure but I think that the NZ system did this many years ago.

Greens Senator Lydia Thorpe labels Queen ‘coloniser’ in parliamentary oath​

Australia Greens Senator for Victoria Lidia Thorpe raises her arm during her swearing-in ceremony in the Senate chamber at Parliament House in Canberra. Picture: AAP Image


Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe has branded the Queen as a “coloniser” while reciting the oath of allegiance mandatory for all parliamentarians.
When called to do the oath, Senator Thorpe stood and walked to the front of the chamber with her fist raised, which she kept up while reading the oath.

“I sovereign, Lidia Thorpe, do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will be faithful and I bear true allegiance to the colonising Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II,” she said.

Senator Thorpe was met with yells and outcry from the chamber, and Senate President Sue Lines reminded her she was required to recite the oath “as printed on the card”, which she did on the second reading before signing.

It was not the first time the outspoken senator had labelled the Queen a “coloniser”, having also done so in June.

Senator Thorpe at the time said the “colonisation of this country is coming to an end” and declared her intention as an Indigenous woman to “infiltrate” the senate.

“How many Australians in this country wake up and put their hands on their heart for the colonising Queen?” she questioned.

Fellow Indigenous Senator Jacinta Price in June dismissed Senator Thorpe’s comments as “childish” and “divisive” and said she needed to recognise her privilege.

SARAH ISONPOLITICAL REPORTER

 

[SirRumpole]

WOW a newly appointed female minister sacked for bullying, it must have been pretty out there, as the Premier had only been back in Australia for one day. So being a female minister it must have been an extreme case of bullying one would think.

'I had to take action': NSW minister Eleni Petinos sacked by Premier after anonymous complaint by staffer

Eleni Petinos denied any wrongdoing after a complaint in her office but Premier Dominic Perrottet now says her position has become untenable.

www.abc.net.au

The Premier has now lost one of the seven Coalition women in his 26-person cabinet.

Her sacking comes as the Trade Minister, Stuart Ayres, has been under increasing pressure over the former Deputy Premier, John Barilaro's appointment to a lucrative trade role in New York.
Documents released publicly to the parliament, have called into question his involvement in the recruitment process and whether he misled parliament.
Mr Ayres, who is also the deputy Liberal leader, maintains the process was conducted at arm's length from Government and the Premier is standing by his Minister.

I guess the strong ICAC commission in NSW will sort it out.

I wonder if she bullied a man or a woman ?

If it was a man, the sisterhood would be right behind her saying he probably deserved it.

If it was a woman I would think there would be a conflict of interest among the fems as to who to support.

 

[wayneL]

As usual, it will be interesting to see what system we will adopt, and there looks to be the added inclusion of a legislated indigenous voice in Parliament. Not sure but I think that the NZ system did this many years ago.

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but we do have an indigenous voice in parliament via the several indigenous MPs.

What good could this additional voice possibly add apart from enriching the current grifters, such as Senator Price (an indigenous voice) has outlined?

Re the republic: as you've intimated, the shape of such republic is critical. I'm pretty ambivalent either way and am just interested in a representative system works. However I just cannot believe that the egregious clowns in charge of the republican movement are interested in actually delivering that.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes calling the Queen a coloniser isn't bad, it could be worse, Australia could have been colonised by the French, Dutch or Spanish.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but we do have an indigenous voice in parliament via the several indigenous MPs.

Plus they have the vote like everyone else.

They should be consultant on legislation that affects them ? Most pieces of legislation affects indigenous people like they affect everyone else. I'm not sure how the pieces of legislation that may affect them will be separated for any other pieces of legislation.

 

[wayneL]

Oh Kooyong, what have you done?

 

[macca]

Plus they have the vote like everyone else.

They should be consultant on legislation that affects them ? Most pieces of legislation affects indigenous people like they affect everyone else. I'm not sure how the pieces of legislation that may affect them will be separated for any other pieces of legislation.

Officially, there are six describing themselves as being of aboriginal descent, a nice mix of parties in amongst them.

It would be extremely easy to form an advisory group of Elected people to assess the impact of any proposed laws on aboriginal people.

ps I found it interesting that according to Tribal Elders Anyone born in Australia is born into the Dreaming and can claim to be aboriginal.

I know that when I stand alone in the outback, maybe on a bush track or lookout, I do get the creeps a bit.

I stood alone on the lookout near Echidna Chasm ( in the Bungles Bungles) for about 15 mins and it was an eerie feeling, Very moving...........

I went back there about three years later, stood in the same spot and after 10mins I started getting goosebumps in 38c heat, something going on

 

[Knobby22]

It's complex. It's about recognition within the Constitution. It's origins are written by Constitutional Conservatives and recognises Parliament and it doesn't create a 3rd house.

NZ under Jim Bolger, a Conservative resolved it many years ago. It will be resolved here sooner or later. It won't go away.

Let's see the actual words. I hope everyone keeps an open mind and doesn't rush into premature hard line positions.

 

[wayneL]

It's complex. It's about recognition within the Constitution. It's origins are written by Constitutional Conservatives and recognises Parliament and it doesn't create a 3rd house.

NZ under Jim Bolger, a Conservative resolved it many years ago. It will be resolved here sooner or later. It won't go away.

Let's see the actual words. I hope everyone keeps an open mind and doesn't rush into premature hard line positions.

Politicians are unable to resolve complex, it will be a pig's ear, as it is (probably much worse) than NZ.

Ultimately what is required is the goodwill of all groups, then unwieldy and unworkable bureaucratic attempts become unnecessary.

As a culture, we are approaching that, in spite of lunatics like Lydia. Folks like Jacinta Price, Anthony Dillon and Warren Mundine show the best way.

Everything else will be useless tokenism at best, and most likely divisive.

 

[moXJO]

Labor decided to start its clown show. It went from being impressed, to now watching all those lobby groups come out and grab their piece.

 

[wayneL]

Labor decided to start its clown show. It went from being impressed, to now watching all those lobby groups come out and grab their piece.

That was never *not going to happen.

 

[JohnDe]

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but we do have an indigenous voice in parliament via the several indigenous MPs.

What good could this additional voice possibly add apart from enriching the current grifters, such as Senator Price (an indigenous voice) has outlined?

Re the republic: as you've intimated, the shape of such republic is critical. I'm pretty ambivalent either way and am just interested in a representative system works. However I just cannot believe that the egregious clowns in charge of the republican movement are interested in actually delivering that.

I'm with you on this. When our elected leaders start messing with our democratic system by adding clauses that allow un-elected people into decision making positions in parliament, we start to head down a dangerous path.

Enshrined voice betrays ideals of liberalism

Let’s get straight to the point. A constitutionally enshrined Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice to parliament is a terrible idea, wrong in principle and harmful in practice.

It contradicts the essence of liberalism. It’s tragic the Liberal Party doesn’t have the strength of intellect or character to oppose it in principle. Liberalism’s great historic idea, which it got from Christianity, is that all people are equal in fundamental status. Liberalism’s defining project over 200 years has been removing race and gender from civic status, from rights and obligations.

This is a magnificent vision. Humanity is utterly distinctive, meaning it has ineradicable human dignity, and utterly universal, meaning every human being is equally endowed with rights and obligations. The state has no business distinguishing one citizen from another by ethnicity, heritage or gender. Yet the voice does exactly that.

Aboriginal Australians were at times brutally mistreated in our history and many have suffered continuing disadvantage. Like most Australians I honour Aboriginal culture. None of that provides any justification for breaching the principle of a colourblind state.

I oppose a constitutionally enshrined voice not because I’m a conservative but because I’m a liberal. It is not that a voice will give Indigenous Australians too many privileges. Rather it contains the message that Aboriginal Australians are fundamentally different from other Australians.

However grandiloquent the rhetoric, or benevolent the platitudes, this is a toxic and dangerous message. It represents a terrible wrong turn in Aboriginal activism towards identity politics, which is destructive anywhere it’s prominent. Identity politics is the enemy of human dignity because, in it, virtue and vice come not from your choices and actions but from your identity, defined by race, gender or other characteristics.

The purpose of identity politics is not to solve a problem but to create permanent rage and dissatisfaction, never more than temporarily assuaged by endless rituals of apology and ideological conformity.

It quickly assumes the quality of a state religion in which heresy is dangerous.

New Country Liberal Party senator Jacinta Price expressed this far more eloquently than I can in her magnificent maiden speech – a kind of Australian Gettysburg Address that should be read by all Australians. She said: “It would be far more dignifying if we were recognised and respected as individuals in our own right who are not defined by our racial heritage but by the content of our character … It’s time to stop feeding into a narrative that promotes racial divide, a narrative that claims to try to stamp out racism but applies racism in doing so and encourages a racist over reaction.”

Warren Mundine, a former federal government adviser on Indigenous issues and a star Liberal candidate for a winnable seat in the 2019 election, argues a similar case.

He tells me: “I’m a liberal democrat. I love and believe in liberal democracy. The basis of liberal democracy is that everyone is equal before the law. We fought for decades to be treated as equals. Now there is no law that is discriminatory against Aborigines. Some people talk of two sovereignties – how can there be two sovereignties in one country?”

Price made the further point in a television interview that having the voice forever in the Constitution implies that Aborigines will be marginalised forever, for the whole basis of the voice is that parliamentary democracy doesn’t work for Aboriginal Australians. The voice, like all identity politics, is a partial repudiation of parliamentary democracy.

Anthony Albanese could hardly have started better as Prime Minister. His shrewdness and judgment are evident in his advancing the least damaging model possible of a voice, one that is entirely inferior to parliament and can be designed and changed by parliament. Albanese has a shrewd sense of achievable change. It is a very useful set of limitations he has put around his proposal. The best attribute of the voice in Albanese’s model is that it will have no power.

Nonetheless it is still an extremely bad idea in principle. It is also the case that no one can predict what doctrines an activist High Court might dream up in relation to a race-based political institution whose existence is guaranteed in the Constitution.

It will of course be an interesting question whether Albanese can hold the line on his preferred referendum wording. Further, the very limitations that Albanese proposes demonstrate the illogicality and self-contradiction that accompany this damaging proposal at every stage.

The voice proponents claim it is needed so Indigenous Australians can have a say on laws that affect them, as though all Australians do not have that right, and as though mainstream society today is deaf to Aboriginal voices. But at the same time it is proposed that parliament can design, amend and determine the membership, scope, functions and operations of the voice.

Parliament can do all that today if it wants to. So if there really is a practical problem of consultation to be solved, there is no reason to change the Constitution, and thereby change the very nature of citizenship for all Australians. Similarly, while it is certainly true that much policy towards Indigenous Australians has not been successful, it is just not accurate to say Aborigines have not been consulted regarding policies that affect them.

In any policy regarding remote and distinctive communities today, consultation with those communities ought to be a paramount concern for state and federal governments. Consultation in itself doesn’t necessarily solve all problems.

I was working in the Canberra press gallery when a former Aboriginal affairs minister Gerry Hand created the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The Hawke government held out the same hopes for practical benefit from ATSIC as voice proponents hold out today. ATSIC was a failure. That doesn’t mean something better can’t be tried today. But there is no reason at all for this to go in the Constitution.

Previous Liberal prime ministers ruled out a constitutionally enshrined voice but the Liberal Party never argued the case in a sustained way and continued to lavishly fund pro-voice activities.

Here’s a tip for the Liberal Party: if you don’t enter an argument you can’t win it. When Peter Dutton appointed Julian Leeser, in every way a good person but a committed proponent of the voice, as Indigenous Australians spokesman. I presumed the Liberal Party was preparing a characteristic surrender.

Price’s maiden speech alone probably makes full surrender – that is, formal support for the voice – less likely. Instead the Liberals may adopt a fatuous neutrality, which is just a more ambiguous form of surrender. Thus liberalism declines, one defeat at a time.

GREG SHERIDAN
FOREIGN EDITOR

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm with you on this. When our elected leaders start messing with our democratic system by adding clauses that allow un-elected people into decision making positions in parliament, we start to head down a dangerous path.

Governments should consult with all people who are going to be affected by legislation. Businesses, consumers , pensioners are among groups that legislation affects, I don't see why one group should have mention in the Constitution when others don't.

I have no problem with Constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants, it's just a matter of fact that they were here before European settlement, but special treatment in other ways is not warranted, and I can see it will just create endless argument when indigenous people don't get what they want.

 

[macca]

Governments should consult with all people who are going to be affected by legislation. Businesses, consumers , pensioners are among groups that legislation affects, I don't see why one group should have mention in the Constitution when others don't.

I have no problem with Constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants, it's just a matter of fact that they were here before European settlement, but special treatment in other ways is not warranted, and I can see it will just create endless argument when indigenous people don't get what they want.

That is in fact the crux of the problem, different strokes for different folks !

Ask one lot of elders what they want and it will be totally different to the next group.

Compare Jacinta and Warren Mundine' attitude with the "victims" attitude and it becomes very obvious that we Have to treat them the same as everyone else.

No matter what we do there will Always be someone who wants more, me me me...................

 

[JohnDe]

So true -

“Enoch Powell once remarked, ‘For a politician to complain about the press is like a captain complaining about the sea’. These proceedings demonstrate a politician litigating over the barbs of a political adversary might be considered a similarly futile exercise,” he said.

Mark McGowan, Clive Palmer blasted in defamation case ruling

The high-profile defamation battle between Queensland billionaire Clive Palmer and West Australian premier Mark McGowan has ended in both men being awarded only token amounts of damages.

Federal Court Justice Michael Lee criticised both men for bringing the matters when handling down his judgment on Tuesday afternoon, saying the case had consumed considerable Commonwealth resources and had diverted the court from resolving “controversies of real importance”.

“The game has not been worth the candle,” he said.

Mr Palmer was awarded $5000 in damages over Mr McGowan’s comments, while the Queensland billionaire was ordered to pay Mr McGowan $20,000 over his attacks on the WA premier.

Justice Lee noted that both men had chosen to be part of the “hurley berley” of political life, with the public having already largely formed “baked-in” views about both men well before the defamatory comments at the heart of the case were made.

“Enoch Powell once remarked, ‘For a politician to complain about the press is like a captain complaining about the sea’. These proceedings demonstrate a politician litigating over the barbs of a political adversary might be considered a similarly futile exercise,” he said.

Mr Palmer launched the proceedings against Mr McGowan following a lengthy public slanging match between the pair back in 2020, when they were clashing over WA’s pandemic border closures and extraordinary legislation designed to kill off Mr Palmer’s $30 billion legal claim against WA.

The former Federal MP said Mr McGowan had defamed him in his public comments, including labelling Mr Palmer an “enemy of the state”, while

Mr McGowan responded with his own defamation counterclaim against Mr Palmer over comments he had made in media interviews and advertisements.

Justice Michael Lee had earlier warned both combatants that neither was likely to secure a substantial payout as a result of the action, arguing that the reputations of both men were already “baked in” as a result of their high public profiles.

“There are people who love them, people who hate them,” he said at the time.

“The publications themselves are, it seems to me, highly unlikely to change very settled views about these men.”

During hearings earlier this year, Mr Palmer made the extraordinary claim that he had feared for his life after the arbitration legislation was passed, telling the court he believed the law had given Mr McGowan a “licence to kill”. Justice Lee on Tuesday said Mr Palmer’s testimony was “fanciful” and “fantastic in the original sense of the word”.

The hearings also proved embarrassing for Mr McGowan and his top law officer, attorney general John Quigley.

Mr Palmer’s lawyers cross-examined the premier on text messages exchanged between him and WA media baron Kerry Stokes, in which Mr McGowan informed the billionaire of the anti-Palmer legislation.

Mr Stokes’s The West Australian newspaper subsequently ran prominent front pages mocking Mr Palmer over the next three days, with Mr Stokes later congratulating Mr McGowan on getting the legislation through the WA parliament.

The trial also exposed messages sent between Mr McGowan and Mr Quigley in which the pair mocked Mr Palmer’s weight and Mr Quigley made jokes about his own sex life.

Mr Quigley also sought a “do-over” of his testimony after realising he had incorrectly recalled details of what he knew about the state’s legal strategy in drafting and passing the anti-Palmer legislation. Justice Lee described Mr Quigley’s testimony as “all over the shop”.

PAUL GARVEY SENIOR REPORTER