DJ Australian Voter Support For Government Slips In Latest Poll
SYDNEY (Dow Jones)--Voter support for Australia's ruling Liberal-National coalition has slipped slightly over the past two weeks, a poll has found, signaling the government could still face a significant defeat if an election is to be called now.
According to the Newspoll survey published in The Australian newspaper Monday, the coalition has 44% of the two-party-preferred vote, down one percentage point from the last poll.
The opposition Labor party has secured 56%, 12 points ahead of the government.
Prime Minister John Howard has said the election will be held no later than early December.
-By Rebecca Thurlow, Dow Jones Newswires; 61-2-8235-2959; rebecca.thurlow@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
October 01, 2007 01:03 ET (05:03 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Garrett seems to polarise people.
He would be absolutely the last person I'd vote for.
anyone in the mood for some cynicism ?
Here's a pretty good clue that the election will be before Xmas
and even before the Abs take off en masse on their Xmas holidays - their annual pilgrimage to their coastal beach houses ........
(PS those medical teams are obviuosly doing a good job - but is it sustainable? still, better to light a candle than curse the darkies all the time I suppose ...
- especially during an election year which is where all the "energy" for this operation came from in the first place
Brough slams calls for Indigenous intervention head to quit
Posted 1 hour 2 minutes ago
Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal Brough has poured scorn on calls for the head of the Government's Indigenous intervention task force, Major General Dave Chalmers, to resign.
The Australia Defence Association says it is not appropriate for a military man to lead such a politically divisive mission, and that it is not the military's role to provide long term assistance to communities.
But Mr Brough has rejected the claims and said Maj Gen Chalmers' military role is not relevant.
"What Major General Dave Chalmers is doing is incredibly important work," he said.
"He's just an Aussie who happens to have the skills, the skill set we need, and the determination and the commitment to do it.
"The fact that he wears a military uniform should be put aside. It's who he is as a person."
Taking Aboriginal land
By jquiggin | September 2, 2007
One of the striking features of the government’s intervention in Aboriginal communities, embodied in the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 was how rapidly the ostensible motive of intervening to tackle social problems, most notably child abuse, was swallowed by the ideological push to refashion property rights, taking over land owned by Aboriginal communities, with the presumed goal of turning it into individualised private property
A question that’s come up a couple of times and to which I haven’t seen an answer is how this squares with the Constitutional requirement for “just terms” in acquisition of land and other property, and also the statutory requirements of the Lands Acquisition Act (unless these have been overridden by the latest legislation). Is there anyone with a legal background who can comment on this?
Update Several commenters suggest that the focus on the land grab is a reflection of the left’s concern with process issues or political advantage, and a lack of concern about child abuse. So it was striking to read in yesterday’s Crikey a pice by Anna Lamboys saying that that with half of the government’s six-month time frame completed, there are now some figures on
(a) the number of arrests for child sex abuse laid as a result of the intervention
(b) the number of referrals to child protection authorities
Results are over the fold
(a) Zero, according to NT Police Commissioner Paul White quoted in this ABC report
(b) Four, of which two related to sexual abuse, according to Crikey
To quote Crikey’s source on child health, the federal health check teams are only “skimming” the children’s health profiles, with absolutely no guarantees by the Commonwealth of follow up, let alone a long term approach to primary health care in the bush.
“The teams are not picking up the levels of childhood illness we know already are out there.
“It’s a fraud – you couldn’t have designed a better system to sweep illness under the carpet. All the hoopla gives the public the impression that something real is being done.
“In fact by understating the real levels of chronic diseases on communities – which anyone can see in the rates of hospitalisation and early death – it lets the Commonwealth off the hook in terms of really increasing health resources for Aboriginal people.
“It won’t even lead to a band aid solution.”
Of course, this kind of intervention always produces claims and counterclaims. But the government’s decision to use an emergency in health and law enforcement as the pretext for radical changes in the entire structure of communities and property rights virtually guarantees the failure of the original mission, and that failure is now playing out.
Even as Mal Brough was belatedly preparing to announce some long term measures that would go beyond the six months of the "National Emergency", agents of his intervention were smashing the most rudimentary housing available to too many Aboriginal people: the tin humpy.
Non-Aboriginal contractors at the Territory’s largest Aboriginal town, Yuendumu, three weeks ago bulldozed a corrugated iron shelter, home to a couple and their seven month old daughter.
The object of the exercise?
To build a residence for one of the federally-funded outside employees being parachuted into some 70-odd Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
A long-time resident of Yuendumu recounts the story:
A young Yuendumu couple and their seven month old baby, as well as the young lady’s parents, had set up camp. They installed a sheet-iron windbreak. They chose the site because it is near the only shade, provided by two mulga trees, near a house occupied by members of their extended family. There is no spare room in this house.
Without warning, an outside (Alice Springs?) contractor turned up with a map, a demountable building, and plant and equipment, and proceeded to clear the site.
The baby’s concerned grandfather’s objections were ignored. Part of the sheet-iron windbreak was destroyed and a big pile of dirt and debris pushed up right next to the former campsite.
The demountable was duly installed and another Alice Springs contractor then erected a two metre high cyclone fence, capped by three strands of barbed wire.
Without having thoroughly checked, I believe this to be the only barbed wire on any residential fences in Yuendumu. One of the two shady mulga trees was "captured" by the fence enclosure.
The only commercial/participatory involvement by locals, as far as I’m able to find out, was that a locally-owned firm supplied 1.5 cubic metres of concrete pre-mix for around $200 to the fencing contractor.
The Yuendumu local who witnessed the event goes on to say:
Like many "military style" interventions by outsiders, this one is counter-productive and headed towards failure. It’s certainly not winning "hearts and minds".
He goes on to say locals are asking:
"Why does the Government not like us any more?"
"What have we done to make kardiya (whitefellas) dislike us?"
"Nyiya jangka? (what's going on?)."
The running sore of Aboriginal affairs in the Northern Territory for many years, and elsewhere in remote Australia, has been that of housing. And it has been demonstrably deteriorating over the past decade.
In 2001, the estimated backlog in Aboriginal housing in the Northern Territory was estimated to be $850 million. This so-called "unmet need" was made up of deteriorating houses, and houses unbuilt on communities where occupation rates of 15+ are not uncommon. More importantly, housing is not keeping up with houses beyond repair – let alone a population doubling every 25 years.
The current estimate of unmet need is $2.4 billion. Even taking into account general inflation, let alone exploding growth in building costs, it is obvious housing availability is going backwards, with all the obvious effects that will have on health.
Brough’s announcement this week of long term approaches to meeting this unmet need is welcome, and sure beats Howard’s initial throwaway line that the whole deal would cost barely "tens of millions".
He should tell his fly-in bureaucrats that bulldozing existing accommodation - no matter how rudimentary and forlorn - will do nothing to win hearts and minds of people more humble than Galarrwuy Yunupingu.
While not agreeing or disagreeing, why are these two "outlandish"?Two of the more outlandish folk running in this federal election
http://www.paulinehanson.com.au/
http://www.bobbrown.org.au/
Garpal
While not agreeing or disagreeing, why are these two "outlandish"?
out·land·ish /aʊtˈlændɪʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[out-lan-dish] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. freakishly or grotesquely strange or odd, as appearance, dress, objects, ideas, or practices; bizarre: outlandish clothes; outlandish questions.
2. having a foreign appearance.
3. remote from civilized areas; out-of the-way: an outlandish settlement.
4. Archaic. foreign; alien.
lolOne was, but now isn't.
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070926-Broughs-bulldozing-backyard-blitz.html
Brough’s bulldozing backyard blitz
Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Without warning, an outside (Alice Springs?) contractor turned up with a map, a demountable building, and plant and equipment, and proceeded to clear the site.
Nioka, would you have still felt OK about John Howard had he not snuggled up to GWB and supported the Iraq war etc? It was this which turned the tide for me; his absolute refusal to consider the views of the majority of Australians. The mantra about "we need to be one with our major ally" has a hollow ring to it as far as I'm concerned. Little New Zealand doesn't have anyone to come to its aid in the unlikely event of any invasion, but they have had the fortitude to stand by their own convictions over American nuclear ships many years ago, and over the Iraq war more recently.I used to think that. Now I'm not so sure. The first person I USED to vote for was Howard and I was wrong there so now I'm open minded about Garrett.
I started to dislike Howard when he did not disagree with Costello's "noncore promise". They he disarmed the law abiding and let the crims keep their guns. He showed his fear of guns by wearing a bullet proof vest at Gympie. Then there was the lies and deceit towards Pauline Hanson but still used most of the policies she promoted. He was deceitful about the Tampa. All that was before Iraq which was the final straw.Nioka, would you have still felt OK about John Howard had he not snuggled up to GWB and supported the Iraq war etc? It was this which turned the tide for me; his absolute refusal to consider the views of the majority of Australians. The mantra about "we need to be one with our major ally" has a hollow ring to it as far as I'm concerned. Little New Zealand doesn't have anyone to come to its aid in the unlikely event of any invasion, but they have had the fortitude to stand by their own convictions over American nuclear ships many years ago, and over the Iraq war more recently.
Re Garrett: I don't like zealots. And a zealot is what he was until he joined the Labor Party. Now he seems to simply parrot off the Labor Party line as he is instructed to do. So much for his convictions. Apart from that, I admit I just can't stand to look at him! (Yes, I know, shouldn't judge people by appearances etc etc.)
AUTHORS of a report revealing employees on Australian Workplace Agreements are earning $106 less than other workers are preparing to sue the Federal Workplace Relations Minister, Joe Hockey, who branded them "former trade union officials who are parading as academics".
...
Yesterday the Prime Minister, John Howard, the Treasurer, Peter Costello, and Mr Hockey launched a combined attack on the authors to try to discredit their findings.
Mr Costello said the study was "contaminated" because Unions NSW paid half the cost of the study, while the Federal Government's own Australian Research Council funded the rest.
The most personal attack came from Mr Hockey, who said: "You have to look at their motives and sure enough you can identify what their real intentions are."
Last night Mr Hockey admitted the Government's strategy was to be selective in its use of the research. Asked by the 7.30 Report's Kerry O'Brien if the Government was "taking out that bits that suit you" and criticising the potentially embarrassing parts, he replied: "Well, it could be the case."
Dr Buchanan said that in a 25-year career he had had spent just four weeks working on secondment to the Community and Public Sector Union in 1990. Dr Van Wanrooy spent eight weeks researching an ACTU-funded study. She started her career in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, working for Mr Hockey's predecessors Peter Reith and Tony Abbott.
...
The Government's campaign against the academics came as the Bureau of Statistics undermined Mr Howard's claims that ABS research showed employees on AWAs earned more than other workers.
Valerie Pearson, the bureau's assistant director for labour employer surveys, said the ABS had not done any research into the effects of AWAs since the introduction of Work Choices in March last year. The only AWA-related research it had conducted was in May last year "on a pre-Work Choices basis". It would not study the effects of Work Choices "until May next year".
But the Government yesterday continued to cite bureau data to try to discredit the Australia@Work report, published in the Herald, which surveyed more than 8000 workers. "The ABS tell us that people are better off under AWAs," Mr Howard told reporters.
Hi Julia,Nioka, would you have still felt OK about John Howard had he not snuggled up to GWB and supported the Iraq war etc? It was this which turned the tide for me; his absolute refusal to consider the views of the majority of Australians. The mantra about "we need to be one with our major ally" has a hollow ring to it as far as I'm concerned. Little New Zealand doesn't have anyone to come to its aid in the unlikely event of any invasion, but they have had the fortitude to stand by their own convictions over American nuclear ships many years ago, and over the Iraq war more recently.
Re Garrett: I don't like zealots. And a zealot is what he was until he joined the Labor Party. Now he seems to simply parrot off the Labor Party line as he is instructed to do. So much for his convictions. Apart from that, I admit I just can't stand to look at him! (Yes, I know, shouldn't judge people by appearances etc etc.)
The pulp mill will be built, no matter what the environmental costs are. If you still remember what happened last election, when Federal Labor announced that Tasmanian forests will be protected, and they would then help timber workers to look for other jobs... just look at how many seats they have lost. It was a complete disaster for fed Labor in Tasmania.
So, the fact is, the party who wants to pick up that seat will have to promote jobs in that region ahead of any environmental impacts, and both parties can clearly see this point, going into the current election.
I'm surprised no one has spoken about the health care funding fiasco.
All state governments are increasing spending at a faster rate than the feds, admittedly. Yet, most states are in financial difficulty and cannot afford more health care demands, with the feds sitting on a massive surplus. Where do you think the problem lies?
That's a federal policing problem now.Where do you think the problem lies?
I wouldn't be letting State governments off the hook by saying it's lack of federal funding that's the problem for one fraction of a millisecond.
I don't know about other States, but Qld Health is a total ***** fiasco, and nothing much has changed since Beattie vowed to clean it up following the Dr Death scandal. Dr. Death, btw, is still swanning around in the USA and will probably never be extradited to face justice here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?