Abbott in Government

[Skyring]

He also leaned on the minor parties about his so called mandate. Unfortunately, that sort of bullying ignores the fact that Abbott blocked the ALPs mandate in the senate for 5 years. The evidence for the backflip is that Abbott is now demanding the alp support his policies. As many have told me in the election thread, it is not up to the opposition to vote in government policy.

Just opening shots in the battle. If he didn't at least lay it on the table he'd be remiss.

I can't see the ALP knuckling under on this, but you never know, they've got a new leader to pick and it's a whole new cr*ap game. Anything could happen.

Most likely the ALP won't play ball, the Greens won't support repeal, and Abbott will lay up a DD trigger. This will put the new senators on the spot when they take their seats next July, because most of them on the cross-bench haven't got much hope of winning their seats again. They'll see a six-month stint reduced to six days unless they support the Government.

 

[medhead]

Peta Credlin may have had charges dismissed under a "Section 17"
http://m.canberratimes.com.au/feder...s-guilty-to-drink-driving-20130724-2qiev.html

Last paragraph is the relevant part

Thanks. tracked it down. Crimes (sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)

Section 17 allows for a non-conviction order with only nominal punishment. The court can consider a number of factors. In this case it seems that offender's character and seriousness of the offence apply. I'll avoid further discussion other than to say the character of the offender does not outweigh the seriousness of drink driving. Of course, this case highlights my belief in justice and support for the marginalised sections of our society. Even if I have to pay for my own private health insurance.

 

[doctau]

Most likely the ALP won't play ball, the Greens won't support repeal, and Abbott will lay up a DD trigger. This will put the new senators on the spot when they take their seats next July, because most of them on the cross-bench haven't got much hope of winning their seats again. They'll see a six-month stint reduced to six days unless they support the Government.

An interesting questions is whether a DD could be held before then. If the senate sits, rejects some legislation, waits three months and rejects it again you have a trigger (so early next year at the earliest). Can a parliament be dissolved even though the new parliament has partially never sat, since the Senate doesn't change until July? The constitution talks about "the Senate" and "the House of Representatives" but it's not clear whether dissolving the current Senate would affect the future Senate which doesn't really exist until July.

If you assume that the new senate has to reject it twice, it would be at least October next year before a DD election could be held.

If he tried to dissolve the parliament on the basis of the current Senate's rejection, I wonder if the GG would follow Abbot's advice? I think you could see a High Court challenge if he tried - I have no idea what would happen, but a challenge wouldn't be out of the question.

 

[doctau]

I think this is basically true. The threat of a DD may encourage some (Palmer's team being the obvious ones) because the quota will be halved and they can pick up seats in a few more states if they're tracking ok. It won't bother Nick X (he may well get two quotas in SA under a DD) and i can't see the greens bending too much regardless. But the ones who "lucked it in" will have no incentive to trigger a DD and i suspect Abbott will not be afraid to threaten it. The mix of small parties v. "lucky" candidates will then be a big factor and still isn't really clear.

It's true that the luckly senators from the micro parties would probably lose out if a DD is held since they probably won't be so lucky next time. On the other hand the major parties (including the coalition) tend to lose out in DD elections due to the halved quotas too. So while Abbot could threaten those senators because they'd be likely to lose their seats, they could point out that Abbot is not likely to gain more seats by doing so. A nice game of Chicken

 

[serfty]

On the ABC senate predictions which have not varied since late Saturday night, it seems The ALP would l lose 6 seats, Lib/Nats 1 and the greens gain 1. There would be 8 independent/minor party senators. ...

There has been an update with the Tassie PUP candidate being 'overtaken' in the predictions by a Liberal.

Senate Results: Tasmania - Australia Votes | Federal Election 2013 (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Predictions now come in at Lib/Nats 34, ALP 25, Greens 10 & others 7.

So that changes things a bit - the Australian government would need the support of 5 of the 7 "others" for the required 39 votes to pass/repeal legislation.

 

[amaroo]

There has been an update with the Tassie PUP candidate being 'overtaken' in the predictions by a Liberal.

Senate Results: Tasmania - Australia Votes | Federal Election 2013 (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Predictions now come in at Lib/Nats 34, ALP 25, Greens 10 & others 7.

So that changes things a bit - the Australian government would need the support of 5 of the 7 "others" for the required 39 votes to pass/repeal legislation.

Had my first look at her being interviewed last night......lets hope this trend has plenty of momentum.

As a resident of Fairfax it's good to see Clive been taken down to the last vote.....only 1,391 in it. The local rag is reporting on a very tight finish however, this is the same organisation that said he'd get no more than 5% of the vote.

Brough's 'got it in the bag' - Clive could still sneak in | Sunshine Coast Daily

 

[medhead]

Ah. Do you have an iPhone btw? You didn't need to requote

About 95% of my posts are made using the iphone app. I'm very lazy searching back using the app for a number of reasons including my vision going blurry from prolonged phone reading. The other 5% is via a computer after about 7pm weeknights. That is when I search back and comment on things I've noted during the day.

No I didn't have to quote your post. But I did want to acknowledge that it was not my idea. (I only plagiarise SWMBOs good ideas). I could not remember who wrote it, hence I said someone to make sure I at least gave some due credit. Sorry for not automatically associating every word you write with your name.

 

[Pushka]

Sorry for not automatically associating every word you write with your name.

Only when you don't agree with me.

 

[Pukka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

So coalition 1.33 to win the next election & Billy shorten odds on to be next leader of the ALP presumably because he's less likely to stab himself in the back. I think he's a good choice the ALP deserve him.

 

[lovestotravel]

I think she got preferential treatment but i don't think it's *partisan*. The reality is that those with access to good lawyers, money, and resources have the legal system heavily stacked in their favour. I think any professional person on that salary in such a senior position regardless of their politics probably would have gotten similar treatment. It's unfair but it's institutional not political.

Why is it unfair that she earns good $ and can pay for good representation ?

Good on her, and if you don't like your own circumstances, change them

If people are too dumb to do so, that's their own fault

 

[medhead]

Why is it unfair that she earns good $ and can pay for good representation ?

Good on her, and if you don't like your own circumstances, change them

If people are too dumb to do so, that's their own fault

This is the problem with Australia. People prepared to throw out the very basis of our legal system. Innocent until proven guilty and now everyone being equal before the law.

Perhaps you should find out how the marginalised people live in Australia. Get out of your little bubble and find out about abuse, living on the street and the lack of options people have if they're not born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Easy for someone handed everything on a platter to say work hard.

I dare say that most of these people saying work hard haven't done a hard days' work in their life. At least Karma will sort them out eventually.

 

[lovestotravel]

The topic is Abbott being in Government, and that a drink driver (working for Abbott) got off easier because she has worked hard and can afford a good lawyer.

Then those with tall poppy syndrome starting to whine that because she's worked hard she got off easily

 

[medhead]

Why is it unfair that she earns good $ and can pay for good representation ?

Good on her, and if you don't like your own circumstances, change them

If people are too dumb to do so, that's their own fault

Tell me oh clever one. How does the 2 year old who was beaten to death by her mum new boyfriend work hard and change their circumstances? Head slammed into the shower wall repeatedly because she's not toilet trained. Kick across the bathroom floor. Them put in her pram semi-conscious, shut in a room and ignored for 2 days until she's found dead. How does that child work hard?

How about the 6 year old in foster care work hard. Gets a broken leg left to hobble around the house for a week without any medical care. Eventually goes out to the backyard, sits in the dirt against a trailer and dies of septicaemia. How do they work hard?

What about the 6 month old that has been beaten by a father so that they can't swallow. Then the father punches the child in the stomach because its not eating rupturing major organs. How does that child work hard?

I could go on. But I am disgusted at this work hard solution of the Abbott voters. We now have a government that supports this disgusting attitude. How about the work hard brigade reject their government handouts? Work hard if you want to have a baby!

 

[medhead]

The topic is Abbott being in Government, and that a drink driver (working for Abbott) got off easier because she has worked hard and can afford a good lawyer.

Then those with tall poppy syndrome starting to whine that because she's worked hard she got off easily

That's not want was said at all.

 

[Pushka]

I think many people escape conviction but we don't hear about them at all because they aren't public figures. That's all.

 

[Skyring]

The topic is Abbott being in Government, and that a drink driver (working for Abbott) got off easier because she has worked hard and can afford a good lawyer.

Having an impeccable driving record, expressing remorse, and coöperating with the police is more important than having a good lawyer. You still need one to make the case, but if you have a history of drink driving and your behaviour is poor, it won't work.

I doubt the lawyer cost any more than the average.

People in similar situations "get off" reasonably frequently. But if it happens again, the same treatment will not apply. Like arguing a traffic fine down to a caution - it stays on your record.

 

[lovestotravel]

Having an impeccable driving record, expressing remorse, and coöperating with the police is more important than having a good lawyer. You still need one to make the case, but if you have a history of drink driving and your behaviour is poor, it won't work.

I doubt the lawyer cost any more than the average.

People in similar situations "get off" reasonably frequently. But if it happens again, the same treatment will not apply. Like arguing a traffic fine down to a caution - it stays on your record.

Indeed and that's the main reason she was actually let off, but some just put it down to her having access to a good lawyer/$$....

 

[medhead]

Having an impeccable driving record, expressing remorse, and coöperating with the police is more important than having a good lawyer. You still need one to make the case, but if you have a history of drink driving and your behaviour is poor, it won't work.

I doubt the lawyer cost any more than the average.

People in similar situations "get off" reasonably frequently. But if it happens again, the same treatment will not apply. Like arguing a traffic fine down to a caution - it stays on your record.

The problem is that drink driving is one of those crimes that is held up as the number of killer on the roads. No matter the driving record, drink driving is suppose to be so serious that there is no excuse.

In any case, I questioned the mechanism for the outcome. I question whether the charges should be dismissed. Turns out that is so anomaly in the ACT legal system. But she could equally have been sentenced, with no conviction and no licence suspension, while still achieving the same outcome as dismissing the charges.

It is absolutely disgraceful for some here to turn my question about the process into some sort of class warfare issue.

 

[codash1099]

Abbott's already failing. Been there 6 days and unemployment's gone up. What other horrors are to come?

:shock:

 

[drron]

Abbott's already failing. Been there 6 days and unemployment's gone up. What other horrors are to come?

:shock:

That's only due to all the ALP staffers that have lost their jobs.