The Australian Politics Thread

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/joe-is-that-you-hockeys-stunning-about-face-in-departure-speech-leaves-many-scratching-their-heads/story-fn5tas5k-1227577091109

.....in listing a range of policies he wanted implemented on his way out the door, Mr Hockey included a sizeable stack of measures he has spent the past four years savagely and contemptuously opposing.
Backbencher Hockey was saying things Treasurer Hockey never would have. In doing so, he has lobbed a couple of modest handgrenades his colleagues will now be left to defuse.
Among them, Mr Hockey suddenly extolled the virtues of changes to negative gearing, means testing of private health insurance, reduction of tax concessions on superannuation funds, reshaping the GST, and even the NBN, which Mr Hockey now says was a terrific Labor idea......


I'm sick of partisan politics stuffing the Country around. Joe's example is just one of a litany of former Pollies who, once they've left, basically 'out' their Party as going against properly thought out and productive ideas purely on the basis it can be used as a political weapon.

I wish ALL legislation was passed by a secret vote. At least then we'd find out how many of them are out for the Country - instead of themselves.

The NBN gets me so angry. Waste of money.

Probably not going to be as much life in a politics thread without TA around anymore - whose going to say something stupid daily or eat a raw onion now? Sure, Abetz is trying and Brandis has it in him but I dont think either have the stamina to do it with the stunning regularity of the former PM.

The ambassador to the United States needs to be bi-partisan. Of course he's going to water down his stance.

Your Name wrote:The ambassador to the United States needs to be bi-partisan. Of course he's going to water down his stance.

The Ambassador [to ANY Country] needs to be partisan to whatever Gov't is in control at the time, the fact that it is his own Party, yet he chose to give them an uppercut on the way out - speaks volumes ......

Every new PM gets a honeymoon period, but surely these numbers are giving Shorten the ...shorts?

Hence: a quick question to any of the Labor faithful. Who's anointed as the successor?

... and, when does the axe fall????

dasherhalo wrote:... and, when does the axe fall????

Not enough labour ministers at that 5-8% swing range to cause a spill and nobody stupid enough to be a sacrificial lamb and take the leadership before the election. Shorten goes to the election, labour expect a loss and their effort is to keep it as close as possible for Anthony Albanese.

NO, NO, NO!!!

Albo is the Labor equivalent of Tony! I loved both of them in their attack dog roles: please don't ruin Albo by putting him in a suit and tie and shaving his knuckles. Let him to continue to knee-cap Liberals for the fun of it: don't clean him up!!!

You'll take all the fun out of it for me if Albo has to mind his manners

As shadow leader he will be able to still knee cap enough to not lose his aura, but enough to win the 2018-2019 election. Then do a complete about face on his persona like Tony and then will fight to stay in power more than 1 term and not be knifed as is the way in Australian politics these days. .

The detention of New Zealand citizens in facilities such as Christmas island (run by Serco for those who didn't know) is disgusting.

I have no problem with the law itself but people who've been living here for decades should have a clear pathway to citizenship to avoid this deportation and shouldn't be re-punished for a crime they committed years ago and served their time/punishment for.

I also have a problem with ANY human being dealing with treatment like what I'm hearing is happening in Immigration detention centres, especially Christmas island.

The Australian government needs to be held accountable for this and I can't fathom how it's continuing.

filthridden wrote:The detention of New Zealand citizens in facilities such as Christmas island (run by Serco for those who didn't know) is disgusting.

I have no problem with the law itself but people who've been living here for decades should have a clear pathway to citizenship to avoid this deportation and shouldn't be re-punished for a crime they committed years ago and served their time/punishment for.

I also have a problem with ANY human being dealing with treatment like what I'm hearing is happening in Immigration detention centres, especially Christmas island.

The Australian government needs to be held accountable for this and I can't fathom how it's continuing.

Why should we house other country's criminals ?
We stop criminals of violent crime from even entering.
I'm all for deporting criminals.
People immigrate to Australia for opportunity and a better life, why should we be offering that opportunity to criminals.
New Zealand criminals should be treated no different to any other migrant criminal.
Criminals don't deserve a pathway to citizenship and at no time should be allowed to be a citizen.

As long as the facilities meet UNN regulations then house them in tents with long drops for all I care.

Your Name wrote:

Why should we house other country's criminals ?
We stop criminals of violent crime from even entering.
I'm all for deporting criminals.
People immigrate to Australia for opportunity and a better life, why should we be offering that opportunity to criminals.
New Zealand criminals should be treated no different to any other migrant criminal.
Criminals don't deserve a pathway to citizenship and at no time should be allowed to be a citizen.

As long as the facilities meet UNN regulations then house them in tents with long drops for all I care.

You seem to have completely missed my point.
I don't disagree with the law in terms of deporting criminals but why, for some person who committed a crime 20 years ago and has paid their dues and changed their life? This law doesn't make sense to effect them. These are people who are naturalised Australians in every way except Citizenship. Many of them have no ties whatsoever to NZ and don't consider themselves NZers.

I'm not saying any criminals deserve a pathway to citizenship. What I'm saying is that NZers should've had a clear pathway to citizenship to start with then this problem would not exist for them.

The law is not specifically aimed at New Zealand citizens but is effecting them in a big way.

To answer your questions - why should we house other countries criminals? We shouldn't. But we shouldn't pretend that these people are all "other countries" criminals when many are naturalised Australians.

filthridden wrote:

You seem to have completely missed my point.
I don't disagree with the law in terms of deporting criminals but why, for some person who committed a crime 20 years ago and has paid their dues and changed their life? This law doesn't make sense to effect them. These are people who are naturalised Australians in every way except Citizenship. Many of them have no ties whatsoever to NZ and don't consider themselves NZers.

I'm not saying any criminals deserve a pathway to citizenship. What I'm saying is that NZers should've had a clear pathway to citizenship to start with then this problem would not exist for them.

The law is not specifically aimed at New Zealand citizens but is effecting them in a big way.

To answer your questions - why should we house other countries criminals? We shouldn't. But we shouldn't pretend that these people are all "other countries" criminals when many are naturalised Australians.

Has that actually happened to anyone though?

Krump wrote:
Has that actually happened to anyone though?

Yeah there have been a couple of reported cases.
I read one a few weeks back about a mother who had two assault charges when she was a teenager in Perth and now has a couple of kids and a family life but is being deported 15 years later or something.

Trying to find the article but having no luck.

Your Name wrote:

Not enough labour ministers at that 5-8% swing range to cause a spill and nobody stupid enough to be a sacrificial lamb and take the leadership before the election. Shorten goes to the election, labour expect a loss and their effort is to keep it as close as possible for Anthony Albanese.

Agree, they'll all happily sit back and watch Shorten die at the next election. I think it's Plibersek's to lose though, it appears attack-dogs are off the Political menu atm.

filthridden wrote:

Yeah there have been a couple of reported cases.
I read one a few weeks back about a mother who had two assault charges when she was a teenager in Perth and now has a couple of kids and a family life but is being deported 15 years later or something.

Trying to find the article but having no luck.

On the whole I like the laws, but backdating things like that is ridiculous. People should at least have the ability to be aware of the consequences of their actions. It's like making the speed limit 40 on Monday and fining everyone who drove faster then that on Sunday.     As for anyone it happens to going forwards stiff shit, do the crime do the time.

Krump wrote:
On the whole I like the laws, but backdating things like that is ridiculous. People should at least have the ability to be aware of the consequences of their actions. It's like making the speed limit 40 on Monday and fining everyone who drove faster then that on Sunday.     As for anyone it happens to going forwards stiff shit, do the crime do the time.

The backdating is probably due to a [previous] lack of National databases, a lack of desire by bureaucrats to follow through, as well as being a Political no-brainer ie;not many complaints will be made about it by Aussies.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/71091542/Hundreds-of-criminals-face-deportation-to-New-Zealand

Filth's example is obviously a very harsh one, and a decent moral line needs to be drawn, but just as obviously - many [as in the article above] should be deported.
It's also worth noting that New Zealand has reciprocal laws, and the imbalance [in the direction of those being deported] could easily be explained by the imbalance of emigrants.

As for where the deportees are being housed - I would be more concerned with the welfare of the refugees. People awaiting processing to start a new life shouldn't be housed with violent criminals - the deportees should be in gaol.

filthridden wrote:

Yeah there have been a couple of reported cases.
I read one a few weeks back about a mother who had two assault charges when she was a teenager in Perth and now has a couple of kids and a family life but is being deported 15 years later or something.

Trying to find the article but having no luck.

I thought there was an avenue for long term residents to appeal or dispensation or something