The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Se what I mean? :wink: :
(video link in ABC the link below.):
John Clarke, Bryan Dawe and Joe Hockey
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 04/10/2007

Reporter: John Clarke and Bryan Dawe


Transcript

KERRY O'BRIEN: John Clarke and Bryan Dawe enter the workplace debate.

BRYAN DAWE: Mr Hockey, thanks for your time.

JOHN CLARKE: Good evening, Bryan, very nice to be with you on this excellent program of yours.

BRYAN DAWE: Are you still the Minister for Workplace Relations?

JOHN CLARKE: Yes, I am, Bryan, yes, you're fired.

BRYAN DAWE: So, Mr Hockey, you're aware of these findings about WorkChances aren't you?

JOHN CLARKE: WorkChoices.

BRYAN DAWE: WorkChoices, I'm sorry, yes.

JOHN CLARKE: Yes, I am aware of the finding you mentioned, Bryan. I am after all the Minister for WorkChances.

BRYAN DAWE: WorkChoices.

JOHN CLARKE: I am aware of the findings, Bryan.

BRYAN DAWE: Now, the Director of the Government's Workplace Authority...

JOHN CLARKE: Barbara Bennett.

BRYAN DAWE: Barbara Bennett, yeah, yeah. She was in the Government's ad campaign, right?

JOHN CLARKE: She was, advertising the fairness test.

BRYAN DAWE: Now, there were a lot of people who said she shouldn't have been in those ads, of course.

JOHN CLARKE: Not a bad choice, Bryan. She was running the fairness test, the advertisement are full of fairness test. She's an ideal choice to advertise the fairness test.

BRYAN DAWE: But who paid for the ads?

JOHN CLARKE: The Government.

BRYAN DAWE: They were in favour of the Liberal Party policy?

JOHN CLARKE: Well, I don't want to worry you, Bryan, but the Liberal Party is the Government.

BRYAN DAWE: Same thing.

JOHN CLARKE: Same thing. They are essentially the same thing.

BRYAN DAWE: But you're aware that Barbara Bennett's...

JOHN CLARKE: I am aware, Bryan, that she recently announced that 25,000 cases of agreements had been found by her to be unfair.

BRYAN DAWE: They failed your own fairness test.

JOHN CLARKE: They failed the fairness test, which is good.

BRYAN DAWE: It's good your own fairness test has failed?

JOHN CLARKE: Yeah.

BRYAN DAWE: So you've been caught out by your own system?

JOHN CLARKE: What do you mean caught out Bryan? The fairness test works.

BRYAN DAWE: Mr Hockey, the agreements aren't fair. You've introduced them, 25,000 of them have been found to be unfair.

JOHN CLARKE: That's right. It's great. The fairness test works.

BRYAN DAWE: But they're not fair?

JOHN CLARKE: The system works, Bryan! The fairness test is deigned to determine whether things are fair, it finds an astonishing incidences of unfairness, 25,000 of these agreements are unfair. The system works. Who put the fairness test there, Bryan? We did, of course!

BRYAN DAWE: Of course you did.

JOHN CLARKE: It's highly successful.

BRYAN DAWE: If the fairness test has determined the system doesn't work. 25,000 people.

JOHN CLARKE: Bryan, who put the fairness test?

BRYAN DAWE: You did. You did.

JOHN CLARKE: Exactly, the system works.

BRYAN DAWE: Why were the unfair agreements written in the first place?

JOHN CLARKE: I think the employers in those 25,000 instances hadn't seen the ads.

BRYAN DAWE: Which ads?

JOHN CLARKE: The ones that Barbara Bennett did for us.

BRYAN DAWE: For the Government or for the Liberal Party?

JOHN CLARKE: Same thing, Bryan.

BRYAN DAWE: It's fair?

JOHN CLARKE: In those agreements? No, not in those 25,000 cases, that's what she determines.

BRYAN DAWE: So what are you saying? They're made fair by being found to be unfair?

JOHN CLARKE: No, Bryan, that would be completely illogical. What I am saying is that the system works.

BRYAN DAWE: Change the law?

JOHN CLARKE: Be reasonable, Bryan. What is Barbara Bennett going to do if we change the law? If we make the law fair, what's the possible point in having a fairness test? She runs the fairness tests.

BRYAN DAWE: Lose the job.

JOHN CLARKE: Have some compassion, Bryan, we're talking about people.

BRYAN DAWE: Mr Hockey, thanks for your time.

JOHN CLARKE: I am a people person.

http://www.abc.com.au/7.30/clarkedawe.htm

~

I am just so overwhelmed by the generosity and thoughtfulness shown by the captains of industry in spending millions of dollars to support the Government's Workchoice legislation and to convince us how well off we all are under Workchoices. All these people wanting to give us more money, better conditions etc etc. It just gives one a warm fuzzy feeling all over doesn't it ? As bonzai said .... the Australian workers never had it so good.

But why is it I feel like they are a bunch of pinocchio rodents ?

ps .. There seems to be plenty of legislation to reduce workers wages, but there is no means to limit the obscene salaries paid to these same ceo s.

One of the wonderful attributes of democracy...


...which reminds me - it seems the Governor General (a general) believes that democracy is 'fraying at the edges', and even more astonishing - some people are starting to question whether we even live in a democracy or not.

In fact...if Johnny wore a short moustache under his nose, and put on a peak cap...

Hmmm...in fact, that was meant as a joke, but now that I think about it, the govt is engaged in activities not too different from German propoganda prior to WWII.

When it's all said and done, democracy is just "mob rule".

The mob with the numbers rule.

Another day another poll ...:

Labor's lead intact
Phillip Coorey
October 7, 2007 - 7:09PM/Sydney Morning Herald

The federal Government has failed to make an impression on Labor's thumping election lead over the past month, according the the latest Nielsen poll to be published in Monday's Sydney Morning Herald.


The poll of 1405 voters was taken from last Thursday night to Saturday and shows Labor leading on two-party-preferred basis by 56 per cent to 44 per cent.


This represents a swing to Labor of 9 per centage points from the 2004 election and would easily put it in government if replicated on election day.


Last month, the poll showed Labor leading the Coalition by 57 per cent to 43 per cent. The one-point change over the past month is not considered statistically significant.


The poll will be disappointing for the Government which has spent the past month campaigning furiously and ramping up its taxpayer-funded advertising campaign.


The Prime Minister John Howard has repeatedly stated the polls will not shift until he calls the election.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/labors-lead-intact/2007/10/07/1191695732461.html

If you can't convince people "workchoices" are good for them, deny researchers access to the facts.Full story here :-

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/academics-access-to-awas-cut/2007/10/08/1191695823698.html

<shudder>

I'm pretty tired of knee jerk.

The media's knee jerk response to the libs knee jerk response to Rudd's knee jerk response to McClelland's comments on the death penalty.

The hypocrisy of all involved - how you can you be anti capital punishment, except when it suits you? Why don't the media and pollies come out and say:

'We believe that a significant amount of the electorate want the death penalty (as long as it doesn't effect their social circle - and bumps off a few nasty Asians who don't like us anyway) and we will pander to their amoral desires and kneejerk emotional responses in the hope of currying their favour'?

Admittedly Rudd's main point was that the timing was unfortunate, but to say that he wouldn't oppose the death penalty for terrorists puts him in the same invidious/ridiculous position as the libs - who are anti capital punishment but rub their hands together with envy when the Indonesians murder a criminal - even if that criminal happens to be an Australian citizen who was allowed to leave the country while the police knew they had committed a crime, because it was expedient to inform the Indonesians about the further crimes they intended to commit so that they could be killed as anti drug marketing exercise.

I'm with you here Hingehead, it's all rather hypocritical.

Myself, I have no moral qualms about the death penalty for certain offences - people committ such crimes and know the consequences, then they have nothing to complain about...but the picking and choosing of which death penalty to oppose and which not to is just plain foolish.

That said, I don't care for having the death penalty in Australia. There was a study done in California where, when you took into consideration the overall cost of every safeguard they had in place to ensure a person wasn't wrongly put to death...the cost came out to $250 Million dollars per execution.

I don't know how costs are calculated, but every study I've ever seen says the cost of executing someone exceeds the cost of imprisoning them.
As for the issue of the death penalty here, I ultimately see it as an escape. I prefer the thought of a child molester having his arse regularly reamed than escaping a lifetime of misery with a humane injection.

I hear you, hinge. And completely agree with what you've said. I felt pretty bamboozled yesterday, following the media fallout from McClelland's speech. I was really wondering just what the response (including those from usually "liberal" sources like Kerry O'Brien (7:30 report) & my own, local AGE newspaper) was all about.

To my mind, you're either opposed to capital punishment or you're not. McClelland seemed to me to be directly referring to ALP policy on capital punishment .... same as our (currently Liberal) government's official position is opposition to capital punishment. Not all that much difference there, in theory, between the 2 parties.

The "problem" seemed to occur when McClelland was asked if the ALP's position would include "terrorists" ... particularly those responsible for the Bali bombings. Well, of course, if you are opposed to capital punishment you are not selective about which people it's OK for the state to execute & which people it isn't. That is basically what McClelland's response was meant to convey, I think. Instead, it was turned into active support for terrorists who kill innocent Australians by Howard. Playing the "patriot card" again. Which apparently (I don't listen to mainstream radio talkback at all) received an enthusiastic response from the folks out there who believed that Labor would passionately campaign for the rights of the cold blooded killers innocent Australian tourists in Bali!

Strangely, those media sources like the 7:30 Report & the AGE newspaper, which can usually be relied upon to put such sensationalist stuff into some sort of rational perspective didn't do that this time. Instead they chose to portray McClelland's speech & Rudd's response to it as a Labor "blunder". Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps this ongoing (& very boring) waiting period for the election date to be finally announced does not make for interesting copy? Perhaps the most interesting political "story" is whether Rudd's Labor can maintain it's standing with the voters in the face of endless attempts by the libs & their cronies to discredit it? Perhaps this is the first bit of real excitement in ages for journalists in what's been looking like an extremely boring phoney campaign period? Whatever the reason, I'm very disappointed with the more "respectable" media outlets and the role they have played in undermining the case against capital punishment in this country. For god's sake, this was just another Howard tactical attack! Our principled stance of opposition to capital punishment is far more important than these sorts of petty political manoeuvres, by which ever party!

Apology for death penalty comment
October 10, 2007 - 4:08PM
The AGE

Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland today expressed regret for any distress he had caused victims of the Bali bombings.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd pulled his frontbencher into line yesterday for discussing the appropriateness of the death penalty in the same week as the fifth anniversary of the Bali attacks, which killed 88 Australians.

As a father, Mr McClelland said he could only imagine what the families and friends of Bali victims were going through.

" genuinely regret the distress [I caused] to the victims of the Bali bombing," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

"I have kids ... and I can only imagine their situation, and that's the real regret I have."

Mr Rudd carpeted Mr McClelland for the timing of the speech and staff from both offices were "counselled" for their role in the episode.

Today, the Labor leader refused to guarantee Mr McClelland would be foreign minister if Labor won the election.

Mr McClelland said he took full responsibility for what had happened.

"I agree unhesitatingly that the time was unfortunate, was unsympathetic and I accepted that," he said.

In an embargoed copy of the speech circulated on Monday, Mr McClelland spoke about Labor's universal opposition to the death penalty, at the same time criticising the Howard Government for a double standard.

He accused the Federal Government of being inconsistent because it said it opposed capital punishment while supporting the death penalty for the Bali bombers.

The speech, delivered on Monday, was meant to be timed to coincide with the International Day against the Death Penalty, which falls today.

But they were seized on by the Government and some sections of the media as Labor calling for the Bali bombers to be spared.

Mr McClelland said that in his final delivery of the speech he omitted any reference to the Bali bombers. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/apology-for-death-penalty-comment/2007/10/10/1191695979564.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Is there a constitutional crisis brewing?



This country has 3 year parlimentary terms. This government has now been in power for 3 years and 2 days. Is Howard trying to force the governer general to act again? Is this a final pathetic ploy to somehow gain back some support by trying to engineer a situation where Australia has an unelected government forced upon it, even if it's just for a short time? Does anyone have a greater understanding of this issue than me?

The truly terrifying thing is how many long term death row inmates in the USA have been released based on later DNA analysis of the evidence.

I'm in awe of Sister Mary Prejean, and as she says - 'everyone is better than the worst thing they've done'.

Do you by chance have a link to anything resembling official stats? I would be interested in seeing such.

As for everyone being better than their worst act, that is certainly true. Even the most evil person imaginable has usually had somone who loved them (other than a parent). And they've usually had their moments of kindness (i've yet to hear of anyone completely devoid of kindness, although psychopaths may or may not be an exception to this rule...I'm not sure how completely they don't feel for others)

Answered my own question.

Hi Vikorr - according to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ more than 200 have been exonerated so far.

Well? Someone say it! Howard must think we're stupid, and I'm afraid he might be right.

Referendum on the mentioning of aborigines in the constitutional preamble. Puh-leez.

He should adopt the campaign slogan 'Vote for me now and I might do something decent in ten years time'.

He has such a good record with referendums - he always gets his way (remember the republic).

And to say that he was a product of the time he grew up in. F uc k me roan!!!! What kind of statesman can't rise above his callow bigotry? I know a ton of people of his vintage (and often with less-priviledged upbringings) who marched for reconciliation and revile Howard's refusal to acknowledge how white australia treated this country's original inhabitants.

Better a black armband than a white blindfold.

What a twat.

Agree, will come back with some of my own thoughts at a later time. Have to go to work now.