The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

So Labour hooked up with the "conservative nationalist New Zealand First" and the "Christian right-oriented United Future", as well as with the Progressives? That's pretty bizarre, isn't it? Especially with the conservative nationalists claiming the foreign ministry post while at the same time proclaiming they're still an opposition party?

What will this mean, de facto? Will New Zealand now adopt an anti-immigration policy, of the Howard kind even perhaps, despite being led by Labour, or won't it come that far? Did United Future get any religious-oriented policy concessions?

Well, the foreign ministrer ain't in cabinet. I gues they have hoped to kind of seal him off? And that the post might teach him something?

Sigh, you have been listening to Lash too much, Nimh.

Much as I loathe Howard, he is NOT anti immigration.


They have adopted a vicious stance re illegal immigration. There is pleny of immigration, and plenty from non European countries.

I think we are not doing enough re refugees, but saying Howard is anti immigration per se is buying into silliness like Lash's.

I HOPE NZ does not change their policies re this.

They have had consistently good policies this way.



Interestingly, Hoft let drop once that a previous far right NZ PM, "Piggy" Muldoon, was concerned about being overrun by non white New Zealanders, and was pushing federating with Oz to try to stop this! So, they have their nuts.

You could certainly argue we could have more immigration (states like mine are begging for it, but they all wanna go to a bursting Sydney!) but this is dergree, not a stance per se.

I think we should take more refugees. Have policies more like Canada's and New Zealand's.

The vicious anti illegals policy is kind of crashing and burning, as more and more awful abuses of power and process come out.

Please goddess, it may yet claim two ministerial scalps, and, one hopes, sicken the heart of an Oz upon the back of whose xenophobes this horrid lot rode to power.

It's kinda karmic...

Huh?

Eh, no - even the rather superficial knowledge I have of Aussie politics is not immediately gleaned from Lash's posts here. (Of all things? ). What a weird thing to say.

(Spending too much time on A2K, that you assume any idea someone got about something musta come from here? )

All I know is that with Howard you have a PM who got himself re-elected (or tried to get himself re-elected) by whipping up a xenophobic frenzy about Australia being overrun with immigrants, be it specifically illegal immigrants/asylum-seekers as you say, and that his government went as far as actually fabricating stories about evil things those boat refugees were supposed to have done (thrown their babies overboard! or the like) in order to bolster that fear / resentment.

Thats pretty drastic. Not even the Fortuynists here have gone that far.

Thats the kind of thing I was wondering / worrying that New Zealand might now follow up on as well? Or is New Zealand First too small a party for that?

I dont get that the Foreign Minister is not part of the cabinet. I mean, I read it in the link you gave, but - strange? Normally the foreign minister is one of the most important politicians of all. Then again, I suppose, they do sit on the edge of the world...

VERY strange. But, they had to form some sort of government.




I think there is, much as I hate to say it, a distinction between being anti immigration and being anti ILLEGAL immigration.

I love New Zealand politics, for a small country it is really dynamic in its politics. I don't understand NZ politics but I do love it. They have a really interesting form of election system which I think is based on proportional representation. That being so I'm not surprised that Labour has had to cosy up to Winston Peters and perhaps some others to form a government.

On immigration. Howard's cunning allowed him to whip up a frenzy of xenophobic fear about illegal immigration yet at the same time to reinforce in the public mind his support of a legal immigration policy. "We will decide who comes to this country" was one of the almost Rovian masterstrokes of that dirty, filthy campaign he ran.

He managed to convince a cowering electorate that AQ and Saddam were sending boatloads of illegals, any one of whom could be carrying a dirty bomb in a hessian bag ready to blow up Sydney, while at the same time portraying illegals as well-off individuals who had sufficient money to pay thousands of dollars (US) to get passage from the East Asia to Australia via Indonesia. In short he sucked in a gullible, compliant and ignorant electorate.

Sorry to be so hard on my fellow electors but that's the way I see it.

Actually, he convinced a smallish proportion of the "swingers".



It ain't good that he did it, but he did.


That and Wik and Mabo reaction.


Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....


I only console myself cos I know mostly Asians are more racist.

PM ready to change terror laws
October 27, 2005 - 8:09AM/the AGE

The federal government will almost certainly have to delay introducing its counter-terrorism laws, as state and territory leaders demand more time to look over the controversial measures.

The legislation was due to be introduced into parliament on Tuesday, with premiers and chief ministers asked to sign off on the laws by tomorrow.

The commonwealth needs the backing of four states to give the final legislation the go-ahead.

Prime Minister John Howard yesterday offered a compromise on the shoot-to-kill clause, saying he was relaxed about the legislation's final form, provided it delivered on the substance of the original deal with the states.

Mr Howard also said he did not mind if the legislation was not introduced on Melbourne Cup day as originally planned.

However, while questions remain over whether the proposed laws are unconstitutional, ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope is threatening to withdraw his support for the deal... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-ready-to-change-terror-laws/2005/10/27/1130302863622.html

Sit-down cash stops flowing
Patricia Karvelas
October 27, 2005/the Australian

THE era of "sit-down" money for Aborigines in remote communities has ended, with Centrelink officers telling indigenous people those who do not work will lose their handouts.

Eight communities have been told in the past month they have to change or face the same penalties as the rest of the community: loss of dole payments.

Until now, about 8000 indigenous people have been exempt from mutual obligation programs because they live in areas where there is no locally accessible labour market program or education and training facilities.

But the Howard Government is dismantling the system of exemptions and has in the past month told about 880 people they will be taken off the program. Already, 115 of them are working for the dole. Their jobs include art and craft production, upgrading and maintenance of infrastructure, community fencing, sewing, creche activities, language maintenance programs and even sport coaching and umpiring.

Those in the affected communities are being given three choices: a spot in a work-for-the-dole CDEP program; a job the community collectively decides it wants done; or a place in a training program that could lead to a real job.

But a spokesman for Employment Minister Kevin Andrews said the new rules would be phased in slowly to give people time to adjust.

The move follows calls by Cape York indigenous leader Noel Pearson for Aboriginal welfare to be radically reformed along conservative lines and for an end to sit-down money. .. <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17049192%255E601,00.html

On Mabo and Wik. If anyone is still skeered of either of these cases then they badly need to be updated (but I bet there are still some who think their back gardens are up for grabs).

On the sit down money changes. I am going to suspect judgement. I know some are against it and some for it and frankly I'm not sure. I thought Linda Burney's comments were a bit, well, extreme but heck she could be right. Pearson seems to be taking a practical view as does Mundine. Anyway I'm going to jump right up here on the fence and see how it goes.

Yes, it's hard to know (on the "sit down" issue). I'm hoping before too long there'll be more detailed information from other sources without an axe to grind. My problem is that I view just about anything that this government does with acute suspicion now. Just find it hard to believe that they'd do anything for the "right" reasons. Terrible, isn't it?

No it isn't terrible - it's prudent

Ha! heard back from my email to PM.

Heehee...his Principal Private Secretary is Tony Nutt!

Didn't address the issue I wrote about, (Vanstone's behaviour to Fran Kelly) but nattered an about limits of ministerial responsibility....grrrrr....

That sounds reasonable enough, actually ... or not?

Well, nimh, the concern, for me anyway, is about who is giving these communities these "choices'. This federal government is not exactly renowned for its compassion or fair treatment of vulnerable or disadvantaged groups in Australia, whether they be the unemployed, asylum seekers, single mothers, the elderly, the aboriginals, etc, etc, etc .... In fact, they are known to be completely lacking compassion & respect for the weaker members of our society. What is being proposed looks fair enough, as described in the article above. But who knows how it will work in practice? Under this lot anything is possible. I'd want to know a whole lot more & see how the aboriginal communities respond before declaring the government's plan a good idea or not.

Yeah, as I said, too, the communities seem very divided about it.

As Aboriginal groups so often are.

But, actually, many aboriginal groups have called for such as this.

... & back to that troublesome Anti-terrorism legislation:

Last Update: Friday, October 28, 2005. 8:06pm (AEST)

Govt amends counter-terror laws, Stanhope says

ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says the final draft of the Federal Government's counter-terrorism legislation contains a number of significant amendments, particularly in relation to control orders and preventative detention.

The Federal Attorney-General's office has announced the counter-terrorism legislation will now not be introduced to Parliament on Melbourne Cup day.

Mr Stanhope says in relation to control orders, the Commonwealth is now proposing "interim" orders, which can be issued in the absence of the individual concerned.

The individual would then be allowed to argue against the order in a later "confirming" hearing.

Mr Stanhope says the bill still does not permit the individual's lawyer to have any documents other than the order and a "summary of grounds".... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1493364.htm

Very sobering stuff, indeed! Read on:

Raided, but you couldn't read about it
By Tom Allard
October 28, 2005/the AGE

BILAL Daye and ASIO Director- General Paul O'Sullivan have at least one thing in common: they both went to school at Marcellin College in Randwick, Sydney.

Apart from that, there is little to compare the two men. One is the head of Australia's domestic spy agency, the other was raided twice by federal authorities on suspicion of being a terrorist.

On Tuesday, Mr Daye will take Mr O'Sullivan and the Commonwealth Government to the NSW District Court, seeking damages of up to $750,000 for a bungled swoop by ASIO agents and heavily armed police on his home at Mascot.

It is a story that anyone interested in the subject should read now. Under the proposed anti-terrorism laws, stories like Mr Daye's could not be told... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/10/27/1130400306674.html?from=top5

Yay!

I have been pretty busy...have the premiers regained a bit of backbone about this stuff?