Mega Thread All things Tony Abbott

[sherb]

"Winning the war?". He's already won it hands down.

 

[Todman]

The last attempt to become the first Australian Dictator was in 1944 when John Curtin used his popularity from the victory of the 1943 election to seize control of the economy by using the 1944 referendum as his justification.

Fortunately he lost and it help create the movement that became the Liberal Party.

 

[Northalives]

The last attempt to become the first Australian Dictator was in 1944 when John Curtin used his popularity from the victory of the 1943 election to seize control of the economy by using the 1944 referendum as his justification.

Fortunately he lost and it help create the movement that became the Liberal Party.

What an absurd attempt to rewrite history.

Menzies and his mob of Anglophiles freaked out when the Second World War broke out and didn't know what the f**k to do so he gave up government!

In 1942, there began a Constitutional Convention so as to "thrash out" between the states and the Federal Government what needed to be done in order to rebuild Australia after WW11. It was eventually agreed by all that the "Fourteen Powers" Referendum which the Convention had agreed that adequate powers for postwar reconstruction should be conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament for a period of five years and at the completion of the five years would end, would be put to the people.

Unfortunately, Menzies, who had once again reclaimed the leadership of the United Australia Party, saw his opportunity to again be at the forefront of Australian politics and embarked on a wrecking campaign not because of any danger to Australian democracy but rather, to benefit himself. It was pig-iron Bob at his filthy best and a tactic, that is scare tactic, that he would employ time and again with his "reds-under-the-beds" mantra and a tactic that nearly every other UAP/Liberal manifestation would employ to this very day and by the way, the only ever Liberal "Movement" there ever was, was in my home State of South Australia where a very brave and TRUE Liberal, Steele Hall, somehow got to be leader of the Liberal and Country League.

When Steele Hall became Premier of South Australia in 1968 with the support of Tom Stott, an independent, Hall went about dismantling the disgraceful gerrymander that had kept Playford in power for 27 years! and boy, was Steele Hall bashed up, figuratively speaking, by the his "liberal" colleagues. He resigned from the LCL stating that the "Liberal" Party had forgotten why it existed and had lost it's idealism and formed the progressive LIBERAL MOVEMENT as opposed to the "Liberal maintain-the-status-quo" mob.

 

[Dry Rot]

Probably not too many people will be jailed at all.

Because that isn't really the aim of the legislation. The aim is to scare witless the people working in the coalface so they won't report any abuses that they see.

It's all about keeping people quiet. And threats of jail time are the means of achieving that.

Love your avatar and her pussy Trevor.

 

[Dry Rot]

Anyone else catch the documentary on Abbott's third term of govt on TV tonight?

 

[midorigreenwood]

Noone cares about Richard Marles impassioned defense of the border force act on Q and A?

I thought since it was such a big deal that Bfers would be chomping at the bit to get their knives in....

DR SARAH GELBART: Our question is for the Shadow Minister for Immigration Minister and Border Protection, Mr Richard Marles. The World Medical Association has this week condemned attempts to silence doctors, stating the Border Force Act is in striking conflict with basic principles of medical ethics and, as such, has no place in a modern democracy. Did Labor read the Border Force Act and, if so, why did you rubber stamp this repressive law that turns advocacy into a criminal offence?

TONY JONES: Richard Marles?

RICHARD MARLES: Well, firstly, we absolutely support transparency and it is absolutely critical that doctors, nurses, lawyers, any contractor in a detention facility speak out when they see that there is something wrong. I mean, that's fundamental. People should understand in relation to the Australian Border Force Act and, Greg, you might want to know this too it makes it absolutely plain that the whistleblower protection, which applies across the public service, which is the basis upon which people speak out, applies in this situation as well. Now, in answer to that question, that's the very first thing we wanted to know in supporting the Australian Border Force legislation. And I hear what Larissa says in terms of our support for this.

TONY JONES: Does that mean a whistleblower can go public without threat of prosecution?

RICHARD MARLES: Well, that's what the whistleblower legislation absolutely does.

GREG SHERIDAN: No, that’s not true Richard. That’s wrong. Protected information and a designated person cannot go public in the normal course of things under whistleblower legislation.

RICHARD MARLES: Whistleblower protection absolutely allows you to go public, well, firstly, if there is an emergency, you can go public straightaway and in circumstances where you see that there is something wrong and you’ve pursued it through the avenues and you’ve got no recourse, you’re able...

GREG SHERIDAN: Yes, if you've done all that first.

RICHARD MARLES: Yeah, and, well, you’re able to make it public and that’s what’s important here and can I say there was a Senate inquiry into this, in which we sought to examine exactly this and assurances were given during the Senate testimony on that and the unanimous support report of the Senate absolutely said that all those protections were in place and an author of that report was Sarah Hanson Young. I mean she was the author of that report.

LARISSA WATERS: No, (indistinct) a dissenting report.

RICHARD MARLES: No, there was no dissenting report. There was a unanimous report on that in which Sarah Hanson Young was absolutely a signatory and now what you see is a very an easy road for the Greens and others to go down. I mean, it was on the basis of that, in answer to this question, that we supported the Australian Border Force legislation. But let’s be clear, doctors, nurses, everyone should speak out if there is something wrong and they see something wrong and the silence from the Government in relation to this has been an absolute disgrace since the moment that this was raised. If there is any doubt about it at all, we ought to have the Government out there straightaway expressing their support for the right of people to speak out, but instead what you've got is complete silence on their part and it is appalling.

GREG SHERIDAN: The Government, in fairness - the Government has expressed their right but, you know, as someone who doesn't hate the Government, I’m not satisfied if the legislation says you can go to jail for two years for breaching protected information, the whistleblower act does not allow you to breach that information publicly and I'm not satisfied that that draconian penalty should be in the legislation against doctors and nurses and health workers. If it is never going to apply to them, exempt from the legislation.

RICHARD MARLES: The whistleblower protections apply to people who are in customs, always have, and apply to people who are now...

GREG SHERIDAN: They don't let you go public.

RICHARD MARLES: They absolutely let you go public.

GREG SHERIDAN: No, you’re wrong there.

RICHARD MARLES: This was...

(MULTIPLE PEOPLE TALK AT ONCE)

GREG SHERIDAN: You’ve got to go through the whole (indistinct)...

RICHARD MARLES: Let’s be clear...

TONY JONES: Can I just ask a quick question on this? If you attempt to take your complaint through official channels and you get the answer you can't go public on this because these are effectively on water matters or and in detention centre matters, what's your next recourse? Can you then go to a journalist and tell them what’s happened without fear of prison?

RICHARD MARLES: That is absolutely right and that’s our understanding.

GREG SHERIDAN: That’s wrong.

RICHARD MARLES: But let’s be - I mean, if you want Labor's view on this...

TONY JONES: Why is it not the understanding of all these doctors?

RICHARD MARLES: Well, what we ought to be hearing from the Government right now is them answering the concerns of the doctors and coming out and standing up for people's right to speak out and I think that's ultimately the point that we land on here. That's what we think should happen. The Government's silence on this has been hopeless, as it has been on a whole lot of areas in relation to this area of policy and there is no question that if doctors see something wrong, they ought to be able to speak up and they ought to be able to do that without any fear of prosecution and the Government should give confirmation on that.

TONY JONES: Okay, Larissa Waters, do you understand that to be the case?

LARISSA WATERS: Well, look, I think the very existence of uncertainty here at the interaction of two different laws will have a chilling effect on people's confidence in speaking out. If people think they might face two years in jail, they’re not going to get extended legal advice. They just want to know that they can speak out and reveal children being sexually abused, people being maltreated. Doctors shouldn't have to call their lawyers first if they witness that sort of treatment. So this has a chilling effect. It is exactly why we moved amendments to actually allow the media, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, some sort of oversight for these detention centre facilities so that you’re not simply putting all of the onus on health workers, other workers in those facilities. We need some transparency and scrutiny here and I do agree with you, Richard, that the Government has utterly resisted that to date and it is to great shame. Australian taxpayer dollars are being spent on keeping these facilities open. The atrocities that are perpetrated in those facilities, people have a right to know and I think if we knew more about what was going on inside them, people would be horrified and they would say that's not the Australian way.

RICHARD MARLES: Well, we’re in (indistinct) agreement there.

GREG SHERIDAN: No, no, it’s not right to gang up on the Government here. Just read the legislation. The legislation says if it is protected information and you’re a designated person, you can't reveal that information. That is not overridden by whistleblower protection.

RICHARD MARLES: It is absolutely overridden by the whistleblower legislation and it was the subject of debate in front of the senate.

GREG SHERIDAN: It is absolutely not. It is the same obligation that goes to Federal Police people. It’s the same obligation that goes to ASIO people and it is very explicitly not overwritten by...

RICHARD MARLES: It is not the same obligation that goes to ASIO.

GREG SHERIDAN: It is.

RICHARD MARLES: It isn’t.

GREG SHERIDAN: The Government’s briefing notes. I don’t know if you’ve read the legislation, Richard...

RICHARD MARLES: I have.

GREG SHERIDAN: But it is very clear that whistleblower legislation does not allow you to go to a journalist and I'm not even saying people should necessarily be allowed to go to a journalist, but they shouldn't face two years in jail for doing so.

RICHARD MARLES: Well, Greg, it just wrong. It went through the Senate inquiry. It was debated at length. There is a unanimous Senate report which, as I say, has Sarah Hanson Young's signature on it. We wrote to the Government asking exactly these questions. I have a letter from the Minister giving precisely the assurances that you’re now saying is not right.

GREG SHERIDAN: It's not in the legislation, Richard. You’ve just got to read the legislation.

RICHARD MARLES: Yeah, and the legislation makes it clear that it is to be read in terms, you know, subject to all the other Federal legislation which exists, which the Public Interests Disclosure Act is one. But, listen, it shouldn't be me who’s coming out here and defending this. We ought to be hearing from the Government. If you are a doctor, that's who you want to hear from. I mean, but Larissa is absolutely right...

TONY JONES: But you’re basically saying - can I just interrupt?

RICHARD MARLES: ...were ought to have more transparency.

And this was about when Tony Jones really stuck it in...

TONY JONES: You’re basically saying that the Government got this right?

RICHARD MARLES: What I'm saying is that the Government has a role to be out there and giving clarity and certainty to doctors.

TONY JONES: But you’re saying that the Government got this right, that the legislation is appropriate and that you have all the (indistinct) you want?

RICHARD MARLES: I do actually think - I do actually think that the doctors have got it wrong here. That’s my understanding and I’m...

TONY JONES: Okay. So the Government's got it right?

RICHARD MARLES: Well, maybe but the point is that we ought to hear the Government out there now giving a sense of security to everybody that they have a right to speak out and...

TONY JONES: But isn't that what you’re doing on their behalf?

RICHARD MARLES: Well, which is not good enough. It would be much better if the Government were here doing it or elsewhere.

 

[NSWCROW]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...t-overstating-threat-of-islamic-state/6602638

 

[Father Jack]

To Qanda or not to Qanda, that is the question ...

 

[Elroo]

 

[Ice-Wolf]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...t-overstating-threat-of-islamic-state/6602638

He's just committed suicide (political suicide, physically he is fine but he's dead politically)

 

[Maggie5]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-...t-overstating-threat-of-islamic-state/6602638

Bit of the old Malcom? Maybe he will break rank and appear on Q & A.
Especially since media is his portfolio.
Case of watch this space, guaranteed a big audience if he does.

 

[The Punter]

I really don't understand where you are going with your post in this thread.

Are you suggesting that Mr Joyce would be jailed if he went on Q & A?

No, I'm suggesting he wouldn't be, which means he has freedom of speech. We're going to see how this plays out when Malcolm Turnbull decides to go on Q&A next week.

Freedom of speech is the ability to say things without being jailed. It's not freedom from accountability for saying something, or the unrestricted ability to gain access to mass media to say something. The ABC could have made the point better with someone more credible. They chose Mullah and drove him to the studios with no red flags going off in their heads. That is poor judgement, but to have prevented Mullah from doing that would not be a restriction of his freedom of speech.

Punter, Mr. Joyce is the deputy leader of the National Party. Abbott can't tell him where and when he can appear on telli or any other place, surely?

It would be like Gillard telling Windsor "don't you go on that show!" or telling one of the Greens to shut their gob.

This shows a pretty incredible ignorance of the history of the two Federal Parliamentary parties. Gillard and Windsor was a one-term marriage of convenience. The Liberal and Country/National Parties have been in coalition federally for over 65 years, and the agreement has usually been a handshake, rather than a lengthy treaty of rights and responsibilities. Mr Joyce was, before becoming a MHR, a member of the LNP in Queensland, which is the merged party formed from the Liberal and National Parties in Queensland. To compare it to Gillard and her cobbled coalition of independents and Greens Party MPs is not at all a good one.

 

[King Elvis]

Another shocking display of judgement from Abbott.

 

[Jascave]

And if Malcolm Turnbull does appear on Q&A, very much against the orders of the Prime Minister, how would Abbott react-dismiss Turnbull from the Cabinet, thus setting the stage for a possible Abbott v Turnbull showdown for the leadership, sometime in November/December?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[NSWCROW]

Mal pretty much just pissed on the cowards jackboots.

Surely he would've made sure he has/d the numbers this time.....
IT IS ON.

 

[Jascave]

Labor would find it funny considering what they had to put up with in the Rudd/Gillard era.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Maggie5]

Noone cares about Richard Marles impassioned defense of the border force act on Q and A?

I thought since it was such a big deal that Bfers would be chomping at the bit to get their knives in....




And this was about when Tony Jones really stuck it in...

What's to get up in arms about? Both parties have had lots of criticisms about this policy.

 

[CM86]

Noone cares about Richard Marles impassioned defense of the border force act on Q and A?

I thought since it was such a big deal that Bfers would be chomping at the bit to get their knives in....




And this was about when Tony Jones really stuck it in...

What are you trying to say?

Once again it's a Lib vs Lab thing?

What if both parties are scumbags and want to hide as much as they can?

 

[Todman]

What an absurd attempt to rewrite history.
In 1942, there began a Constitutional Convention so as to "thrash out" between the states and the Federal Government what needed to be done in order to rebuild Australia after WW11. It was eventually agreed by all that the "Fourteen Powers" Referendum which the Convention had agreed that adequate powers for postwar reconstruction should be conferred on the Commonwealth Parliament for a period of five years and at the completion of the five years would end, would be put to the people.

Your attempt to rewrite history is absurd.

The 14 powers would have given the government the right to allocate funds, labour and resources which ever way they wished.
In short a dictatorship, complete control of the economy. Government approval would have been required for everything.

If you wanted to build a house, apply to government for finance, apply to government for materials, and apply to government for labour. Red tape nightmare.

The Chifley Government kept rationing until Menzies defeated his government in 1949.

 

[CM86]

The ABC could have made the point better with someone more credible. They chose Mullah and drove him to the studios with no red flags going off in their heads.

Can you support this with anything? Or is it your opinion of what happened?

 

[The Punter]

I believe there are more questions submitted by Q&A audience members than they have time to use, so they select questions to use. Mr Mallah admitted he boarded a bus paid for by the ABC to get from Parramatta to their Ultimo studios in a radio interview.

All this could have been avoided, and the issue still raised and dealt with, if someone else had asked the question.

 

[CM86]

I believe there are more questions submitted by Q&A audience members than they have time to use, so they select questions to use. Mr Mallah admitted he boarded a bus paid for by the ABC to get from Parramatta to their Ultimo studios in a radio interview.

All this could have been avoided, and the issue still raised and dealt with, if someone else had asked the question.

Poetic licence then?

All good.
So, the ABC has done nothing that other tv channels and print media have done, and this isn't an issue.

It wasn't some devious plot, hatched by the ABC.

 

[Pessimistic]

Mal pretty much just pissed on the cowards jackboots.

Surely he would've made sure he has/d the numbers this time.....
IT IS ON.

Turnbulls right, all the sabre rattling by abbott and co is part wedge ( to which they are addicted) and to cover that they are, in fact, a really lazy government, whos only motivation is hate and revenge

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Noone cares about Richard Marles impassioned defense of the border force act on Q and A?

I thought since it was such a big deal that Bfers would be chomping at the bit to get their knives in....

You used Richard Marles and impassioned in the same sentence. Hahaha.

Who cares about the governments boycott of Q&A, when you have a wet lettuce masquerading as Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to do their bidding.

Pox on both their houses

 

[CM86]

Here is a completely hypothetical situation.

A man is detained and treated as a criminal, without ever been charged with a crime.
This man gets a little cut on his foot, but due to poor hygiene in the facility and an overworked medical center, he dies due to infection.

What happens to someone who informs the media?

Now, what happens if the same completely hypothetical situation happened to an asylum seeker?