A thread on politics- have some balls and post

[Skoob]

In the event FISA warrants for wiretaps were issued off the back of a dossier submitted by a think tank hired by a law firm representing the DNC that used flimsy, unsubstantiated or manufactured evidence then the public has a right to know. If it's less than what exactly is the information contained and why is it able to be framed in a manner that could be determined as damaging? How?

They are in the progress of getting a result to reveal and the information pertains to when another government was in charge.

Perhaps. They have a right to know if their elected representatives have their best interests in mind.

Could be. Revealing the memo could certainly ascertain that. If it's just ham-fisted partisan manipulation that attempts to reconstruct a narrative then releasing it can't be all that damaging and will just shut up the whiners.

That's what I mean by context though. That may be the conclusion able to be reached from the dossier, but but is there information not there that further supports those actions, that make the 'think tank' and their evidence less flimsy? Who knows, but giving the public part of the information is misleading. I think the upset is that the DNC employed the services and they found something. It shouldn't matter who found it, but whether it's worth looking at.

I think TBD's comment on rabbitholes and best interest was more general than this instance, and probably less cynical than my first thought, which was that we have a fair idea on the relationship between most governments and our best interests. Things are done in the best interest of those who the government is ideologically aligned. In the GOP, that's wealthy white male America. Their interest, even now he has had his terms, is to denounce that little bit lefty black man that somehow "cheated" his way into office.
Meanwhile, the fat white dunce who is a racist, misogynistic, dunce who is morally bankrupt is being protected at all costs.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I think TBD's comment on rabbitholes and best interest was more general than this instance

Yeah i was referring to all "elected officials".

 

[Skoob]

Yeah i was referring to all "elected officials".

It's only natural. This includes all sides/ends of the political spectrum, and voters will lean toward those who they feel best represents their best interests or ideals (in the main). It then comes down to what individuals feel is best and sometimes that will include the common good of most, and other times be for a narrower field. Sometimes people kid themselves that the narrower field's success will benefit a wider community, but rarely really does. It comes down to how people view the world.

 

[Requiem]

I'm no expert but are these documents real?

 

[Full Wingspan]

My thoughts on Australia Day (as posted on the Society/Culture board).

Personally, I feel that January 26 is not only a terrible day to celebrate our nation, but it is quite simply inaccurate. Putting aside the fact it's an insult to celebrate a date that to many, was the beginning of an ethnic and cultural genocide, it doesn't have much relevance to Australia as a nation. The landing of the first fleet has more significance to the establishment of the NSW colony.

From a federal or national perspective, it would make more sense to celebrate on the following alternatives.

The day our Constitution became UK law - 9 July 1900

The Australian Constitution was enacted by an ordinary piece of legislation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on this date. In many ways, it is a day that began the birth of federation and saw the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia. The sheer fact that the public holiday would occur in the middle of winter makes it my least preferred option. That reasoning is probably consistent with many modern Australian values of wanting a day off in the sun to sink tins, watch sport and go swimming.

Federation - 1 January 1901

This is probably the most logical option and is considered by many as the day we became independent. However, as you will see in my final proposition, this is not truly the case. The clash with the New Years' Day holiday is another factor that makes this option undesirable.

Passage of the Australia Acts
Australia: royal assent: 4 December 1985; or commencement: 3 March 1986.
United Kingdom: royal assent: 17 February 1986; or commencement: 3 March 1986.

The Australia Acts were two pieces of legislation passed in both Australia and the UK which eliminated all legislative ties with the UK and prevented the possibility for the UK to legislate with effect in Australia, to be involved in Australian government, and for an appeal from any Australian court to a British court to take place. This is the time we became truly independent as a nation.

Using the latest dual-citizenship scandals as an example, the High Court has commented that prior to the commencement of these Acts, a dual British-Australian citizen may well have been validly elected to the Australian Parliament (and this did occur previously). However as we know now, this is no longer the case. This is because no individual, who is a citizen of a foreign power, and has not taken reasonable steps to relinquish that citizenship cannot run for office in the Australian Parliament. The key word is foreign power, and since the passage of these two pieces of legislation, the UK is now considered foreign when it previously was not (i.e. it was the motherland).

While it would make sense to have this date fall on 3 March, the February and December dates are equally as significant and could be used as appropriate summer alternatives.

I would hope that these options, while being much more relevant and culturally significant than 26 January, would allow all Australians to feel included in celebrating the truly wonderful and diverse country we live in. For me, the movement to change the date is not about taking away another opportunity to demonstrate national pride or to make people feel guilty for the actions and past wrongs of their ancestors. It's about giving everyone the fair opportunity to feel included in celebrating our nation and to give all Aussies the platform to unify and collectively admire this beautiful place we call home.

 

[Crimso]

My thoughts on Australia Day (as posted on the Society/Culture board).

Personally, I feel that January 26 is not only a terrible day to celebrate our nation, but it is quite simply inaccurate. Putting aside the fact it's an insult to celebrate a date that to many, was the beginning of an ethnic and cultural genocide, it doesn't have much relevance to Australia as a nation. The landing of the first fleet has more significance to the establishment of the NSW colony.

From a federal or national perspective, it would make more sense to celebrate on the following alternatives.

The day our Constitution became UK law - 9 July 1900

The Australian Constitution was enacted by an ordinary piece of legislation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on this date. In many ways, it is a day that began the birth of federation and saw the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia. The sheer fact that the public holiday would occur in the middle of winter makes it my least preferred option. That reasoning is probably consistent with many modern Australian values of wanting a day off in the sun to sink tins, watch sport and go swimming.

Federation - 1 January 1901

This is probably the most logical option and is considered by many as the day we became independent. However, as you will see in my final proposition, this is not truly the case. The clash with the New Years' Day holiday is another factor that makes this option undesirable.

Passage of the Australia Acts
Australia: royal assent: 4 December 1985; or commencement: 3 March 1986.
United Kingdom: royal assent: 17 February 1986; or commencement: 3 March 1986.

The Australia Acts were two pieces of legislation passed in both Australia and the UK which eliminated all legislative ties with the UK and prevented the possibility for the UK to legislate with effect in Australia, to be involved in Australian government, and for an appeal from any Australian court to a British court to take place. This is the time we became truly independent as a nation.

Using the latest dual-citizenship scandals as an example, the High Court has commented that prior to the commencement of these Acts, a dual British-Australian citizen may well have been validly elected to the Australian Parliament (and this did occur previously). However as we know now, this is no longer the case. This is because no individual, who is a citizen of a foreign power, and has not taken reasonable steps to relinquish that citizenship cannot run for office in the Australian Parliament. The key word is foreign power, and since the passage of these two pieces of legislation, the UK is now considered foreign when it previously was not (i.e. it was the motherland).

While it would make sense to have this date fall on 3 March, the February and December dates are equally as significant and could be used as appropriate summer alternatives.

I would hope that these options, while being much more relevant and culturally significant than 26 January, would allow all Australians to feel included in celebrating the truly wonderful and diverse country we live in. For me, the movement to change the date is not about taking away another opportunity to demonstrate national pride or to make people feel guilty for the actions and past wrongs of their ancestors. It's about giving everyone the fair opportunity to feel included in celebrating our nation and to give all Aussies the platform to unify and collectively admire this beautiful place we call home.

I like the July 9 date, it gives Essendon & Collingwood another blockbuster.

 

[pulpdriver]

That's what I mean by context though. That may be the conclusion able to be reached from the dossier, but but is there information not there that further supports those actions, that make the 'think tank' and their evidence less flimsy?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. The potential information doesn't make any evidence "less flimsy", it would potentially reveal illegal activity which wouldn't reflect on the current president.

Who knows, but giving the public part of the information is misleading. I think the upset is that the DNC employed the services and they found something. It shouldn't matter who found it, but whether it's worth looking at.

This is a strange one for me. The current request is to just investigate the info, there is
essentially no debate unless someone were to object to were the information originated.
I'm fully in support of giving the wider community the ability to look at everything. But there is no way you can think the DNC found anything incriminatory. Why would we have gone a full year of nothing but speculation and character assassination otherwise? I think the public might be instrumental in getting any information thoroughly investigated. I don't think anyone is questioning the methodology .

 

[pulpdriver]

I'm no expert but are these documents real?

They're purportedly real, but they're essentially useless without redaction. If Fusion GP are proved to be involved thats a big deal. Without the reveal, it's nothing.

 

[Skoob]

My thoughts on Australia Day (as posted on the Society/Culture board).

Personally, I feel that January 26 is not only a terrible day to celebrate our nation, but it is quite simply inaccurate. Putting aside the fact it's an insult to celebrate a date that to many, was the beginning of an ethnic and cultural genocide, it doesn't have much relevance to Australia as a nation. The landing of the first fleet has more significance to the establishment of the NSW colony.

From a federal or national perspective, it would make more sense to celebrate on the following alternatives.

The day our Constitution became UK law - 9 July 1900

The Australian Constitution was enacted by an ordinary piece of legislation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on this date. In many ways, it is a day that began the birth of federation and saw the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia. The sheer fact that the public holiday would occur in the middle of winter makes it my least preferred option. That reasoning is probably consistent with many modern Australian values of wanting a day off in the sun to sink tins, watch sport and go swimming.

Federation - 1 January 1901

This is probably the most logical option and is considered by many as the day we became independent. However, as you will see in my final proposition, this is not truly the case. The clash with the New Years' Day holiday is another factor that makes this option undesirable.

Passage of the Australia Acts
Australia: royal assent: 4 December 1985; or commencement: 3 March 1986.
United Kingdom: royal assent: 17 February 1986; or commencement: 3 March 1986.

The Australia Acts were two pieces of legislation passed in both Australia and the UK which eliminated all legislative ties with the UK and prevented the possibility for the UK to legislate with effect in Australia, to be involved in Australian government, and for an appeal from any Australian court to a British court to take place. This is the time we became truly independent as a nation.

Using the latest dual-citizenship scandals as an example, the High Court has commented that prior to the commencement of these Acts, a dual British-Australian citizen may well have been validly elected to the Australian Parliament (and this did occur previously). However as we know now, this is no longer the case. This is because no individual, who is a citizen of a foreign power, and has not taken reasonable steps to relinquish that citizenship cannot run for office in the Australian Parliament. The key word is foreign power, and since the passage of these two pieces of legislation, the UK is now considered foreign when it previously was not (i.e. it was the motherland).

While it would make sense to have this date fall on 3 March, the February and December dates are equally as significant and could be used as appropriate summer alternatives.

I would hope that these options, while being much more relevant and culturally significant than 26 January, would allow all Australians to feel included in celebrating the truly wonderful and diverse country we live in. For me, the movement to change the date is not about taking away another opportunity to demonstrate national pride or to make people feel guilty for the actions and past wrongs of their ancestors. It's about giving everyone the fair opportunity to feel included in celebrating our nation and to give all Aussies the platform to unify and collectively admire this beautiful place we call home.

Great post.
I look forward to celebrating on the date that Australia becomes a republic, a truly significant date denoting our real becoming.

 

[pulpdriver]

Great post.
I look forward to celebrating on the date that Australia becomes a republic, a truly significant date denoting our real becoming.

Do you have full confidence in the constantly swapping, and essentially similar governance choosing a constitution for our newly established country?

 

[Hollow Knight]

For me the whole debate around “Change the Date” is just a textbook case study of white Australia’s pigheaded refusal to give even an inch of ground, and its curious tendency to point to previous examples of where they reluctantly gave a millimetre while describing it as a mile.

And as usual the ones resisting the hardest seem to be pretty damn uninformed about Australia Day’s much shorter history than most people realise. The default assumption that these “uppity minorities” have no credible argument is why this country lags behind most other first world countries in terms of social progress. We always eventually get there, but always embarrassingly late with the usual suspects tugging at the handbrake.

If we get so tangled up on the small symbolic issues with such easy and obvious solutions, how will we ever deal with the big stuff.

 

[Skoob]

Do you have full confidence in the constantly swapping, and essentially similar governance choosing a constitution for our newly established country?

The wheel doesn't require reinventing. There are many models that work, more or less. We are at an advantage, in that many others have gone before us and lessons learned.

 

[pulpdriver]

The wheel doesn't require reinventing. There are many models that work, more or less. We are at an advantage, in that many others have gone before us and lessons learned.

This just seems like slogans and platitudes to me.

 

[Caiphus]

As a matter of civic nationalism and it's desirability over ethnic nationalism, I feel we have a duty of care to be respectful to every ethnicity. The indigenous community and its supporters seem to largely for changing the date... although it makes me laugh how the resisters can't wait to trot out an indigenous detractor as representative of the entire community.

What I have noticed is discussions about changing the date seem to really fade into the background when the federal government takes on a consultative and caring approach to closing the gap and working towards repairing the legacy of imperial colonisation. The first time the topic really hit the forefront was 05-06 - around the time of Howard's racist intervention in the NT that went against all expert advice, and boy what a humongous failure that ended up being. All it accomplished was making a bad situation worse.

What's happened in the last year that has resulted in a terrible kick in the teeth of the indigenous population? The Turnbull government has ruled out indigenous recognition in the constitution, it has gone against inquiry recommendations to enact an indigenous advisory body to parliament and it has persisted in draconian welfare legislation that disproportionately affects people in regional and remote communities and as such a higher than average proportion of aboriginal Australians.

If there was ever a time to feel increasingly marginalised and ignored it is now and can completely understand how this conversation has hit the forefront again.

If you are really hung up on the "tradition" pressure the government into actually making genuine measures to improve the lives of our first nations people so the gap in health and living standards disappears and my guess is you will hardly hear mention of changing the date again. But in the long run, it's going to be much easier to change the date than accomplish the former so we'll see a knock-down-drag-out fight over bullshit before the government/wider community finally do the right thing and give themselves a pat on the back while indigenous Australians are poorer and dying quicker than everyone else.

 

[Skoob]

This just seems like slogans and platitudes to me.

So we should remain essentially a British colony because you don't think our politicians are capable of producing a constitution? We have one, that most seem happy enough with and that would just need some amendments to exclude powers and permissions of the Crown and introduce the governance surrounding a head of state.
The argument that the current elected representatives can't be trusted with decisions seems a pretty poor barrier to independence.

 

[Skoob]

And hey, if they can't be trusted, stop voting them in.

 

[PertRoosOsborne]

If we change the date does that mean I don't have to hear Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi ever again?

 

[Full Wingspan]

I should stay away from the society and cultures board. A very interesting 'lot' with varying views. I posted the below on the Sydney Rail rejected industrial action thread. What are your thoughts on the union movement and the outcome of this particular result?

My work involves a close involvement with unions (often in a combative environment) and while I am supportive of their existence and their ability to give collective bargaining power to workers, their tactics at ground level can be unethical and predatory on small to medium business owners (just as some business owners are to their employees).

The Fair Work Commission is a system that works overwhelmingly in favour of employees in a disputes context. You could be summarily dismissed for a completely legitimate and justified reason and still bring an action and walk away with a few weeks' pay based purely on a commercial basis for the employer. This somewhat pushes the balance back in favour of employees (in the entire scheme of things).

The Sydney strike issue is a very delicate one. I can appreciate both our fundamental industrial right to strike and equally, the wider-societal purpose of access to public transport to keep individuals and the economy moving. I do know that union negotiations can often be extremely unproductive when enterprises genuinely want to act in good faith and come to the table. There is also an underlying 'self-purpose' motive of unions commence action or engage in conduct for the sake of their own existence.

Without knowing anything about the failed negotiations, the decision to prevent industrial action from the workers appears to be the right one. The overriding obligations to the community and other individuals impacted at large by any proposed action ostensibly outweighs the preservation of these, and other workers' rights.

The overreaction of some posters indicating that this is the end of industrial rights exhibit very little understanding of how this system works or how it will impact other industries at large. Reflection on the context of the individual scenario is required and people should not be so willing to extrapolate this outcome with every other workplace dispute.

 

[Skoob]

I should stay away from the society and cultures board. A very interesting 'lot' with varying views. I posted the below on the Sydney Rail rejected industrial action thread. What are your thoughts on the union movement and the outcome of this particular result?

I agree that "Reflection on the context of the individual scenario is required", but with that in mind you need to look at the current situation in Sydney Trains. Driver shortages means those doing the work are working crazy hours without appropriate breaks. This becomes a safety issue. Public safety aside, while working divers and other workers like dogs and giving executives a big fat increase, they are unwilling to appropriately increase their pay. They don't realy have much further course for action. So to deny the right to strike, kinda leaves the workers powerless.
The rationale that you shouldn't strike because it will inconvenience a lot of people is really where the point is being missed. They're not even allowed to refuse overtime. Nothing gets done without the ability to protest, and it's a fundamental right that has brought workers where we are. Without it, we'd still be sending kids down the mines. (An exaggeration, some will say, but that's the reality). Okay, we're past that stuff and have our weekly hours sorted and minimum pays in place, but if you think that's that, you're dreaming. Businesses and Governments will continue to erode and scap back what they can. Already seen this with the reduction of penalty rates. The fight will never be over.
As for the Fair Work Commission, Commissioners are appointed by the Government of the day, and while either Labor or Liberal Governments will stack commissions to suit their policies, this current make up is not taking the relatively even hand of previous lots. Funny how a Liberal Government appointed Commission is so steadfastly finding in favour of a Liberal Government organisation. They have gone too far.

 

[pulpdriver]

So we should remain essentially a British colony because you don't think our politicians are capable of producing a constitution? We have one, that most seem happy enough with and that would just need some amendments to exclude powers and permissions of the Crown and introduce the governance surrounding a head of state.
The argument that the current elected representatives can't be trusted with decisions seems a pretty poor barrier to independence.

Maybe. It's significant for me. I genuinely have zero faith in them shaping a constitution for a new country. I also see no significant value becoming a republic with them at the helm. At this point, our independence has been long established. It costs our nation nothing to be part of the monarchy, hence why I think so many people were happy to go with the status quo last vote on it. It's arguable people are just apprehensive, scared or unsure about the future in general but I think those that have been running our country for almost two decades since need to take some responsibility there. We'll be a republic one day. Maybe in my lifetime, maybe not. No need to rush. As soon as I have a sense that there's strong leadership that is pushing for it with a tangible value for the citizens I'll be right behind it.

And hey, if they can't be trusted, stop voting them in.

Great in theory, if only it were so simple.

 

[Skoob]

Maybe. It's significant for me. I genuinely have zero faith in them shaping a constitution for a new country. I also see no significant value becoming a republic with them at the helm. At this point, our independence has been long established. It costs our nation nothing to be part of the monarchy, hence why I think so many people were happy to go with the status quo last vote on it. It's arguable people are just apprehensive, scared or unsure about the future in general but I think those that have been running our country for almost two decades since need to take some responsibility there. We'll be a republic one day. Maybe in my lifetime, maybe not. No need to rush. As soon as I have a sense that there's strong leadership that is pushing for it with a tangible value for the citizens I'll be right behind it.



Great in theory, if only it were so simple.

There is no proof that people were "happy with the status quo" last time, and in fact plenty to the contrary. Opinion polls prior to the referendum indicated the majority were in favour of becoming a republic. The Government of the day (Howard's, a monarchist himself) presented a particular model, including how the head of state be decided. He put forward a model that they knew stood little chance of getting up.

Although accepted as symbolic and guided by convention, the head of state has powers over our elected Government. A lot of people are not comfortable with those powers. Conventions are just that, so if you think that powers will never be used, think back to 1975 when the Governor General ignored convention and sacked the PM. It wasn't the doing of the Monarchy, but was endorsed as those powers existed, although was not within the normal conventions of the modern day role of GG.

Change the question in 1999, and the result would have been different.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Where is this notion that the constitution would have to be significantly reshaped coming from?

 

[Skoob]

Where is this notion that the constitution would have to be significantly reshaped coming from?

"The Governor General President (or similar) shall appoint..."

Done.

 

[Caiphus]

I was wracking my brain yesterday to try to understand the strategy behind the cabinet leaks from whoever was talking to the ABC on Monday and Tuesday. My best guess was a progressive cabinet member going rogue to try to embarrass the conservative wing of the coalition but even that didn't fit. Who would have thought it would be the result of a second-hand furniture sale? Dodged a bullet by having the contents handed to the ABC and that leaves me able to find it funny.

 

[Viceregal]

"The Governor General President (or similar) shall appoint..."

Done.

When other countries have gone from a similar position to what we are in to a republican model ... what has happened?

- do they keep a 'Prime Minister' since they are no longer the first minister to the Crown or does the new president type become their superior in the same way and keep the same title?

- does the new President type ever just have the same powers as the GG they replace or does it tend to gather more power to itself / form an alternate power circle to the parliment

- what processes are in place to elect/appoint the President - iirc the model Howard presented was to have it appointed by parliament (which seems pretty much what happens now as the appointment is recommended to the Crown by the govt of the day) ... if you have an alternate process would that not be a change greater than just the one you mentioned?

- actually what other countries *have* gone through the same process (it would be unlikely that this is the first time in history this has come about)