Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Chief]

Your thread for discussing the world's best Australian Prime Minister.

 

[Gralin]

Jesus Christ



Really great to see Labor going with we're going to be bigger tougher racists than you Peter

 

[Demons09]

Jesus Christ



Really great to see Labor going with we're going to be bigger tougher racists than you Peter

Its racist now to keep the community safe from Pedo’s, murderers and rapists.

 

[Gralin]

Its racist now to keep the community safe from Pedo’s, murderers and rapists.

Oh look you're doing it too

stoking fear about people from other countries being a danger to the community

 

[Gough]

Its racist now to keep the community safe from Pedo’s, murderers and rapists.

If they've served their sentence you can't just keep people locked up because you don't like what they've done. I thought conservatives respected the rule of law.

 

[Vindicater]

If they've served their sentence you can't just keep people locked up because you don't like what they've done. I thought conservatives respected the rule of law.

Whenever I think of conservatives I think of the Clash son "know your rights"

 

[Jane Doe]

Airbus Albo again leaving the country when leadership is required. I thought he said before he was elected he wouldn't go missing when the heat was on

 

[Bloods86]

If they've served their sentence you can't just keep people locked up because you don't like what they've done. I thought conservatives respected the rule of law.

I think you'll find how far the rule of law applies according to conservatives (though not exclusively) depends on how wealthy and powerful you are, or whether you're part of a powerful institution. If you don't have wealth or power, or powerful friends, or to some, happen to have a minority skin tone, then it's different.

And if a way of increasing your power and wealth is illegal or frowned upon, you can just use your wealth and power to make it legal, or kneecap anyone who would hold you to account.

PS. I know you know this.

 

[Crankyhawk]

As someone who has been involved in both Commonwealth and State Cabinet processes in another life I feel a need to respond to this.

First of all, on a matter of fact. There was no '57th recommendation' in the RoboDebt Royal Commission Report. Morton is referencing a “closing observation” from the Commissioner herself to repeal part of the Freedom of Information Act that grants documents seen by the federal cabinet an exemption from publication. The Commissioner put that remark under the headline of 'observation' for a reason.

The reason why the Commissioner expressly made this an 'observation' rather than a recommendation is because she understands that there are compelling reasons why the confidentiality of in-Cabinet discussions and processes have been a long-standing tenet of government executive decision making processes. And that these go far beyond the scope of her inquiry. Foremost among them is the need for Ministers to feel confident to openly express their views and opinions on matters before them without the fear of those views, and the submissions that inform them, will be released publicly and used as a platform for political retribution.

The Cabinet process is a collegiate one and I think protecting the confidentiality of those discussions for a reasonable period of time is the best way of ensuring the best outcomes and ensuring that the full Cabinet and not just individual Ministers are accountable for Government decisions.

But the Commissioner does highlight an important flaw in the Cabinet confidentiality process. And that is the manner in which which both Coalition and Labor governments have increasingly used the Cabinet process to hide controversial proposals and discussions behind the confidential protocols. In fact I have directly evidenced Ministers and Departmental CEs referring matters to Cabinet that do not need Cabinet authority simply to ensure that the basis of the decision is protected by the confidentiality provisions.

But, as rightly pointed out by the Commissioner, this is a matter that sits outside the broader discussion of the RoboDebt RC Terms of Reference but to the process of government accountability and transparency in general. It is an important issue that needs to be highlighted and discussed but not used as a distraction from the systemic and deliberate failings of the RoboDebt scandal.

The fact is that the government has accepted and has committed to allocating funds and tabling legislation to respond to EVERY single one of the RoboDebt Royal Commission recommendations into the most despicable and dishonest schemes in recent memory that directly targeted the most vulnerable people in our community.


IMHO it is important to not lose sight of the significance of that.

Disagree. The abuse of the cabinet in confidence system through excessive utilisation and likely false utilisation means it cannot be trusted and must go in the bin. I am comfortable with ministers publicly disagreeing. That is healthy for debate.

 

[Bloods86]

Airbus Albo again leaving the country when leadership is required. I thought he said before he was elected he wouldn't go missing when the heat was on

He's going to an APEC Summit, which many world leaders are, including our biggest ally and trading partner (with whom we're trying to mend ties to our benefit). No Australian PM has missed one for 30+ years, aside from when Gillard's father died.

It's not like he's hiding the fact he's off to Hawaii for a holiday.

Dutton would absolutely go, so would any Liberal PM. It's just dumb political games, and some obviously fall for it.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Not only is Albo letting in too many people to kill the middle class in Australia, stifle access to first home buyers and cripple renters and mortgage payers...


They're also letting in crooks

"Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles has reiterated public safety is the government's priority after criminals were among asylum seekers released into the community, following a High Court ruling.

He was speaking with Today this morning as the government grapples with the court decision that overturned a nearly 20-year precedent that allowed Australia to indefinitely detain asylum seekers who failed character assessments but were unable to be deported."



Defend this government to the death die hards.

These crooks have already served their time and more. Since we cannot deport them, treat like other ex criminals. Some Australian ex criminals do wear ankle bracelets where court and corrections deem it appropriate, leave the decision to them instead of clueless politicians.

 

[Crankyhawk]

How stupid we are as citizens where we think relaxing fuel "taxes" in a cost of living crisis is a "cost" and that tax bracket creep should never be adjusted. Stage 3 tax "cuts" are no such thing despite how politicians want to misrepresent what they are.

Whinge whinge whinge your stage 3 cuts are massively inflationary you economic dumbarse. Just selfish.

 

[The Punter]

Respect for the rule of law does not preclude the orderly and proper amendment of existing laws or advocating for those changes. It merely means adhering to laws as they currently apply.

Immigration law and practice should have, as an objective, the aim to ensure the safety of people already living in Australia.

 

[Crankyhawk]

When these ridiculous tax cuts were legislated by Scummo in 2019, I distinctly remember a journo such as Laura Tingle expressing concern about locking in a big tax change when we don't know what the economic climate will be like so far down the track.

Now that particular chicken is coming home to roost. Thanks for nothing, Morrison you idiot.

It is gutless to not break that promise given the change in economic conditions and that is on albo.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Respect for the rule of law does not preclude the orderly and proper amendment of existing laws or advocating for those changes. It merely means adhering to laws as they currently apply.

Immigration law and practice should have, as an objective, the aim to ensure the safety of people already living in Australia.

We have no mechanism to deport these people therefore simplify it, give them PR/ citizen status then enforce law on them as per any other Australian

 

[Crankyhawk]

What do you think usually happens after criminals finish their sentence?

Some do get other control orders due to prior history of recidivism- eg ankle bracelets. But this is a court decision not a political grandstanding decision

 

[MPMonkeys]

3 murderers freed in Australia after court ruled out holding migrants indefinitely, minister says

Australia's immigration minister says three murderers are among 81 foreigners recently released after the High Court ruled their indefinite detention in migrant centers was unconstitutional

abcnews.go.com

One of those convicted of murder is Sirul Azhar Umar, a former police officer who was sentenced by a Malaysian court in 2015 to be hanged over the death of a Mongolian woman whose body was dismembered with military-grade explosives.

The 50-year-old had fled to Australia before he was sentenced in absentia and had been held in detention for nine years until the High Court decision last week. Australia cannot extradite anyone to a country where that person could face capital punishment.

Not as simple as saying those who served their time have been released as the above example demonstrates.

 

[The Punter]

We have no mechanism to deport these people therefore simplify it, give them PR/ citizen status then enforce law on them as per any other Australian

I understand that this may not be a widely shared view in these parts, but it should be stated: those with criminal records who have already completed any punishment imposed by the jurisdictions in which they committed the crime shouldn't necessarily be afforded the same rights as those who are already in Australia, or Australian citizens for that matter. The immigration system must, as far as practicable, preempt the likelihood of further crime being committed in Australia. Even in the humanitarian intake, our immigration system should, again as much as practicable, work for us.

The law has been applied by the High Court. The Albanese Government believes the law should be different, and are moving to amend those laws through the proper channels.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I understand that this may not be a widely shared view in these parts, but it should be stated: those with criminal records who have already completed any punishment imposed by the jurisdictions in which they committed the crime shouldn't necessarily be afforded the same rights as those who are already in Australia, or Australian citizens for that matter. The immigration system must, as far as practicable, preempt the likelihood of further crime being committed in Australia. Even in the humanitarian intake, our immigration system should, again as much as practicable, work for us.

The law has been applied by the High Court. The Albanese Government believes the law should be different, and are moving to amend those laws through the proper channels.

My understanding is that these are case where they have served time for crime committed in Australia which meant loss of visa (failed character test) but there was some other ruling preventing deportation. In that case given we cannot use deportation against them what gain is it to treat them differently to Australian citizens (will add how much extra money is being funneled into legal pockets?)

 

[kalex6251]

there is more than a whiff of game playing bastardry going on here by lurch (and the conservatives more generally) ...... and they should rightly be condemned for that

case in point: their line of questioning in parliament has subtlety changed following legitimate objections from the govt ...... they began this pathetic attack suggesting this was entirely a decision of govt - now they include the qualifier ".... following the high court decision"

 

[Gough]

there is more than a whiff of game playing bastardry going on here by lurch and the conservatives more generally - and they should rightly be condemned for that

case in point: their line of questioning in parliament has subtlety changed following legitimate objections from the govt ...... they began this pathetic attack suggesting this was entirely a decision of govt - now they include the qualifier ".... following the high court decision"

Per the Graund blog.Dan Tehan:

What I would say to the minister is say to your department that you want that outcome. Don’t sit there and listen to all the reasons why it might be difficult or there might be trouble in doing it, learn to be a minister, actually direct your department to get you the outcome that the Australian people want. And it’s very clear what that outcome is ... they want these people re-detained. We need a new regime in place to do it.

There are some really unsavoury people in the group the high court has determined cannot be detained indefinitely. Many are criminals who have served prison sentences. Nobody is arguing the toss about that. But who cares about the niceties, lock them up again, is an extraordinary thing for a mainstream politician to say.

Let’s be clear about what Tehan is advocating. He’s saying never mind the high court, never mind pesky bureaucrats. Never mind the law, never mind framing your policy explicitly with legalities in mind, just do what you want. Explains robodebt, doesn’t it? It explains why sports grants were rolled out in marginal seats in a program no-one was sure was actually lawful. If this is how you approach the task as a parliamentarian and a legislator, where are the boundaries, the guardrails? Where is the bottom?

Dutton has been thundering this week about the most important duty of government being to keep people safe. He seems to have forgotten that the rule of law, and politicians prepared to respect it, is one of the foundation stones of community safety.

We can have mob rule and the vibe, or we can respect the institutions that safeguard customs and norms in a democracy. I know which I prefer.

Don’t let this stuff wash over you.

Listen. Don’t lose the meaning in the noise.

 

[kalex6251]

this from tehan says it all really:

".... learn to be a minister, actually direct your department to get you the outcome ....."

its the Robodebt mindset murphy rightly points to

 

[GreyWind]

The LNP really have short memories.

This was a decision by the High Court, not us being America's little bitch again.

 

[The Punter]

My understanding is that these are case where they have served time for crime committed in Australia which meant loss of visa (failed character test) but there was some other ruling preventing deportation. In that case given we cannot use deportation against them what gain is it to treat them differently to Australian citizens (will add how much extra money is being funneled into legal pockets?)

My mistake for not being sufficiently in depth before commenting.

If they are not citizens but visa holders, and they have completed their sentence, then they should not be detained indefinitely.

They should be deported immediately.

Which is the problem with the previous government's (under Dutton's watch) move to remove citizenship from people - we can not insist other countries act in a way we would not. Every human must be a citizen of a country (either where they were born or where they have met the requirements for citizenship and have received that citizenship). Then we wouldn't have non-citizens who we can't deport because no one will accept them. The nation of their citizenship should accept them, as should we with our exported criminals.

 

[Crankyhawk]

My mistake for not being sufficiently in depth before commenting.

If they are not citizens but visa holders, and they have completed their sentence, then they should not be detained indefinitely.

They should be deported immediately.

Which is the problem with the previous government's (under Dutton's watch) move to remove citizenship from people - we can not insist other countries act in a way we would not. Every human must be a citizen of a country (either where they were born or where they have met the requirements for citizenship and have received that citizenship). Then we wouldn't have non-citizens who we can't deport because no one will accept them. The nation of their citizenship should accept them, as should we with our important criminals.

Unfortunately due to the precedent of citizenship revocation we now have this situation where they aren’t citizens of any country. Or one where we can’t deport to face a capital crime (tbh I really don’t give a toss for that exemption to deportation for the crime described in someone else’s post re the Malaysian - but it should be up to non politicians to examine and decide, not the clueless ones in parliament.)