Is it time for Labor to take it’s eyes off the next election?

It is said and is possible true that Labor cannot win the next election. Is this what politics in this country should be focus on.

Does anyone really believe that replacing the PM is the best and only option facing Labor. Is the replacement of the PM, wishful thinking on the Opposition’s sides.

Would politics in this country be improved by the replacement of the PM or for that matter the Labor government.

If you believe so, why. What has Mr. Abbott got to offer that is better than the present government?

What policies do you believe Labor should change or rescind?

Labor has got through parliament 188 bills. What bills do you not agree with? What bills do you believe should be dumped?

I do not believe the government or the country would be better off if the PM was changed.

I have the feeling that the PM was sacrificed by some party heavies in getting rid of PM Rudd.

I also believe that the PM knew she was taking on a poison chalice. I believe that the party had good reason’s for deposing Mr. Rudd, which the party is not aware.

I believe the PM has done a good job.

I agree with most of her policies that she has endeavoured to put in place.

I believe that it does not matter about the next election. This government needs to turn a deaf ear to the shrill and noise coming from media, Mr. Abbott and his ilk.

The PM needs to have the courage to do what is right for the country, regardless of what the next election brings.

It is time for the PM to continue with the courage she has shown with the carbon pricing legalisation and other issues.

I had concerns about the Malaysian Solution, but accepted it, as it has a chance of success. The political climate made any other action near impossible. Mr. Bowen depended on the Howard legislation to form this policy. The legalisation obviously does not do what Mr. Howard intended.

Thanks to the High Court actions yesterday, the political climate has changed. It is possible, I believe believe for that political game be put aside and do what is right, for the refugees and the country.

There are many other ways to deal with the boat people, than punishing those who come by boat.

The money, time and resources saved by better and processing of these people, can be used to focus on stopping the boats.

If the PM ignores the political implications of what is done for refugees, she will come up with the right answers.

I believe the PM and Labor do have strong principals and policies. They need to lay them out very clearly, along with what they intend to do to uphold them. Any political fallout out should not indicate what they intend to do.

The PM needs to quickly announce that all previous procedures in dealing with refugees have been suspended. Because of the High Court decision, off shore and extended detention is no longer an option. The people will we process as quickly as possible and settled in the community.

  • We are doing this because we have a moral and legal obligation to do so. We are doing this because it causes the people less harm and allows them to get on with their lives, in becoming worthwhile and productive citizens.
  • We are doing this because it will save hundred’s of millions of dollars.
  • We intend to focus on preventing the boat trade by working closely within the regional body we have put in place.
  • We intend to take the pressure off desperate people getting on leaky boats by taking a greater number of our refugee intake from this region.
  • Our policy on refugees will be based on fairness and justice.

The government has shown courage on the NBN. That needs to proceed.

The other big ticket items are legalisation to address climate change and the mining tax. Both are due to be being introduced.

We have a review coming up for the IR laws. This should continued as planned. The PM should also continue as she is doing with other issued that need to be address to improve productivity, the one that Mr. Stevens addressed on his speech to the Financial Committee but has not been mentioned by Mr. Abbott or the media. The ones were we strive to improve education, training, and infrastructure.

The PM should follow through with action as she says she intends to do with the restructuring of the manufacturing industry because of the high dollar cause by the boom in the minerals industries.

Enquiries can still occur, but they should not impede the government from taking the action they have identified as necessary. The industry and unions do have a responsibility to put their case and convince the government of their argument.

The PM should continue to ensure that the health and education policies that have been put in place continue and flourish.

The PM should remain on the front foot, as she has in the last few weeks, and take the fight up to the Opposition. The PM has nothing to lose by being courageous and up front. The PM might not have much to gain but the country will.

The PM needs to get the mainly unimportant but pesky matters out of the way as quickly as possible, but not with band aid solutions. One of those pesky issues is the behaviour of the media, If you follow what is occurring in the UK, it is not the spying on emails that is the most concern. It is the media interference in government that worries the MP’s most.

Maybe a independent enquiry focus narrowly on whether the media is meeting Australia’s need is warranted. Revisiting recommendations of earlier enquiries would not go amiss.

The PM could address parliament, denouncing the allegations that have been made against her. Mr. Thomson could stand up and deny the allegations but say, he would have to say, because of legal enquiries, I cannot say more. I am confused at how this would clean the air, as both have strenuously denied that have done any wrong over a number of years.

The PM needs to clear the desk, so she can focus on the most important issues facing this country.

That is the economy and issues facing our industries, and the restructuring that needs to occur.


222 comments on “Is it time for Labor to take it’s eyes off the next election?

  1. Great piece CU, totally agree. I hope the PM continues as she said moving the country forward, nbn, carbon tax, health, transport, infrastructure, education.
    Forget the Coalition and its negativity, forget the shock jocks and their opinionated guests (esp Richardson) and take on the murdoch press, which wants “regime” change to boost its market and corporate dominance.
    The High Court decision may actually assist the government in stopping it engaging with the bottom feeders.

  2. Richardson was a politician that I couldn’t trust, he reminds me so much of Mal Colston, who would float which ever way the money flows.

  3. Great post Cu. The PM needs to continue telling the public by way of advertising but not through ltd news of all the good things that have been done by Labor.
    For a start, remind all the pensioner day-trippers at the anti carbon tax rallies of the impressive rise in their pensions !!

    The suggestion about suspending all current refugee detention procedures is really the only way to go. The sight of places like Baxter and Christmas Island remind me of gulags.

    Clearly state acceptance of the Court decision.
    There are enough decent Australians who will agree and accept that what’s been done during the Howard years up until the present is an appalling way to treat human beings wherever they are from.

    Ditto Crowey, Richo always was a piece of work. Would he be a paid commentator ?

  4. CU

    It’s hard not to agree. Let’s have something to fight for besides the price on carbon and the NBN. Time to talk to people who have been shut our of the consultations, invite all those interested to have real talks about a national political consensus on asylum seekers and find a way through or around the partisan impasse.

  5. Asylum seekers decision set to rule out other offshore centres

    Urgent legal advice sought by the Gillard government shows that all offshore processing – including on Nauru and Manus Island – could be invalid.

    Sources have told Fairfax that the advice was presented to a snap meeting of cabinet in Brisbane last night following the High Court ruling that torpedoed the Malaysian plan.

    Although the court ruled that arrangements in Nauru were “very different” from those in Malaysia, government lawyers believe that a full interpretation of the lengthy court ruling disqualifies both Nauru and Manus Island, in Papua New Guinea.

    “We’re not the only ones with a problem,” a source said.

    This was a reference to processing asylum seekers on Nauru being longstanding Coalition policy.

    This leaves the government with two options: either abandon offshore processing or join forces with the opposition and legislate around the High Court ruling to ensure Nauru and Manus Island can be used.

    It is understood the legal advice says that, while Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the United Nations convention on refugees, it does not observe seven aspects of the convention.

    A lack of domestic protection laws in Nauru is another concern.

  6. Thanks, CU! You’ve said it all for me, as you did at John Quiggin’s site where he suggested that Julia Gillard should step aside and let someone else take over, if she wanted to ‘salvage her place in history books’! We b oth reminded him as did many others that this government owes its existence to Julia Gillard’s consultative and negotiation skills. Its future depends on her continuing as leader. The independents have made that very clear.

    It’s true that News Ltd with the able support of others in the media has undermined her reputation and credibility. But to step aside will not restore it, rather that would lend further strength to Tony Abbott’s smear campaign. It will also concede government to the most destructive and dishonest Opposition in our history.

    If salvaging of her place in history is a concern of Julia Gillard’s right now, which I doubt, I would think her best approach is to stay the course, continue with her already impressive reform program, even if ultimately she goes down fighting. Labor has more to gain than lose from her continuing as Prime Minister. As does Australia.

    You ask what we would like to see changed. I had great hopes for the deal with Malaysia as I saw it as a breakthrough on the way to a regional processing centre and a way of improving the lot of refugees generally in the southern hemisphere. But now with this latest court ruling I think the ALP would have nothing to lose from admitting they’ve run out of immediate solutions and seeking a community consensus on the issue.

    I read a really good post linked to by Lyn this morning where Pauline Vetuna reviews the High Court ruling and its implications and ends with the comment

    Whoever can devise a way by which people smuggling can be tackled without asylum seekers being “made example of”, or adversely affected by the “deterrents”, should be given a billion dollars, knighted, made a saint, and put on our currency.

  7. Patricia, the media, especially ltd news have undermined the PM at every opportunity on every subject. What they haven’t done is give any credit where it is due.
    Extra money for pensioners, hospitals, superclinics, and many more projects, all of which get the bum’s rush from the Coalition.
    If /when this government falls, people will quickly realise who was on their side !
    Workchoices Mk 2 is on the table, thanks to an impatient and resentful Peter Reith and John Howard to name a few of it’s supporters. Good luck to average punters who vote Liberal

  8. It is a pity that Mr. Rudd did not know what we all know now in hindsight, that he did not have to do anything to makes the system fairer.

    All he had to was wait for the court to act.

    Mr. Rudd made the mistake of believing that the Howard laws would pass the test of the courts.

  9. Cu, Rudd was just on radio saying this wouldn’t have changed the Coalition/Nauru processing because the UNHCR was involved.
    What he omitted was the fact that some of the refugees were stuck there for years with no access to legal assistance.

  10. Time for a laugh from Twitter

    chrismurphys chris murphy by sspencer_63

    Labor toad ‘Richo’ day&night attacking party that gave person of his limited character so much.
    Wish he’d talk about hookers. I’d listen

  11. and the reply….

    Andrew Barratt
    @chrismurphys I always thought he was a shallow arsehole, even when he was part of the #ALP. He is a hooker.


  12. From Twitter, the crux of it

    chrismurphys chris murphy · Follow
    Location: Sydney, Australia

    ‘An advocate that client by all means & expedients & at all hazards & costs to other persons and amongst them to himself is his first and only duty’

  13. Crowley, I have no idea what Mr. Richardson’s agenda is. It is definitely not the party he once represented. Maybe his bank account needs building up.

    I wonder why any government would waste money on using the media for advertising. How many read papers today. How many by pass ads or have learnt to ignore them on their TV.

    The most efficient way get the message across is by the use of the web.

    Money would be better spent on creating real efficient government information site.

    The government already has many good sites, such as Centrelink and My School.

    The use of the web could be backed up by use of the snail mail.

    There is no necessity to use the MSM.

    Labor themselves have a high quality site to get the message out.

    The beauty of the web is that it can be interactive.

    As for cooperation from the Opposition, that will only occur if the PM gets down on her knees and promised to bring back the Pacific Solution in totality.

    If this occurred, I would suggest the Labor immediately throw in the towel, as they will lose th little respect they have left.

    Mr. Abbott knows this, and is why he pushes so hard.

  14. Excellent post CU and saying exactly what all reasonable people have been thinking.

    They speak about a 2-speed economy but to my way of thinking we have a 2-speed government. This is bearing in mind that ALL politicians irrespective of which party they represent are first and foremost elected by their constituents to represent The People of Australia.

    The government is passing bills while the Opposition has the easy task of sitting on it’s collective backside and saying No.

    Hey look at me, says the Opposition I’m sitting on my backside and doing nothing which means I’m doing something.

  15. Processing asylum seekers: how it works

    By Plane

    This process also takes a few years, but the asylum seekers are allowed to stay in the community, although they are barred from working.

    Why not let them all live in the community and work if they can !
    We’re gong to have more refugees on our door regardless of the “dtop the boats” brigade, but if you’ll pardon the pun their numbers are just a drop in the ocean.

  16. Patricia, we can keep taking more refugees from Malaysia and Indonesia, this will take some pressure off the need to get on a boat.

    I was listening to an interview from Malaysia on 702 this morning. He said that many had postponed their plans to get on a boat. He said even though the numbers where small, it gave many hope of getting out of Malaysia

    There are up to 100,000 in Malaysia who have been waiting up to ten years. I believe the number in Indonesia is much smaller.

    The Malaysians said today, that the problems could be solved by those in the region working together.

    So much for Mr. Abbott’s claim that this government was a laughing stock in the region.

    It is still on the cards that Malaysia is willing to enact the laws that the high court demand.

    Mr. Bowen has said he will not ask them too.

    The problems that Malaysia has had a larger problem for over a decade, which is much greater than ours.

  17. Cu, I heard a piece on radio yesterday and they said that Malaysia would have many more asylum seekers if they ratified the UN Convention.
    Given the 100,000 already there they’re between a rock and a hard place.

  18. Pip, they do not have to ratify the UN Convention. They have to have laws that protect any refugee we send.

  19. ‘Rewriting of Act’ puts offshore deals in doubt

    Ms Gillard was critical of Chief Justice Robert French, saying he had made different rulings on the same law in the past.

    “[He] considered comparable legal questions when he was a judge of the Federal Court and made different decisions to the one that the High Court made yesterday.”

    Is the PM referring to a Howard era appointee ?

  20. Another laugh from Twitter….

    crazyjane13 Marian Dalton

    The Coalition is relying on Brandis for legal advice re the High Court. Cos that always works out so well. #pmagenda

  21. Alexis. Where is this Parallel Universe in which you reside?
    Good luck sifting through the 188 pieces of legislation to find the good ones.
    start with the Bs
    Batts, Boats, BER ……
    I think by the time Hawthorn and Collingwood fight out the Grand Final, in retrospect, we will see that the week of the Craig Thompson credit cards and prostitutes expose was actually a very good week for Gillard. The week Gillard went “balistic” with Hartigan, Bolt and News was also a relatively good week. This week where the “Border Protection Policy” of this government was trashed by the High Court will also be seen as a relatively good week for Gillard….. relatively.
    The bad weeks will start next week when uncontrolled arrivals of boats will swamp the resources of the Border protection, Immigration and Gillard. The Christmas Island Centre and Centres in Australia are already at capacity.
    It will be bad weeks because there is no way out for the government. This final cockup by this government is going to take a long long time and lots and lots of money to repair. The bad weeks are yet to come so I suggest Gillard should enjoy this weeks respite…… relative respite that is.

  22. And in the biggest load of bull shizzer I’ve read for many a long time…the author is Margaret Kelly teaches constitutional and administrative law at Macquarie University.’s Constitutional Law 101, it is the job of Parliament to implement laws but up to the courts to interpret these. It’s called the Separation of Powers Doctrine. IF/when the High Court interprets a law not to the government’s liking then it’s back to the drawing board for parliament.

    What is Kelly suggesting? That courts are no longer to interpret the law? But just do whatever current government is in power ‘wants’. Governments come and go but the law endures. Think Mabo.

    What signal does this send to people-smugglers? They will see that Australia is governed not by representatives making laws, but by judges interpreting them. There is no certainty any more in the Commonwealth’s laws. We do not have a rule of law here, but rather rule by lawyers. The majority of the High Court got it wrong. Justice Heydon in dissent got it right.

  23. Catching up.
    Keep in mind we have upwards of 300,000,000 potential refugees on our doorstep. It may be prudent to get Border Protection sorted before we start talking about how many we might take.

  24. She didn’t simply attack the High Court, she personally attacked its members.

    She’s a disgrace.

  25. Geoff, you need to consider that this High Court decision is binding not just on a Labor government but on a Liberal government.

    According to Professor Frank Brennan of ACU no offshore processing facility will be lawful…this means at all.

  26. Geoff..OMG, son is going to be busy he’s a LS on the patrol boats. That’s going to put the kibosh on those Red Emperors for supper.

  27. “Where is this Parallel Universe in which you reside?”

    If you cannot read that the name Alexis has an arrow beside it pointing to the previous post, I can understand that you have missed that the Gillard government has been busy getting many important bills through parliament.

    I am sorry that you have been trapped in the other Parallel Universe, that resides in the imagination of Mr. Abbott. The one that has to trash everything in Australia, including the economy to prove he is the only one fit to govern.

    The challenge still stands.

    What policies do you believe Labor should change or rescind?

    Why do you think Mr. Abbott will do better?

    What policies attract you to Mr. Abbott.

  28. Min, do not despair. On another site there was a comment asking who appoints these judges. You can imagine the rest of the comment.

    I felt like saying, Mr. Howard but thought better of it.

    It was one of their appointees that dissented.

  29. Hang on. Yet again Gillard bashing on half baked info. I expect it from TomM, in fact it’s his modus, and of course el gordo his little boot licking offsider who pretended to be a leftie but couldn’t be more wingnut if he tried, but the others?

    Gillard attacked one judge who made an inconsistent ruling. The part he ruled against this time was the very same part he ruled for previously when Howard’s policy went to the high court.

    Gillard asked that this judge be consistent.

    Having said that, it is a great ruling and as the legal commentators are stating the opposition have nothing to crow about because their refugee policy is completely sunk as well.

  30. Chief Justice French – appointed by Rudd. Gummow, involved in the Wik decision. Hayne I don’t know much about. Susan Crennan. Susan Kiefel from Griffith Uni, part of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Virginia Bell, appointed ’09.

  31. “Keep in mind we have upwards of 300,000,000 potential refugees on our doorstep”

    Where did that figure come from?

    Are all the refugees in the world headed here.

    Are you in fear of your own shadow as well.

  32. No, she attacked the Chief Justice.

    He can only make a decision on the material put to him. Obviously, the government case was deficient.

    Gillard has attacked a member of the judiciary who does not have the option of a public or pointed reply. She is cowardly, she has not accepted responsibility.

    This is a debacle of the governments making, and the Prime Minister’s behaviour is a disgrace.

  33. TomM on his band wagon again. You can point out every fact and show what actually happened but he will just harp on and on about an attack point he thinks he has his teeth into. You often have to wonder if he and Neil are related.

    That judge made two different rulings on the same piece of information given to him, the only difference was the government who tabled the information.

    Your point on the government’s case being deficient is correct and I’m glad they failed in this. Problem for your blind barracking of Abbott is that the opposition’s case is now also just as deficient on the same grounds, unless that same Chief Justice changes his decision again. Of course if that’s the case you won’t stick up for him then TomM.

  34. I must have hit a raw nerve. I am under assault from the whole army from the other side.

    Yes, the PM criticise the judge, and gave reasons why. That is allow in an democracy.

    You are not going to tell me that previous Coalition governments did not criticized the same people when judgements went against them.

    Go back to the Land Rights and other debates, to the hatred that was aim at the High Court by many Coalition MPs. One exzmple that come to mind is the “Bring them Home” . I think it earned the nick name as the Black Arm Band view of history.

    Oh, it is only disgraceful when a Labor PM does it. I am sorry, I forgot.

    Be real.

  35. I have to agree with Michelle Grattan..

    The Malaysia Solution had been conceived as the ultimate quick and clever fix. If you put aside the doubtful morality of sending people off to be dealt with by another country with a dubious human rights record, it looked almost too good to be true – and it was.

    Ok so what we have is that Gillard believes that the High Court erred in it’s judgement, and so now she has to show WHY she is of this opinion.

  36. ‘…and of course el gordo his little boot licking offsider who pretended to be a leftie but couldn’t be more wingnut if he tried, but the others?’

    Up until now I have been sitting on the fence, trying to stay ahead of the news cycle, but as you’ve mentioned it I may join the ‘wingnuts’.

    Have you run into ‘splatter bottom’ yet? Very erudite and appears not to be a barracker.

  37. Can everyone remember the foo-fah over Justice Kirby and the Tasmanian Dams Case. Not to mention Wik of course.

  38. Telling isn’t it TomM never called Howard or other Coalition pollies a disgrace when they criticised judges who made decisions against them, including their refugee policy being illegal in some aspects. Only when a Labor pollie does it, and does so with a valid point on an inconsistency, clearly spelling out that inconsistency, does TomM ramp up in faux outrage.

    At least TomM is consistent.

  39. We had an Salvation Army representative on the ABC this morning supporting the clubs on the gambling legislation.

    Tonight another Salvation said that person had misrepresent the Army’s view, He said the Salvation Army support a trial.

    It is very clear that Mr. Abbott is going to do nothing to upset the tobacco and gambling industry. I hope Senator Coonan enjoys her new job.

  40. If Howard engaged in such personal and direct criticism of a member of the judiciary, that was a disgrace too.

    But we’re now dealing with our current government.

    The Chief Justice cannot call a press conference and reply. He may get an opportunity to make some indirect obtuse comments sometime.

    For the Prime Minister to engage in this cowardly nonsense is disgraceful. They are just making up policy on the run.

    Julia is the “Incompetent in Chief”, and duplicitous.

  41. So tell me CU, how can the Chief Justice reply to the attack from the Prime Minister?

    She is a coward.

  42. Very nice Min, I did not noticed. Too busy getting ready face the battle I seemed to have lit.

    I forgot it is a crime in this country to say the PM might have achieved something.

    It is a shame for some that I believe that, Julia achieves, Tony deceives.

    Sorry I am not the creator of the above slogan, borrowed it from another site.

  43. ToM, the Chief Justice is perfectly capable of expressing his own opinions. If he doesn’t agree with the PM then I’m certain that he will say so.

  44. Min, tell me, can the Chief Justice call a press conference and suggest that the Prime Minister is wrong, and perhaps point to Julia’s own duplicity and inconsistency?

    Julia’s attack was yet another example of her disregard for ministerial responsibility.

    Rather than accepting responsibility, in the past year she’s blamed Rudd, Murdoch, the media generally, the Greens

    She is a duplicitous coward.

  45. ToM, yes. The Chief Justice of course would not be so crass as to make personal comments but he could indeed state his opinion about his ruling. The Chief Justice would know that via childish name-calling that this would be considered slander.

  46. The same as the PM cannot do much about the dirt that is being aimed at her. Dirt that is 20 years old and has been denied on numerous occasions.

    I am sure the judges are not as upset as you are.

    Maybe they are enjoying the situation.

    There might even be books written about it. There will definitely be articles written.

  47. Sorry TomM, but it is getting ridiclous when people are making up their own rules on how a PM should act. How has she shown disregard for ministerial responsibility?

  48. You’ve referred to Howard attacking the judiciary, so has Adrian.

    Got a link for that?

    The Chief Justice is entitled to make a decision on the basis of the material put before the court. The decision wasn’t even close.

    If the government is incompetent, it is disgraceful that the Prime Minister blames the judiciary.

    Julia has not accepted responsibility for this policy debacle, she has only blamed the umpire

    Pathetic, so are the barrackers.

  49. Reb, judges are human. They are in a field that their judgements offend many.

    Do you really believe these learned people are incapable of dealing with those who have alternative ideas.

    Not all are like the Coalition, who cannot cope with those who ideas and beliefs differ.

    It is insulting to say they cannot.

  50. The same as the PM cannot do much about the dirt that is being aimed at her. Dirt that is 20 years old and has been denied on numerous occasions.

    I agree, CU, unfortunately the Malaysian Deal will be the last straw for this government … shot themselves in the foot … play popular politics and suffer popular wrath I’m afraid …

    ToM’s posts may be are distasteful in many ways but I’m afraid the present government’s days are numbered … very amateur … unfortunately the alternative would be even worse …

    … wonder what Kevin Rudd is doing tonight?

    … my bet’s on Shorten … if it happens, it’ll be to soon by about six years…

  51. CU, your comments are laughable.

    Julia has only blamed the judiciary for this debacle. She has not accepted that it is the policy that is a debacle, she has no contingency, no alternative.

    Rudd warned that the policy would lurch to the right, but he probably didn’t quite expect this hopeless calamity.

    Her and (the quite decent) Chris Bowen look like rabbits caught in the headlights.

  52. TB, I hope you notice that I said it was time to forget about being popular. I am going further , it is time to forget about the next election.

    It is time to govern by doing what is right.

    At least if defeated, you can be proud of what you have achieved.

  53. TB, it is Beatty now in the frame. Maybe he can do what the Opposition is doing in Queensland, have a leader that has not yet been elected.

  54. Well TomM they are accepting the reality and seriousness of the judgement, unlike Mr. Abbott and his party that have once again buried their heads in the sand.

    Mr. Abbott is refusing to accept that the ruling also affects what he is proposing.

  55. ‘…most on this site support the High Court decision.’

    Yes, but we differ on the behavior of a PM who doesn’t understand you can’t go out of your way to slag off at the high court.

  56. At least if defeated, you can be proud of what you have achieved.

    I agree but there has been a few foul ups on the way …

    Tell me … do you think the Prime Minister will survive much longer?

    (The government probably will, much to the chagrin of the right wing barrackers )

  57. But TB this High Court decision is equally disastrous for the opposition.

    How are they going to explain away their policy, and Abbott’s lies again today (ones that TomM yet again refused to pick up and criticise being the barracker he is) do not cut it?

    As the legal guy on the Drum stated this afternoon the only way out for both is to get together and change the law the High Court ruled on. Do you see Abbott ever being partisan on anything with anything? The only other way is to have onshore processing, which I hope is the outcome of all this.

    Even if this Labor government is gone then I would like nothing better than to see Abbott in a government that is overseeing onshore processing. Let him explain that with his lies and distortions to the red necks and gormless he has whipped up into a mindless frenzy.

  58. … you can’t go out of your way to slag off at the high court.

    Yes you can, it just won’t do you much good … in fact quite the opposite …

  59. As Howard and his government found out. Andrews, Downer, Costello, Minchin Howard and many others anyone?

  60. Tom of Melbourne or is that TomM, I noticed that you are targetting the PM not Minister Bowen.

    Funny, Mr. Abbott says the same thing.

  61. TB, I suspect that you are feelings also.

    What on earth possessed Gillard to attack the High Court ruling I-do-not-know. The government could have used this to say, Well there you go, we now have to have on-shore processing..but they didn’t.

  62. The only other way is to have onshore processing, which I hope is the outcome of all this

    … and always should have been, Adrian, the savings can be spent on training and development of the refugees …

    Even if this Labor government is gone then I would like nothing better than to see Abbott in a government that is overseeing onshore processing

    Don’t jump to the conclusion of an Abbott led government just yet … the next two years are going to be very intersting on BOTH sides of politics …

    If the “powerbrokers” on the conservative side of politics allow Abbott to take on an election … their chances will diminish considerably … Australian voters are not dills …

  63. Even if the Coalition win TB I don’t see Abbott being PM for very long. His first brain snap and they’ll oust him, nothing surer.

  64. Abbott says it Cu and you can be sure his barrackers like TomM repeat it almost immediately and often.

  65. Mobius @7.23pm..absolutely. I put a link up earlier to Frank Brennan’s opinion and he states this and absolutely – that there are hurdles 1&2 and that while Nauru might clear hurdle 1 if they (eventually) get around to signing the Convention that they will not clear hurdle 2.

    This is giving due regard to the fact that Nauru firstly said that they would sign the Convention during Howard’s day but never got around to it – then again when Abbott was over there for his photo op, they once again said that they would sign but they still haven’t gotten around it…

  66. “ell me … do you think the Prime Minister will survive much longer?”

    Yes I believe she will. I believe this because the PM accepted an poison chalice. The PM would have known when she took on the job, the risk she was taking.

    Labor will only lose face to change leaders again.

    It would be stupid act to destroy another possible leader.

  67. ‘Well there you go, we now have to have on-shore processing..but they didn’t.’

    Yep, which gets us back to her political ineptitude.

  68. TomM, el gordo and others. is there anything that this PM could do that met with your approval. Except resign.

  69. ” is there anything that this PM could do that met with your approval. ”

    She could accept the decision of the High Court, instead of complaining about it.

  70. Reb, the PM has a perfect right to complain but if she has reasons why she thinks that the decision has erred, then she should be forthcoming with these..and she had better be fairly quick about it.

  71. el gordo, what did offshore processing achieve. More expensive, and they all came to Australia. The people where made to suffer.

  72. Please, explain?

    A PM with integrity would have said ‘fair enough’ and turn a disappointment into a positive.

    Something big, novel and truly exciting. A state of the art city at the Ord.

  73. Fe’..Abbott would insist, it’s the only thing that would make him happy. But then I get the impression that no matter what Abbott ever did, or received..that nothing would ever make him happy.

  74. Min, I disagree.

    She has shown contempt for the judicial process at arms length of Government. Thank heavens for separation of powers. No Govt can over-ride a High Court decision such as this.

    She’s finished.

  75. Sorry, Min, re Margaret Kelly. I think she’s got it right, and so has Judge Heydon, the one dissenting opinion.
    The majority always wins the argument, but it doesn’t mean they’re always right. Even High Court rulings get overturned. Sadly that won’t happen here.
    Although you can bet your bottom dollar if the Coaltion gets in they will find a way to circumvent this one if they need to.

    Bottom line is, regardless of the ruling, by bringing down the Malaysian Solution, the refugee advocates, have helped Tony Abbott in his campaign to bring down the government. We all know how ruthlessly he will deal with the situation. And he will have a mandate for it. Just read comments on any blogsite which is even slightly off centre to right.

  76. Patricia, sorry it’s a 6:1 opinion with only one dissenter. It would take another Full Bench of the High Court to overturn it. If it’s going to be overturned it will need some years and for the current Justices to retire and for a new bench to review the previous decision. You can’t go any higher these days than a Full Bench of the HC.

  77. For the benefit of PWA, I’ve self deleted.

    PWA thinks the High Court should be cognisant of the political context!!

    What a F**KING joke.

  78. ‘The majority always wins the argument, but it doesn’t mean they’re always right.’

    Are there any examples of the HC getting it wrong?

  79. I’m merely reminding people of the outrageous and hypocritical misuse of editorial power to suppress freedom of speech!!

  80. el gordo, I am not sure but if the PM is correct, the High Court judge has given two different rulings on the same matter.

    Now I am not saying either judgement was wrong, but I do wonder why the difference.

  81. El gordo..yes indeed there are examples of the HC getting it “wrong”. In fact in a number of cases coming from the High Court the dissenting opinions have ended up being the ‘leading opinions’ referenced to. But this doesn’t happen often.

  82. Got to laugh at Adrians outrage. Adrian, the CJ did not join the High Court until 2008. So he never made a judgement at the High Court on the Coalitions asylum seeker policy. He may have at the Federal Court, but it couldn’t have been on the same or even similar facts or circumstances. The coalition always had Australian personnel responsible for the matters required by s198A and that was the distinction drawn by the CJ. Try reading the decision before you go parroting ALP talking points. It’s not a long one. By the way, French was an ALP appointment to both the Federal and the High Court.

  83. What the PM did say.

    “……PRIME Minister Julia Gillard says it is unclear whether the High Court decision on the Malaysian asylum seeker swap deal rules out any offshore processing in the future.

    Ms Gillard met with her Cabinet in Brisbane last night to consider oral advice from the solicitor-general on the High Court decision quashing the deal.

    She said in Brisbane today the advice showed there were questions about whether any offshore processing was possible.

    “There are questions over the future of offshore processing arrangements that must be considered,” she said.

    “And it is far from clear whether the court’s ruling would, practically speaking, permit the operation of offshore processing in other locations, even in locations where offshore processing has been conducted in the past.”

    But Ms Gillard said she was determined to break the people smugglers’ business model, which the Malaysian agreement would have done…..

    The High Court’s decision was “disappointing”, and went against the Government’s own legal advice about the legality of the Malaysian agreement.

    “Yesterday … what we saw was the High Court enter into a different construction of the relevant section of the Migration Act,” she said, adding that it turned on its head the Government’s understanding of migration law.

    Ms Gillard said the Government would digest the legal advice and make a comprehensive statement outlining the Government’s plans.

    The court’s ruling represented a missed opportunity, she said.

    “A missed opportunity to enhance our region’s response to the evil of people smuggling.

    “A missed opportunity to make a real and important contribution to the region’s approach to the transnational crime of people smuggling through the Bali framework.

    “And it is a missed opportunity … to send a message to asylum seekers not to risk their lives at sea and get into boats.”

    Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said the ruling was likely to have a significant impact on any government’s attempts to send unaccompanied minors to an offshore location.

    “The situation with unaccompanied minors has changed under law,” he said.

    Sending unaccompanied minors offshore would involve the immigration minister giving written permission that would be judicially reviewable, he said.

    “Which would make the removal of unaccompanied minors to any offshore location, under any regime, one that is highly problematic.”

    The Prime Minister defended Mr Bowen when asked if the Minister had offered to resign following the court’s ruling.

    “Minister Bowen at all times acted on the best advice available to him and acted with a clear determination and resolve to break the people smugglers’ business model,” Ms Gillard said.

    “That’s what I asked him to do as Minister.”

    Ms Gillard said the High Court had changed the interpretation of immigration law, singling out Chief Justice Robert French for mention.

    “His honour … considered comparable legal questions when he was a judge of the Federal Court and made different decisions to the one that the High Court made yesterday,” she said.

    Ms Gillard said the Government would respond to the decision carefully and methodically.

    Ms Gillard said she would not rule out using Nauru or reintroducing temporary protection visas despite opposition from Labor’s Left faction.

    “The only guarantee that I ever give is every decision we take will be taken in the national interest,” she said.

    “We will make a comprehensive statement when we are in a position to.”

    Mr Bowen has spoken with his Malaysian counterpart and says the latter understands the Government’s legal position.

    “He has recommitted Malaysia to working very closely with Australia on all these issues,” he said.

    “He has indicated that from his point of view this does not in any way diminish or affect the very warm working relationship between Australia and Malaysia.

    Mr Bowen said he had no intention of stepping down as Immigration Minister because he had an obligation to the Prime Minister, the Government and the country to see his job through.

    “The easy option would be to resign,” he said.

    “The only thing that would happen if I resign would be my quality of life might go up, nothing else is going to be impacted by that.”

    Read more:

  84. That’s right, her comments are an outrageous attack on the independent judiciary.

    The Chief Justice cannot reply or defend this attack on his standing and reputation.

    This woman has moved from being a public embarrassment to a national outrage.

    She is a duplicitous coward.

  85. ‘Abbott shouldn’t take Australia or Gillard for granted.’

    That’s hypothetical, but we know for sure that Julia has taken the electorate for granted.

    The next News poll should see a chance for Labor to change leader if the redhead is knocked down again. This new man will get rid of the CO2 tax to stop the party becoming a rump at the next election.

  86. “……The United Nations refugee agency says it will not be involved if the Federal Government restarts offshore processing in Papua New Guinea or Nauru.

    The Government is awaiting urgent legal advice so it can decide what to do with 335 asylum seekers who are being held on Christmas Island.

    Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she will now consider all options, including reintroducing elements of the Howard Government’s so-called Pacific Solution.

    But the UNHCR’s regional representative Richard Towle says his organisation will not be involved in reopening the detention centres in Nauru or Papua New Guinea.

    “We are not inclined to be involved in any arrangements in Nauru and Papua New Guinea,” he said.

    “We see these as principally Australian initiatives to manage people in an extra-territorial way.

    “These are not the kinds of things that fit with what we believe to be the set of activities for strengthening regional co-operation in south-east Asia.”

    Earlier Ms Gillard took a swipe at the High Court for its decision to scuttle the asylum swap deal with Malaysia.

    Saying the court “has rewritten the Migration Act” and that the Government had based its deal on sound legal advice, Ms Gillard would not accept responsibility for the debacle.

    “Yesterday the asylum seeker and refugee law of this country changed – changed from how it had been known and understood before with a different interpretation,” she told a press conference in Brisbane.

    “The High Court’s decision basically turns on its head the understanding of the law in this country.”

    Commonwealth solicitor-general Stephen Gageler told cabinet last night that the ruling casts doubt on the entire offshore processing system – which would include Manus Island in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

    “There are questions over the future of offshore processing arrangements that must be considered, and it’s far from clear that the court’s ruling would, practically speaking, permit the operation of offshore processing in other locations – even in locations where offshore processing has been conducted in the past,” Ms Gillard said….”

  87. Nauru and the whole Pacific Solution is dead if the High Court and the UNHCR stick to the ruling of the law and how they have now interpreted it, which is not entirely the same as it was interpreted under the Howard government.

    It will also bring to bear the excising of islands from Australian jurisdiction for the purpose of detaining refugees without recourse to our legal system.

    Howard used Nauru to park refugees who were found to be genuine for long periods of time as a deterrent, and for a time and along with other factors this worked, but it was failing as refugees found out that most on Nauru were genuine and would end up in Australia anyway. A squalid camp in Indonesia or a detention centre in Nauru, the latter was a better choice if they ended up in Australia anyway.

    So now it is up to Abbott to elucidate his refugee policy, but of course he won’t. He’ll lie and distort as usual, all with TomM’s unreserved blessing as his number one fan, whilst he continues to say the Pacific Solution with Nauru is the answer knowing full well it’s most likely dead.

  88. Congratulations to CU for this article and I think a special award should be given for stirring up the Smuggles Set. So many new Smuggles in the Cafe there are plenty of seats so enjoy.

  89. Will, what was only an illusion continue to work?

    Malaysia said yesterday that the answer is to be found in the countries in the region working together. I believe that thee could be truth in this.

    The question should not be what worked in the past. The question is what will work now.

    It is easy to know the answers in hindsight. We do not have that luxury. We need to know what will work from now on.

    What are objectives? To stop taking refugees full stop.

    Is our objective to take in as many of these people, as we can, in the most humane manner as possible?

    Is it to also bring a halt to the boat trade.

    I humbly believe they are two different aims. One should not be dependent on the other.

    “….That illusion was underpinned by keeping even successful asylum seekers “garaged” on Nauru for a number of years after they’d been found to be refugees, before eventually quietly granting them visas and allowing them into Australia. In view of yesterday’s finding that both the domestic laws and actual practices of any “safe third country” must broadly honour Convention obligations and basic human rights standards, it is highly unlikely that any regime on Nauru or elsewhere that permitted persons found to be refugees to be nevertheless kept in detention for years thereafter would be held to comply with either Convention obligations or general human rights standards. Without that deterrent effect it is highly unlikely that offshore processing on Nauru or anywhere else will have any measurable effect on the number of asylum seekers arriving by boat. Who cares whether you’re detained on Christmas Island, Nauru, Manus Island or Darwin if the end result is the same in all cases? If found to be a refugee you will get an Australian protection visa…”

  90. To me the whole process of offshore detention became unworkable once the High Court made the decision in January.

    The island, along with other parts of Australia’s territory, was excised from the migration zone by the Howard government in 2001, a move that denied asylum-seekers access to the courts.

    University of Sydney law professor and refugee law expert Mary Crock said that logic no longer applied.

    As pointed out by Mobius, Howard excised the islands so as deny refugee applicants access to the the Australian court system. It was always invalid as this process contravened the spirit of several Human Rights Conventions.

    I think that a number of us here were prepared to give the Malaysian solution the benefit of the doubt, understanding the need for a regional solution to a regional problem. It seems that Australia’s biggest problem is that there is basically nowhere apart from ourselves and NZ who abide by Human Rights Conventions regarding the treatment of refugees. I believe that it’s time for Australia as the wealthiest country in our region to accept our international responsibilities.

  91. CU, precisely re: Who cares whether you’re detained on Christmas Island, Nauru, Manus Island or Darwin if the end result is the same in all cases? If found to be a refugee you will get an Australian protection visa…”

    As refugee applicants now have access to the Australian court system (since January) it matters not where they are housed.

  92. So much for the GFC that only occurred in the Northern Hemisphere.

    “……COMMONWEALTH Bank chief executive Ralph Norris was worried Australia might be stripped of its top-notch credit rating during the global financial crisis, and that a downgrade would ”ripple through the real economy”, WikiLeaks cables show.

    According to previously secret US government cables, Mr Norris ”expressed concern” over a potential cut in Australia’s AAA credit rating during a meeting in April 2009….”

    “….Mr Norris and Mr Eddington said at the time they believed the government’s stimulus package had helped shield Australia from the global recession, but that full recovery here would require more confidence in the US….”

    Read more:

  93. While I do not like any of the current proposals regarding refugees I do have a couple of questions.

    Where was this lawyer for the refugees when refugees were housed on Nauru ?.

    Was this lawyer the same lawyer for refugees when the refugees were housed on Nauru ?

    If so, why the sudden challenge to refugees being housed on another country and are the lawyers aims politcially motivated rather than humanitarian motived ?

    There could be a simple answer to this and someone might be able to enlighten me as I am unaware.

  94. ” He may have at the Federal Court, but it couldn’t have been on the same or even similar facts or circumstances. The ”

    That is exactly what the PM pointed out. One decision was made in the Federal Court, another in the High Court.

  95. “To me the whole process of offshore detention became unworkable once the High Court made the decision in January.”

    Min, a convenient fact that Mr. Abbott chooses to ignore.

    That is why I did support the Malaysian Solution, as it did have some chance of success.

    I do not believe it is as dead in the water as many think.

    I also believe there are many other options.

    By the way, the Oppositions outcry against the High Court in the days of the Wiki judgement is being revived.

    The PM is not criticising the judge or the court. Th PM is simply pointing out the contradiction between the two judgements the judge made. Surely that is fair game.

  96. Shane, excellent question. I suspect that with the High Court’s January ruling that the human rights lawyers had to wait until they knew the details of the Malaysian Solution before they were able to mount a High Court challenge.

  97. “Where was this lawyer for the refugees when refugees were housed on Nauru ?.”

    They along with the media were not allowed on the island.

    There has been a story of a journalist repeated in the last couple of days, that went as a tourist and was thrown off the island, with the message that the the media was not wanted.

    Lawyers cannot take action without the permission of at least one refugee.

    The Opposition condemns the government for changes to the refugee policies, which they claim encouraged the boats to come.

    The one change, the access to lawyers and yes the media, that led to court action, they are quiet about.

    Why is this so? It is because if they point this fact out, they have to acknowledge, due to court judgements, the Pacific solution is no longer viable.

    The truth is that the Opposition has no viable policy on refugees or stopping the boats.

  98. Min, the lawyers needed at least one person who was in the line to be sent to Malaysia. They could not challenge the policy itself in isolation. They had to wait for the boat to come in.

  99. Mr. Howard did not only despise the High Court.

    He took action to deny people to exercise their natural rights to justice and fairness. He denied them access to the courts.

    He interfered in allowing justice to occur.

    He seen people having access to the legal system as a nuisance that interfered with his plans.

    Mr. Howard done everything in his power to prevent the justice system from operating.

    Due to the January decision, the Gillard government could not prevent the lawyers from having access to the refugees.

  100. Another fallacy of Mr. Abbott, that he won all over the country in the 2010 elections and that he will gain control of the senate in the near future. Miracles may happen, an a miracle he would need.

    It is fascinating that he would need the new DLP candidate to retain his seat, since his hero was Santamaria, the big nob in the old DLP.

    “In Summary
    One of the reasons Tony Abbott is not Prime Minister today is that while he did well in New South Wales and Queensland in 2010, the Coalition polled dreadfully in Victoria and Tasmania. The results were just as bad in both states in the Senate, the loss of a Victorian seat to the DLP and winning only two seats in both states being why it is almost impossible for the Coalition gain control of the Senate after the 2013 election.

    In theory you can construct a scenario where the Coalition can reach the point where support from the DLP’s Senator Madigan allows the passage of legislation. But it requires the Coalition winning third seat in South Australia and Tasmania and a fourth seat in Queensland and Western Australia, a result that would be one of the greatest landslides in Australian political history.

    John Howard achieved a majority after the 2004 election thanks to big wins at successive elections in 2001 and 2004.

    For the Coalition led by Tony Abbott, their result in 2007 wasn’t enough to put them in government, and it also looks likely to leave them short of Senate control after the 2013 election.

    Posted by Antony Green on September 01, 2011 at 05:53 PM in”

  101. “Congratulations to CU for this article and I think a special award should be given for stirring up the Smuggles Set. So many new Smuggles in the Cafe there are plenty of seats so enjoy.”

    It’s precisely that sort of comment that identifies those who are rusted Gillard apologists who are incapable of close scrutiny of policies and behaviour.

    I guess it’s so much easier to simply label people, than actually do some independent thinking…

    Have you been over to TPS? You’d probably enjoy it there….


  102. CU @8.38am absolutely. Firstly the human rights lawyers had to know what the policy entailed and also had to have a client/s to represent. I think that this High Court case came about at break-neck speed, no doubt due to the solicitor/s having sought an injunction.

  103. Reb, I go over there regularly. I enjoyed the trip. I differ in the views of many but I also remind myself that I must respect their views.

  104. CU, thank you for the link to Antony Green..I always enjoy Antony’s logic and factual information.

    For the Coalition led by Tony Abbott, their result in 2007 wasn’t enough to put them in government, and it also looks likely to leave them short of Senate control after the 2013 election.

    All this loud and somewhat illogical argument, the calls for a new election is still unlikely to give Abbott what he wants and this is control of BOTH Houses of Parliament.

    As the saying ain’t seen nuffin’ yet – Abbott wrongly accuses the Gillard government of being paralysed, but imagine what an Abbott government with the Greens in the Senate would look like.

  105. Another couple of inconvenient truths.

    “….There are a couple of important questions neither Julia Gillard nor Tony Abbott seem willing to answer. First, do they honestly think it is good policy to jail innocent people for years, and cause them terrible psychiatric harm, and all at huge expense to the public? Do they really think they should make Australia look so nasty that the Taliban becomes the more attractive option for people looking for safety?

    Second, if they were stuck in Indonesia, having fled the Taliban, faced with 15 years living in the shadows with no right to work and no right to send their kids to school, would they wait around or make a dash for freedom and safety? I think they would get on a boat and try to reach safety. Most of us would. But we are willing to punish boatpeople for doing the same….”

  106. The Central Coast is seen as an huge retirement village and a worker dormitory for Sydney and to a lesser extent the Hunter.

    The Central Coast is also now a vibrant community in it’s own right.

    People come here for a more relaxed lifestyle and for the beauty it abounds in.

    The Central Coast is mostly likely unlike any other Australian community.

  107. I would like to add, the Central Coast also has many big problems such as heavy traffic and poor transport, that detracts from the relaxed lifestyles.

    The low house prices and rents that originally attracted people are no longer a fact.

    The Central Coast faces the problems that all communities do when they grow too fast.

  108. “give Abbott what he wants and this is control of BOTH Houses of Parliament.

    But Mr. Abbott continues the lie that he can.

  109. Reb, I am not interested in changing minds.

    I am interested in getting people to used their brains and do some thinking.

    I am interested in getting people to justify the beliefs they put in the public domain.

    Yes, I do support the PM and Labor.

    At this time I see nothing that would change my mind about Mr. Abbott and the Coalition.

    The more I look, the less I like.

  110. Catching up,
    I think that this is very true, that although the Opposition would like to say that Gillard is finished instead let us have a look at her achievements in only a year. Howard had many of his bills defeated yet nobody was calling for his immediate head on a platter.

  111. On a slightly different note…

    The Greens have responded to a pledge by the Coalition to give employers additional freedoms to negotiate workplace agreements, by saying that they will use their presence in the Senate to ensure that a future Coalition government would be unable to reintroduce individual workplace contracts, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.

  112. Liberal party standards.

    Approach higher ups in the company to thwart justice. Destroy evidence. Make the people in the store look fools.

    No wonder the police are upset.

    I wonder how this fits in with Mr. Abbott’s allegation that the Senator, unlike Mr Thomson did not run away.

    Once again Mr. Abbott either is misinformed or is lying.

    “…He said a person representing Fisher attended the Foodland premises soon after the alleged incident and viewed the footage with the store manager.

    When police later asked for the footage their attempts were “frustrated” before they were told the vision no longer existed, he said.

    “There was a reasonably timely request by police but they were unable to secure the CCTV footage which we know existed and we know was viewed by one or two members of the Chapley Group (which owns Foodland) and one person acting for Ms Fisher,” Sgt Ben said.

    Sgt Ben said Ms Groot and the Chapley Group had filed documents with police two days after the alleged event stating they did not wish to proceed with the charges.

    He said Ms Groot had “always wanted to pursue the charges” but reluctantly filled out the document filed with police under instruction.

    “A person acting for Ms Fisher approached the Chapley Group and it was that approach that ultimately led to (them) not pursuing those two charges,” Sgt Ben said.

    Read more:

  113. ‘I believe the PM has done a good job.’

    In your dreams!

    The Smith/Rudd government won’t implement the CO2 tax and will fix up the refugee problem.

    Labor’s last chance to avoid oblivion at the next election.

  114. CU the Fisher defence is attacking the security guard by trying to have her evidence thrown out. Mary Jo Fisher Senator I wonder where she will end up on the Senate ticket, surely the “useby date” will have hastened, if not by the magistrates court then by the court of public opinion.

  115. about as shocked as a party when a sitting PM was booted out of his seat by his electorate. but life moves on and so do the party and its supporters.

  116. so it comes back to policies and it is policies that matter, the climate,health, education, infrastrucure including nbn. all issues that are of no interest to Abbott and the current liberals.

  117. Sue, what exactly is Abbott’s policy on health and education? All far too complex for Abbott I’m afraid. Abbott is Howard-junior, failing to promote any talent in Liberal ranks for fear that an up and comer might jeopardise his own leadership..think of how Abbott has always shot Hockey down in flames the very moment that Hockey comes up with a (shock, horror) policy.

  118. el gordo what is worse than our nightmares is what is considered a news story on the abc. yep our abc leads with “what the bookies” are taking. so the big issues in Australia is about gambling and giving odds. and i would not care who it was about the fact that the ABC would be encouraging gambling disguised as a news bulletin beggars belief.

  119. Does Mr Richardson get paid every time he turns up on the ABC or is he like some of us, with too much free time on our hands.

    Mr. Richardson is now saying there will be no challenge to the PM. If there no choice but to go for Nauru. He, along with the Opposition believes there will be no challenge from the court. Mr. Richardson is calling for the heads of the legal team. I hope Mr. Richardson does not continue to say he is a supporter of Labor.

    I do not agree with Mr. Richardson, the PM has the choice of implementing Labor’s platform on asylum seekers. The PM has little to loose by doing this.

    Lost of authority by the PM. How come that a person without authority has managed to be so successful in parliament. Is she responsible for the failure of the Malaysian solution, when she followed, what many legal experts say was strong legal advice. We all know that the best legal eagles do have defeats in court. There is no such thing as a cert when it comes to the courts.

    Mr. Richardson did not agree that the government was not functional. He said that legislation is being dealt with. Mr. Richardson added the rider that the scandals could not continue. What scandals, the allegations that the media has beat-up out of proportion. Allegations that are decades old. Allegations that have not been proven in any court of the land.

    I have just listen to one legal expert on ABC24, He said it was reasonable advice that the legal team gave. He said he would have gave the same advice himself. The truth he said, that the matter had never been tested before in the same way in the court. That one never know for sure how seven independent judges are going to go. The expert said that it would be a brave person who assumed the court would accept Nauru.

    It was also stated that there has always been tension between the judiciary and the politicians. He seen this as a good thing. He added we should begin to worry if this was not the case. At the end of the day, all the PM done was point out what she considered to be inconsistencies.

    I find it hard to go along with the belief that a PM should take all criticisms lying down. I cannot go along with the belief of some that the PM has no rights to defend or disagree

    I see it as gutless if she keeps mute when she needs to speak out. Keeps mute because she is afraid of what others will say or do.

    Mr. Abbott is not slow in speaking out and trashing anything or one that dares disagree with him.

  120. el gordo, it is in your dreams that we will not have a carbon pricing mechanism. It could come about, if you are correct that it will come too late and be more expensive.

    How do you see them fixing up the beat up of refugee problem.

    Most countries in the world have similar problems, often much bigger that ours. None have found a solution.

  121. Sue, I fear that she will win in court. The police were mistaken in believing the store would support them. The store did apparently until the bosses come along and got rid of the evidence.

    Sue, I do not believe the court of public opinion will.

    I see a very quick resignation. That is no problem in the Senate.

    It will be the Opposition who is first to lose one of their own in disgrace. This will happen even if she is found innocence.

  122. “Sue, what exactly is Abbott’s policy on health and education”

    If I remember rightly, you not only give these people from the local community the job of running the health and eduction system, you do not pay them much. I believe they will fulfill the roles from love.

  123. Just heard the PM repeat what she said about the court judgement

    All she said was that the judgement represents a miss opportunity to deal with the problem.

    She did not criticise the court. The PM did not say the court decision was wrong. She only pointed out what the difficulties the judgement would cause.

  124. No el gordo, not a great shock, just disappointment if it occurred, that there are many gutless wonders in the party.

    To dump her now would be stupid and gutless.

    It would not save the party. It would destroy the party for many years.

  125. ‘It would not save the party. It would destroy the party for many years.’

    Labor will become a rump if they don’t move on Gillard now, but how will you feel when the new leader drops the CO2 tax.

  126. “but life moves on and so do the party and its supporters.”

    The problem for the Opposition, they do not move on, they stay fixed in time.

  127. el gordo, what would be changed by changing leaders except to give Mr. Abbott another scalp to hook onto his belt. Do smugglers have a belt hook?

  128. El gordo..the ‘new leader’ will not drop the CO2 because he/she will not be able to. It comes into law very shortly and it cannot be repealed. Any subsequently legislation to wind it back will have to get through a Greens led Senate..and that isn’t going to happen.

  129. What Abbott is proposing to abate carbon pollution is far worse than a carbon tax, will do nothing and will cost the country multiples more both down to the individual level and to the economy as a whole.

    No asking for him to stand down over that is there, nor all his other policy and non-policy failures, like a $70 billion hole in his budget?

    Did you know Hockey and Robb are trying to get the law changed, and remember this is their law, the one they insisted on when in government, so they don’t have to reveal their policy costings during an election nor after it.

    And the wingnuts scream about this government supposed killing democracy. You need look no further than Abbott, his decrepit opposition and media mouthpieces to see where the real destroyers of democracy are.

  130. The law and the way that it is translated is not black and white.

    “….Michelle Grattan’s piece was a fine example of this. In slagging off the government (who deserve it and can defend themselves), Grattan decides to have a swipe at the lawyers too. She said:

    ”The Commonwealth government is on very strong legal grounds,” Immigration Minister Chris Bowen insisted last month.


    Clearly, he didn’t know what he was talking about. The government was too gung-ho and, if the advice was convincing, it was also bad.”

    The weasel words ‘if the advice was convincing’ are revealing. Like everyone, Grattan has not seen the advice but that does not stop her concluding that the Commonwealth’s lawyers are incompetent hacks. See her next line, if you don’t believe me:

    “If the Commonwealth’s legal experts can’t anticipate the High Court, they might need a refresher course in the law.”

    Thank you Ms Grattan SC. I look forward to seeing your next cross-examination.

    “…The other problem with Grattan and Crabb’s pieces is that they leap to conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence and, apparently, without knowledge of how the legal profession works. Grattan assumes that just because legal advice is proven wrong by a subsequent case, it must be bad. Crabb assumes that any criticism of counsel necessarily demonstrates inherent problems with that party’s case. Neither assumption is correct.

    Update: Grattan is at it again. In this article she says:

    ‘Gillard says the Solicitor-General’s advice is that the High Court decision throws doubt over all offshore processing, even where it has been done before – that is in Nauru and Manus Island. It might be a cheap shot to make this point, but the Solicitor-General’s advice – that the Malaysian deal was on solid legal ground – wasn’t crash hot before.’

    I guess that it is a step forward that Grattan at least acknowledges that she is taking a cheap shot at the Solicitor-General. It would also be nice if she acknowledged that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about on this issue either.

    The reason that I am so worked up about this is that neither the Solicitor-General nor the rest of the Commonwealth’s legal team are public figures. Further, they are bound by their ethical obligations to their client and are thus unable to defend themselves against these slurs. So, in addition to being wrong, these journos are also beating up on those who cannot defend themselves. That’s brave….

  131. I disagree passionately with the statement below. It is time for the elected govern to govern with the best interest of the people and Australia in mind. Do this and the rest will fall into place. The alleged speaker is coming down to Mr. Abbott’s level who sees his only role as destroying the government at all costs. Both are wrong.

    I am sorry I lost the link but I believe the comments stand.

    “…….There is a split at the senior levels of the Government because a chunk of support remains for Ms Gillard. Other senior figures say it would be “madness” to change leader under any circumstances…”

    “….But another senior figure said the interests of the ALP and keeping Tony Abbott out of power must come first.

    We need to do what is best for the party and that would be Kevin as leader and Stephen as Treasurer,” he said…”

  132. Min @1.13 what a great link. Isn’t it fun to think to read that article, by an academic in WA, it is in the Guardian in the UK.

  133. It is a shame but I fear this is true.

    “…..In the meantime, Australia’s Finest Jurist™ George Brandis fulminated and frothed and flapped about the ruthless treatment meted out to their honours by the prime minister. I liked that it was the same day that ardent advocate of free speech, Sophie Mirabella, urged a clutch of angry old white people to “not be intimidated” by Anthony Albanese, at whom they were directing a protest over the usual — carbon prices, UN world governments, lack of subsidies for tinfoil. Oh, and “tolerance” apparently as well. Albanese tried to intimidate these stout yeomen and women by standing there listening to their screamed abuse and allowing himself to be jostled by them, a shameful act of aggression toward the citizenry that will live in infamy.

    For a country that allegedly likes its politics “rough and tumble”, we’re suddenly all very precious….”

    :It’s in neither side’s interests to point it out, but the truth is that Tony Abbott and the people who run today’s Labor party are coming from the same place on this and indeed on most issues. They share the same ideological background, rooted in xenophobia and devoted to a mythical “ordinary Australia” that loathes the very idea of international humanitarian obligations

    Julia Gillard, wittingly or not, has become their prisoner. She, or some alternative leader, needs to break free — not just for Labor to have a chance of winning, but for it to retain some shreds of dignity in defeat……

  134. “But back to the legal system which, as people might recall, received the utmost respect from the Coalition when it was in office. Who can forget the warm, almost cosy, relations between Phillip Ruddock and Alastair Nicholson of the Family Court? Or deputy prime minister Tim “bucketloads of extinguishment” Fischer’s good-natured, high-minded endorsement of the separation of powers in relation to the High Court’s native title decisions — so high-minded as to earn a letter from Chief Justice Brennan? Certainly no suggestions of judges going off on “legal frolics” or recommendations that they might resign from the bench and enter parliament if they wanted to get into politics. Certainly John Howard never criticised “emanations from the judicial area” to “give the parliament a hurry-on”.

    Goodness me, no. There was none of that….”

  135. “”Public confidence in the constitutional institutions of government is critical to the stability of our society,” Brennan warned Fischer. That’s a rather high-stakes claim — criticising judges could lead to anarchy. In fact, it’s no more likely to lead to anarchy than any other expression of free speech. Powerful industries always insist that they’re a special case to which different rules should apply because they’re so much more important than other sectors. The legal industry is no different.

    In response to the Brennan letter, John Howard said “there is nothing wrong with criticizing judgments, people frequently criticise the judgments of the courts”. He was perfectly correct. Like everyone else at the moment, the legal industry should be a little less precious about criticism…..”

  136. I read the Guardian article and found it extremely biased, but thax for the link I’ll take it elsewhere so we can all have a laugh….LOL.

  137. You would e lgordo, it does not fit in with your view. That does not mean it is wrong. Enjoy the laughs.

  138. I hope people left comments at the Guardian, to balance those who believed the article is bias.

    They are leaving their comments, mostly about the big lie, as if that makes everything in the article wrong.

  139. CU, the interesting thing is that the Guardian is looking at things as outsider looking in and so isn’t as easily influenced by the Australian media shock-jock bias.

  140. I know what scientist daughters think of it..that this an ‘old’ debate and that the scientists are just getting on with the job of tackling the problem.

  141. ToM, spare us the confected outrage. Sounds like you’re channeling Anal, professional bully, sook and a real coward.

    Justice French has made two contradictory judgements on the same matter. Gillard pointed it out. Wow! I bet Justice French is smarting.

    The way ToM and his fellow dingbats are carrying on, you’d think the PM had accused him in Coward’s Castle of using commonwealth cars to pick up rent boys.

    Oh wait, Wasn’t it that great LIEberal champion of truth, justice and the Liealot Way, Bill Heffernan who made that gutless accusation about Justice Kirby? Now there’s a real LIEberal hero.

    So save us the Liealot bullsh!t and go back to pulling the wings off flies with el gordo, Geoff and the rest of the dingbats.

  142. The Slippery slip up of only one heartbeat away from an election may slip away with the slippery article in the OZ. Peter Slipper may slip into the cross benches if the LNP slips the knife into the back of Slipper’s mate. Throw in a bit of branch stacking and Mal Brough’s ambition and of course Abbott’s assurances and there is the story
    “LNP MP Peter Slipper threatens revolt as win looms for Mal Brough ”

  143. The likes of TomM must have seen the clip of Mr. Ruddocks attack on the High Court. There are many other examples.

    They were direct and insulting attacks, suggesting that the High Court had no right to change the legislation.

    In the 80’s and 90’s, one of the biggest complaints of the Opposition was condemning the High Court, along with condemning Political Correctness.

    We must not forget the condemnation of the Black Arm Band view of history.

    The must be old enough for their memories to go back that far.

    They might have been more interested having fun, but the outrages of the Opposition was hard to miss. It occurred on a regular basis.

    It was sickening last night to watched the self righteous Mr. Abbott. It only proves how easy it is for the man to lie, lie, lie.

    All the PM did was to point out what she disagreed with and the likely results of the judgement.

    I know many believe that a woman, Labor PM has very few rights and should keep her mouth shut. Take what is dished out to her with a smile.

    What she said is NOT unreasonable.

  144. All we are hearing on the news is the leadership speculation. Where is this speculation coming from.

    I suspect from the fertile imaginations of the journalist’s and the the wishful thinking of the Opposition.

    Maybe the media would be better place to report real news. Leave the fiction to those who like to write short stories.

    On news and current affairs outlets, I want to hear news, facts and what others have to say. I want to hear what is going on.

  145. This is a rubbish government. Gillard is doing a cosmetic makeover and interviews to coincide with this weekend’s NewsPoll.
    What a tragic political situation we find ourselves in.
    Gillard has introduced “reforms” we didn’t want and she promised she wouldn’t do by doing deals with people we didn’t vote for (I’m talking about the 60%).
    This 2007 – 2011? government will be a compulsory case study for Political Science students for a generation. Monash will likely open a new wing to study the failings of the Rudd Gillard adventure. The Ding Bat wing, next to the Ming Wing?

  146. Geoff, I do not like to say this about another’s comment but most of what you have written does not makes sense.

    What reforms has the PM introduced that you do not want. I, personally are happy with most if not all. Where do you get the permission to speak for anyone else but yourself.

    “This is a rubbish government. Gillard is doing a cosmetic makeover and interviews to coincide with this weekend’s NewsPoll”

    What in the hell does this mean. I think with this weekend polls, there is little the PM could do to change the numbers. You are speaking as if you have knowledge of what the numbers are.

    “Gillard has introduced “reforms” we didn’t want and she promised she wouldn’t do by doing deals with people we didn’t vote for (I’m talking about the 60%)”

    You only voted for one member. The member in your seat. Others done the same. Yes, the independents and Greens are also voted for people like you. They have the same validity as the member you voted for. No more, no less.

    What is the 60% about.

    “This 2007 – 2011? government will be a compulsory case study for Political Science students for a generation. Monash will likely open a new wing to study the failings of the Rudd Gillard adventure. The Ding Bat wing, next to the Ming Wing?”

    I agree but not with your assessment of the Labor government. I feel there will just be as much talk about one of the worse and most destructive Opposition leader this country has seen.

    We will ee the Rudd beingrecognised for getting the country through GFC better than any other country.

    , including Labor supporters, as the worse treasure this country has seen. History does not portray him in that light. He, in hindsight is seen as one of the best.

    Yes, he left a deficit, which was the result of dealing with an earlier GFC, which was well on the way to be clawed back.

  147. So Geoff you must be absolutely livid at the Howard government who bought in reforms no one wanted and went to a war that more than 60% of the population opposed, and did so on lies and deceits.

    I guess you will also be calling Abbott a rubbish leader as he has lied and deceived at every turn and also offered the independents anything if they sided with him in the last election, that included things most of the people didn’t want. Abbott now is also proposing to do things the people will not want but it’s what big business wants. like WorkChoices MkII.

    But of course you will not criticise that.

  148. I want to hear news, facts and what others have to say. I want to hear what is going on.

    CU, I think you should explain that by news, you mean actual news, not a new set of Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

    What a tragic political situation we find ourselves in.

    We certainly are, Geoff. Any country that would consider electing Sir Liealot and the Liars Party even for a nano second, is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. Then we really will be the laughing stock of the world. Libyans must be pointing and laughing.

    This 2007 – 2011? government will be a compulsory case study for Political Science students for a generation.

    Certainly will as an example of how to steer a country unscathed through a global financial meltdown. The Rudd/Gillard government will go into the history books as one of the best, reforming governments in this country’s history.

    There is something else worthy of mentioning. The Rudd/Gillard governments have been the subject of praise and envy from other countries and leading economists; none of whom have heaped even mild praise on Liars Party governments or significantly, Sir Liealot, after whom the Dingbat Wing will be named.

    Courses in how a corrupt media in collusion with a vain, talentless and equally corrupt Liars Party very nearly hijacked democracy in this country, will be offered. Extensive courses will also be offered on the far reaching tentacles of corruption and vice in the Murdoch Empire and how they interfered with democratically elected governments.

    I guarantee you dingbats won’t be too happy with the critique and final judgement passed on Sir Liealot and the Liars Party.

    And wot ME & CU said.

  149. Geoff, this reminded me of a Yr 7 class conducted under the good graces of Miss Klemm English teacher. Miss Klemm would say, Now girls take out your markers (because indeed it was all girls being Canterbury Girls’ High Victoria), and underline the emotive language. This part of the English Expression Curriculum used to be called Clear Thinking.

    – rubbish government – a cosmetic makeover (emotive language) – and interviews to coincide with this weekend’s NewsPoll. (unsubstantiated ‘fact’) – a tragic political situation (emotive language) – Monash will likely open a new wing to study the failings of the Rudd Gillard adventure (sarcasm). The Ding Bat wing, next to the Ming Wing? (derogatory terminology).

    Miss Klemm would be proud of me 🙂

  150. jane, what the media is doing shows how bad this opposition and Abbott are. That they are so bereft of talent and lucidity they can’t elucidate policy and stand on their own merit and must be propped up by the right wing media, and the money of big business to run fear and smear campaigns against the government so as not to bring any attention to the failures and shortcomings of the Coalition. Without doubt the worst opposition this country has ever seen by a country mile, one so bad it has not changed or had input into a single policy. That must be a first when other oppositions have managed to do that even in the face of majority governments.

    That a media organisation must lie and distort to prop up Abbott illustrates more than anything else could just how bad Abbott is.

  151. Mobius, but once Abbott has worn out his novelty value then the media will turn on him. The media wants a close race because shoo-ins do not sell papers nor earn clicks. Patience as they say, is a virtue. And this is one of my (very) few virtues 😉

  152. I don’t think it’s about selling papers, which are dying anyway no matter what the newsprint media does or fabricates, nor is it about online clicks as they are only garnering the faithful and core believers along with the astroturfers, both paid for and recruited.

    There’s a greater game afoot and it must benefit the big boys handsomely if the effort they are going to to bring down a government and put in someone as terrible a leader as Abbott is anything to go by.

  153. I like this.

    Pensioners Feeling The Pinch Set To Get A Boost

    Australia’s 3.4 million pensioners will soon receive an increase in their payments to help them meet increases in their cost of living.

    From 20 September this year single people receiving the maximum rate of age, disability and carer pensions, as well as veterans’ income support recipients, will receive an extra $19.50 a fortnight. Pensioner couples combined on the maximum rate will receive an extra $29.60 a fortnight.

    This sounds OK too.

    R&D Tax Incentive All Set To Support Australian Businesses

    Information sessions, held across Australia in September and October, will help businesses learn how to access and best use the new R&D Tax Incentive to drive the development of new ideas, products and processes.

    The R&D Tax Incentive has more generous benefits and a clearer definition of research and development activities. The Tax Incentive effectively doubles the support for small firms to 15 cents in the dollar and increases support for all other firms by a third, to 10 cents in the dollar

    The new incentive will support more firms – and it is important that people who may not have considered applying for assistance under the old system understand it is there to help them.

    That is why AusIndustry, together with the Australian Taxation Office, will be conducting information sessions around the country in September and October to ensure firms are aware of the support available under the program. To register click here.

  154. ME @3.03pm, the Liealot opposition is indeed the worst I’ve seen for many, many years. Even the Rodent opposition wasn’t as bad and that’s saying a lot.

    I agree that there is a hidden agenda by the media and big business to have what will arguably be the worst government and PM in history elected. I say hidden, because their complete agenda is shrouded in a murky fog, the full ramifications of which are yet to be revealed.

    Min @3.37pm, patience-one of your many virtues, my good woman. The media is using very emotive language to get its distortions and lies across. We desperately need a Great Big Media Enquiry in this country.

    CU @3.57pm, I wonder how the Liars Party and their Murdochracy Mates will negatively spin this little lot. However, I am disappointed that there hasn’t been an increase in the dole. The unemployed are one of the most demonised sections of our community.

  155. Sorry guys. Have been at the footy. Woo Hoo Hawthorn rocks onto the finals next weekend. Politic and football. Just love it. Planning to get a new bigger TV for the Finals Series and also to watch the Gillard Government implosion in HD.
    So the NewsPoll being done over the weekend I suggest will spank Gillard again. I am punting sub 27% for Labor and sub 45% 2PP. Anyone want to bet a schooner?
    Guys the reason we got through the GFC was because of the extraordinarily good position left by Costello. Yes the envy of the world. Rudd and Swan should send Costello a thankyou card.
    FYI Labor hasn’t had a surplus since late 1990s? Swan will never be part of one.

  156. Geoff.. Carn’ the Pies. Being the west side of Glenferrie Road then you will know what I mean.

    No, Costello did not get us through the GFC, what Costello did was to transfer public debt to private debt. And we can all relate to the start of the Howard era people owned their own houses, owed maybe a small load to buy a car…YET by the end of the Howard era Austalians were up to their eyeballs in debt.

  157. FYI Labor hasn’t had a surplus since late 1990s? Swan will never be part of one.

    So, and that proves what, that Labor mostly ruled through hard times and the Coalition through boom times. The only time in modern history when the Coalition did rule through a tough time they blew it badly and it took Hawke five years to clean up their mess and pay off the debt and policy stuff ups left behind.

  158. Jane, I agree about the dole. You are right to use the word dole, because is what it has become.

    Maybe if Labor was slow in giving rises to the Aged, they would be better received.

    The media and Opposition is doing all in their power to ensure that Labor gets credit for nothing.

    Look at the press conference today with the PM and SG of the United Nations.

    The press turned it into a get the PM, using the SG as a tool. The whole period was used to trash the PM.

    SG was going out of his way to compliment the government and the country.

    Where were the questions about Libya and the Middle East. About the famine in Africa and many other important stories that Australians are interested in.

    What we got for the first question about the leadership battles. The SG was asked many off colour questions until he was force to say, he was unable to answer some.

    There is still a time and place for somethings. It is not like the PM does not give the media plenty of opportunities to ask questions.

  159. ME, the history books appear to prove your claim. Labor is known for ruling in bad times. Whether war or bad financial times. They are known for being very good at doing so.

  160. “FYI Labor hasn’t had a surplus since late 1990s? Swan will never be part of one”

    Remember, Howard won, off the top of my head in 1996. He was in power over ten years.

    When Howard come to power, the country was coming out of an economical downturn, owing to a GFC. Things were improving before Mr. Keating was defeated.

    Another GFC had started early in the Rudd government tenure.

    We cannot let facts get in the way of a good story.

  161. Says everything about the press, CU@8.14pm. What journalists worth their salt ask the Secretary General of the UN about a confected leadership battle in domestic politics? Or ask his/her opinion on domestic policies?

    It would certainly would have impressed on him what a bunch of rank and incredibly rude yokels they are.

    I think they will be very uncomfortable when word filters back that the world at large thinks they are not only the most unprofessional mob the SG has ever encountered, but that they are devoid of manners, principles, ethics and are a complete laughing stock.

    This mob shames the entire country. This is the sort of disgusting behaviour you’d expect of Anal or Dolt, not of people claiming to be professional journalists.

  162. Jane, I am glad that someone agrees with me. The problem is that the media’s standards are so low, no ones noticed anymore.

    There used to be a convention that the press did not ask domestic questions of a PM or other ministers for that matter when overseas.

    Anything goes now.

    Today’s effort was pure bad manners.

  163. ME, the history books appear to prove your claim. Labor is known for ruling in bad times. Whether war or bad financial times. They are known for being very good at doing so.

    Cu & ME, that’s because traditionally Labor is voted in to clean up after the Liars Party mess. And once the place is back on its feet, a “grateful” electorate vote to let the wreckers back.

    CU @9.24am, I agree. The press is completely feral and imo are bringing this country into disrepute with performances such as with the SG of the UN. Out of order and disrespectful, afaic. All symptomatic of the lack of principles and ethics of their master.

  164. D’oh! Should read:

    ME, the history books appear to prove your claim. Labor is known for ruling in bad times. Whether war or bad financial times. They are known for being very good at doing so.

    Cu & ME, that’s because traditionally Labor is voted in to clean up after the Liars Party mess. And once the place is back on its feet, a “grateful” electorate vote to let the wreckers back.

    CU @9.24am, I agree. The press is completely feral and imo are bringing this country into disrepute with performances such as with the SG of the UN. Out of order and disrespectful, afaic. All symptomatic of the lack of principles and ethics of their master.

  165. I watched about 45 seconds of the Liberal Hour/Bolt Report and there was Michael Kroger, a big cheese in the Liberal heirarchy, declaring that Labor should put Bill Shorten in as Leader, blah blah.

    Of course his comments were made in the best interests of the Labor party !

  166. PIp
    And the Melbourne set LOATHE Bill Shorten.
    Because Bill dumped his wife,D Beale, whose father Julian Beale is a wealthy Melbourne investor and former federal Liberal MP.

    So Michael Kroger was talking crap and Bolt would know that, Victorians would know that, so the object was what exactly.
    I know give some hope to misinformed Liberals that an election is imminent.

  167. Pip @12.41pm, more shite from the Liars Party and their cheerleaders in an attempt to destabilise the government.

    And while all these idiots are trying it on with their diversionary tactics, the government will just keep passing legislation unmarked, unobserved and completely unchallenged and undebated by the pretenders to the throne.

    So for all their posturing and bignoting, they are failing not only their supporters, but the entire nation.This is another reason this mob should never get their paws on the government benches!

  168. As an afterthought, I think the question that should be asked after the carbon price legislation is passed, is what was Sir Liealot doing. Was he debating the legislation, or pulling stunts and trying to derail Parliament?

    I think the latter will be the answer and should be broadcast to all the cheerleaders, who have been duped by this empty vessel.

  169. “…..Yesterday, she appeared defiant as she fronted the media in a press conference with the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, who paid an earlier visit to the Canberra home of the ousted prime minister and now Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd.

    She signalled she would fight any threat to her leadership……….”

    Read more:

    I watched that interview and seen the PM as being very confident and coping with every question aimed at her with great skill and grace.

    Funny thing, none of those disgraceful questions have been repeated in any new broadcast.

    Some of the answers have, sadly presented in a way to suggest that the SG was volunteering the information, not answering rude or inappropriate questions.

    The PM should not have been asked to depend herself in front of the SG of the UN.

    There is a time and place for everything.

    We still should treat visitors with respect.

  170. Jane, it is going to be interesting to see what issue he takes on in the next sitting. We all know he can only do one thing at once.

    Will it be the Thomson so called scandal. Maybe it will the ancient history dragged up on the PM. Surely some clever journalist will track down the old boyfriend for his view. Now that would be a new slant.

    Will it be the High Court decision or Nauru,

    Will it be stopping the boat trade. The asylum seekers and the boat trade is really separate issues that should not be dealt together. One should not depend on the other.

    Maybe they might just get time to take part in the carbon pricing mechanism debate, but if they continue as they have been doing since the last election, this is unlikely.

    I suggest we will see a lot of yelling and screaming of this bad government and up, up up, intersperse with a dysfunctional government, blogged down with shame.

    The media will continue with their pursuit of the PM, while ensuring that nothing positive passes their lips.
    We will see more stunts both in and out of parliament.

    The government will continue as they have been doing, getting on with the business of governing.

    Mr. Abbott will not stop or change anything.

    The media will continue with scenarios they are creating for the demise of the PM. It matters little whether they are based on fact. The stories you make up are more fun, also you do not have to work as hard.

    Life will go on as usual.

    How may motions of suspending standing orders and votes of no confidence can we expect?

  171. CU the best bit about the next sitting of parliament will be the carbon tax bills. The things i will be watching out for both in the parliament and the press are:
    amendments proposed by the coalition
    amendments of coalition passed
    how quickly it passes the house of reps and goes to the senate
    when it is enacted and the time taken

    Let the nation see how effective Abbott and his team really are . Then the media can write about that, um arrrh, um arrrh, um arrrh.

  172. We all know he can only do one thing at once.

    Cu, I doubt he can even do that and if so, extremely badly

    As you say, the only things we are certain he will do will be “motions of suspending standing orders and votes of no confidence,” grandstanding and bignoting in the press while doing bugger all that he has promised his devoted cheerleaders like ToM.

    I do find it very interesting that neither ToM, James nor any of the other cheerleaders have anything at all to say about their hero’s feet of clay. Apart from shouting slogans and bignoting, what else has this empty vessel done?

    He hasn’t debated any of the government legislation or attempted to negotiate any amendments. His greatest achievements? Mouthing cheap slogans, while wearing lycra and being given a free ride by the press.

    He and the Liars Party should be called on this by the press. Why haven’t those great defenders of truth, ethics, morals and integrity Anal and Dolt been thundering from their pulpits about Sir Liealot’s lazy dereliction?

    Why has the press said absolutely nothing about it? After all, this poser is telling the voters that he is fit to hold the highest office in the country, but he is either too lazy, too stupid or too arrogant or all three, to be bothered even doing the job he currently holds properly.

    What has been the press reaction? Deafening silence. Hypocrisy writ enormous; after drafting and having 188 pieces of legislation passed this year, the government is accused of doing nothing by the press which praises an opposition whose sole claim to fame is three word slogans, failed rallies and farcical parliamentary performances.

    That is the mob which the dingbats say will make an exemplary government based solely on the abysmal performance thus far. They can’t be judged on any policies, they either have absolutely nothing or change them every 24 hours. And as for economic credentials, have they listened to Sloppy or Barnyard’s pathetic attempts at any sort of economic policy?

    Have they read Treasury’s assessment of Liealot’s direct action policy, supposedly the knockout counter to the government’s proposed carbon price, which will cost $48bn from the budget to implement?

    And who will be coughing this up? The big polluters? Not a chance; ordinary taxpayers will be shelling out so their champion and economic whiz can line the pockets of the big polluters! If it comes to pass, the only ones who should have their wallets felt should be Liealot’s cheerleaders. I can hear the squealing now.

  173. There have been some comments from the dingbats that the PM has passed legislation they do not want.

    That is OK but when asked what was it that they do not want, not one has named one bit of legislation.

    I suspect the reason they cannot give any examples of what they do not want, is because they have no idea of what has been passed.

  174. Sue @2.14pm, I think you’ll need an electron microscope to find any of the things you’re looking for. Scrutiny of the Liars Party’s parliamentary performance: NIL.

    However, as a consolation prize, I predict slogans, more failed Convoys of No Consequence, grandstanding, bignoting and disruption of Parliament by Sir Liealot and the Liars Party accompanied on their very windy instruments by Anal, Dolt and the Ineffectuals.

    Wind farms will be working overtime to blow the planet off course. ROFLMAO!

  175. Pingback: Australian Politics for the world weary. « Just the Messenger.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s