-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Certainly does seem to be happening.
I was hoping Ramaphosa would be better but the ANC has turned into a political party, a party of government no less, and they haven't been a liberation movement for a very long time now.
Wonder who they will do a deal with. I must say Zuma naming his party MK I find a bit off. I know Zuma was on the executive of MK many years ago but I don't think he should be using that name. Zuma was not good for South Africa and taking on that name is like presenting himself as something he isn't.
Interesting times for South Africa, the ANC needed to stop being able to assume they would be the government forever, but the question is whether this will improve things.
DS
3 things:
1. I am done with Albo. An estimated 2,000 suicides from Robodebt and not one person will be made accountable for it. Yes i know the NACC made the call and not him, but clearly Albo's first priority is looking after the political brotherhood and not the best interests of the country. And clearly the so-called "NACC with teeth" is a load of *smile*. The Royal Commission showed that the former LNP government knew it was illegal and proceeded anyway. There needs to be repercussions for that.
2. Dutton and his talk about walking away from the Paris agreement, then backtracking. Unbelievable.
We deserve so much better from our politicians.
3. The salty reaction and meltdown from the Andrews haters form his Kings Birthday gong is hilarious.
1. I am done with Albo. An estimated 2,000 suicides from Robodebt and not one person will be made accountable for it. Yes i know the NACC made the call and not him, but clearly Albo's first priority is looking after the political brotherhood and not the best interests of the country. And clearly the so-called "NACC with teeth" is a load of *smile*. The Royal Commission showed that the former LNP government knew it was illegal and proceeded anyway. There needs to be repercussions for that.
2. Dutton and his talk about walking away from the Paris agreement, then backtracking. Unbelievable.
We deserve so much better from our politicians.
3. The salty reaction and meltdown from the Andrews haters form his Kings Birthday gong is hilarious.
Until the major parties understand and accept the level of discontent with the political class and it's the lack of commitment to transparency the trend to voting for independents and others will continue, and so it should.3 things:
1. I am done with Albo. An estimated 2,000 suicides from Robodebt and not one person will be made accountable for it. Yes i know the NACC made the call and not him, but clearly Albo's first priority is looking after the political brotherhood and not the best interests of the country. And clearly the so-called "NACC with teeth" is a load of *smile*. The Royal Commission showed that the former LNP government knew it was illegal and proceeded anyway. There needs to be repercussions for that.
2. Dutton and his talk about walking away from the Paris agreement, then backtracking. Unbelievable.
We deserve so much better from our politicians.
3. The salty reaction and meltdown from the Andrews haters form his Kings Birthday gong is hilarious.
I went to a town hall meeting a couple of months ago and heard two prominent independents talking about their frustration with both parties and their lack of desire to change lobbying rules (the orange parliament house passes), publishing of diaries and donation rules.
I don't think anything will change until the voters make it very obvious that it has to and that will mean a further increase in the non major party vote from about 1/3 to 40% or more.
We may need a minority government with support of independents to actually achieve change and if so then bring it on imo.
Monique Ryan is still pushing for Robodebt accountability. She's not my local member, but if she keeps pursuing this, I'll be donating to her re-election campaign.
She is my local member and one of the people who was at the town hall.
Doing great work
If as you say the non major party vote gets to 40%, then one of the major parties would most likely split (I think it has happened twice before in Aus and that’s what happened). I always thought labor would collapse with the greens splitting but now it’s the conservatives who are most at risk.
For conservative voters, Dutton’s approach is to divide and conquer as he doesn’t know how to build consensus and inclusivity. He doesn’t understand the Teal movement and therefore can’t relate to it.
Yes independents need to drive the accountability agenda federally and as is the case in Tas, neither major parties are interested in this reform and I don’t think the JLN have the ability to play this role which is one reason why they were elected.
Disgraceful that the ALP have made the NACC so toothless that it won't prosecute someone for it.
Don’t take this the wrong way, Robodebt was one of the lowest points in our political history, disgraceful and unforgivable.
The issue is that I am not sure what laws have been broken.
NACC is an anti corruption bureau but who has been corrupt?
The politicians and public servants who ignored legal advice from their own counsel who told them the scheme was unlawful.
The scheme itself was illegal and people died. Even worse, they ignored or chose not to hear the advice that told them it was illegal.
Yep, the fall in the primary vote of the major parties is pretty striking:
Down to 68.3%, steep dive from 2007 when it was 85.5%. Was over 90% for most elections to 1994.
The major parties have been losing a lot of support and it has been consistent. Preferential voting does mean they still get in power but it also means that voters are willing to vote for independents which is a bigger risk with first past the post voting.
I happily live in an electorate with an independent now, it was stunning how the Libs at the last election suddenly felt the need to actually campaign. The contrast was so big I suspect it backfired a bit since everyone could see the contrast with taking us for granted in every previous election. At the next election the useless Lib is going to stand again, I don't think they can win back Goldstein.
The major parties are getting all they deserve as far as I am concerned.
DS
Down to 68.3%, steep dive from 2007 when it was 85.5%. Was over 90% for most elections to 1994.
The major parties have been losing a lot of support and it has been consistent. Preferential voting does mean they still get in power but it also means that voters are willing to vote for independents which is a bigger risk with first past the post voting.
I happily live in an electorate with an independent now, it was stunning how the Libs at the last election suddenly felt the need to actually campaign. The contrast was so big I suspect it backfired a bit since everyone could see the contrast with taking us for granted in every previous election. At the next election the useless Lib is going to stand again, I don't think they can win back Goldstein.
The major parties are getting all they deserve as far as I am concerned.
DS
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/103974678
The public service commission investigation is and will be job sanctions like demotions or sackings but this article refers some individuals being referred for civil action and criminal prosecution.
I am still not sure what the charges would be. Ignoring advice is incompetence and unethical but is it a crime?
As I said I am not defending what happened just trying understand what the charges could be. If a public servant does something on instruction that they know is illegal and make personal gain or assist someone else to make personal gain that is corruption, but what is the personal gain here?
So apparently the NACC commissioner Paul Brereton, and former secretary of the DHS and one of the main Robodebt protagonists Kathryn Campbell (many would have seen her trainwreck testimony video during the RC), know each other through their time serving in the Australian Military.
Below is a pic of both of them with the GG
As George Galloway says - the 2 major parties are 2 cheeks of the same ass hole.
Yeah, in terms of direct personal gain, no-one is corrupt in that sense in this situation as far as I know.
Personally I think if you deliberately ignore legal advice to implement an illegal scheme that you know will hurt people you should liable either criminally or in a civil case.
This article in the age is enlightening on the subject
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...w-if-it-was-also-corrupt-20240613-p5jlgg.html
Part of the issue is about the definition of corruption used by NACC
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...w-if-it-was-also-corrupt-20240613-p5jlgg.html
Part of the issue is about the definition of corruption used by NACC
That would be set by parliament.
The NACC is not the organisation it should be, deliberately less effective than it should be. Good that the current government finally brought in a federal anti-corruption commission but unfortunately, and quite predictably, they knobbled it at birth.
Then again, the public servants can always cite the fact that they were instructed to introduce this scheme by the government of the day, so, really, it is the ministers and the members of that government who should be facing any consequences. All the talk of public servants having to face the music on Robodebt is a sideshow, it is the government which was responsible for this horrible scheme and they who should face the consequences.
DS
The relevant definition is listed in the article David
Given the NACC’s definition of corruption includes situations where public officials “breach public trust”, “abuse their office”, or “misuse information”, we’re dealing with matters of fundamental democratic concern.
There is a case of corruption under the above potentially.
In terms of officials being instructed to do something I know from experience with IBAC in Victoria a public servant cannot totally rely on instructions to say they weren’t corrupt. As an extreme example if I was a public servant working for you and you told me to do something that was obviously illegal and as a reasonable person I should understand it was illegal then I have no defence against corruption.
In the case of Robodebt it is not clear to me whether knowing there was advice from the solicitor general that the scheme was illegal is “knowing it is illegal” and I think that is what they are struggling with in part.
