Into the second week of campaigning
I’ve had a piece published at Online Opinion where I give some of my impressions of the first week of the campaign. Obviously, this is the first federal election I’ve contested with the Greens, but it is the eighth I’ve been involved with as either a campaign organiser or a candidate – always of course from the perspective of a ‘third party’ trying to convince voters to reduce the two party stranglehold on our political system.
I am seeing a lot of energy and enthusiasm for the Greens at this election. I’d have to go back to the mid-90s for a comparable campaign for the Democrats. However, it is always very difficult to judge how that sort of enthusiasm will translate when it comes to votes on election day.
Speaking of third parties, readers may also be interested in listening to this interview from ABC Qld Local Radio from last week. ABC Local Radio in Queensland is having a regular segment during the campaign every Thursday at 8:10pm where they will
talk with candidates from the Greens, Family First and the DLP. The Greens Senate candidate, Larissa Waters, will be doing most of them, but I filled in for her on this occasion. Regular long-time readers of this blog might be also interested to know that the DLP person is Tony, a regular commenter on this site – here’s your chance to hear him rather than just read him.
49 Comments, Comment or Ping
GZG
It’s quiet on your site Andrew, even more so now that you have followed the precedent set by the ex-leader of the Democrats by jumping ship.
That said, I think you’ve been closely involved in refugee issues, and I wonder what you have to say about the DLP’s “2 for 1″ refugee policy?
http://www.dlp.org.au/uploads/Asylum%20Seekers.pdf
Referring to certain overseas refugee camps, the DLP say that
“the Democratic Labor Party plan is for Australia to transport asylum seekers arriving by boat to the end of queue in these camps for processing, and in return accept from the camps two legitimate refugees for each asylum seeker delivered by Australia.”
In the reading, it sounds a little complicated logistically, but does seem to offer a better net outcome benefiting a greater number of worthy recipients.
Aug 2nd, 2010
Lucky Pete
Sounds like a winner, GZG. If there were actually a real queue at all, it would be a huge progressive step over what the ALP and Coalition have been offering for the last decade. When did the DLP become such a party of soppy lefty bleeding hearts? ;)
Aug 3rd, 2010
togret
I’m wondering which ‘camps’ they mean.
Do they mean the camps where people are stuck in, say, Indonesia where, I gather a lot of our boat people come from? What is the orderly process by which people join a ‘queue’ there?
Or do they mean the camps in Sri Lanka where the government is holding many Tamils, the ethnic group whose ’side’ lost the civil war there and who have been treated badly and interned, according to international observers, while a land-grab goes on where they used to live?
Or does ‘camp’ refer to any refugee camp, and if so, how do we decide which 2 to pick? Do they have to be the same ethnicity as the detained boat people, the ones who are to be ‘rewarded’ for ‘being good’?
Or is need the basis of selection,in which case how do we decide whose needs are greater .. those in that camp not of the same ethnic group as the naughty ones, who tried to leave by boat? Or others in the same camp whose cirumstances are the same, e.g. if two are chosen who are more needy, but their family unit consists of 3, what then?
Or should we somehow create a world-wide register of all refugees, decide by some common set of criteria who are the two worst-off globally, and let them come in exchange for the one who came by boat?
What if the boat person to be rebuffed were a Christian and the Top Two Worst-off are , let’s say, Muslim Uighurs – not only linguistically, culturall and religiously different, but likely to raise the ire of China if they are accepted?
I’d be interested to hear what th DLP’s orderly, fair, compassionate, effective and efficent system will consist of.
Aug 4th, 2010
Alison Jensen Scott
Hi AB
Great to see that you have reentered the political fray after the sad demise of the Dems.The Greens are lucky to have you! Good luck with the campaign.
Aug 5th, 2010
Lorikeet
I already heard both of the interviews with FF, Greens and the DLP.
I thought both Andrew and Tony (DLP) gave good answers to the question about Rudd possibly going to work for the UN.
I thought Tony gave the best answer regarding the Removal of Rudd, but it came as no shock to me when Gillard took over. Rudd had no chance of winning another election. In fact, I had been expecting Gillard to take over from Rudd since before the 2007 election.
On Encapsulation of Policy, Andrew used the word “egalitarianism”. This is a word most of the voting public would not understand, and no example was given. He spoke about the environment and representation.
I thought Tony made some good comments about jobs, not wanting an ETS or super mining tax. He said the DLP was a decentralised party (also in need of clarification for general community). He made the mistake of saying that the DLP was the exact opposite of The Greens, which isn’t quite true. The DLP supports a moderate environmental policy, but not a Carbon Trading Scheme which might further empower large corporations over governments and people.
Wendy (FF) only spoke about removing sex ads from the TV. I thought there were much more pressing problems to address.
On What is Significant to the People, Andrew discussed an ETS and the need to get a Queensland Voice into the Senate from the smaller parties. He also spoke about affordable housing, an important issue.
Tony addressed concerns about the Green Alliance, superannuation, small business, regional development and the need for more dams. He thought censorship could be done by the ISPs.
Wendy gave a good answer regarding the Mining Tax. She said Labor wasn’t interested in small business, and expressed concern about Youth Suicide.
Andrew talked about an ETS, and income he thought could be made from the Tourism Industry instead of mining.
Aug 5th, 2010
Lorikeet
On Labor Party policy, Andrew said he was concerned about Population Growth.
Wendy talked about Gillard & babies, & whether politicians tell the truth.
Tony spoke about handouts to working families, and suggested child care payments should be equally available to all mothers, regardless of whether they outsourced their child care.
In the second interview, we heard that 65% of Greens candidates are women, and mostly women are running for Family First. Tony wasn’t asked about his gender mix, but I think the DLP is running a higher percentage of men.
I thought Wendy Francis did better at the second interview. Larissa Waters (Greens) seemed reluctant to tell us that she worked as an Environmental Lawyer.
All candidates did a good job of discussing difficulties associated with getting smaller party candidates into parliament.
I found Tony’s 2-for-1 policy on refugees interesting. I’m not sure what public reaction might be to taking in twice as many refugees, from camps on the Thai/Burma border. He said it would stop boats and secure borders. (I think it would be cheaper, & make Aussies less phobic.) I liked the phrase “logical answers to difficult questions”.
Wendy suggested using older Aussies as mentors of the young (budgetting, values, lifestyles) and that senior citizens could be paid $100 for 4 hours of this work. Good!
Larissa spoke about the Great Barrier Reef, feeding solar power back into the grid, the Denticare program, Medicare Rebates for Dentistry and getting dentists into regional Australia.
On Disability Funding, Larissa spoke of problems with Disability Trusts, and flexible working hours for parents of the disabled.
Wendy said she didn’t trust pre-election promises, & said schools that are to close have been given new tuckshops. She said Aussies are jaded with politics.
Tony wanted NDIS funds made available to all Aussies. He expressed concern that many carers of the disabled are old and will soon die.
Aug 5th, 2010
Lorikeet
Lucky Pete:
In answer to your question as to when the DLP became a bunch of soppy bleeding hearts:
I don’t think they’re bleeding hearts. Maybe they have just come up with a better solution than others, which is also far cheaper and less frightening for phobic Aussies. It might also be better for international relations.
If they are exchanging 1 asylum seeker for 2 refugees, eventually the boat people might go to the camps directly, instead of coming here at all.
This might also put an end to sinking boats, drowning people and ripoff merchants making a buck out of the desperate. Then our govt also won’t incur the costs associated with charging and imprisoning people smugglers who end up in our courts and jails.
Togret:
I don’t think they would split up families. I think they would exchange, for example, 100 asylum seekers for 200 refugees.
Aug 7th, 2010
Naomi Bicheno
The DLP are Christians in disguise unfortunately. If you go to:
http://www.christianvalues.org.au/Checklist_highres_col.pdf
you will see that they support homophobia, are against human rights, and are anti-medically-approved-abortion. Also they are pro mandatory filtering of the internet.
That’s fine if you get your kicks from those sort of side issues, but if you support equal human rights for all, no government censorship of information, and abortions being safely available where overseen and approved by a physician then DO NOT vote DLP.
Aug 7th, 2010
Lorikeet
Naomi:
The DLP doesn’t support homophobia. It just doesn’t support Homosexual Marriage and Adoption, which is quite different.
I also don’t think it’s true that they condemn medically approved abortion, but the sad fact that an abortion can be procured by pretty much anyone at any time without any reason.
A young woman told me recently that some of her friends in their 20s had already had 3 or more abortions of perfectly viable foetuses.
The wait to adopt a baby was 15 years long in Australia around 20 years ago. There are plenty of couples more than willing to adopt unwanted babies.
Even with a Baby Bonus in place, we are still below Zero Population Growth with a birth rate of only 1.9 per couple. Perhaps you could do a study of the Age Pyramids of various countries. This will show you what a hash has been made of our society with the misuse of contraception, and gross misuse of abortion.
You’re right that the DLP doesn’t support anything sleazy or murderous. In relation to human rights, the DLP supports a clean living society with an emphasis on the family, without children being accidentally or deliberately exposed to X-rated material.
Aug 10th, 2010
togret
Still have not heard an explanation of the “2 for 1″ policy of the DLPs. As in my post above, I’m not sure how this would be achieved. Lorikeet seems to think people would be deported to their original country … agiants International Law??? … and others from in particular the Thai-Burma border chosen instead. So chosen not on need but geography? Hard to understand the logic here.
Also, would he DLP deport Sri Lankan christians back to be persecuted by the so-called Buddhist government of Sri Lanka? Hmm.
Aug 10th, 2010
Tony
Togret Says: Still have not heard an explanation of the “2 for 1″ policy of the DLPs
Perhaps you should have listened. The ALP want to build a processing centre in East Timor. (This would come at a high cost and the east Timorese don’t want). The Coalition suggest Nauru which has signed the UN Treaty on refugees.
The DLP say that there is enough camps already in SE Asia and gave the camp in the Thai/Burma border as example. It currently holds 160,000 processed refugees (from within the region) that are awaiting resettlement.
Solution to problem
Swap one Asylum seekers for two processed refugees.
This would . Stop the boats, allow an orderly resettlement of processed refugees,
and make it impossible to people smugglers to charge $10,000 to move people into the risky gamble of going by boats.
Why would you pay a fortune to corrupt officials in Sri Lanka if you are going to the back of the line in a camp on the Thai/Burma border?
This solution compassionately solves all problems and gives hope to the people of these camps.
Aug 11th, 2010
Lorikeet
Togret:
I said nothing about deportation. Please don’t attribute your own negative extrapolations to me.
All you have to do is read the DLP website and the link posted by GZG at Comment No. 1 on this thread to know what is being proposed.
http://www.dlp.org.au
My understanding is that refugees who have already been processed have been sitting for years in the camps on the Thai-Burma border.
The DLP would take the people directly from the boats and do a 2-for-1 swap of 2 people from the camps for 1 asylum seeker.
The need for Australian placement and integration for the people already in the camps could occur while the new asylum seekers were processed. That seems quite logical to me, and is not a geographical concept at all.
My understanding is that ALL ASYLUM SEEKERS would be transported safely by the Royal Australian Navy to camps on the Thai-Burma border – not to their nations of origin. From there, their claims for refugee status would be processed.
Perhaps camps in other places could be closed after resettlement or deportation of those asylum seekers already in them. There would certainly be no need to rely on Nauru or East Timor to accommodate them, unless the United Nations continues to turn a blind eye to the various atrocities occurring across the globe.
“A good idea never cared who had it.” I like logical answers to difficult questions.
In future, I trust you will not jump to strange or negative conclusions regarding any party’s policies. Instead maybe you would be wise to study the activities of global organisations (WTO, UN, IMF, WB) and their roles in seizure of land for the benefit of global corporations in various countries across the globe.
Kevin Rudd’s appointment to a voluntary UN role in concurrence with his Australian parliamentary duties is certainly interesting.
Aug 11th, 2010
togret
Lorikeet – I have no idea what has upset you. As far as I understand it, hte DLP (which you are now a part of???) is saying that they will deport / return / send back / whatever boat people to their point of origin / the nearest dry land? (I don’t know) and accept 2 people from established camps elsewhere in their stead.
My question was about how this would work. If you have been appointed the spokesperson for the DLP, or feel you know all about it, then fine, but I wonder why you think I’ve jumped to strange or negative conclusions – unless parties put the information out there – information you commented on – then comments lke yours are all we can go on.
Additonally, I’m wondering if they’ll propose to deport / send back all the visa overstayers such as backpackers, kitchenhands, etc who are here in huge numbers – many times more than the small numbers of boat people.
Accepting that many x 2 camp dwellers will possibly work to our nationa’s moral quotient, but it will surpise me if it ever happens.
If anyone does know, if there is logic to the DLP’s proposal, or a coherent setting out of it, then I’m curious.
Your fondness for ‘logical answers’ may have led to yo range into discussions of ‘Instead maybe you would be wise to study the activities of global organisations (WTO, UN, IMF, WB) and their roles in seizure of land for the benefit of global corporations in various countries across the globe.’ but I fail to see how that is relevant.
Aug 11th, 2010
Andrew Bartlett
If the ‘2 for 1′ policy did somehow work to stop the boats, then by definition it wouldn’t assist any more people in refugee camps from getting here, as there would be no ‘1’s to turn into ‘2’s.
It is also built on the false assumption that there is some sort of queue which operates for people in refugee camps. Presumably this is due to the people who devised this policy (which I first heard being proposed by Family First) have swallowed the myth that asylum seekers in boats are some sort of queue-jumper.
There is no queue, and if people had even half an idea of what many of those who arrive here in boats have risked in their efforts to seek safety, they wouldn’t be so blase in reinforcing such lazy mythology,
There is no simple answer to this issue, but if people in camps were able to get reasonably prompt resettlement, there would be no incentive for refugees to pursue other means to get to safety.
Aug 11th, 2010
Lorikeet
Togret:
Are you sure you’re feeling okay? I am not upset with you, but looking at this thread again, you seem to have missed the various points made by GZG, myself and then Tony. Have you looked at GZG’s link or the DLP website?
As for the visa overstayers, I think you would have to become Sherlock Holmes to find them all, which might be a very expensive operation.
Since we seem to be locked into a worldwide redistribution of populations and wealth, I doubt if anyone is going to waste their time and energy searching out visa overstayers.
You said you fail to see how the seizure of land is relevant, but you mentioned the Sri Lankan government doing a land grab on the Tamils in your post of 4 August.
Yesterday the WTO overruled Australia’s decision not to import apples from New Zealand.
Also here in Australia, we have the Labor government aiding and abetting large corporations in a skulduggerous land grab on our farmers.
I suggest everyone tunes into the ABC at 8.30 p.m. tomorrow night, 12 August, to find out what Dick Smith is currently up to, with his scaremongering about mass starvation.
Right after that, you can catch a commentary on the same topic with “Q & A”.
Aug 11th, 2010
Tony
Andrew Says:
It is also built on the false assumption that there is some sort of queue which operates for people in refugee camps. Presumably this is due to the people who devised this policy (which I first heard being proposed by Family First) have swallowed the myth that asylum seekers in boats are some sort of queue-jumper.
I think you getting things mixed up here Andrew.
This policy came about after talks with lecturers from immigration that presented at our Oxley meeting and was later ratified by our executive in Longman.
The lecture described in detail how and where the boats were coming from… How much it cost our country each day etc and the dire needs of people who have been processed in refugee camps in our region.
The press released was released after the ALP government attempted to force one of our impoverised local neighbours to take onboard Aslumn seekers whose processing had been stalled by Kevin Rudd on learning the same things we had.
The policy involved also included appropriate signage at the departure points and a compulsory 7 year jail sentence for crews employed by the smugglers that also appears to have been adopted by another major party.
Aug 11th, 2010
Andrew Bartlett
I’m not getting anything mixed up at all Tony. Given your disgracefully dishonest misrepresentations of the Greens views in your recent radio rants, which have been so grotesquely distorted that it is impossible to assume they could have been anything other than deliberate on your part, you’ve got enormous gall to call anyone else to task when it comes to facts or accuracy.
The only mistake I may have made was to allow someone like you, who besmirches the original DLP name more every passing day with your dishonest, deluded and reactionary rubbish to have a platform for propagating such piffle via my website for so long.
I don’t really care where you say your policy came from (not least because you clearly are a person who believes truth is irrelevant when it comes to political engagement).
I am simply saying
(a) I first heard this simplistic, unworkable and misleading idea from Family First quite some time ago. The fact that the DLP may have also chosen to push it doesn’t really matter, especially given that a main strategy of the DLP seems to be show they are even more reactionary and bigoted than Family First (alongside the other strategy of grievously misrepresenting the Greens views)
(b) you have failed to address the obvious flaws I pointed out in the policy (which I know is standard practice for you, but which I still believe needs pointing out each time you do it)
(c) I have no idea how anyone could possibly think locking up impoverished Indonesian fishermen for seven days – let alone seven years – could possibly do anything to address this issue when most of these fishermen know little or nothing about what they are really involved in when they transport refugees to safety and who only engage in such a dangerous voyage because of desperation to feed their family. Advocating mandatory jail sentences, regardless of circumstance, is a morally shabby approach befitting only the bully and the thug.
Aug 12th, 2010
Tony
Andrew Says: (c) I have no idea how anyone could possibly think locking up impoverished Indonesian fishermen for seven days – let alone seven years – could possibly do anything to address this issue when most of these fishermen know little or nothing about what they are really involved in when they transport refugees to safety and who only engage in such a dangerous voyage because of desperation to feed their family
The so called impoverished fisherman would be informed and warned.
The idea that we continue to place them in the (all expenses paid Darwin Hotel) for a holiday and send them home, only to do it again is the current process, and it isnt working.
The mostly single males arriving from Sri Lanka with access to phone calls home, over $200 per day in food would not go down well in East Timor and already impoverished nation.
Warning them and then mandating jail terms would stop the idea that the trip is worth the money. (as most do) Transfering aslyum seekers to another regional camp would not only save money, it would allow a compassionate response to the refugees who are missing out because of this abuse of process. You should point out that after the boats ceased under Howard there intack from African camps increased. Thats the compassionate answer…. not rewarding people smugglers who make profit out of risking peoples lives on leaky boats.
Aug 12th, 2010
Lorikeet
Now I can hardly wait to hear the rest of the radio interviews. I have only had time to listen to the first 2 so far.
To my knowledge, after Howard stopped the boats, he took more refugees directly from Africa, which would certainly have saved them both money and a perilous trip.
I think the DLP would issue warnings to the fishermen rather than incarcerating anyone. I think criminal trials and jail time are the things Tony hopes to avoid, on both cost and humanitarian bases.
My understanding is that the main aim is to take deliver asylum seekers safely to camps on the Thai/Burma border in exchange for twice as many processed refugees, and put an end to the people smuggling trade, which is risky for everyone involved except the corrupt money grubbing bureaucrats.
Aug 12th, 2010
togret
Lorikeet – your consistent dragging in of irrelevancies is tedioud – hte land grab in Sri Lanka is WHY the minorities are driven from their homelands. Your idea that there is a global land grab is not relaly relevant in a discussion about CURRENT refugees, IMHO.
And yes, we do appeaar to have had some sort of hiccup on our computer – the earlier posts you refer to were not visible to me ..
Now I have seen the links and posts in question I still wonder what role our Navy would have in dragging hapless asylum seekers right across Pakistan to where the majority of the Pakistani camps they mention are? This is fantasy land … and shows them to be a truly compassionate and law-abiding bunch …
and as for finding the real illegals being expensiver, maybe the answer to that is to prosecute those who employ them as fruipickers etc, and maybe if we stopped spending so much on hounding miserable genuine refugees we’d have the money to spend on real efforts to secure our borders, apart from leaky dinghies and vessels supposed to defend us in time of war.
Aug 12th, 2010
paul walter
Togret, its just a subspecies of wedge politics, their mathematics are self referential and deliberately dislocated, as to reality.
Just dont vote for the sillies, try Greens or Labor instead.
Aug 15th, 2010
togret
Paul, my hand would fall off rather than let me vote Tory / Dated Lame Party … trying to decide whether or not to give Greens my primary vote or note – funding flows from that, I discovered today. Their refugees policy and the dental care policy are deciding plusses for me.
Aug 15th, 2010
paul walter
Vote Green but preference Labor in the lower house, take your pick with the senate altho I’d be voting Green.
Aug 15th, 2010
Lorikeet
I attended another NSA political forum last Friday, where The Greens candidate received some very angry comments from the crowd on discussing a Carbon Trading Scheme. Remember the 50+ age group represents 45% of the voting population.
The Liberal incumbent was also in favour of this colossal ripoff of all Australians, but not until there was agreement from all countries. One man in the crowd sat with his head in his hands.
Then the Liberal incumbent said he would put a bond on High Care. The net effect would be to force one partner to heavily mortgage the home or sell it, in order to pay a bond for the other!
The Liberals have also promised to pay employers $3250 after employing a person in the 50+ age group for 6 months. I think these people will end up as slaves of The Macquarie Group in Aged Care, with the government subsidising the miniscule amount they get paid.
The Liberal incumbent was adamant that people would not be fired after 6 months, but the greater wisdom of the crowd said the opposite.
When asked by me, The Greens candidate promised to cut Middle Class Welfare.
The young candidate from what Togret falsely calls the “Dated Lame Party” (DLP) was very well received by the crowd. What he lacked in knowledge was certainly made up in enthusiasm.
The crowd was in favour of ending the privatisation of government assets and utilities, which rob our nation of income necessary to provide infrastructure and pensions. The re-establishment of a government owned bank was popular.
The crowd was also fairly keen to house the homeless.
The DLP has no interest in financially empowering large corporations over government and people, or in removing the churches from Aged Care, Health and Education by charging them taxes.
Churches charge lower bonds for Aged Care and profits are used to feed, house and counsel the disadvantaged.
I will be voting for a small conservative party (patriots), followed by an independent, and for the DLP in the Senate.
Aug 15th, 2010
togret
Paul our local candidate in the H of R is of a minority segment of hte population and I’d like to encourage further choice of such candidates – might write and say that the refugees policy has killed it for me but go 1 Green, 2 ALP. As for the Senate .. dunno – I have to investigate our state’s Greens yet. If any Labor are at least rational on refugees I might go 1 them, then 2 Greens – I’d like to encourage Labor to feel there is value in a humane and effective policy being created.
Aug 15th, 2010
paul walter
Labor has been well absorbed into the system and has assumed the managerialist role abandoned by the Tory rump, in its dotage.
In turn, Labor has (virtually) ceded progressive politics to the Greens.
My hope is that the Greens can also gain a lower house seat or two to complement senate numbers- we’ve desperately missed a handbrake on big party opportunism and cynicism since the demise of the Democrats.
Aug 16th, 2010
Andrew Bartlett
Having listened to even more of Tony’s rants on ABC radio, it is now even clearer to me that it is futile trying to encourage him to look at facts, evidence, truth and all those other annoying reality-based things that most of us humans feel we should grapple with.
But for any other readers who prefer to dwell in the reality based community, I thought I should point out the obvious flaws in Tony’s ’solution’ to the boat people issue.
Tony talks of the “so called impoverished fisherman” who would be “informed and warned” about the (new) DLP’s proposed new draconian mandatory seven year jail terms.
Mr (new) DLP Tony’s sneering suggestion that these people are “so-called” impoverished fisherman shows absolutely zero recognition of the daily confronting reality that most of these fisherman face. Bob Santamaria would be ashamed to see his legacy being associated with such callous and ignorant demonisation and ignorance towards the poorest.
Just in case anyone thought this was a one-off slip, and that Mr (new) DLP Tony wasn’t just another example of lazy pre-modernist bigotry, his comment that impoverish Indonesian fishermen who get paid small amounts to pilot dangerous voyages with asylum seekers are then “placed in an (all expenses paid Darwin Hotel) for a holiday and then sent home, only to do it again” displays ignorance and callousness in breath-taking proportions.
Anyone who thinks being jailed is a “holiday” is an idiot and/or a fool. Ask Pauline Hanson how much she enjoyed her “holiday” in jail and then get back to me. Australia already has mandatory sentencing for anyone caught assisting asylum seekers to get to our country – in one notorious example, a person who went to rescue his relatives from Communist Vietnam (yes, Mr (psuedo DLP) Tony, the communists) was jailed in Perth for being a ’smuggler’, despite the fact he received no financial reward at all (it actually cost him money to rescue people who were confirmed to be refugees).
And if Mr DLP Tony seriously thinks that it is possible to genuinely “inform and warn” every single impoverished person in Indonesia (and we’re talking really impoverished here), then I would suggest that it’s about time he tried to integrate with the wider local and regional community, rather than insisting on living apart in his own little cultural ghetto.
Mr Tony neo-DLP has now made it clear that he has no interest in or intellectual connection with the values of the real, original DLP. But for any reader who is interested in the underlying social justice ideals which did inform at least a part of the real DLP, it is worth looking at the values inherent in the Papal Encyclical Rerum Novarum. It talks a lot about the poorest people. I don’t subscribe to all the values of the original DLP, but I know they would never have agreed to being party to supporting mandatory jailing of anyone who helped refugees fleeing communism.
Aug 17th, 2010
red crab
interesting thing is that we are all being fooled into beliveing that any govt will slow down the ppl comming here
the focas on boat ppl is a smoke screen to take away the truth as to just how many and from where who the govt is really letting into australia
all the polys know this even andrew
as most polys do the majority of asylim seekers lie to get the results they need
thats not my statement it comes from a high profile refugee who unlike the new breed of polys knows how to tell the truth.
.
Aug 18th, 2010
togret
Tony Z said quite some time agao that he is not a catholic. I don’t suppose the values of the likes of hte repellent Santamaria woudl inform his world view much. Since they don’t seem to have inclined Abbott to compassion for people in wee boats, judging for his McHales Navy Plan ot STOP THE BOATS!!! I don’t suppose even Santamaria would recognise his acolytes now.
I wonder how many poorly paid and oppressed members of hte SHoppies (the union that supports the DLP) woudl feel if theyknew where their union money goes?
Aug 18th, 2010
red crab
anyway quenslands priminister was stabbed in the back and western australia has been shafted once again thats why the govt is spending so much time there . the one thing that polys have to get yet is that the voters now are educated and have long memorys also have the ability to see rite through the b. s..
things are not as good as they seem in this country at the moment
candidates are reduced to standing on the road side with posters in queensland no money for t.v. there
here in w.a. they still have some funds to get there face on t.v. to ask for our votes
must be spending all there money on there leaders sad thing is they only represent there electrate not yours where are all our other hopefulls been last time i looked there was more than two ppl in the govt and just when did any primeminister have the last say with out the aproval of the rest of the govt.
good luck on saterday andrew i hope you do well i dont agree with you on some things but i do really believe that we need you there .
.
Aug 19th, 2010
ken
Andrew
Can you explian the apparent inverse relationship between green voters and actual greenery?
Aug 19th, 2010
Andrew Bartlett
Sorry Ken, maybe the campaign is tiring me out, but I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at with that one?
Aug 19th, 2010
Lorikeet
Tony Z is a non-practising Catholic. I think half of the national executive of the DLP are Catholics, but the rest are not. Half of the members have a religious base (mixed) and the other half do not.
If the shop assistants’ union supports the DLP, I think it is money very well spent. The ALP has not been there for the worker for 30+ years.
ALP support for workers declined markedly with the signing of the Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development & Co-operation by Gough Whitlam in 1975.
I think we know who got the Development, and who got the Co-operation. We know who gets overruled on trade decisions by the World Trade Organisation, thanks to Paul Keating (think of apples coming from NZ when we have plenty of our own).
The signing of the Lima Declaration must have occurred around the same time the DLP and the ALP parted company. According to my research, the ALP would appear to be corporate neo-communists.
Aug 19th, 2010
Andrew Bartlett
“The signing of the Lima Declaration (in 1975) must have occurred around the same time the DLP and the ALP parted company.”
The DLP came out of a split (or more accurately, a number of splits) in the ALP in the 1950s and had a significant presence in the Senate until 1974. By the time of the Lima Declaration, the DLP was basically all but dead. As I’ve mentioned before, the original DLP was wound up not long after that, and the current DLP is a new party started by a group of people who took over the name It is shame that the legacy of the original party is now associated to a group which includes people on the very fringes of the extreme right.
“According to my research, the ALP would appear to be corporate neo-communists.”
The nonsensical “corporate neo-communist” label is about as accurate as your assumption about the date when the DLP and ALP split.
Aug 19th, 2010
Lorikeet
How could the DLP have been all but dead in 1975, if it had a significant presence in the Senate in 1974? The signing of the Lima Declaration has overlap with a move towards global socialism.
All parties have quite a mix of different people. I don’t buy the idea that the current DLP is a new party. Some of the current members were born into it.
The DLP is a centrist party which supports workers & small business. It’s a patriotic party, not a global bank-empowering party.
The DLP has a moderate environmental policy, but is opposed to a Carbon Trading Scheme designed to financially break both governments and individuals.
The Macquarie Group is in the process of being enabled to take over Health, Aged Care & Education by both Labor and Liberals.
Now the collection of traffic fines (very lucrative) has been privatised, the TMG is getting 10% of the take, which will probably soon increase.
What is your position on the privatisation of government assets & utilities, including banks?
I’m sure Paul Keating made superannuation contributions compulsory for everyone, in order to empower global banks. That has certainly been the net effect of this decision.
It gave the banks plenty of scope to rip people off, by encouraging them to amass credit card debt. It also gave them the opportunity to buy out smaller operations across a broad spectrum and sell weapons to the third world.
It has also helped TMG in its bid to take over Aged Care from the churches. Whether we are religious or not, the churches charge lower bonds, & profits go to accommodating, counselling & feeding the poor.
I am working on an Aged Care Policy designed to clip TMG wings, & financially empower abused workers and residents.
Aug 20th, 2010
paul walter
Who cares what people’s politics are?
Most of you will have voted before you read this. Therefore, looking back on the thread, I’d say congratulation to everyone contributing to the thread, for some engagement in the issues and life of their community.
But I can only wish Andrew Barlett the best and his forward-looking party
likewise.
Aug 21st, 2010
togret
Well, I have voted. Good luck to the nation … whoever wins, we will need it. Sorrow to the parents/loved ones of TWO MORE DEAD AUSTRALIANS THROWN AWAY IN A WAR WE HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING IN.
And good lord – in SA we had candidates for the Senate from the DLP – surpriing enough – and One Nation. Oh, the shame. Illness has kept me from really takign enough notice of politics for 12 months or so – I hope a renewed level of well-being will enable me to be a better citizen after thsi election, becuase whoever wins, the rest of us need to be on thier backs a bit more, giving feedback, godo or bad, and avoiding this ‘rule by focus group’ syndrome.
Aug 21st, 2010
Lorikeet
Togret:
In Queensland, the DLP ran a team of 3 for the Senate, and 6 candidates for the House of Representatives. There would have been 9 if one man hadn’t injured his back in an accident, and another had not decided to run for the Christian Democrats in the Senate. I got a veto from the doctor to run for the seat of Dickson, since I was feeling unwell with an undiagnosed condition.
At my local polling booth, where I gave out how-to-vote cards for the Senate, the DLP’s asylum seeker policy was very well received by Greens’ voters.
Luckily I had found time to listen to the relevant radio interview, but one woman really needed to consult with John Howard to elicit a reason for offshore processing.
I was sorry to hear that this creep from the Liberal Party won the Seat of Bowman. When I attended a forum in that electorate, his attitude and policies impressed me the least of all of the candidates.
Aug 22nd, 2010
Togret
Lorikeet – clearly they are very polite people in Brisbane – I doubt any green voter who understood what you were saying would support the ridiculous DLP ‘policy’ which Andrew has already demoished. Some of them would have a clue about International Law, and I’d imagine the rest would have at least some intelligence.
Sorry to hear you have an illness – perhaps it was just as well to be spared the shame of being associated with the DLP.
Aug 23rd, 2010
Lorikeet
Togret:
I think your comment is highly insulting. The smaller conservative parties are pretty much the only people left who are both patriots of this country, & support small business rather than large corporations, which are being empowered to kick everyone else (including workers) to the kerb for their own profit.
Despite a certain amount of communication difficulty, even Nepalese nurses can communicate their perception that people are being ripped off all over the world, and that The Greens do not want Aussie fishermen to catch a single sardine for their dinner.
I’m afraid even an officer from the Dept of Health & Ageing stated this morning that we will never go back to an Aged Care system that supplies a decent staff to resident ratio, which I am told was once 1:5.
The last time I looked, the DLP policy on asylum seekers was still standing tall among voters, with the exception of racists.
Most of the people who give out how-to-vote cards don’t even know what is happening in their own country, let alone what their parties support.
I spoke with a Greens supporter (also giving out how-to-vote cards) who said he worked in the Climate Change Dept of a university. I thought he had a poor understanding of what is going on in Australia. He knew nothing of various methods being used to wipe out the livestock industries, & he said he was a meat eater.
I said something about scaremongering regarding burgeoning population and starvation despite very low birth rates, with most population growth coming from immigration. He just said the university also had Demographers.
An older man giving out how-to-vote cards for Liberals said he liked the parliament better when more people had a say in what went on, instead of just power mongers behind the scenes ruling the roost.
I felt sorry for the woman working for Family First. Some very rude people handed her how-to-vote cards back, which is a sad indictment on our society and the recidivist beliefs of so many.
Aug 24th, 2010
togret
Lorikeet – or perhaps they didn’t want to waste the paper? I give back any that I accidentally get that are not that I want. It also helps those who have to clean the polling place later.
You said “The last time I looked, the DLP policy on asylum seekers was still standing tall among voters, with the exception of racists.” .. the last time you looked at what? Do you have access to some kind of authoritative survey of voters about the DLPs”policy” on asylum seekers”/ Or is it your pals at the shopping centre again?
I have no animus against some small parties .. not sure where you got that idea. The ones I oppose are the ones whose philosophy I reject – nothing startling or “big party supporting” about that. I reject the DLP, cannot understand why anyone would bother with a Sex Party, utterly condemn Fred Niles so-called Christian Democrats, laugh helplessly at the Climate Change Deniers, would not spit on Family First if they were on Fire, but do have some time for some other smaller parties e.g. the Greens, and some we didn’t have in SA.
As usual with you, a little careful reading would repay the effort – you might grab the bull somewhere else but the tail more often. You appear not to understand the point abuot sustainable fish yields – ask them in Newfoundland what happens when fishing is allowed to deplete the breeding stock .. perhaps in Nepal they don’t understand this, being landlocked? Or maybe your remarks got lost in translation.
Aug 25th, 2010
Lorikeet
Togret:
More than half of the people don’t pick up any how-to-vote cards. A few bring them back for reuse.
I can assure you that the lady from Family First was copping abuse from some people, and I heard some nasty comments being directed towards Labor volunteers also.
Our polling place was as clean as a whistle. Liberals had some boxes for rubbish. Trust me, the people were clean. If anyone dropped anything, others were quick to pick it up.
It seems to me that you have a high degree of animus towards some smaller parties – mostly those who have any real values.
I can assure you it isn’t me who has the bull by the tail. Why don’t you listen to Radio Interview Number 3 at:
http://www.dlp.org.au
for a discussion on fish. I’m not sure if this is where the Nepalese got their information (unlikely), but I had to ask one guy 4 times before I understood what he was saying. His English is now good, but his accent is still a problem.
Aug 25th, 2010
Lorikeet
Ken:
That’s easy. Bob Brown has promised that no university fees will be charged to Australian students.
He has also promised to allow homosexual couples to marry and adopt children (which certainly doesn’t compute where Abortion policy is concerned).
A lot of younger people are also living in hope of more affordable housing.
Aug 28th, 2010
togret
Lorikeet – not surpising that Family First copped some abuse, though I would personally not do so. While the abysmally ignorant and arrogant Steve Fielding is the public face of Family First the unfortunates who sign up to belong to it are going to be regarded with scorn. Fact of life – “birds of a feather flock together”.
One thing I did not realise until too late, though I’m fairly sure my prefferences were well-distributed, is that on the AEC site ( http://www.aec.gov.au/election/downloads.htm) it is possible to see where your ‘above the line’ preferences will go .. I noticed no information about this on any of the how-to-votes handed out here. I also gve them back to the individuals involved, which is probably WHY the pace was nice and tidy — you have a funny idea of cause and effect, Lorikeet.
I am also interested in getting a definite answer on this query I heard asked of one official: If you, for example, merely put the numbers 1 – 19, say, on the Senate paper of 50 or 60 – odd names, , is your vote valid as far as that set of numbers goes, . i.e. it would not be ruled as “Informal” but merely exhausted sooner than some others? To me, such a vote would be saying “These ones, in this order, but none of the others.” Andrew, do you know?
Aug 28th, 2010
Andrew Bartlett
“If you, for example, merely put the numbers 1 – 19, say, on the Senate paper of 50 or 60 – odd names, , is your vote valid as far as that set of numbers goes, . i.e. it would not be ruled as “Informal” but merely exhausted sooner than some others?”
That type of vote on a Senate ballot paper would be informal, Togret. For a below the line vote in the Senate to be formal, you have to fill in at least 90% of the boxes (in this case, at least 54).
Full details of what is and isn’t formal are in this booklet:
http://aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/files/ballot-paper-formality-guidelines-2010v2.pdf
Aug 28th, 2010
Lorikeet
Togret:
I find your comment on my concept of “cause and effect” to be just another unwarranted insult. Most people don’t bring back their how-to-vote cards, but they know how to use a bin.
Family First is a party with a good set of values, and I feel sorry that Steve Fielding has lost his seat in the parliament. Birds of a feather flock together, but they are good birds.
I think it is better to vote above the line on the Senate ballot paper. The damned thing is so long nearly anyone could make a mistake without realising it.
At the local polling booth, the line was so long that some people went home and came back again later. At the last election, polling officials had to take older people from the line and give them precedence for voting, since some were fainting in the hot sun.
Aug 28th, 2010
Togret
Andrew – thanks for that information. The person asking might have been OK – I believe it was a tie in their estimation to get last preference and they were afraid the secnd last one, equally repellent, would be advantaged.
Lorikeet – Fielding’s pronouncements about blocking all bills if Labor gets in are an example of his arrogant ignorance. It’s more attention than he has ever had, and will ever have again. He squeaked in by Labor stupidity TWO ELECTIONS AGO and has no right whatsoever to block anything that originated with Labor, which is what he was threatening.
Voting above the line is giving up your right to decide who gets your preferences. You may have every confidence in your choice of pary to allocate them how they wish – I do not like to be taken for granted.
Aug 30th, 2010
Lorikeet
Togret:
You said Steve Fielding had no right whatsoever to block anything that originated with Labor. I suggest you give further thought to the true connotations of a comment like that. Your attitude would appear to be undemocratic (communist).
As I remember, when Steve Fielding moved an amendment to limit payouts to company CEOs of over $1 million to shareholder agreement, the only people who voted with him were The Greens.
This is despite the fact that the Labor Party said they wanted to limit these payouts i.e. it was their policy originally, not his. Then they voted against their own idea, along with Liberals and Nationals. I think this was because both Lab/Lib parties are in bed with the corporations.
I think Fielding blocked increasing the tax on alcopops mainly because he thought our young people would simply mix stiffer drinks themselves, such as rum and coke.
Regarding voting above the line, I have given a number of reasons (possible mistakes, people fainting in queues). If you belong to a political party, you might also want to give your Senate candidates the best chance.
Aug 31st, 2010
togret
Lorikeet – I repeat – Fielding was elected SIC years ago. There have been 2 electtions since then. If he attempts to block the will of hte H of R, just becuase he doesn’t like Labor, he will plunge us back into Consitituional crisis, if he has the power. I’m not a praying person, but I’d make an exception for that situation. DO you want to go back to 1975?
Sep 2nd, 2010
Reply to “Into the second week of campaigning”