Australia General Discussion

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I guess that creates an opening for independents to try to win the seats.

I think Newcastle, in particular, is ripe for the picking.

[Knives]

It's looking good for Labor in Victoria which is surprising considering the tape scandal and Daniel Andrews just being a mess.

[BaconBacon96]

Victorian Labor also came out in favor of medical marijuana. That should draw some votes to them.

[Knives]

Yesterday going to school outside of Glenferrie Station I was abused by a John Roskam supporter, expect the Hawthorn pre-selection process to get ugly if more people get in. It's going to expose the massive divide in Vic Liberals.

[Hifly]

Yesterday going to school outside of Glenferrie Station I was abused by a John Roskam supporter, expect the Hawthorn pre-selection process to get ugly if more people get in. It's going to expose the massive divide in Vic Liberals.

As you are well past schoolboy age I am assuming this means you work at the school?

[Knives]

Yesterday going to school outside of Glenferrie Station I was abused by a John Roskam supporter, expect the Hawthorn pre-selection process to get ugly if more people get in. It's going to expose the massive divide in Vic Liberals.

As you are well past schoolboy age I am assuming this means you work at the school?

? would you like a picture of me? you are THAT obsessed.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Troy Buswell, disgraced former Treasurer in the WA State Government, has announced his retirement from the state Parliament.

While I wish him the best for his post-political life, especially given that he has bipolar, I'm glad he's retiring - haven't been a fan of him for years, and he was a major embarrassment to the government. I mean, chair sniffing, bra snapping, an extra-marital affair, becoming transport minister after getting nine speeding tickets in three years, driving whilst impaired and causing thousands of dollars in damage, I could go on...

[Mordecai]

Good riddance.

[Barnes]

Things are all up in the air in Victoria again over Geoff Shaw.  Napthine will be moving to expel him from Parliament today (Thursday), but Labor's going to oppose it.

The turnaround from both sides is rather remarkable from this period in June.  However, to me, it rather makes sense.  Remember, in June the question was whether Shaw's expenses scandal was grounds enough to expel him - the Parliament resolved that is wasn't.  Now the question is whether he should be expelled because of a comment made in a newspaper interview and the premier's opinion on the sincerity of his apology statement.  Expulsion on those grounds would be a very slippery precedent.

[Hifly]

Yesterday going to school outside of Glenferrie Station I was abused by a John Roskam supporter, expect the Hawthorn pre-selection process to get ugly if more people get in. It's going to expose the massive divide in Vic Liberals.

As you are well past schoolboy age I am assuming this means you work at the school?

? would you like a picture of me? you are THAT obsessed.

I already have seen pictures of you and your wife and friends/relatives on your facebook profile.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Things are all up in the air in Victoria again over Geoff Shaw.  Napthine will be moving to expel him from Parliament today (Thursday), but Labor's going to oppose it.

The turnaround from both sides is rather remarkable from this period in June.  However, to me, it rather makes sense.  Remember, in June the question was whether Shaw's expenses scandal was grounds enough to expel him - the Parliament resolved that is wasn't.  Now the question is whether he should be expelled because of a comment made in a newspaper interview and the premier's opinion on the sincerity of his apology statement.  Expulsion on those grounds would be a very slippery precedent.

What's the point, the election is only two months away, let the people of Frankston decide Mr. Shaw's fate, should he choose to run again as an independent.

[Barnes]

Things are all up in the air in Victoria again over Geoff Shaw.  Napthine will be moving to expel him from Parliament today (Thursday), but Labor's going to oppose it.

The turnaround from both sides is rather remarkable from this period in June.  However, to me, it rather makes sense.  Remember, in June the question was whether Shaw's expenses scandal was grounds enough to expel him - the Parliament resolved that is wasn't.  Now the question is whether he should be expelled because of a comment made in a newspaper interview and the premier's opinion on the sincerity of his apology statement.  Expulsion on those grounds would be a very slippery precedent.

What's the point, the election is only two months away, let the people of Frankston decide Mr. Shaw's fate, should he choose to run again as an independent.

That's really the issue here.  It's fairly clear that Napthine was just trying to avoid a by-election in June, but now that holding one is no longer possible he's totally in favor of removing Shaw.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Things are all up in the air in Victoria again over Geoff Shaw.  Napthine will be moving to expel him from Parliament today (Thursday), but Labor's going to oppose it.

The turnaround from both sides is rather remarkable from this period in June.  However, to me, it rather makes sense.  Remember, in June the question was whether Shaw's expenses scandal was grounds enough to expel him - the Parliament resolved that is wasn't.  Now the question is whether he should be expelled because of a comment made in a newspaper interview and the premier's opinion on the sincerity of his apology statement.  Expulsion on those grounds would be a very slippery precedent.

What's the point, the election is only two months away, let the people of Frankston decide Mr. Shaw's fate, should he choose to run again as an independent.

That's really the issue here.  It's fairly clear that Napthine was just trying to avoid a by-election in June, but now that holding one is no longer possible he's totally in favor of removing Shaw.

He wasn't trying to avoid a by-election - he was trying to avoid a motion of no-confidence and triggering an early election.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Things are all up in the air in Victoria again over Geoff Shaw.  Napthine will be moving to expel him from Parliament today (Thursday), but Labor's going to oppose it.

The turnaround from both sides is rather remarkable from this period in June.  However, to me, it rather makes sense.  Remember, in June the question was whether Shaw's expenses scandal was grounds enough to expel him - the Parliament resolved that is wasn't.  Now the question is whether he should be expelled because of a comment made in a newspaper interview and the premier's opinion on the sincerity of his apology statement.  Expulsion on those grounds would be a very slippery precedent.

What's the point, the election is only two months away, let the people of Frankston decide Mr. Shaw's fate, should he choose to run again as an independent.

That's really the issue here.  It's fairly clear that Napthine was just trying to avoid a by-election in June, but now that holding one is no longer possible he's totally in favor of removing Shaw.

He wasn't trying to avoid a by-election - he was trying to avoid a motion of no-confidence and triggering an early election.

Doesn't a motion of no-confidence require a majority to succeed? Shaw's absence means the numbers would have been 43-43, without the Speaker's vote, although 44-43 in Labor's favour if there had been a Frankston by-election, which Labor would have likely won.

Which leads me to another question - Can the Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly vote in motions of no confidence?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Unexpected news: senator John Madigan has left the DLP, and will now sit as an independent. He cites "enemies within the ranks".

[Knives]

Things are all up in the air in Victoria again over Geoff Shaw.  Napthine will be moving to expel him from Parliament today (Thursday), but Labor's going to oppose it.

The turnaround from both sides is rather remarkable from this period in June.  However, to me, it rather makes sense.  Remember, in June the question was whether Shaw's expenses scandal was grounds enough to expel him - the Parliament resolved that is wasn't.  Now the question is whether he should be expelled because of a comment made in a newspaper interview and the premier's opinion on the sincerity of his apology statement.  Expulsion on those grounds would be a very slippery precedent.

What's the point, the election is only two months away, let the people of Frankston decide Mr. Shaw's fate, should he choose to run again as an independent.

That's really the issue here.  It's fairly clear that Napthine was just trying to avoid a by-election in June, but now that holding one is no longer possible he's totally in favor of removing Shaw.

He wasn't trying to avoid a by-election - he was trying to avoid a motion of no-confidence and triggering an early election.

Doesn't a motion of no-confidence require a majority to succeed? Shaw's absence means the numbers would have been 43-43, without the Speaker's vote, although 44-43 in Labor's favour if there had been a Frankston by-election, which Labor would have likely won.

Which leads me to another question - Can the Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly vote in motions of no confidence?

I think there was doubts as to where Ken Smith's allegiances lied.

[BaconBacon96]

Unexpected news: senator John Madigon has left the DLP, and will now sit as an independent. He cites "enemies within the ranks".

Basically, the hyper-factionalism that led to the DLP's formation has finally caught up with him.

[Barnes]

Things are all up in the air in Victoria again over Geoff Shaw.  Napthine will be moving to expel him from Parliament today (Thursday), but Labor's going to oppose it.

The turnaround from both sides is rather remarkable from this period in June.  However, to me, it rather makes sense.  Remember, in June the question was whether Shaw's expenses scandal was grounds enough to expel him - the Parliament resolved that is wasn't.  Now the question is whether he should be expelled because of a comment made in a newspaper interview and the premier's opinion on the sincerity of his apology statement.  Expulsion on those grounds would be a very slippery precedent.

What's the point, the election is only two months away, let the people of Frankston decide Mr. Shaw's fate, should he choose to run again as an independent.

That's really the issue here.  It's fairly clear that Napthine was just trying to avoid a by-election in June, but now that holding one is no longer possible he's totally in favor of removing Shaw.

He wasn't trying to avoid a by-election - he was trying to avoid a motion of no-confidence and triggering an early election.

Doesn't a motion of no-confidence require a majority to succeed? Shaw's absence means the numbers would have been 43-43, without the Speaker's vote, although 44-43 in Labor's favour if there had been a Frankston by-election, which Labor would have likely won.

Which leads me to another question - Can the Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly vote in motions of no confidence?

A majority of course, but not an absolute majority (50% + 1), an exception would be in France, or in countries like Germany which have constructive votes of no confidence.

In the Westminster system, the speaker only votes to break a tie.  By constitutional convention, the speaker always votes to maintain continuity within the house.  So, in this case, the speaker would vote with the government.

And as far as avoiding a by-election and/or a MoNC go, they're both part of the same larger game.

It's all theoretical now, but the Liberals really have done a foolish thing by firing up this charade once again instead of actually campaigning on their own policies and contrasts with Labor.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Things are all up in the air in Victoria again over Geoff Shaw.  Napthine will be moving to expel him from Parliament today (Thursday), but Labor's going to oppose it.

The turnaround from both sides is rather remarkable from this period in June.  However, to me, it rather makes sense.  Remember, in June the question was whether Shaw's expenses scandal was grounds enough to expel him - the Parliament resolved that is wasn't.  Now the question is whether he should be expelled because of a comment made in a newspaper interview and the premier's opinion on the sincerity of his apology statement.  Expulsion on those grounds would be a very slippery precedent.

What's the point, the election is only two months away, let the people of Frankston decide Mr. Shaw's fate, should he choose to run again as an independent.

That's really the issue here.  It's fairly clear that Napthine was just trying to avoid a by-election in June, but now that holding one is no longer possible he's totally in favor of removing Shaw.

He wasn't trying to avoid a by-election - he was trying to avoid a motion of no-confidence and triggering an early election.

Doesn't a motion of no-confidence require a majority to succeed? Shaw's absence means the numbers would have been 43-43, without the Speaker's vote, although 44-43 in Labor's favour if there had been a Frankston by-election, which Labor would have likely won.

Which leads me to another question - Can the Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly vote in motions of no confidence?

A majority of course, but not an absolute majority (50% + 1), an exception would be in France, or in countries like Germany which have constructive votes of no confidence.

In the Westminster system, the speaker only votes to break a tie.  By constitutional convention, the speaker always votes to maintain continuity within the house.  So, in this case, the speaker would vote with the government.

And as far as avoiding a by-election and/or a MoNC go, they're both part of the same larger game.

It's all theoretical now, but the Liberals really have done a foolish thing by firing up this charade once again instead of actually campaigning on their own policies and contrasts with Labor.

Thought the Speaker would vote with the government, just wasn't sure if Victoria had any certain provisions or amendments to the Westminster system.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

A new poll from Campbell Newman's seat of Ashgrove (single-seat polling caveat in place) has him down 58-42% with the ALP at over 51% of first preferences

[Knives]

I didn't think it was possible but I actually hate the Victorian Liberals more than the Federal. They are the most useless and incompetent people willing to risk billions on contracts that may be scrapped all for political point scoring. The East-West Link should be taken to the election with contracts signed if they win after the election, stop jeopardising the future of the state you unbelievable assholes. God, if I could slap Michael O'Brien I would slap him so hard right now.

[Smid]

You have that completely around the wrong way.

The person jeopardising the future of Victoria is Daniel Andrews, who has shown exceptionally poor judgement over the past couple of weeks, as demonstrated by his bad decisions. You can't simply tear up contracts following an election and think it won't affect the State's future ability to attract investment - if you could, the Myki and Desal contracts would have been torn up long ago. It's not the Liberals who are risking billions - it's Labor. If they tear up the contracts, the state will lose billions in infrastructure funding from Canberra and have to pay compensation and damages. The East West Link was originally proposed by Sir Rod Eddington in his Report to the previous Labor Government. Daniel Andrews has said throughout the year how only an irresponsible government would tear up contracts, and now he said he will do exactly that. He will say and do anything to try to win votes. He is risking the future of the state for political point scoring. That's why a wide range of groups over the past few days have rubbished his backflip. Daniel Andrews is willing to gamble billions of dollars and thousands of jobs because he thinks it will win him votes.

[Knives]

You have that completely around the wrong way.

The person jeopardising the future of Victoria is Daniel Andrews, who has shown exceptionally poor judgement over the past couple of weeks, as demonstrated by his bad decisions. You can't simply tear up contracts following an election and think it won't affect the State's future ability to attract investment - if you could, the Myki and Desal contracts would have been torn up long ago. It's not the Liberals who are risking billions - it's Labor. If they tear up the contracts, the state will lose billions in infrastructure funding from Canberra and have to pay compensation and damages. The East West Link was originally proposed by Sir Rod Eddington in his Report to the previous Labor Government. Daniel Andrews has said throughout the year how only an irresponsible government would tear up contracts, and now he said he will do exactly that. He will say and do anything to try to win votes. He is risking the future of the state for political point scoring. That's why a wide range of groups over the past few days have rubbished his backflip. Daniel Andrews is willing to gamble billions of dollars and thousands of jobs because he thinks it will win him votes.

The thing is the contracts for Myki and Desal were signed well before the election, these contracts are being signed weeks. This is an issue that should be brought to the electorate, and if the Liberals win then and only then should they sign off on these documents. Plus, how irresponsible is it to sign off on contracts when there is a legal challenge going on?

[Smid]

The Desal contract may have been signed well before the election, but at the previous election, Labor had said that they would not build a Desal plant, and rubbished the Liberal water policy for proposing to build one. Labor didn't have the guts to take that horrendous contract to the people, they just built it and put that millstone around the necks of Victorians. By comparison, nobody ruled out East West Link prior to the last election. Furthermore, funding was announced in the 2013/14 Budget - eighteen months ago. There has been a process. It's not a last-minute thought-bubble, raced through before the election. There is already a caretaker period before an election, in which a Government cannot make decisions which bind a future Government. That already exists, it's a long-established tradition of the Westminster system. You are proposing changing that - pushing it back to two Budgets prior to an election in a four-year term.

If this was like the GST, or the Carbon Tax, where there had been an unequivocal statement of the Government explicitly ruling it out, than yes, the Government should then not change a clearly stated and committed policy - it would need to be taken to the electorate. There was no such statement prior to the 2010 election, there is no need to delay a policy that has already seen substantial planning and pre-development work.

Labor has previously supported East West Link. When the Government announced Stage 1, which will complete the Eastern half of the missing link, Labor said that the priority should be the Western half. When the Government announced Stage 2, the Western half of the missing link, Labor suddenly opposed the whole project. Here is an endorsement from the Leader of the Opposition for Stage 2 of the East West Link, which he now opposes, taken from his address to the Press Club:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You will note that he even acknowledges the productivity benefits of East West Link.

What we can see from this is that Labor's opposition to East West Link is not from a policy perspective, not a measured and considered position - it's more about fighting off the threat of the Greens in the inner-city seats. That's why Daniel Andrews will say and do anything on East West Link now, like trash Victoria's reputation in international investment markets by proposing to tear up contracts between the State and industry, which would result in less value for money in future infrastructure projects.

This is why the announcement by Daniel Andrews has little to do with East West Link as a policy and more to do with his character and his judgement and the sorts of decisions he makes.

I think the people see through it, too. There was a Morgan poll on Friday - "Regardless of who you intend to vote for at the State Election in November, should the construction of the East-West Tunnel link proceed?" - which found that almost two-thirds (63.5%) of voters support the Tunnel construction, including more than half of voters supporting Labor. Victorians, including Labor voters, don't want Daniel Andrews to trash the State's reputation for his own political gain.

Daniel Andrews is willing to risk jobs, infrastructure improvements, productivity gains and the State's reputation in his desperate gamble for votes.

[Knives]

The Desal contract may have been signed well before the election, but at the previous election, Labor had said that they would not build a Desal plant, and rubbished the Liberal water policy for proposing to build one. Labor didn't have the guts to take that horrendous contract to the people, they just built it and put that millstone around the necks of Victorians. By comparison, nobody ruled out East West Link prior to the last election. Furthermore, funding was announced in the 2013/14 Budget - eighteen months ago. There has been a process. It's not a last-minute thought-bubble, raced through before the election. There is already a caretaker period before an election, in which a Government cannot make decisions which bind a future Government. That already exists, it's a long-established tradition of the Westminster system. You are proposing changing that - pushing it back to two Budgets prior to an election in a four-year term.

If this was like the GST, or the Carbon Tax, where there had been an unequivocal statement of the Government explicitly ruling it out, than yes, the Government should then not change a clearly stated and committed policy - it would need to be taken to the electorate. There was no such statement prior to the 2010 election, there is no need to delay a policy that has already seen substantial planning and pre-development work.

Labor has previously supported East West Link. When the Government announced Stage 1, which will complete the Eastern half of the missing link, Labor said that the priority should be the Western half. When the Government announced Stage 2, the Western half of the missing link, Labor suddenly opposed the whole project. Here is an endorsement from the Leader of the Opposition for Stage 2 of the East West Link, which he now opposes, taken from his address to the Press Club:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You will note that he even acknowledges the productivity benefits of East West Link.

What we can see from this is that Labor's opposition to East West Link is not from a policy perspective, not a measured and considered position - it's more about fighting off the threat of the Greens in the inner-city seats. That's why Daniel Andrews will say and do anything on East West Link now, like trash Victoria's reputation in international investment markets by proposing to tear up contracts between the State and industry, which would result in less value for money in future infrastructure projects.

This is why the announcement by Daniel Andrews has little to do with East West Link as a policy and more to do with his character and his judgement and the sorts of decisions he makes.

I think the people see through it, too. There was a Morgan poll on Friday - "Regardless of who you intend to vote for at the State Election in November, should the construction of the East-West Tunnel link proceed?" - which found that almost two-thirds (63.5%) of voters support the Tunnel construction, including more than half of voters supporting Labor. Victorians, including Labor voters, don't want Daniel Andrews to trash the State's reputation for his own political gain.

Daniel Andrews is willing to risk jobs, infrastructure improvements, productivity gains and the State's reputation in his desperate gamble for votes.

You're missing the point, both parties supported the desal. Only one atm, with a slim majority and no mandate supports E/W link - it's a policy that should be taken to the election, Victoria's reputation will not be damaged if it is taken to the election, it's as simple as that.