Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Domestic Politics


cadete
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 2/1/2018 at 5:50 AM, Tesla said:

That's great and all, but let's talk about the real story of the last few days.

Government so incompetent they sold off filling cabinets full of top secret documents :droy:

Now of course instead of making sure they're not so retarded in future they'll be making it illegal for journalists to report classified documents.

Nailed it

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-05/cabinet-files-reporting-at-risk-under-new-laws/9395976

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2018 at 3:50 PM, Tesla said:

Now of course instead of making sure they're not so retarded in future they'll be making it illegal for journalists to report classified documents.  

I thought that the "D-Notice" (DSMA-Notice) system was actually still in operation in Australia (but not/almost never used these days) and also that legislation to to extend it was proposed in 2014 but was not continued with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Seriously I use to think the "We survived the GFC" line by ALP voters was a pretty crappy line for a government to take credit for something they only very partially helped with... 

This is still probably the case but there is just enough meat in that argument to now say that they were better than the current bunch.

This current Turnbull Government is rudderless and pathetic - The worst Federal Government in my lifetime. At least if they had stayed with Abbott they would have kept some consistency in their message. 

Edited by cadete
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Quote

Libs to shelve $300m Etihad plan, use cash for grassroots sport

A $300 MILLION deal to revamp Melbourne’s rundown Etihad Stadium should be shelved to pour taxpayers’ money into Victoria’s grassroots sport, Opposition Leader Matthew Guy says.

Michael Warner

 A $300 MILLION Etihad Stadium rebuild would be shelved under a Liberal plan to pour taxpayers’ money into grassroots sport.

Opposition leader Matthew Guy has declared Victorian voters should be given the right to decide the future of Melbourne’s sporting infrastructure at November’s state election.

The AFL and Andrews Government are on the verge of signing off on a major taxpayer-funded deal to revamp the rundown Docklands stadium.

But the Coalition want the talks to stop and the public to decide.

 “If I’m elected in November, I’ll take every dollar Daniel Andrews commits to the AFL to spend on Etihad Stadium and give it to local sports ground upgrades including building new female change rooms,” Mr Guy told the Sunday Herald Sun.

“It’s about time that our suburban and country sporting clubs rather than just the AFL got some support from the state government.”

The AFL, which recently bought Etihad Stadium for about $200m, wants to breathe new life into the Docklands precinct by opening the ground out to a sprawling waterfront entertainment zone.

Open-air bars, restaurants, parks and a running track would be built, along with a 1500-seat ballroom to host events such as the Brownlow Medal.

Community yoga classes on the Etihad playing surface have also been spruiked.

Acting Sport Minister Ben Carroll would not confirm today’s report, but said the government was in talks with the AFL on a range of venues.

“We’re in regular talks with the AFL, whether it be Etihad, the MCG, or returning the former AFL suburban grounds to the community for their use,” he said.

“A lot of these contacts are commercial in confidence and we will continue to talk to them ... If we decide to make an investment it will be merit based and it will ensure that sport continues to grow.”

Speaking at a ribbon-cutting event for female-friendly change rooms at a suburban football oval, Mr Carroll accused the Coalition of hypocrisy.

“This is policy on the run ... if they can’t put females into Parliament how are they going to put females out on the sporting oval?”

 Shadow treasurer Michael O’Brien said Mr Andrews “has no mandate to enter into any lucrative deal with the AFL at the expense of Victoria’s community sporting clubs”.

“No contract should be signed before the election.” Mr O’Brien said.

“The AFL bought Etihad Stadium as a property investment. Good luck to it. But Victorians don’t expect their taxes to prop up the AFL’s finances at the expense of the sporting needs of kids right across our state.

“If he (Andrews) believes that Victorians want their money handed to the AFL, he must have the courage to put it to November’s election.

“Let Victorians decide at the next election between Matthew Guy’s vision for community sport or Daniel Andrews’ plan to hand over buckets of cash to the AFL to renovate just one stadium.”

A government taskforce including Mr Andrews, Treasurer Tim Pallas, Major Projects Minister Jacinta Allan, Planning Minister Richard Wynne and Sports Minister John Eren — has been reviewing the state’s stadiums and sporting precincts since November 2016.

Government sources say a green light for the Etihad Stadium makeover would likely require the AFL to spend more on women’s ­facilities around the state.

In a pitch document presented last year, the AFL hinted a revamped Etihad Stadium would be a major vote winner for the government.

 “Involvement in this project would ensure the Andrews Government’s legacy as a dynamic, visionary government,” the document said.

“Importantly, this would be achieved for a fraction of the cost of stadium projects in other states.”

Mr Guy added: “I won’t hand over millions of dollars to the AFL to spend on Etihad Stadium, my goal will be to prioritise funding to our suburban and country sports clubs,” Mr Guy said.

“Grassroots football, netball, cricket, basketball and soccer clubs are crying out for state government support.”

— with Ed Gardiner

michael.warner@news.com.au

 

 

Pay for your stadium yourself AFL. Maybe you can charge Victory more rent? Or fine them for bad crowd behaviour?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tesla said:

So at what point is a corruption investigation launched into Daniel Andrews and the Victorian Labor Party?

Must be getting massive kick backs from the firefighter's union, only plausible explanation.

Probably the day after they launch a corruption investigation into Guy's time as Planning Minister and that undisclosed side letter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's never a question about who's corrupt or not when it comes to poli's. They control our money with little or no conscience to stealing it and they all do it. It's a question of who steals the least and who spends the shit they don't steal on something that's at least semi important. Android Daniels Gaybor Party not only steals the most but spends what they don't steal on transgender gender cupcake workshops and marxist propaganda in public schools. I don't particularly give a fuck as I'm not living Victoria any more but surely Andrews must go down as the worst premier of all time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, malloy said:

Geez Andrews is a bit rich saying the libs and greens forcing a major road project to be stopped as 'economic vandalism'

Yep. It’s a retarded idea (& I’m pissed off at the Liberals) but he was the idiot who started the cancer 

Edited by Shahanga
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Politisation of infrastructure drives me nuts. Its why we end up with shit roads and no train to the airport 

We need a dictatorship to avoid all of this political mumbo-jumbo. Long live the glorious People's Worker's Republic of Australia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Shahanga said:

Yep. It’s a retarded idea (& I’m pissed off at the Liberals) but he was the idiot who started the cancer 

Infarstructure has always been politicised. From the Sydney Opera House, through to Alcoa Aluminium infrastructure, through to the Gordon Below Franklin dam, through to the metro tunnel (originally funded by the Gillard govt. and cancelled by the Abbot govt.). So too much credit to Andrews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Infarstructure has always been politicised. From the Sydney Opera House, through to Alcoa Aluminium infrastructure, through to the Gordon Below Franklin dam, through to the metro tunnel (originally funded by the Gillard govt. and cancelled by the Abbot govt.). So too much credit to Andrews.

You're right, doesn't mean it isn't frustrating. I just think as a voter we hit  a new low with the EWL debacle. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NewConvert said:

Infarstructure has always been politicised. From the Sydney Opera House, through to Alcoa Aluminium infrastructure, through to the Gordon Below Franklin dam, through to the metro tunnel (originally funded by the Gillard govt. and cancelled by the Abbot govt.). So too much credit to Andrews.

Comrade Andrews is never to blame!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, thisphantomfortress said:

You're right, doesn't mean it isn't frustrating. I just think as a voter we hit  a new low with the EWL debacle. 

For me the low was the secret side letter. I had never seen or heard about legally signed secret letters in Australian politics. Even during the Bejelke-Petersen years, there was no such letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

For me the low was the secret side letter. I had never seen or heard about legally signed secret letters in Australian politics. Even during the Bejelke-Petersen years, there was no such letters.

The low for me is that it seems like Andrews scrapped it to protect the CFMEU due to the construction code on the project not for the phony reasons he wheeled out.

People were (imo rightfully) up in arms about Guy having lunch with an alleged mafia boss, but its ok for labor to be politically aligned with the biggest racketeers in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Andrew's did with the EWL was of no benefit to anyone and bloody annoying.

As mentioned previous Infrastructure Projects always suffer as they become the property of the Major Party who propose them in Australia which is very frustrating. Fucken frustrating and each party has a bad record at this...

However, considering the former Victorian Government were also pretty pathetic and only really had the EWL as their one initiative.

Therefore Andrews was really kind of forced into having an opposing position because there really was not much else he could say about some relic politicans who sat on their hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, cadete said:

What Andrew's did with the EWL was of no benefit to anyone and bloody annoying.

As mentioned previous Infrastructure Projects always suffer as they become the property of the Major Party who propose them in Australia which is very frustrating. Fucken frustrating and each party has a bad record at this...

However, considering the former Victorian Government were also pretty pathetic and only really had the EWL as their one initiative.

Therefore Andrews was really kind of forced into having an opposing position because there really was not much else he could say about some relic politicans who sat on their hands.

The EWl was a rushed job. First Infrastructure Australia had the link commencing in the western suburbs to alleviate congestion from Melton, Werribee and Geelong, and at some future date go through to the Eastern Suburbs. Given that the then state government had not developed any proposals and had developed a reputation as a do nothing government they felt it best to keep the north eastern suburbs by delivering a freeway. Only problem is that any project that size requires at least 12 to 18 months of planning, background work, etc. Given the time frame, the vendors/constructors sought guarantees that the time and money spent on a rushed job would be repaid and the risks lay with the government. So 2nd, and 3rd tier companies were asked to provide an inflated bogus estimate within 14 days with the guarantee that they would be paid regardless. I know this as one of my best mates did just one such quote and the company did get paid. I suspect that this is the reason for the secret side letter. Even if the coalition had retained government the EWL would have cost way over what it should have.

And you are right that the previous state government had one (and late) initiative. What I can't understand is why that after so many years in opposition and with four years in government (and with the public service at their call) they could not develop any more.

As for the ALP they already had the 50 level xing removal as their major infrastructure as well as the usual education, health and police policies. So if the money was locked in on the EWL then there would be no level crossing removal, so pretty straight forward as to why they would oppose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bt50 said:

What are people thoughts on scrapping the senate and having no upper house a la Queensland? For? Against?

Against. There are grounds for some small reforms but definitely against.

I have serious concerns with unicameral representations as it does not take much for a charismatic/strong/psycho leader to get a taste for life on the public trough and I see the Senate as one bulwark against this. The second role to scrutinise legislation and the public service is also a plus. There is plenty of legislation that has been amended due to scrutiny but an example of legislation that was not scrutinised because everyone thought it was such a good idea was the introduction of Military Courts - only problem was that the original legislation introduced by the unlamented Brendan Nelson took the full bench of the High Court 15 minutes to declare it unconstitutional in 2009.

In terms of reform, I would review that each state has an equal number of senators. I don't mind having smaller states an equal say but the disparity in population between Tasmania and NSW is getting too big for this to continue IMHO.

The other aspect I would consider would be two Australia wide Senators. I would skew the voting so that the Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane axis do not overwhelm the voting. Alternatively, it would be possible to have two senators representing those state capitals and two senators representing the rest of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

Against. There are grounds for some small reforms but definitely against.

I have serious concerns with unicameral representations as it does not take much for a charismatic/strong/psycho leader to get a taste for life on the public trough and I see the Senate as one bulwark against this. The second role to scrutinise legislation and the public service is also a plus. There is plenty of legislation that has been amended due to scrutiny but an example of legislation that was not scrutinised because everyone thought it was such a good idea was the introduction of Military Courts - only problem was that the original legislation introduced by the unlamented Brendan Nelson took the full bench of the High Court 15 minutes to declare it unconstitutional in 2009.

In terms of reform, I would review that each state has an equal number of senators. I don't mind having smaller states an equal say but the disparity in population between Tasmania and NSW is getting too big for this to continue IMHO.

The other aspect I would consider would be two Australia wide Senators. I would skew the voting so that the Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane axis do not overwhelm the voting. Alternatively, it would be possible to have two senators representing those state capitals and two senators representing the rest of the country.

@NewConvert Would you change the Senate voting system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/03/2018 at 9:02 AM, bt50 said:

What are people thoughts on scrapping the senate and having no upper house a la Queensland? For? Against?

I don’t think states should have upper houses. Complete waste of money.

i also have (lesser) concerns re the senate. Basically I think the government that’s elected should get to govern. If we don’t like them, we can vote them out next election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always been a supporter of Upper Houses in State Systems.

However, personally I think these members should be more localized and Local Government systems/offices should be based around these Representatives.

Out of the three levels of Government in a State it's at the Local Level where Corruption and illogical and unaccountable Government decisions occur.

Also why would we want to mimic anything that happens in QLD Government. I'm sure the older posters on here know what I am talking about here... Esp in regards to Gerrymandering.

Edited by cadete
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bt50 said:

Geez the amount of morons coming on the radio etc to have their piece on Bill's franking credit cash grab when they dont even understand how the bloody tax system works is doing my head in.

People will always complain when they cant get given (in their opinion) free money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, haz said:

People will always complain when they cant get given (in their opinion) free money

For Self-Managed Superannuation Funds and many self-funded retirees Labor's proposal is a major change in the rules and if implemented will have a significant effect on SMSF and retirees' incomes. Particularly so when interest rates and the income from interest-bearing deposits are so low. It should be remembered that the affected people are those who in most cases are not drawing the age pension and are not a burden on the rest of the community in that respect.

The proposed change is unlikely to be grandfathered, and is, in effect, changing the rules while the game is in progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jw1739 said:

For Self-Managed Superannuation Funds and many self-funded retirees Labor's proposal is a major change in the rules and if implemented will have a significant effect on SMSF and retirees' incomes. Particularly so when interest rates and the income from interest-bearing deposits are so low. It should be remembered that the affected people are those who in most cases are not drawing the age pension and are not a burden on the rest of the community in that respect.

The proposed change is unlikely to be grandfathered, and is, in effect, changing the rules while the game is in progress.

By that definition nothing would ever be changed, at all, ever, in any sphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbh i think the most humorous part is that if they were to bring it in, they'd likely cause house prices up even further as more people look to invest there.

All Bill had to do was sit there and shut up and he was going to be PM. He's fucked it up monumentally with one of the worst tax policies to hit modern Australia in any serious fashion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...