From my point of view I don't see the big deal, the process is fairly transparent, and is trying to break the faction stranglehold on the party....it can only be a positive imo....

yes i agree, but is it not an indication of how dysfunctional the process is if after 4 weeks you still have no clear direction???

also i just don't feel either of the contenders are anywhere near the level required to be leaders.....JMHO

The time frame of the ballot has always been very clear. What direction were you expecting?

Informing the rank and file members of your platform and conducting a postal vote can't be done in a couple of weeks. The reason no-one is making a big deal about it is because they are grounded in reality and understand the constraints of the process. Labor have an interim leader (Bowen) who is keeping the party running whilst a decision is made on the leader elect.

Honestly this has been managed a heck of a lot better than any Labor party politics has been handled in a long, long time.

How do we feel about Al Jazeera?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/09/abbott-plays-down-refugee-issue-jakarta-2013930144054552963.html

i sense an ambush...but anyway here goes.....

well after such a poor time governing, internal infighting and turmoil you would think they would be keen to regroup, sort out their problems and start to work together with a common goal....

That's exactly what they are doing, while avoiding the factional nonsense that lost them the election.

well that wouldn't be hard really would it????

fair enough....don't think the factional nonsense is the only thing that lost them the election

rhetoric

As opposed to the clear direction stemming from the quick appointment of Brendan Nelson as opposition leader after the Liberals lost in 2007? How'd that one work out?

no as opposed to the ALP's history....

6   Simon Crean   22 November 2001   2 December 2003   2 years   
17   Mark Latham   2 December 2003   28 January 2005   1 year, 1 month   
(15)   Kim Beazley   28 January 2005   4 December 2006   1 year, 10 months   
18   Kevin Rudd   4 December 2006   24 June 2010   3 years, 6 months   2007–2010
19   Julia Gillard   24 June 2010   26 June 2013   3 years   2010–2013
(18)   Kevin Rudd   26 June 2013   13 September 2013   3 months   2013
n/a1   Chris Bowen   13 September 2013   Incumbent   0 months

how did that work out for you gumpy??   

Edited by batfink: 4/10/2013 02:35:06 PM

What about the liberal party? At the time of Abbott's appointment they'd had 4 leaders in 2 years.

Where's your precious stability?

Despite the fact that he was so swift to herald people's deaths to gain an emotive response when defending Abbott, it's a "soft issue" :lol:

'I know you are you said you are so what am i'? Really? My god! You're a fucking spastic. Don't quote your own conceited name-calling back at me like it's my own words you moronic, arrogant twat.

Edited by afromanGT: 4/10/2013 04:09:02 PM

Come on guys and gals, lets leave the insults and personal attacks out of this thread, everyone has got a point of view and they're welcome to it without being called a spastic, troll or other such name.

Edited by Joffa: 4/10/2013 05:38:59 PM

Mmmmm

Drumroll please, the Liberal Party are about to attempt a backflip.

Barnaby Joyce: radio host's wedding was 'a work day like any other'

Agriculture minister says his attendance was unremarkable and that he did not claim expenses for flights or accommodation

Australian Associated Press
theguardian.com, Monday 30 September 2013 11.05 AEST

Barnaby Joyce is checking his travel records from 2011 to see if there are any "ambiguities" in his claim of expenses to attend a friend's wedding.

The minister for agriculture compares his attendance at radio presenter Michael Smith's wedding with going to a football match, saying both are work-related because politics was discussed.

Nevertheless, he is looking over his records to see if there are any expenses he should repay.

On Sunday, the attorney general, George Brandis, paid back almost $1,700 claimed in parliamentary expenses to go to the 2011 wedding of the former 2UE radio host.

Senator Brandis said his attendance was "primarily professional" because Smith had been covering scandals involving the then prime minister, Julia Gillard, and the former Labor MP Craig Thomson.

Joyce said on Monday that his initial investigations showed he didn't use a flight to travel to the wedding on the New South Wales central coast, use a Comcar to drive from his hotel to the wedding nor charge taxpayers for the cost of his hotel room.

"If there was any ambiguity about going from the Andrew Bolt Show to the motel ... I'll refund it but it was a work day like any other day," he told the ABC.

He said a range of people "involved with politics and involved in journalism" attended the wedding.

He likened it to getting invited to watch a football game or attend formal events.

"They're all private functions at which you spend most of the time talking about politics."

The acting Labor leader, Chris Bowen, said Brandis should not be involved in drawing up the new ministerial code of conduct since he had breached the old code "so flagrantly".

Bowen conceded there were some ambiguous functions politicians attended that were a mix of work and pleasure but said a "mate's wedding" clearly was not one.

"To see the first law officer of the nation claim that a friend's wedding in which he reportedly, quote unquote, 'tore up the dance floor', was a work-related expense is pathetic," he said.

"He's clearly one of the parliament's now biggest hypocrites."

Asked if Brandis "tore up the dance floor", Joyce said: "My recollection is not that astute."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/30/joyce-checks-expenses-wedding

Liberal party member threatened with suspension for NSW reform crusade

John Ruddick responds by emailing members, criticising 'North Korean-style rule' and threatening to expose factional rorts

Gabrielle Chan, political correspondent
theguardian.com, Friday 4 October 2013 19.51 AEST

A long-time Liberal party member threatened with suspension has emailed 10,000 Liberal party members, criticising the party rule that stops members speaking out about "the extraordinary culture of rorts that dominate the New South Wales Liberal party".

John Ruddick took the unprecedented step of sending a defiant message to all members, threatening to step up his campaign for democratisation of the party from "outside the tent" if he was suspended for five years.

"The most powerful weapon the factions of the NSW Liberal party have is the rule prohibiting the members speaking to the press about internal affairs," Ruddick said in his email.

"This prevents the public and the media being aware of the extraordinary culture of rorts that dominates the NSW Liberal party.

"It is not the practice of the other state divisions of the Liberal party to suspend members for speaking to the press about internal affairs … but NSW does it routinely.

"The ALP does not have this North Korean-style rule and I don't think other comparable parties around the world have it either."

Ruddick has been a strong supporter of the prime minister Tony Abbott's move to ban party officials from lobbying his government. Abbott's decree caused the immediate resignation of two prominent lobbyists, Michael Photios and Joe Tannous, from the party's state executive.

The NSW state director, Mark Needham, wrote to Ruddick, who ran for the position of NSW Liberal party president last year, informing him the party had instituted suspension proceedings after he spoke to the ABC's 7.30 program about democratising the party's preselection system.

In his letter regarding the suspension action, Needham quoted a section from his 7.30 interview, in which Ruddick called for further action.

"People who are registered lobbyists have now resigned but there are a significant group of people who are in-house lobbyists, and if these reforms that I am proposing come in, they wouldn't be able to serve," Ruddick said on 7.30.

"Oh yes, and something is going to be done. The membership of the party now is outraged about what's happening. The membership of the party is delighted with what Tony Abbott has done. So yes, I believe something is going to be done.

"All the people I speak to in the party, and that's quite a lot, are very fired up about this issue."

Ruddick and an increasing number of party members want a direct vote to preselect candidates and they blame the Liberal party's poor result in western Sydney on branch stacking.

Under the current rules, branch members vote for a state council delegate, who has the right to vote for candidates. Once powerbrokers or factions dominate a branch, they reject new members to keep control of the branch and keep the vote in state council.

There is a view among some sections of the party that such branch stacking caused the preselection of weak candidates such as Jaymes Diaz (Greenway), Martin Zaiter (Parramatta) and Andrew Nguyen (Fowler). The Liberal party subsequently "locked up" the three candidates from media interviews and they were not seen for the life of the campaign.

Needham informed Ruddick that he could attend the 22 November state executive meeting where his suspension would be debated. In his letter to members on Thursday, Ruddick questioned why the former Liberal MP for Parramatta Ross Cameron and the former Howard minister Nick Minchin were not also suspended for appearing on the program.

"I don't believe I am being suspended from the party simply for speaking to the media … Ross Cameron spoke at much greater length than myself on the same program and has attracted no censure.

"The following day Ross had an excellent article about the internal workings of the NSW Liberal party which you can read by clicking here ... Lobbyist and factional heavyweight Michael Photios speaks to the media about internal affairs with impunity … but 10 seconds from me gets a five-year suspension."

Ruddick told Liberal members he believed the tactic was an "attempt to stall the campaign to give all party members a vote for our lower house candidates, our senate and upper house candidates and state executive".

"Democratisation via plebiscites is the greatest threat to the factional structure of this party since branch stacking began in the 1970's," he said.

Ruddick was defiant in the face of the five-year ban, which fellow campaigner Ross Cameron told ABC was akin to a "lifetime suspension".

"It is somewhat embarrassing to me. If Ruddick is guilty then I must be his co-accused," he told the ABC.

"It does make my position difficult. And if the party continues down this path it is not just going to have consequences for me, but for a whole range of people who are watching this with acute attention.

"I think a normal, fair-minded person hearing that a 10-second grab produces a five-year suspension, which is effectively – let's be honest – [it's] an expulsion. Nobody has two lifetimes, five years is an expulsion.

"It is totally disproportionate and frankly, it will only make Ruddick stronger because it is so obviously an unjust response."

Ruddick first ran for the presidency of the party on a platform of democratisation in 2011 and increased his vote to 40% in 2012. He told members he believed it had "lit a spark" for party reform.

His campaign is occurring while the Labor party conducts its leadership elections and ALP members have reported the process has energised the party when the election loss would normally see a slump.

In his email to members, Ruddick was adamant.

"I will attend the meeting of state executive on 22 November 2013 where the suspension will be debated. That date is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of a great freedom fighter, President John F Kennedy … which is a remarkable coincidence as my first reaction to the letter was Kennedy's line, 'I do not shrink from this responsibility – I welcome it!'

"If the state executive proceeds with the suspension, the campaign to democratise the NSW Liberal party will step up a gear … from outside the tent.

"With an undiminished love for the party of Robert Menzies, I will send weekly emails exposing in detail factional rorts and provide educational case studies on the merit of our state executive members and our parliamentary delegation."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/liberal-party-suspension-threat

Australia's economy remains the envy of the developed world

Despite claims to the contrary, the performance of the Australian economy has been rock solid. Australians have been less aware of this strength than the rest of the world, but this isn't their fault

Wayne Swan
theguardian.com, Friday 4 October 2013 12.35 AEST

In the three months since I stepped down as treasurer, I have had plenty of time to reflect on Labor's six years of government and contemplate the future. I've spent a lot of it reflecting on the often gaping difference between the perception and actual performance of the Australian economy and why such a gulf exists. It's never more obvious than when I travel overseas to attend international conferences and talk to respected economists and policy-makers, as I’ll be doing next week in the US and Europe.

I’ve always been up for a robust discussion on our economy and it is great to have a range of views in our public debate. But I've also been a politician for more than 20 years, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that often assertion and opinion in our public debate are bereft of the facts. Our national debate pays a price for this: you could almost set your watch to the rubbish coming from the conservatives and their cheerleaders in the media. As a side note, it's almost comical how quickly the new Abbott government has bolted from its claims of a "budget emergency" and "debt crisis", instead flagging the need for stimulus spending and government backed debt to build infrastructure.

Despite the predictable claims to the contrary, the performance of the Australian economy over the last 20 years has been rock solid, and continues to be outstanding in the face of ongoing global volatility. These are facts readily accepted by the IMF, the OECD and most credible private sector economists, but ignored by those with vested interests and parts of the press.

The facts are these. In global terms, there can be no clearer display of strength and resilience than the incredible 22 consecutive years of growth we have achieved. The incredible resilience of our economy has been confirmed yet again in the recently published 2013 June quarter National Accounts showing GDP growth of 2.6%, a little below trend for the 2012-2013 financial year.

It's probably fair to say that Australians have been less aware of our economic strength than the rest of the world, but this isn’t their fault. It lies in the refusal of a faction of those who lead and influence debate to deal with hard facts, and who instead are constantly looking to talk the joint down and erode confidence.

I recently saw some commentary suggesting Australia’s extraordinary record of continuous economic growth was largely "made-in-China", might soon come to an end, and that as a nation we didn’t have much to show for it. It's not the first time I've seen assertions that Australians have been complacent and profligate consumers of the benefits of the mining investment boom, leaving them ill prepared for lower commodity prices and terms of trade.

Whilst these incorrect assertions have been common in our domestic debate, they are damaging to the extent that they filter through to international perceptions. At its core, this diagnosis misses a lot of important developments in recent years and is not supported by evidence, such as the restraint Australian households have shown in response to the terms of trade boom. Household saving has been substantially higher – spectacularly so after the global financial crisis, but beginning well before that.

Australians have not been feckless in their experience of the terms of trade increases over the last 10 years; they have saved an enormous amount of income from the boom. In just the March quarter alone, net saving by Australian households was a massive $44bn of their disposable income. That's the highest quarterly household savings total in our history. It's four times as much as households saved in net terms a decade ago, when the terms of trade boom began. The combination we’ve seen of high savings and high investment reassures me that we are not wasting our good fortune – and to suggest so is incorrect. Australians are saving and investing like never before.

It's also not the first time I've seen the myth that Australia’s recession-beating performance came largely from riding China’s coattails. This couldn’t be further from the truth. In their authoritative post-crisis analysis, Australian treasury officials Steve Morling and Tony McDonald concluded that "a combination of factors explain the extraordinary resilience of the Australian economy" during the global financial crisis.

There is no doubt that the strength of the Australian financial system was critical in buffeting Australia's economy. As Morling and McDonald note, the decisive measures taken by the Rudd Labor government and our financial regulators to support the financial system "were important in ensuring continued financial stability in Australia, allowing the flow of credit to households and businesses to continue".

The Treasury officials also conclude that the "rapid deployment of fiscal stimulus appears to have been effective in increasing domestic demand, with transfers in late 2008 and the first half of 2009 boosting household consumption and putting a floor under business and consumer confidence".

Put simply, in their words, together with the "first effects of rapid and timely reductions in interest rates in Australia ... fiscal stimulus started to be reflected in increased household cash flow". To be blunt, it's therefore plainly ridiculous to argue that stimulus worked in China but not in Australia.

So what about China? Of course China helped, but Australian mining overall didn’t particularly. As Morling and McDonald state, Australian export volumes of metal ores and minerals dropped by 9% in the December quarter of 2008, and were down a cumulative 6.4% over the three quarters to the end of March 2009. The volume of coal, coke and briquettes fell sharply in both the December quarter 2008 and the March quarter 2009, to be over 16% lower over the three quarters. Continuing growth in demand from China helped to partly offset much lower demand from other major trading partners, but overall, mining production contributed only 0.1% to overall real GDP growth of 0.3% over the three quarters or 0.4% to overall growth of 1.8% from the June quarter of 2009 to the December quarter of 2009.

And while there’s no doubt our economy is in transition and will need new sources of growth beyond the investment phase of the mining boom, mining investment as a share of the economy still remains at record highs. In the June quarter this year, new private business investment remained at around 50 year highs as a percentage of GDP, at around 17.5%. All that investment is now starting to show dividends, as the production and export phases of the mining boom begin to ramp up. In fact, our exports were up an impressive 6.4% over the year to the June quarter 2013.

I think BHP Billiton CEO Andrew Mackenzie smashed these claims out of the park when he stated that "global demand for commodities is expected to grow by up to 75% over the next 15 years as 250m more people move from the Chinese countryside to cities and Asia’s middle class approaches 3bn". For example, Mackenzie noted that "steel consumption is expected to increase by over 50% in the next 10 years with more than half of this in Asia". As Mackenzie put it, "only a handful of countries, of which Australia is one, can currently deliver the volume of resources required for Asia’s continued economic growth".

Most significantly, I was struck by the suggestion that Australia has not been served well by the last three years of minority government, particularly with our economy in transition. Of course, even a cursory glance at the sheer size and scale of the long-term economic reforms that the Labor government has put in place over the last three years blows these claims out of the water. These included putting a market price on carbon pollution, reforming resource rent taxation arrangements, boosting superannuation or the massive productivity enhancing investments that have made in infrastructure, skills, education and the National Broadband Network and Disability Care Australia.

These are transformational reforms which will strengthen Australia’s economy for decades to come. Of course some of these reforms are about to be repealed, which will pose challenges for the Abbott government and our economy.

However, I’ll leave the last word on this to Fitch Ratings, which during this term of minority government upgraded Australia to give our nation the gold-plated AAA-rating from all three global ratings agencies for the first time in our history. In March this year, Fitch reaffirmed our AAA rating, saying that "Australia's high level of political stability and governance is maintained, which supports the country's attractive business climate".

And Fitch didn’t stop there. It blew the economic trash-talkers away with its simple declaration that "Australia has remained one of the strongest performing economies in the AAA universe since the global financial crisis began".

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/04/australia-economy-labor

Budgetary crisis, fiscal emergency.......

Edited by Joffa: 4/10/2013 08:09:15 PM

http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/australias-current-debt-position-update.html

Yep, a nation in crisis alright.

Tony Abbott rules out review of Minchin protocol on expenses

New code of conduct will not limit number of times politicians can incorrectly claim expenses with no consequence

Bridie Jabour
theguardian.com, Thursday 3 October 2013 18.42 AEST

The prime minister has ruled out a review of the Minchin protocol, which allows MPs to pay back incorrectly claimed expenses without a timeframe, multiple times and with no consequence.

The protocol was introduced in 1998 and allows MPs and senators who have incorrectly claimed expenses to pay them back with no disciplinary action being taken.

There is no limit on the number of times politicians can incorrectly claim expenses with no consequence and there is no timeframe on when they have to be repaid.

The new government is reviewing and rewriting the minister’s code of conduct but when asked if it would include a review of the Minchin protocol – which has not been reviewed since it was introduced – Tony Abbott’s office said there were no plans to.

His position seems to be supported by his Labor counterparts, with the interim leader, Chris Bowen, and leadership hopefuls Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten refusing to directly comment on whether the protocol should be reviewed.

The Minchin protocol reared its head most recently when the attorney general, George Brandis, and the agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, paid back expenses relating to a wedding they attended two years ago where Joyce read out a poem and Brandis “tore up the dance floor”, according to the groom.

The pair paid back the money last week after Fairfax Media reported their claims, although they maintain their attendance at the wedding was work-related.

The former Speaker Peter Slipper is facing a court case for allegedly incorrectly claiming $900 worth of Cabcharges which he offered to repay to the Department of Finance. Although he denies the charges and that the Cabcharges were incorrectly used, Slipper was unable to use the Minchin protocol as an unidentified person referred the matter to the Australian federal police before he could repay the money.

He had previously repaid about $14,000 of incorrectly claimed expenses.

“There are no immediate plans to review the Minchin protocol,” a spokesman for Abbott told Guardian Australia.

When asked if Bowen supported a review of the protocol, his spokesman referred Guardian Australia to a press conference transcript.

In the transcript Bowen does not refer to the Minchin protocol at all, or the practice of repaying expenses, but instead talks about the publications allowance Brandis used to buy about $13,000 worth of books over three years.

Brandis made the claims within the guidelines and Bowen said in the transcript he was unaware books could be claimed. It was not relevant to the protocol.

Shorten’s spokeswoman referred Guardian Australia to an Insiders episode in which Shorten attacked Brandis for claiming expenses to go to a wedding.

“I think there should be an investigation,” he said. “It is not normal to say that the reason why you get the taxpayer to support you to go to a wedding is so that you can network with journalists.”

Shorten did not address the Minchin protocol either.

Albanese’s office did not respond to a request for his views on the protocol.

The Minchin protocol has been used by both sides of politics to pay back incorrectly claimed expenses.

Abbott paid back $9,400 worth of expenses he claimed while promoting his book Battlelines and former prime minister Julia Gillard repaid $4,000 after her partner, Tim Mathieson, used a commonwealth car to run his business in 2007.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/03/tony-abbott-rules-out-review-of-minchin-protocol-on-expenses

Japan and China are both going to find themselves in trouble with the governments going into significant debt in order to promote continued growth, but they could find that they're getting too far into debt.

In terms of the global economy Australia's overall position isn't an unenviable one. But with the kind of numbers that the alarmists are able to throw around it's quite easy for the polirical parties to make each other look bad, since your average voter only pays attention every 3 years they don't remember that the figures don't swing particularly alarmingly.

So what does turn boats back really mean? :lol:

Does that involve boarding them in order to physically turn them around?

What stops them going 50m and then doing a U turn?

Is this really what we're going to have to bump up the defense budget to cover?

-PB

2 things to address. 1, my point was that a quick decision is not a reliable indication of proper functioning or clear direction, as you seem to suggest. 2, as you have so well shown, the process for the Labor party (not my party btw) has been a mess in the past. You seem to argue that taking 4+ weeks shows a dysfunctional process. I would say that taking 4+ weeks shows they may finally not have a dysfunctional process.

No doubt absolutely foolhardy from Gillard and the LNP would have been equally as foolish to not jump all over that.

I can't wait for the Liberal 'promises' to start falling by the wayside as well.

fair enough, i see your point....i was merely stating that if the party was anywhere close to being in control,having plans and goals that they would have and should have had succession plans in place, like it was pretty obvious they were headed for defeat, so to me it show a massive lack of foresight and planning.......i assume the delay is due to the changes that KRUDD made to the ALP's constitution and bylaws???

you mad princess??????

reverting to your fallback position of personal abuse,

you just can't take anyone having a different opinion or position to you......
is it because you feel threatened?? scared?? or just plain inadequate?? or perhaps insecure......very poor form using terms likw you have to try and discredit me.....really poor form.....i feel sorry for you....you must have issues that need resolving to use such derogatory and spiteful terms.....i feel sorry for the people on this forum who read your venom and have autistic and challenged children and see you loose use of these terms in here......

just showing your ignorance and lack of respect.....=;