Auspol December: All I want for Christmas is a new government.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol December: All I want for Christmas is a new government.

«‹›2 »

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Fruity Gordo posted:

Anyone who doesn't vote 5 for the OP is a bum

# ¿ Nov 30, 2014 23:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:58

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Tirade posted:

What's the latest on the Greens result in Vicpol? ABC has them ahead in Melbourne but are still predicting zero Greens seats in their overview?

Mark my loving words. This isn't done yet. There is so much dust still left to settle in the lower house, to say nothing of the upper house. I've been amazed at how the media has called all sort of really close seats like Melbourne.

Also, East West Link? Dead under Andrews? Believe it when you see it. We're not there yet.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2014 01:49

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Gough Suppressant posted:

Karl Stefanovic is a legit cool dude in many ways. Like wearing the same cheap suit on air every day for a year to point out the double standards female TV presenters face in regards to on-air appearance.

Like saying "Good on ya PM" in response to Tone Abet having a cry about political correctness and urging us to "let boys be boys, let girls be girls".

Karl is still a shithead.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 03:14

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Hobo Erotica posted:

It was literally the last question in what was already a 10 minute interview, the "good on ya PM" sounded more like "good bye thanks for your time see you later" than an explicit agreement with the sentiment the PM had just expressed (which was "and above all else, let the parents do what they think is in the best interest of their children").

Has he done anything else that makes him a shithead?

Karl Stefanovic is a breakfast TV presenter who is most famous for being shitfaced on air a lot.

Sparticle posted:

Stefanovic has said atleast one stupid/ignorant thing so you must hate him if you wish to remain ideologically pure.

Alternatively, you could grow up and realise that you can like a thing that a person did without actually liking the person themselves. For example, the One Suit For A Year trick was a good one and I'm glad that he did it, but the persona he tries very hard to push is "Hi I'm Karl, yer stereotypical Aussie larrikin bloke, me missus has got a great arse, I drink a fuckload of piss, I'm Karl Stefanovic, let me talk inane poo poo at you while you get dressed for work". I'm sorry, but he's hugely obnoxious.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 06:49

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Matthew Beet posted:

Can you like a person and not like a thing that they did too?

gently caress Beet I don't know, let's not go pushing too many envelopes at once

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 06:57

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Kat Delacour posted:

The Prahran results need to be used as an info graphic anytime someone pulls out the "my vote doesn't really count" bullshit. There were more informal votes than there were votes for all the independents combined, and even the dogsbody independent got more votes than the margin.

Yeah but I don't live in Prahran.

Your move

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 12:51

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

ewe2 posted:

So part of the dole bill (Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014) went through the Senate tonight with amendments from ALP. This is not the bit which canes under-30's and 50-55's yet, that's the bit they're afraid to put up.

But this bit is all about breaches and whether you satisfy the activity test if you're over 55. Basically for now, the ALP amendments stalled the worst parts, particularly item 16 which would have given the Secretary of the Department carte blanche to invent whole classes of people not exempt from the activity test. That's important at least because if it had got through it would have been much easier to apply it downwards.

The intention was claimed to stop people basically living on the dole and just doing voluntary work to avoid participation requirements (as if that is some kind of preferred choice). But really it was to give them the regulatory framework to do whatever they liked with the rules without legislation and I'm betting they'll try this with the other part of the bill. People over 55 could have been forced to do full-time job searching and voluntary work or work for the dole at the same time. And it could have been a trojan horse to make it the general case.

The breach rules were fiddly bullshit to try and make some breaches permanent and boiled down to making it harder to get your case heard if you had a genuine reason to miss appointments and needed to be reinstated. The amendments smoothed that part out. The way most breaches work is that you don't do what's required, they cut you off and its up to you to fix it. There are some loopholes allowing you to claim you were going to do what was required and get reinstated immediately.

But the mechanism that was proposed was just badly written and that got scrubbed. For instance they wanted to prevent some situations from being reviewed by the Social Security Tribunal, claiming that it would be "quicker" to get reinstated. In reality, they were closing off avenues of appeal deliberately. We're just lucky this was put so clumsily and was easily spotted for what it was, and that the ALP were prepared to amend it much less oppose it.

I am a bit upset with the MSM and even twitter for basically ignoring this session of the Senate because it could have gone differently and we would have woken up with oh my god they didn't. Vigilance, people! Also watching that stuff is seriously depressing because all the danger that it represents is sucked out by the procedural bollocks. There could have been some great speeches, I didn't watch them because they weren't the spiky end of the deal. And that is my effortpost and I desperately need to blot it all out.

Thanks for this!

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 13:16

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Matthew Beet posted:

SPORTS SPORTS SPORTS IN SPORTSTORIA!

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4135968.htm

quote:

DAVID MORRISON: Yeah - look, I've got no anthropological training, I'm not a sociologist and I would think that a number of your viewers would say, "Well, it's a bit odd for a chief-of-army to be talking about these sorts of matters," but I head one of Australia's great institutions. It's overwhelmingly male. Just over 10 per cent of our workforce is women. I think that male leaders in Australia need to take a role here because this is essentially an issue about culture. It's the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, about how we define ourselves as Australians or soldiers or members of the media. Those stories, in my view, my experience, are more male than they are - more masculine than they are feminine. I think that that inculcates a belief in young Australians that there is some inbuilt advantage to being a male, that you have certain rights accorded to you by your birthright that aren't there for women to enjoy or to see their potential reached during their lifetime.

LEIGH SALES: So, give me an example of the types of stories we tell ourselves to which you're referring. You mentioned in your speech this morning the ANZAC narrative, for example.

DAVID MORRISON: Well - any chief-of-army treads on dangerous ground where they could be perceived in any way, shape or form of being critical of ANZAC and I'm not being. The bravery shown by the soldiers in the ANZAC campaign, as it has been in all of our wars and military operations, is beyond question. But the story of ANZAC is interesting. If I was to say five words to you now and five words to your viewers, I can tell you what you will think. Australian First World War soldier. You have thought of a male who is Anglo-Saxon, who is probably from a rural background. Now, that's OK. I mean, so many of our soldiers were white and Anglo-Saxon, but where in those stories is there a place for women or men and women of Indigenous heritage or men and women from different ethnic backgrounds than Anglo-Saxon? If the stories that we in the Army or the nation are telling themselves about ourselves that are exclusive, how do we then build an inclusive culture, one that respects women particularly, but men and women with different heritages and backgrounds to us?

wikipedia

quote:

"In 2010 a report by University of New South Wales Journalism and Media Research Centre and Media Monitors found that coverage of women in sport made up only 9% of all sports coverage in Australian television news. But coverage on male sport occupied 81% of television news reporting. There was 10% of coverage being non-gender specific."

Yes, what we really need is state sanctioned recognition and elevation of a men's sporting competition that is already the most fetishised pastime this state has to offer.

Australia's culture is shaped by the stories we tell ourselves, the stories we celebrate and the stories we prioritise. We keep prioritising and celebrating those exclusively male stories. We're loving idiots.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2014 23:27

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Gough Suppressant posted:

Just as Christopher Pyne can apparently be singled out for greater criticism because he is allegedly gay while being part of a government that is regressive on gay rights, I think you should really be applying the blowtorch to the ~50% of AFL supporters who are women for being traitors to their gender.

Never stop, MUYB.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 00:20

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Gough Suppressant posted:

Seems like a fair comparison to me? If Pyne warrants extra criticism for his actions in setting back gay rights due to himself being gay, why shouldn't women who support AFL similarly be criticised more harshly than men?

The Australian media gives women's sport basically no airtime and sporting consumers don't care about it. Bad cultural norms about the inferiority of women in the sporting domain (e.g. "you throw like a girl") disincentivise either the media or consumers themselves from changing either of those facts. (And let's be honest; a lot of the media's power resides in the hands of men, and the 'trendsetting' sports consumers are also men - this is a male space and they have more power in defining it.)

Given this context - a context in which men's sports in general (and AFL in particular) are completely dominant - it's hardly surprising that lots of women "support" the AFL (by going to the games, following the league, buying the merchandise, and by consuming and sharing and commenting on the endless media commentary of the sport). They support the AFL (a) because they're not presented with many other options, (b) because by pursuing those options they would marginalise themselves. That second point is hugely important because of how people (idiotically) invest huge parts of their identity in what AFL team they follow, and how closely they follow it. ("I'm a true blue died in the wool Carlton supporter, paid up and proud.") AFL is (and is sold as) a family activity - lots of women are understandably shy about removing themselves from it, for the same reason that men are.

My post was criticising the move to give further official and governmental support to the AFL because (a) that support could be better spent elsewhere, and (b) the government should be held to a higher standard.

That said, I definitely desperately want more people to realise how narrow and limited (in gender terms) AFL is as a pastime, and to move on to greener pastures. But there are institutional forces making it more difficult for people to make that move, and this is a perfect example of one.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 01:10

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

open24hours posted:

It's about time someone published a list of correct sports.

That was a really useful and well informed post which astutely addressed the issues surrounding our culture being obsessed with male stories and the bad effects this has on our culture, thanks for making it

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 01:34

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

open24hours posted:

Thanks for your transparent and cynical post-hoc justification for why you don't like sports or the people who play them.

If you want to make a diagnosis of cynicism, maybe you should look at the poster who writes off discussion of sexist aspects of our culture with an eyeroll and a "You're just saying that because you don't like sports." The utility and worth of that response is probably on par with "Lol look at this white knight."

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 01:47

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

But yeah, congratulations open24hours, you've definitely elevated the discussion and got us talking about what really matters - whether Forums Poster Those On My Left does or does not like AFL players. If only more people were so willing to engage with important issues in such thoughtful and insightful ways.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 01:48

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

open24hours posted:

I'm not writing off a discussion of sexist aspects of our culture. It's an important topic, but that's not really what this conversation is about.

If you thought it was an important topic, you'd actually be discussing it. But clearly you don't think it's as important a topic as your ability to perform a handy spot of armchair psychoanalysis. I mean, look at what you're choosing to talk about.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 01:52

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

open24hours posted:

There are two reasons I'm not talking about it. Firstly because I don't know much about sport, and secondly because I'm pretty sure you're not actually interested in improving the profile of women's sport, and are only mentioning it because it provides a convenient way for you to criticise other sports.

Well I guess that will have to go down in history as the first time a man has ever found a really good reason not to talk about sexism, then.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 02:02

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Endman posted:

Seriously though, I really don't think it's worth melting down over something like this. If you wanted governments to be a sort of guiding moral hand to lead the people into a new age of not making GBS threads all over women's sports, you picked a bad horse in representative democracy.

Aussies are morons that go bonkers over AFL, so a Grand Final holiday seems like a great way to win votes.

I'm not melting down, I'm just openly pleading for someone to actually discuss this issue with something resembling good faith.

Obviously a Grand Final holiday would be a vote winner. I don't see why that's relevant to this conversation, though. You're saying "our culture loves the AFL grand final" and I'm saying "our culture loves the AFL grand final but that's not ideal". The reason it's not ideal is the reason the Chief of Army explained: our culture needs to stop prioritising predominantly or exclusively male stories.

It's also obvious that representative democracy in general (and Australian governments in particular) isn't the best vehicle for leading cultural change (and don't have a great track record in doing so), but they're absolutely capable of it. It seems strange to argue otherwise in a thread that generally agrees that Howard's demonisation of asylum seekers is a big reason why "stop the boats" policies were a vote winner in 2013. If that's not an example of government shaping culture, I don't know what it is.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 02:25

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Endman posted:

I cultivate an overwhelming cynicism towards this sort of thing. I've seen governments utilise and aggravate existing prejudices to a ridiculous degree (a la stop the boats), but I don't think I've ever seen it used to positive effect in Australia to implement progressive policies that last beyond the next round of "carbon tax is ruining the economy", "free uni is for leaners", "dole bludgers deserve to be kicked in the face repeatedly" bullshit.

But yes, you're right, the overwhelming attention paid to men's stories in this country is a huge problem, from the ANZAC mythology to the incredibly ridiculous outpouring of national grief over a loving cricketer.

Well, even if you're cynical about governments leading positive cultural change, surely you can still agree that they don't have to aggravate existing problems? So, given that you agree that it's a big problem that we overwhelmingly pay attention to men's stories, surely you can agree that it's preferable for the Victorian government not to further highlight grand final day?

You're obviously right, they did it because it was a vote winner. But that's not really much of a defence.

Honestly, I don't really know whether government can be a primary driver of this kind of social change. I mean, my previous posts have largely been complaining about how the media exclusively focuses on men's sports at the expense of women's sports. There probably isn't a governmental solution to that problem (although there are things that government could do about it, like increased funding to women's sports and talking about it more in parliament, or something). So it's probable that the bigger part of a solution to this problem involves changing the culture in the media, which probably involves better training and education, and more women in positions of power in the media.

So, don't mistake me for saying "THIS IS SOMETHING GOVERNMENT MUST FIX". It's more that I'm saying "for gently caress's sake, could the government at least not make it worse?"

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 02:43

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Gough Suppressant posted:

Gay man supports organisation regressive on gay issues
Woman supports organisation regressive on women issues

The liberal party's policies are explicitly regressive on gay issues, and it actively prosecutes those policies (e.g. by frustrating attempts to legalise gay marriage). Parliamentarians in the liberal party wield a tremendous amount of public power - both legislative and social/cultural (because they have plenty of soapboxes and enjoy wide media coverage). The kinds of harm inflicted are very direct - the deprivation of equal rights. Also, the social and cultural costs for shunning the liberal party's policies on this matter are low, given that the vast majority of Australians support gay rights.

The AFL - the organisation - is actually actively trying to address problems of sexism in the sport. Also, people who watch and follow the support at their local pubs or on TV aren't wielding the same sort of power as a parliamentarian from a major party that's currently in power at the commonwealth level. Given how the vast majority of Victorians treat the AFL like a loving religion, the social and cultural costs for turning your back on it can be pretty high, especially if all your family and friends are big followers.

Further, you don't have to buy that there's anything particularly wrong with the sport of football itself. The problem is just that it receives undue priority and celebration. There are ways that this could be rectified (the most obvious one being a women's league that is just as heavily promoted and celebrated).

Finally, as Anita Sarkeesian says,

quote:

remember that it is both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of it�s more problematic or pernicious aspects

e: this isn't meant to be a comprehensive list of the differences between the two things that you're treating as analogous, but I'm trying to show that there are some pretty huge differences.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 03:36

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

SadisTech posted:

Women's sports aren't publicised as much because they don't have the viewer numbers because they aren't publicised as much because they don't have the viewer numbers because

Basically this. Obviously it's a little more complicated but I'm really tired of the sort of "appeal to the marketplace" rationale for not promoting women's pursuits (in this specific case, sport).

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 03:59

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

ewe2 posted:

Just wrt that sort of thing, public health is absolutely a deliberate culture-changer that all parties agree is a Good Thing. They do run away with themselves at times though. It took a long time but even the Right agree now that it's cheaper to educate in the health area than pay for it later. They're just a bit sluggish when it comes to recognising new issues.

Education generally is another area of fun. We know the Right loves its culture war with those cuddly and useless chaplains and book rewriting and failed deregulation of fees. I would have thought that a general civics education at all levels would benefit the country politically but perhaps that's too hard for politicians to grasp yet.

I agree, ewe2. This is exactly why I'm not really that cynical about government's capacity to elevate and promote stories that involve women. I mean, gently caress, they're fantastically good at banging on about the Anzac diggers, and the dead cricketer, and the grand final. There is definitely a role for government to play in addressing the fact that we concentrate way too much on men's stories.

ewe2 posted:

It is a bit much to hope that any government would chase "changing the focus" when it's not something the current crop of politicians can cope with in a soundbite. Give them a pink ribbon and a special day, they're all over that. But like Xmas (or perhaps more pointedly, Sunday), it's done and they revert to type.

I couldn't agree with this more.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 04:01

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Matthew Beet posted:

Pretty much. The whole culture of sports thing TOML has thrown up is just a distraction while he wages war on the working class.

Hambeet you forgot to log into your open24hours account

Bifauxnen posted:

Just in case any of you guys were feeling bummed out thinking the latest discussions were totally pointless, you've just inspired me to add "WATCH WOMEN'S SPORTS" to the list I'm making of stuff I want to make sure I get around to teaching my kid.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 04:04

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Haters Objector posted:

On cricket, for the last couple of summers the womens one dryers and T20s have been broadcast on commercial television (9 or Gem), either as curtain raisers to a men's game or just by themselves. They're done with all the same commentary, cameras, technology and production values that the men's game receives. They've started getting some of the women cricketers on to commentate on the men's games to increase their profile, and several women cricketers (Lanning, Healy, Perry etc) have quite good name recognition amongst the public.

I have been involved in junior cricket for a few years and I don't think it's a coincidence that the number of girls having a go has skyrocketed since this started happening. It's amazing what a small amount of exposure can do.

This is a great story.

On the subject of women cricketers with name recognition, a while back I learnt that there's a woman out there who has represented Australia, internationally, in both cricket and soccer. That blows my mind. And I guarantee you, if she were a bloke, I'd have known her name. A guy who did something like that would be worshipped as a national loving hero.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 04:06

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

I'd like to take a small break from reading these interesting posts about Australia's attitude towards women in sport and say:

gently caress you open24hours

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 04:13

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Scylo posted:

I thought everybody knew about Ellyse Perry? For years now I feel like she's consistently been mentioned absolutely everywhere, and she's also been on television a whole bunch because womens T20 games are televised before the mens, though they're on the GEM channel I think. Perry also seems like she very deliberately tries to keep a low profile, I don't think she has any social media accounts or anything. Anytime the mens commentators have to reference a womens player it's usually been Perry because she's basically been the only name anybody has known until recently. There was also a womens cricketer, Holly Ferling, who won the world cup for Australia before she finished her HSC. Womens sport seems to be filled with lots of cool stories and it's a shame most people never get to hear about them.

I'm sure that the deeper you get into the sports world the more people know about Ellyse Perry, but here's the thing: I don't follow the AFL at all and I can still tell you who Buddy Franklin is. I don't pay any attention to cricket and I can still tell you who Michael Clarke is. if people like that can have such massive public profiles that even non-sportsnerds are aware of who they are, it's really weird that Ellyse Perry doesn't.

FWIW I'm not just using myself as an example. I learnt about Ellyse Perry in a conversation at work with a bunch of people, all of whom follow AFL. I wasn't the only one who'd never heard of her.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 04:36

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Splode posted:

FWIW Women's tennis gets pretty good coverage, and I don't think that their public profiles are dominated by their physical appearance at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWy7nEI7iHM
http://theconversation.com/azarenka-tsonga-and-the-sexism-that-chokes-womens-tennis-11821

quote:

Tsonga explained that the reason men dominate is because women are more emotionally unstable than men. �I�m sure everybody will say it�s true, even the girls�, he said. �I mean, it�s just about hormones and all this stuff. We don�t have all these bad things so we are physically in a good shape every time and you are not.

http://theconversation.com/azarenka-tsonga-and-the-sexism-that-chokes-womens-tennis-11821

quote:

Fairfax journalist Richard Hinds ... drew on what he perceived as Azarenka�s meltdown to denigrate women�s tennis. In his article he likened women�s tennis players to prostitutes, writing:

quote:
Why pay for a sensory experience you can get for nothing standing outside an opened window at a brothel?

Splode posted:

Also TOML I can totally see the point you're making, but I think it is simply a quickly developed reactive policy. I don't think the ALP have considered sporting culture much at all, and are simply thinking "hell, everyone takes a day off on this day anyway, may as well make it official". I don't think this is unforgivable, as it's more about recognising what the people are already doing and responding to that.

For example, the government recognises christmas as an official day off mostly because the vast majority of the population would take a day off then anyway, whether it was official or not. You could argue that Christmas is a religious holiday, so by recognising christmas the government is endorsing christianity, but that's not really fair (though it is often true). However, I agree with you that the government recognising an event by making it a public holiday does strengthen the legitimacy of an event, which in many cases can be problematic.

I think a better solution would be to also make the women's AFL grand final also a public holiday (though you'd have to raise the profile of that competition for that to be achievable), rather than not implementing this new public holiday. People like holidays.

Of course it's a quickly developed reactive policy. But it still has all the problems I've been talking about.

It sounds like largely you agree with me. Personally I can't get behind your solution of "make the women's AFL grand final also a public holiday" because I think that's some cart before the horse stuff. Especially given that we don't even have the league yet.

Incidentally I went and found this on Wikipedia:

quote:

A professional national [women's AFL] competition backed by the AFL is scheduled to commence by 2020 with six, eight or ten teams; bids have been submitted by the 18 existing AFL teams, as well as state level teams and regional teams.

The competition was announced in 2008 and was slated to commence in 2013 with four to eight teams, but this was changed after it was found that the new teams from the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney would not have time to submit their bids in full.[18] The starting number of teams has also been increased due to the growth of women's football since 2008.

A license was granted to the Fremantle Dockers under the umbrella of the Women's Football League in February 2010, but due to a review and the subsequent admission of the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney to the AFL, this license has been recalled; it will most likely be reissued when the competition is established.

So basically, given the context we currently have, given the state of the world as it currently exists - i.e. the AFL operating as a male contest with no female representation in it, and no corresponding women's league in existence - I think it's lousy for the government to further promote/celebrate/sanction/prioritise the AFL. I don't think there's a practical current alternative other than "don't loving do it."

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 06:08

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

There is some killer lightning in Melbourne at the moment, I loving love it

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 12:46

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

thread favourite karl stefanovic this morning admonished christopher pyne, telling him to "man up"

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 22:05

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Mithranderp posted:

It's completely possible to like someone for one reason, but not like them for other reasons.

For example, I can admire John Howard's gun control reforms, but I also think he is in many ways responsible for the poo poo stain of a government we have now.

Of course, but when I said Karl was a shithead there was a bit of "hey what are you talking about he is fine" and, guess what, no, he's about as obnoxious as all the other middle-of-the-road-by-design breakfast TV hosts.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2014 23:25

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

gently caress, gently caress, gently caress, gently caress, gently caress, gently caress

quote:

"Clive Palmer is confirming that he will back the migration legislation despite telling the government yesterday he�" http://gu.com/p/43pne/stw

# ¿ Dec 4, 2014 00:34

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Justice Nettle of the Vic Supreme Court is going to be the new High Court judge. The gender split on the court will be going from 5m/4w to 6m/3w, although with Ken Hayne's retirement next year there will be an opportunity to redress that. (ha)

# ¿ Dec 4, 2014 01:47

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

You Am I posted:

Women are unstable emotional beasts and shouldn't have a role somewhere where clear heads and logic need to be at the forefront.

lol

Also, he's already 64 years old. He'll have to retire at 70. I'm kind of surprised, I'd have thought the Libs would try to entrench their influence on the bench.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2014 02:05

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Les Affaires posted:

Does our legal fraternity have a history of people being selected for the bench based on political leanings?

To an extent. Certain barristers get favoured by certain political parties for providing advice or representing them on a regular basis. Those barristers often wind up as judges. Howard famously promised to appoint "capital c conservatives" to the High Court, and that was how we got Heydon (who got the speech after giving a speech about how judicial activism was bad) and Callinan (who I don't know so much about). Heydon, by the way, is now the commissioner in the union royal commission.

Often, though, high court judges are selected on the basis of whether or not they'll be friendly to the Commonwealth (as opposed to the states), and whether they'll be friendly to the executive (as opposed to the parliament). I have a pretty sound theory that Chief Justice French was largely appointed because when he was on the federal court he ruled in favour of the executive in the Tampa case. He held that the Commonwealth executive's power is very broad and that the parliament has to be very very direct if they want to curtail it at all. It's a bullshit ruling, but a few years later, surprise, he's the Chief Justice of the high court.

# ¿ Dec 4, 2014 05:11

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

having real difficulty thinking of a worse law passed by this government

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 00:31

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

gay picnic defence posted:

The silver lining is that it should take boats away as a means of political point scoring because it will probably be effective in stopping them. Maybe we can finally have a federal election that isn't dominated by the issue.

there is no silver lining to a legislative scheme that allows scott morrison to send weak and vulnerable persecuted people back to be tortured and killed

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 00:39

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

gay picnic defence posted:

I know. But in the mind of the public the issue has been killed. It'll be pretty hard for the government to turn it into the big election issue it used to be when there haven't been any news reports on boats for the last four years.

I cannot believe that you think this. Their big election message is going to be "WE STOPPED THE BOATS" and they're going to attack any proposal from Labor to wind up back this vile legislation. Which means, of course, that Labor will poo poo its pants and water down its policy even further.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 01:53

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Senor Tron posted:

What happens, after those children are released, if the senate votes to undo the TPV change, like they did with the financial regulations? Not even Morrison would take the kids back as punishment would he?

Okay so it doesn't work like that.

What happened over the last 24 hours was the passage of a Bill. A Bill passed through both houses of parliament to become an Act - i.e. a law. To repeal an Act, you need another Bill, which would have to go through both houses of parliament.

Here's what happened with the financial regulations:

The financial legislation - the Act - says "The executive government can publish these things called 'regulations', which will be legally binding." This is called "delegating legislative power" - it's when the parliament leaves it up to the executive to work out the details of a particular scheme. This happens literally all the time. It's entirely typical for parliament to set down 90% of a scheme but then to say "the rest of this is up to the government of the day."

So the question is, how do you get rid of regulations? With an Act, you get rid of it by making another Act, which requires both houses of parliament. Well, with regulations, you get rid of them by "disallowing" them. Either house of the parliament can do this by themselves.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 05:44

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

ewe2 posted:

Oh and the secretary of the DPS (the department which runs Parliament) is in deep poo poo over the use of CCTV to spy on staff members and apparently threatened one they thought was "passing information" to ALP Senator Faulkner. They left an abusive note for the staffer, then tried to lie about what they knew and couldn't even protect their own paper trail which revealed they were acting in a very politicised manner.

The Secretary was to have gotten the job of Clerk of the UK Commons but the Clerk of the Senate was so horrified by this that they've backed off.

Thanks for keeping me posted on this.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 07:29

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

ewe2 posted:

Read the Privileges committe report here. It's just short of j'accuse. I'm not sure why they are reluctant to actually censure the Department Secretary, its most uncomplimentary. This close to interference with the Senate itself.

Generally I think parliamentary committees never show enough teeth. This seems like another example.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2014 08:46

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Tgent posted:

Apparently the Greens have won Prahran!

Off a fuckin' Lib.

Vic state best state.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 10:36

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:58

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

has this loving amnesiac thread forgotten how albo poo poo his pants over the greens putting their logo on an official "vale whitlam" picture

# ¿ Dec 9, 2014 12:14

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol December: All I want for Christmas is a new government.

«‹›2 »