sh_wulff

Aussies LXV - what choices have we?!

402 posts in this topic

17 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

The pollies cannot change the constitution through act of parliament. That can only be done through referendum. But marriage isn't an issue that needs to have anything to do with the constitution at all, they can simply change the law that Howard put in place in 2004 (with no plebiscite) defining marriage as man and woman at any time they choose. But the Libs won't allow the issue to come up for a vote until they have their glorified opinion poll.

Thanks for the reply, yes, I realised it was the marriage act that needed to be changed after I re-read the first quote.

Yes, I know Howard put in a change without a public vote - which is not something I agreed with. Personally I think marriage is more a social institution than a legal one and the values of society should be properly assessed before such laws are changed or amended.

There were no same sex marriages in Australia before Howard made that change though.

22 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

There'd have to be something really really weird going on to have a 40% polling error, which is roughly the lead gay marriage enjoys according to the polls (roughly 70%-30% for / against). Hell, even the recent French election, which had a huge polling error (far larger than the US & Trump - Macron got about 10% more of the vote than the polls predicted) wouldn't come close.

I find it really strange that it is more the pro SSM side that is opposed to a public vote then? Surely the vote would solidify their position - it would defiantly solidify it for me. If I knew that 70 % of Australians were in favour of SSM, with data collected by a public and not private institution, I would think it is the best thing for the country. Apparently we are also polling 60% in favour of a plebiscite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, ummester said:

I find it really strange that it is more the pro SSM side that is opposed to a public vote then? Surely the vote would solidify their position - it would defiantly solidify it for me. If I knew that 70 % of Australians were in favour of SSM, with data collected by a public and not private institution, I would think it is the best thing for the country. Apparently we are also polling 60% in favour of a plebiscite?

The reasons against doing this are:

1) A divisive campaign which will see vitriol thrown both ways. Hooray for weeks of TV ads attacking each other.
2) Completely unnecessary cost.
3) This whole thing, as I'd previously said is purely due to internal Liberal party politics. It was just a convenient way for Abbott to kick the ball down the road past the 2016 election. The numbers are there, it will pass if put up to a vote on the floor of the parliament. But the right wing had a hissy fit so they need to cover their asses.

Edited by Impmk2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ummester said:

I find it really strange that it is more the pro SSM side that is opposed to a public vote then? Surely the vote would solidify their position - it would defiantly solidify it for me. If I knew that 70 % of Australians were in favour of SSM, with data collected by a public and not private institution, I would think it is the best thing for the country. Apparently we are also polling 60% in favour of a plebiscite?

Well, I already know my position and I doubt it'd change regardless of how many people agree or disagree with it. I just think the plebiscite and all these other methods are a pointless waste of time and money, as I don't believe that everyone in parliament will abide by their result. Certain members have said they won't necessarily abide by the result and Abetz has been using weasel words to give his colleagues an out if the overall vote is yes ("well the overall vote was yes, but my electorate said no, so I'm going to vote no" or vice versa). It's basically a 100+ million dollar vote on whether or not there should be a vote. 

I'd honestly rather they just ignore the issue and then there'll be a free vote whenever it is that the ALP comes back to power. But they want to simultaneously halt gay marriage while getting progressive cred for having a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

44 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

The reasons against doing this are:

1) A divisive campaign which will see vitriol thrown both ways. Hooray for weeks of TV ads attacking each other.
2) Completely unnecessary cost.
3) This whole thing, as I'd previously said is purely due to internal Liberal party politics. It was just a convenient way for Abbott to kick the ball down the road past the 2016 election. The numbers are there, it will pass if put up to a vote on the floor of the parliament. But the right wing had a hissy fit so they need to cover their asses.

I don't think that there should be any campaign.

Everything the government does costs money. Most of them going to work everyday is a completely unnecessary cost :D Politicians should be some of the first jobs lost to automation, they could all be replaced by a massive computer that just constantly polls the populace and gives work to public servants based on what the populace wants.

But I do think how marriage is defined in Australia should be voted on by all Australians. So even if it's due to internal party politics, it has led to a result that I (and apparently 60% of Australia, if polls are to be believed) agree with. And I have never voted for the LNP, always put them last - recently I started putting Labor and the Greens down the bottom with them, thinking anything is better than the 3 majors we have.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

17 minutes ago, The Drunkard said:

Well, I already know my position and I doubt it'd change regardless of how many people agree or disagree with it. I just think the plebiscite and all these other methods are a pointless waste of time and money, as I don't believe that everyone in parliament will abide by their result. Certain members have said they won't necessarily abide by the result and Abetz has been using weasel words to give his colleagues an out if the overall vote is yes ("well the overall vote was yes, but my electorate said no, so I'm going to vote no" or vice versa). It's basically a 100+ million dollar vote on whether or not there should be a vote. 

I'd honestly rather they just ignore the issue and then there'll be a free vote whenever it is that the ALP comes back to power. But they want to simultaneously halt gay marriage while getting progressive cred for having a vote.

I also know my position - though I accept that being a member of society is to compromise in line with the greater will of a society. Politicians should also accept this, as, whichever way a national vote or poll on SSM went, it would be political suicide for any party to go against the majority on it.

The issue will be if a poll is apathetic or indecisive, not if it is significantly for or against.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plebiscite is merely an expensive distraction.

No plebiscite is needed to change the Marriage Act.  Howard changed the definition in 2004 without a plebiscite.  If parliament took a vote the definition could be substantially changed in about a day or two.  Turnbull's hands are tied by the religious conservatives in his party, becuase the LNP is more beholden to that group than the ALP is to the unions.

There remains no sensible, objective reason to vote No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole SSM debate has gotten out of hand. Whilst I'm against the plebiscite, I think it's important for progressives to make the most out of it by voting. A large majority is essential. I think there are lots of LNP politicians who will vote in parliament against SSM regardless of the plebiscite outcome, or perhaps even try to further delay the introduction of the bill. A small majority will make it easier for these people to pressure their weak colleagues (eg Turnbull) into doing their bidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone want to have a guess what the participation rate will be for this postal "survey"? There will be quite a lot of campaigning and advertising on the issue, even without public funding of the campaigns. But I still think that, due to the non-compulsory and postal aspects of the survey, a lot of people will end up throwing their papers into the bin.

I'm going to guess 65%. But I wouldn't be surprised to see it come in much lower than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't even guess at it. All I know is there seem to be a lot more enrollments than they would have expected, which I hope means youth getting on to vote yes that will have knock on consequences for forces this shit on us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I won't mention SSM because that's for you guys to debate. But I will talk about citizenship, because we've already put our sticky beak into that one, intentionally or unintentionally.

Quite ironic for AU govt MPs to complain about NZ MPs meddling in AU politics by meddling in NZ politics. But I guess when it comes to politicians irony and hypocrisy should not be unexpected.

 On my side of the pond it would seem entirely strange for a NZ MP to use parliamentary questions to ask about citizenship matters, when the NZ department concerned (Dept of Internal Affairs) should be able to answer the question directly from a direct enquiry, which is what Fairfax media did do, and Fairfax got the answer more quickly than the parliamentary question route.

Assuming someone on Labor/Labour was intending to play political shenanigans they seem to have been far to clever for themselves, because there was never any need to even appear to be open to the accusation of indecent political collusion in order to discover the information. Or maybe they thought an open question on the public parliamentary record would insulate you from being accused of meddling, because why would someone seek to meddle by asking a question that is placed on the public record?

And how strange that the govt would accuse the opposition of trying to take down the sitting govt. I would think pretty much half the job of the opposition of the day is to try to find ways in which it can bring the current govt down and get into power sooner rather than later. If you are an opposition who is waiting for the govt of the day to trip over itself and hand you the keys to power you are not a very good opposition.

It's also an interesting thing to accuse someone of dirty political collusion and foreign meddling by seeking to find out what the law of a foreign land says about citizenship. No one asked for anyone's emails to be hacked, or for naughty photos to be taken, or for private conversations to be secretly recorded. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah the boost in enrolments would seem to indicate that young people are galvanised for a strong "yes" push. My concern is that yes-leaning moderates will not vote (either due to laziness or not caring enough, or both), which will inflate the proportion of no-votes in a low turnout situation.

The whole thing is very unpredictable, since you could end up with results as variable as:

  • A tight vote, marginally in favour of SSM, with low turnout (conservatives will like this as it could make the parliamentary conscience vote a close affair); to
  • A landslide "yes", with reasonably high turnout (say over 70%).

@The Anti-Targ: I agree. I think a lot of the Coalition's rowing with Labor over "colluding with a foreign power" are just for show, to distract from Barnaby's problems.

Edited by Paxter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm appalled at the way they're willing to risk damage to the countries international relations to try cling to power. I shouldn't be surprised, but I am all the same. The fucking ego of thinking their own political fortunes are the fate of the whole country. What they're doing is demonstrating to everyone else that they don't deserve to be there, which is a rather poor idea when they may be trying to relying on a cross bench to remain in Government in a very short period of time. Given the citizenship is hitting the High Court before the postal survey, we may not even need to worry about the latter issue :P

I really don't see how there is any wiggle room on actual citizenship. Barnaby has it, he's fucked, they're fucked. We'll see how many total MPs actually wind up being invalid, and at this rate I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up needing parliament dissolved and an early election just to sort the mess out, although Labor seem to have their shit together so maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

although Labor seem to have their shit together so maybe not.

I wouldn't be so sure. Labor's stance has simply be to ignore questions on the issue as it relates to their members and refuse to release any info. Looks like they're just hoping the Libs aren't willing to refer them to the high court and open a tit-for-tat pandora's box of citizenship issues. Who knows where that'd end, and who'd be in power at the end of it.

Edited by Impmk2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm referring to the fact that Labor have a very thorough process in place of checking the citizenship of all prospective candidates and ensuring they meet the requirements of s44 before nominating. There is one member from Tasmania who does indeed need to be resolved by the High Court - she had taken what I'd describe as all reasonable steps a significant period of time prior to nominating - but did not receive confirmation until after that point, and that High Court will make judgement on that, but aside from her I think they will be fine. They seem to be refusing to release in the public sphere to bait the Coalition into going nuclear on it, a tactic which is working.

If they do have a significant number of members that are at risk, it would be an incredibly foolish move to slap away the hand Mal offered to go to the High Court together last week and I don't believe they are giving any indications of being that inept at the moment. I reserve that for the panic driven side slinging allegations about collusion with foreign powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the HCA applies the thinking they applied in Culletton, all of those MPs found to not have renounced their foreign citizenship will be forced to resign as ineligible.

The test the HCA set out in Culletton was that the compliance with the Constitution under s 44 must be at the time of the election.  It cannot be retrospective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos to Brandis for putting PH in her place today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paxter said:

Kudos to Brandis for putting PH in her place today.

I was actually amazed that he did.  But, yeah, nice to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My lack of presence on social media has some advantages in that I have (so far) managed to avoid any offensive comments on marriage equality. But this disturbed me (don't click the link if you aren't interested in seeing potentially offensive material).

What a time to be alive.

Edited by Paxter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to sit the kids down this week and prepare them for what the are likely to hear/see while all of this is going on. They were all pretty chill but I don't think they really understand, I am just angry that this is a thing I had to do. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-8-21 at 6:47 PM, Paxter said:

My lack of presence on social media has some advantages in that I have (so far) managed to avoid any offensive comments on marriage equality. But this disturbed me (don't click the link if you aren't interested in seeing potentially offensive material).

What a time to be alive.

What made the poster issue worse was old Uncle Mal coming out and saying it was fair comment in the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.