2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (1 Viewer)

[Triangulum]

I agree that something needs to be done about the federal-state issue. Federalism in Australia is an absolute shambles. Negotiation would probably be a better tactic than the federal government trying to impose things from on high, but Howard and Costello control the purse strings so they tend to just force their initiatives onto the states.

 

[Sparcod]

Recently, I've been reading a bit about some of the top politicians' backgrounds on Wikipedia and on other sites. There's a bit of irony around.

John Howard came from a Labor-supporting family.
Kevin Rudd's father was a right-winger who was a member of the Country Party.
Peter Costello was a Labor-supporter himself when he was really young.
Defence Minister, Kevin Andrews WAS a Labor-Party member.

It's a bit off-topic but still noteworthy.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I agree that something needs to be done about the federal-state issue. Federalism in Australia is an absolute shambles. Negotiation would probably be a better tactic than the federal government trying to impose things from on high, but Howard and Costello control the purse strings so they tend to just force their initiatives onto the states.

Or maybe we just don't need 9 governments for only twenty million people.

 

[walrusbear]

why not?
one government can cater for the varied problems of all areas of australia?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Seperation of power is important (Howard's rambo style law making of the past three years is proof enough), and the federal government shouldn't handle issues that the states should handle (once more, Howard intruding on curriculum is a great example). Same applies vica-versa, so I think that federalism in Australia is fairly important, at least to operate as a check.

In terms of ending the quarrels between federal/state, yeah, I don't think it'll make that much of a difference. I'm fairly happy with what we've got now though, and certainly wouldn't go as far to describe it as a "shambles" situation.

 

[withoutaface]

Federalism needs to be reformed, no doubt. Whether we need six states and two territories is questionable, but the concept is important as a method of minimising the damage which can be caused by a tyrannical government at one level.

 

[Triangulum]

Maybe 'shambles' is too strong a word. But the system badly needs reform, because it gives rise to blame-shifting and hence confuses accountability, which is bad for democracy. I mean, how do we come to a resolution of the dispute about private-school funding if no one even seems to know which level of government is supposed to give out what amount of funding to which education sector?

The trend of centralisation is a bit of a problem as well, since it too often tends to be the federal government taking a back way to ripping away state prerogatives. (cf industrial relations, A to E grading for 5 year olds, Australian flags at every school or else we'll cut off all their funding, etc.) The states need a bit more independence within their particular areas, I think, which might involve delegation of some taxes to the states so they don't rely on tied grants from Canberra.

 

[Rafy]

Defence Minister, Kevin Andrews WAS a Labor-Party member.

Brendan Nelson.

 

[Sparcod]

Sorry about my mistake.

why not?
one government can cater for the varied problems of all areas of australia?

I don't think so. I mean, we're not in a tiny country like the Vatican City.

I think that the local and state governments can take care of themselves can't they? They indeed have a better knowledge of the people and the environment of their own local areas.

Mind you, I think it was my old H.S Economics Teacher who said that Australia has more politicians per capita than anywhere else in the developed world.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Maybe 'shambles' is too strong a word. But the system badly needs reform, because it gives rise to blame-shifting and hence confuses accountability, which is bad for democracy. I mean, how do we come to a resolution of the dispute about private-school funding if no one even seems to know which level of government is supposed to give out what amount of funding to which education sector?

The trend of centralisation is a bit of a problem as well, since it too often tends to be the federal government taking a back way to ripping away state prerogatives. (cf industrial relations, A to E grading for 5 year olds, Australian flags at every school or else we'll cut off all their funding, etc.) The states need a bit more independence within their particular areas, I think, which might involve delegation of some taxes to the states so they don't rely on tied grants from Canberra.

Heh. I just noticed that you mentioned you're doing GOVT1101 at the moment too. I thought what you just said sounded a bit too familiar.

 

[Triangulum]

Heh. I just noticed that you mentioned you're doing GOVT1101 at the moment too. I thought what you just said sounded a bit too familiar.

Ha. Yeah, I have vertical fiscal imbalance and accountability issues on the brain at the moment, which sort of explains my overly detailed response to a dry-as-dust topic.

 

[stephenchow]

This is funnier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQhXO9tKYeY

lol,

the kid foresaw that Costello would call him Donatello when he is actually Raphael (red headband)

 

[Sparcod]

lol,

the kid foresaw that Costello would call him Donatello when he is actually Raphael (red headband)

He knows how to attack a politician. (excuse the pun)

He should be PM one day.

 

[Triangulum]

News just in: Bill Heffernan is a jerk.

You have to wonder if he ever, you know, thinks before he mouths off.

Gillard's response: "I think Australian women understand [that] modern Australian women face a set of choices. They're actually very supportive of Australian women having those choices. Mr Heffernan's a man of the past. He obviously thinks he's in a position to tell women how to live their lives. I don't think Australian women need Bill Heffernan or anybody else to give them advice."

 

[jb_nc]

News just in: Bill Heffernan is a jerk.
/QUOTE]

bill heffernan has been a tosser for a long time

 

[frog12986]

Although his communication skills leave a lot to be desired, his underlying point is fairly representative of the electorates perception of the issue. How can the potential Deputy Prime Minister speak authoritatively about the effects of policy and the like on family dynamics, family life and children, if that person has not experienced it themselves.

Recently, Ashfield councillor Nick Adams was heavily criticised for a proposal relating to noise restrictions. As a young person, 22, the main line of attack against him was that he did not have the life experience, work experience or family experience to fully understand the absurdity of what he proposed. The criticism was valid and the proposal is likely to be rejected; rightfully so.

Of course, those who enter public life should come from all different types of backgrounds and situations, however if an individual aspires to become one of the top office holders in the country (whether they be male OR female), I believe it essential that they be representative of the majority of Australian families.. I might be being a touch too harsh, but so be it ..

If it were a male politician in Julia Gillard's position, I'm quite sure the comments of Mr Heffernan would not have been so criticised..

 

[Triangulum]

I see where you're coming from, but 'deliberately barren'? On top of other things Heffernan has said in the past ('Michael Kirby uses Commonwealth cars to pick up rent boys', for instance), I'm more inclined to believe he was being idiotic and wantonly offensive, rather than just making a comment.

 

[Stott Despoja]

Although his communication skills leave a lot to be desired, his underlying point is fairly representative of the electorates perception of the issue. How can the potential Deputy Prime Minister speak authoritatively about the effects of policy and the like on family dynamics, family life and children, if that person has not experienced it themselves.

Julie Bishop springs to mind. Not a mother, not a teacher, yet she's forever talking about what it is that parents, children and teachers want.

In this particular case the experience argument is a slippery slope, because if one is going to suggest that parenthood is such an important experience that should determine whether or not someone has the authority to talk about family issues, then it's only fair to suggest that ministers be limited to portfolios and fields of policy that they themselves have experienced (if they want to be taken seriously, that is).

I hate to state the obvious, but politicians have advisors for a reason.

Of course, those who enter public life should come from all different types of backgrounds and situations, however if an individual aspires to become one of the top office holders in the country (whether they be male OR female), I believe it essential that they be representative of the majority of Australian families.. I might be being a touch too harsh, but so be it ..

What is representative of the majority of Australian families? Is it the family life of a high-flying career bureaucrat? Maybe it's the family life of a lawyer from a top-tier law firm?

This country needs a variety of credible, talented and capable politicians so that the major parties are able to present a diverse and vibrant front (and, one would hope, the substance to match such an image). Though your 'representative of the majority' argument may be viewed favourably by many, I personally don't see what a parliament full of bland suburban hacks would achieve.

The last thing this country needs is a conservative values test to be applied to any and all politicians who would like to be a part of the executive (actual or shadow). The talent pool is shallow enough as it is.

 

[withoutaface]

I personally don't see what a parliament full of bland suburban hacks would achieve.

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200308/r7959_18366.jpg

 

[frog12986]

Julie Bishop springs to mind. Not a mother, not a teacher, yet she's forever talking about what it is that parents, children and teachers want.

She is not aspiring to be the Deputy Prime minister, or indeed Prime Minister at this point in time (and really won't have the opportunity to do so). I never said that not having a family should preclude people from political life, however the top offices in the country require all the forms of life and political experience necessary.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the 'deliberately barren' comments which as most have said, are unacceptable and offensive. We don't know her predicament or reasonings for not having children, or a family..