BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
           
(1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                     
(a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                     
(b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note:  Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

             
(2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

                     
(a)  causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

                     
(b)  is done in a public place; or

                   
(c)  is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

           
(3)  In this section:

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

that's the bit of the racial discrimination act he wants to repeal.

Last edited by Spark (2013-09-10 03:35:02)

Racist pricks are people too though.

Ty wrote:

i.e. The bit that legislates against being a racist prick in public or in the media. Nice. I'm sure he has a really good reason for wanting to get rid of that.

He's helping his mates - Bolt, Rinehart, Murdoch. He has no interest in actually governing the country.

Labor declined to involve the Coalition in appointments which would take place after the election when they were supposedly in 'caretaker' mode, so the Coalition declined to endorse it or agree to support it when they were in - too bad.

And how is he 'qualified' ? He's a career politician and Labor crony with no international experience or interest at all.

The real shit move was announcing the election nine months in advance, and even then trying to stitch up the country with a crony after they knew they'd be gone.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-09-11 02:58:55)

Bracks was appointed in May 2013 by Gillard. Labor had no obligation to consult with the Coalition regardless of the fact that the election date happened to be known and regardless of the fact that Bracks' appointment would take effect during the caretaker period. The possible outcome of the election held no sway over the appointment; an appointment needed to be made and Gillard was the PM so she made it, that is all.

BUT

The Coalition does have the right to revoke the appointment upon forming Government.

Now Labor knew this but as Jaekus notes Labor were polling well at the time and despite the endless rhetoric which we have all become so familiar with saying Tony Abbott was the destined saviour of all, the election wasn't a foregone conclusion. Labor could have reasoned that given there was a Federal Election and given there was the potential for a change in government they should negotiate with the potential incoming government on appointments. But why would they do this? What message would that send? You could be damn sure the Murdoch Machine would have picked up on it and no doubt the Coalition would have ended up crowing about how the Labor Government knew they were doomed. There was nothing to gain by Labor doing this, plenty to lose, and no requirement to do it.

Bracks also knew his appointment wouldn't be secure if there was a change of Government. What he could have done is contact the Coalition himself to seek their approval. It would have been nice if the Coalition backed him too - after all he is qualified, he was a very successful Premier and spend a lot of his post-political life guiding the Government in East Timor pro-bono. But the Coalition wouldn't have approved him and Bracks would have had to either decline the position and basically open the door for the Coalition to manhandle the Labor Government, or do what he has done and just assume Labor would win or the Coalition would be too preoccupied with things that actually matter to worry about him.

So we're in a position now where the Coalition wants to stamp their authority on things and Bracks is in their sights.

Bracks is most definitely a Labor man and his appointment was in part a recognition of this - standard in these sorts of things on both sides, no reason for this to offend the LNP as much as it apparently has. But the move to revoke his appointment is purely a recognition of his Labor ties. Julie Bishop said at the time of the appointment that she felt she had the right to be consulted, (she did not,) and the Government didn't have the right to make these appointments after the election had been announced, (it did,) but no-one seriously thought she'd actually care about it post-election. Her move to follow through and have it as her first act as Foreign Minister is churlish and mean-spirited - completely in-keeping with her character.

Bishop argued Labor's appointment of Bracks was unethical and inappropriate. Not true at all, it was completely their prerogative to appoint him and Bracks is an appropriate choice for the role.

Tanya Plibersek argued that the Coalition's decision to axe the appointment was petty and vindictive. This is true. Bracks is being axed because he's a Labor man and the Coalition want to grasp the opportunity to appoint one of their own. It's payback politics, nothing more.

There are rumours that they want Nick Minchin, a former Howard Minister and current "faceless man" who claims tobacco companies are unfairly treated and climate change is a leftist conspiracy - but a good loyal Liberal man all the same. I hope it's someone else but I haven't been wowed by the Coalition's ability to make good decisions just yet. Hell, I hope it's someone who's politically neutral but I'm pretty damn sure it'll be a loyal LNP-associated savant of some description.


Edit: Also for interest's sake, when Rudd booted out the former Coalition he not only kept Liberal appointees but also appointed high profile Liberals Tim Fischer and Brendan Nelson to diplomatic roles.

Looks like Mirabella is going to lose her seat due to 1,000 votes being miscounted and recounted to be in McGowan's favour.

1,000 misplaced votes extend Cathy McGowan's lead over Sophie Mirabella in Victorian seat of Indi

Steve Kennedy from the AEC says the votes were counted on the night but a transcription error meant they were not being included in Ms McGowan's total.

"On the McGowan box of first preference votes, a one was put there instead of a two, so it was 1,115 rather than 2,115," he said.

"In all the confusion in the early hours of Sunday, someone has written the incorrect number.

"When that number's been transcribed onto another sheet, that's where the error's occurred.

"So the votes were always there, they were never lost, it was just an accounting error. That's why we do this recounting and rechecking."

Mr Kennedy says just before 4:00pm AEST Wednesday, Ms McGowan was leading Ms Mirabella by around 490 votes.

He says the lead should climb to around 1,500 votes once the misplaced votes are calculated in.

Dobell, sure, but not so much Eden-Monaro. Mike Kelly is top shelf.

Hah! It is completely and utterly the Government's right to set an election in an election year, it's required of them. Setting it in advance is irrelevant and really if you think it provides so much of an advantage please tell me why Governments don't do it all the time or why Governments, particularly ones that think they are going to lose, tend to delay the decision as long as possible in order to more accurately place an election for when they are doing better in the polls.

Also Bracks took up the role in August. So there's that.

Politicians playing politics, gosh, what next?

Ty wrote:

Dilbert, if calling an election early was about Gillard securing her position as PM then why the Hell did it do absolutely nothing to secure her position as PM?

Worked pretty well right up to the end didn't it?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Worked pretty well right up to the end didn't it?

Gillard wrote:

"Losing power can bring forth a pain that hits you like a fist,"

Interesting

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-09-14 06:06:59)

I think so, its obvious Gillard was a power-mad nut.

Nope, normal people don't talk in those terms, even politicians - or at least politicians smart enough to hide their personality.