Australian Politics thread [merged]

[1965]

Call to recognise 'first peoples' in Constitution

 By chief political correspondent Emma Griffiths

The debate about formally recognising Indigenous Australians in the Constitution is set to flare following the release of recommendations from the expert panel advising the Government on the issue.

The panel, chaired by former head of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Patrick Dodson, has set out major changes to the Constitution that would recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people "as the first peoples of Australia".

The changes would need to be passed by referendum and the panel has advised that a single question be put to Australians in relation to all of the proposals.

Speaking at the launch of the panel's report, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has urged Australians to embrace the recommendations.

"As a nation we are big enough and it is the right time to say yes to an understanding of our past, to say yes to constitutional change, and to say yes to a future more united and more reconciled than we have ever been before," Ms Gillard said.

The Prime Minister says enacting the changes will "take the deepest and strongest sort of bipartisanship".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-19/report-on-indigenous-constitutional-recognition/3782678

This will only come to pass with the Libs support. I wonder how long before Mr Rabbitt says no?

 

[mightytiges]

Referendums in Australia are more than likely to fail. IIRC something like only four amendments have been passed in 100 years or whatever it is. I can't see this getting by-partisan support either while Mr No is leader of the Liberal party. If Turnbull was still leader then they might have had a chance.

No sure what happened to dwaino's post about methane? I was going to add that methane (CH4) is one of the four molecules under the 'carbon' label along with CO2, CFCs and Nitrous oxide (the latter doesn't contain carbon but being a greenhouse gas it get lobbed in with the other three). IIRC the coal mines while not directly producing CO2 at the mine site will be paying for the methane they produce (the agricultural sector is of course being immuned).

The domestic 3-year carbon tax and subsequent ETS is more an economic reform so we move away from having an economy so highly dependent on what will become old-school fossil fuels for our energy needs towards more diverse and 'cleaner' energy sources (while at the same time do our bit environmentally by reducing our own carbon emissions) over the next 40-50 years. Waiting to act last would potentially be a major economic risk to Australia. Good luck to us being price competitive when trying to export goods and services under a global ETS when still 80% of the energy we use to produce these goods and services is from coal. The global movement towards carbon pricing (ie. Durban agreement and China being the latest country to introduce a carbon tax (in 2015)) will be the global environmental response to reducing global emissions.

As to why CO2 is the main focus - the Earth's past (ie. how the Earth came out of its 'snowball' phases) showed additional CO2 enhances warming and spreads that warming globally (from southern hemisphere to the northern say) so the Earth comes out of ice ages. The scientific study of CO2 in the atmosphere has been happening since the late 19th century while global warming has been acknowledged since the 1960s and accepted by mainstream climate science since the early 1980s. As mentioned CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the 1850s with the driver being us as the ratio of carbon isotopes 13C/12C is slightly different in CO2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels compared to that 'naturally' occurring in the atmosphere. So this isotope ratio in the atmosphere has been observed to have altered over this 150 year time period as well.

As for the so-called debate we have had - it has been mostly one dominated by political interest copycatted from the US rather than a scientific debate. It's an amazing coincidence that virtually all so-called 'sceptical' online blogs, websites and media outlets can be traced back to politically hardline conservative think tanks rather than to highly reputable and well-known scientific institutions with decades of reviewed climate research and supporting empirical evidence behind them. As for the opposition here under Abbott, they have moved from denying the scientific evidence [wrong] to saying Australia was acting alone on emissions reduction [wrong] to then saying Australia shouldn't act because 'big' emitters like India and China weren't [wrong] to now saying our carbon pricing scheme will be bigger than theirs [debatable without all the full details]. It's very hard to believe and trust a punter who has always backed the wrong horse.   

[1965]

Interesting last line that we should all take note of.

Legal threat to bloggers

Lawrence Money
January 30, 2012.

Mr Gibson says that such cases as Hardy's - and a recent decision in Queensland forcing Google to release the identity of a blogger to a man he had abused online - are signs that the internet is no longer an area that can circumvent the laws of defamation.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/legal-threat-to-bloggers-20120129-1qo1w.html#ixzz1ksRSkJl1

[1965]

What's this?

Abbott saying "No", what a surprise.

Libs baulk on referendum support

by: Christian Kerr From: The Australian January 30, 2012

COALITION support for a referendum on constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians cannot be guaranteed, senior opposition sources have warned.
While there is strong support in opposition ranks for the idea, Liberal frontbenchers are critical of the broader package of proposals to recognise Aborigines and to remove racially discriminatory provisions in the Constitution

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/libs-baulk-on-referendum-support/story-fn9hm1pm-1226256684571

[dwaino]

Referendums in Australia are more than likely to fail. IIRC something like only four amendments have been passed in 100 years or whatever it is. I can't see this getting by-partisan support either while Mr No is leader of the Liberal party. If Turnbull was still leader then they might have had a chance.

No sure what happened to dwaino's post about methane? I was going to add that methane (CH4) is one of the four molecules under the 'carbon' label along with CO2, CFCs and Nitrous oxide (the latter doesn't contain carbon but being a greenhouse gas it get lobbed in with the other three). IIRC the coal mines while not directly producing CO2 at the mine site will be paying for the methane they produce (the agricultural sector is of course being immuned).

The domestic 3-year carbon tax and subsequent ETS is more an economic reform so we move away from having an economy so highly dependent on what will become old-school fossil fuels for our energy needs towards more diverse and 'cleaner' energy sources (while at the same time do our bit environmentally by reducing our own carbon emissions) over the next 40-50 years. Waiting to act last would potentially be a major economic risk to Australia. Good luck to us being price competitive when trying to export goods and services under a global ETS when still 80% of the energy we use to produce these goods and services is from coal. The global movement towards carbon pricing (ie. Durban agreement and China being the latest country to introduce a carbon tax (in 2015)) will be the global environmental response to reducing global emissions.

As to why CO2 is the main focus - the Earth's past (ie. how the Earth came out of its 'snowball' phases) showed additional CO2 enhances warming and spreads that warming globally (from southern hemisphere to the northern say) so the Earth comes out of ice ages. The scientific study of CO2 in the atmosphere has been happening since the late 19th century while global warming has been acknowledged since the 1960s and accepted by mainstream climate science since the early 1980s. As mentioned CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the 1850s with the driver being us as the ratio of carbon isotopes 13C/12C is slightly different in CO2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels compared to that 'naturally' occurring in the atmosphere. So this isotope ratio in the atmosphere has been observed to have altered over this 150 year time period as well.

As for the so-called debate we have had - it has been mostly one dominated by political interest copycatted from the US rather than a scientific debate. It's an amazing coincidence that virtually all so-called 'sceptical' online blogs, websites and media outlets can be traced back to politically hardline conservative think tanks rather than to highly reputable and well-known scientific institutions with decades of reviewed climate research and supporting empirical evidence behind them. As for the opposition here under Abbott, they have moved from denying the scientific evidence [wrong] to saying Australia was acting alone on emissions reduction [wrong] to then saying Australia shouldn't act because 'big' emitters like India and China weren't [wrong] to now saying our carbon pricing scheme will be bigger than theirs [debatable without all the full details]. It's very hard to believe and trust a punter who has always backed the wrong horse.   

I nuked the post because after some deliberation I decided feel like entering any sort of argument and starting it all from scratch again :p if you know what I mean. I can't remember exactly what I posted, but I think the long winded point I tried to make was, CO2 is being made the bad guy in all this as it is easier to con the public into paying for it when you can put down more parts per millions on paper. What they aren't making public is the trend that shows that CO2 ppm has drastically increased since certain industries has increased methane outputs. CO2 emitters will be deemed the filthiest and we will be charged for it (granted there will be a reform to claim some of this back) and we become the first country to profit from polluting.

[10 FLAGS]

What's this?

Abbott saying "No", what a surprise.

Libs baulk on referendum support

by: Christian Kerr From: The Australian January 30, 2012

COALITION support for a referendum on constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians cannot be guaranteed, senior opposition sources have warned.
While there is strong support in opposition ranks for the idea, Liberal frontbenchers are critical of the broader package of proposals to recognise Aborigines and to remove racially discriminatory provisions in the Constitution

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/indigenous/libs-baulk-on-referendum-support/story-fn9hm1pm-1226256684571

You should be more concerned by the nonsense that your party has engaged in recently. Seriously the ALP couldnt organise a root in a brothel. stuffen hopeless they are as a party.

[1965]

You should be more concerned by the nonsense that your party has engaged in recently. Seriously the ALP couldnt organise a root in a brothel. stuffen hopeless they are as a party.

Once again, I am not a Labor supporter.

I am a Greens voter, and a Democrat voter before them.

What I am, is a person very concerned about having a loose cannon, policy deficient Tony Abbott getting into power.

Yes the Labor Party was embarrassingly inept but without Tony Abbott's insensitive comments then nothing would have happened.

 

[WilliamPowell]

Yes the Labor Party was embarrassingly inept but without Tony Abbott's insensitive comments then nothing would have happened.

Are you alluding to last Thursday's shameful events? I am assuming you are so in that context

Look everyone knows I am not an Abbott fan, I think he is a dud but to suggest it was his "insensitive comments" that lead to last Thursday's disgraceful events is laughable

Please give me a break

He was asked a question, he answered it honestly and actually thoughtfully and as is the norm with our pathetic media it was turned into something it wasn't.

Which part of his answer was insensitive exactly? Have you read his entire answer to the question that was posed to him. Insensitive? Not in a million years

TBBH, last time I checked we still lived in a democracy where we have the right to voice our opinions.

For anyone to blame the events of last Thursday on Abbott is as ridiculous as blaming it all on Gillard IMHO

[1965]

Yes the Labor Party was embarrassingly inept but without Tony Abbott's insensitive comments then nothing would have happened.

Are you alluding to last Thursday's shameful events? I am assuming you are so in that context

Look everyone knows I am not an Abbott fan, I think he is a dud but to suggest it was his "insensitive comments" that lead to last Thursday's disgraceful events is laughable

Please give me a break

He was asked a question, he answered it honestly and actually thoughtfully and as is the norm with our pathetic media it was turned into something it wasn't.

Which part of his answer was insensitive exactly? Have you read his entire answer to the question that was posed to him. Insensitive? Not in a million years

TBBH, last time I checked we still lived in a democracy where we have the right to voice our opinions.

For anyone to blame the events of last Thursday on Abbott is as ridiculous as blaming it all on Gillard IMHO

WP

You are too quick to jump on my comments sometimes.

Fact is that if he had said nothing then the whole debacle would not have happened.

Posture all you like but what I said still stands.

I did not say he caused anything.

 

[WilliamPowell]

WP

You are too quick to jump on my comments sometimes.

Fact is that if he had said nothing then the whole debacle would not have happened.

Posture all you like but what I said still stands.

I did not say he caused anything.

 

So just so I am clear:

On the one hand you saying he didn't cause anything but on the other hand you are saying if he had said nothing then last Thursday wouldn't have happened.

That's your  take on it? No cause just affect right 

And BTW any chance you'll answer my original question and that is what did he say that was so insensitive?

[1965]

So just so I am clear:

On the one hand you saying he didn't cause anything but on the other hand you are saying if he had said nothing then last Thursday wouldn't have happened.

That's your  take on it? No cause just affect right 

And BTW any chance you'll answer my original question and that is what did he say that was so insensitive?

WP

I did not say he caused anything and I am still not saying he caused anything.

And as for the quiz on what word I used, are you a closet wannabe teacher?

You know exactly what I was talking about so get off your high-horse and stop with the pedantic rants.

 

[WilliamPowell]

And as for the quiz on what word I used, are you a closet wannabe teacher?

No - wouldn't want to be (apologies to the majority of the teaching faternity  ) but teaching is not for me

You know exactly what I was talking about so get off your high-horse and stop with the pedantic rants.

Pedantic rants 

What colour is the kettle again or is that the pot 

Beautiful deflection as always I'll give you that

Why is it so hard for you to answer what I would have thought is a pretty simple question 

[Dubstep Dookie]

Pedantic rants hey 65? 

Cue the same old poot

[1965]

Why is it so hard for you to answer what I would have thought is a pretty simple question 

Sorry, I'm not going to play your games.

 

...and the kettle and pot are both black.

[Dubstep Dookie]

Mod 'Games' - FFS even 65 can see it