Australia - New PM?

[jamhar]

.....

As a political junkie I look forward to this campaign for the sake of it. I generally favor Labor in most instances abroad although they tend to be less than charming towards the US than the Conservative or Liberal parties abroad. Gordon Brown was awful towards the United States but John Howard was off the deep end as another of Bush's lapdogs, I think it's fair to say. I recall survey polling in OZ during Bush's presidency that said Aussies thought Howard's government followed the US too closely in foreign policy. Gilllard however was very cooperative and supportive of Prez Obama's "rebalancing" to the Indo-Pacific geostrategic area. So it's rarely a case of black or white.

Australia is obliged to support the US as it is reliant on the US for strategic defense, intelligence sharing, protection of sea lanes for commerce etc

Hopefully its more of a mutual interests, than an obligation.

It may not mean too much to the people of Oz, but as an american, i can tell you that there's a genuine feeling of connection between the people of US (at least myself, my friends, and colleagues) and the people of Oz.

I've said it before, its a small fraternity. Only a handful of country's get that almost family like treatment from the US public. And we get the sense the feelings are mutual..

So yes hopefully its more of a mutual interest and not a one sided, obligation.,,,,,

of course their is mutual interest, but the bottom line is that Australia needed a strong defense posture when the UK pulled out of Asia after WW11, look up SEATO and the ANZUS treaty. However, obligation is a strong component e.g. if Oz had followed the NZ government decision to ban nuclear armed US warships from it's ports and waters or ordered the removal of Pine Gap (on the cards at one time) you still believe the US would have had a warm and friendly relationship with Australia

Americans have the same feeling towards the Kiwi's still, so yes, I think we would have.

But as the Philippians have found out, its easy to be idealistic until reality hits you in the face.

Luckily we didn't have to face that situation with Oz.

Listen WE don't like our government sometimes. But we try to work it out, and if not, we stick with it a little longer. We try to make the situation work, and after that, we VOTE THE BUM OUT. just as you do.

Also in defense of our mutual friends in the north Atlantic, They didn't abandon anyone. You know quite well after years of being bombed, the country needed to rebuild. There was nothing left in the tank. The US had the resources in the Pacific, so we stepped in to help those who stood with us, when it wasn't easy to do so, along with anyone else that needed it.

It would be easy to agree that its just the people between us that ties us together. But that would be a cop-out. We (the fraternity) make tough decisions when its not politically advantageous to do so. Like allowing the nukes save harbor, when it was the politically fashionable thing to do to say no to all nukes. But it wouldn't have been the right decision in my opinion. You stuck it out. Thats what we do.

Thats what binds our nations together. Not the lifting of beers in good times, hell I can do that with GW Bush! But its having each others backs when its not popular to do so. You hold that line when you're taking a beating politically, because its the right thing to do. Its supporting each other during the harshest of times that binds us.

I'm going to stop before someone starts singing kumbaya and asks for a group hug Plus after my proofread, I think i covered just about the maximum number of cliches possible! I'm out.

I just wanted to point out, that its mutual respect that binds us, not some perceived obligations.

[simple1]

Australians are not envious of the US, nor does it have "apron strings" with the UK. The apron strings were severed by the Commonwealth in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, and the Australia Act 1986.

What you may have picked up is that many Australians do not concur for the Australian government getting involved with US overseas wars i.e. US politics, not the American people in general

Edited July 1, 2013 by simple1

[jamhar]

I know Americans almost universally view Australia and Australians favorably, however, that positive attitude isn't always returned, at least based on a lot of my experience with Aussies in Thailand. I was quite surprised by this negativity and remain perplexed by it.

I have to agree somewhat P. I have met some Aussies here there seemed, lets say confrontational, towards Americans and the US. And in the few times I've seen it or heard it, I try to step in and remind everyone that our history is long and connections are deep.

I have 2 groups of data on Aussies, the ones I met in the US. (quite a few actually) and the ones i met here in TL. In the US, its a universal hug fest. Here in TL, I would say maybe 1 in 4 Aussies i meet are US confrontational. (not hostile, but just confrontational) but i just roll with it. After several beers i generally win them back over . Maybe its the rowdiness of the bunch in general that comes to TL.

I'll ask the next rowdy Aussie about it and see what I can get It will be a good excuse for another beer

[Scott]

As nice as this warm and fuzzy discussion is, it is getting off-topic. Let's stick to Australia, the situation with the PM and those topics associated with the OP.

Thanks.

[jamhar]

I guess a group hug is out of the question, huh?

So does this new government mean a change in the immigration policy for Oz?

[David48]

.

This wasn't an easy decision, nor was it a hard one: Crean ...

Mr Crean said the timing of his retirement announcement was to ensure there could be a rank-and-file preselection ballot.

''You can't expect people to join a party if they don't have rights, and one of the most important rights that they should have, is the ability to have a say in who represents them,'' Mr Crean said.

There has been speculation that former prime minister Julia Gillard's replacement in Lalor may be made by the national executive, not local members, because the election is only months away.

Mr Crean, who entered federal parliament in 1990 following a stint as Australian Council of Trade Union president, said he was not concerned that several other senior ministers were retiring, saying that Labor had a strong depth of talent.

Here

.

[Scott]

Immigration is an interesting subject. What affect will it have on the processing of refugees and the detention centers?

[David48]

.

Courier Mail

.

[jamhar]

Immigration is an interesting subject. What affect will it have on the processing of refugees and the detention centers?

Exactly my thought. I seem to recall the past government promoting the "give us your tired, your hungry......" approach to refugees. I personally thought it was a mistake at the time. This isn't the 1900's.

[ripstanley]

The word coming out of Canberra is that they will take a harder stance against the boat people. They are saying that a lot of the boat people are economic refugees and they will tighten the rules. They are moving more to the right to negate the Liberals. It is how to win the next election not what is good for the refugees

[Scott]

Thanks. Winning elections is usually about internal politics. Immigrants and refugees are pretty low on the totem pole.

[chooka]

As nice as this warm and fuzzy discussion is, it is getting off-topic. Let's stick to Australia, the situation with the PM and those topics associated with the OP.

Thanks.

True it has diverted a little Scott but at least everyone is getting along and no bashing of each other.

Anyway Simon Crean is the latest labor minister and Gillard supporter to retire. How many is that now, 5? Huge dent in pot.

[chooka]

.

Courier Mail

.

If you have noticed Kevin has promoted a lot more women, I guess this is an attempt to win back the women's groups who were right behind Julia.

[ripstanley]

Thanks. Winning elections is usually about internal politics. Immigrants and refugees are pretty low on the totem pole.

Boat people are a very hot topic in Australia. They represent a very small percentage of illegal immigrants but they are very costly for the Australian Government.

The Australian people are very divided about the boat people and this will be a highly contentious issue during the election run up.

[chooka]

Thanks. Winning elections is usually about internal politics. Immigrants and refugees are pretty low on the totem pole.

Boat people are a very hot topic in Australia. They represent a very small percentage of illegal immigrants but they are very costly for the Australian Government.

The Australian people are very divided about the boat people and this will be a highly contentious issue during the election run up.

That is so true. 1200 Sri Lankan's alone have been sent back this year after been found to be line jumpers and not refugees. This cost the tax payer millions and then Australia was branded as being racist. This is what annoys a lot of Aussies.

[FDog]

Not sure why it's undemocratic. Does the Queen ever say no? I don't know the answer.

I think it is more just a procedural matter, just going through the motions.

Edit: I note the monarch has not, and cannot say no. The monarch has no discretion and must agree to appoint the gg.

Lets see, an unelected foreign head of state who is chosen based on birth and who can't be Catholic, let alone Australian, gets to choose who nominally holds the reigns of power in Australia. Whether it is based on advice from the far flung regions of an non-existent empire matters not a jot. A resident for president, please.

The monarchy does not 'normally' decide who holds the reigns of power. Where did you get that idea?

Where did I get that silly idea? The Consitution.

"2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him."

daaa, I win.

Also, I didn't say 'normally' I said 'nominally'. And the reigns of power are indeed instilled in the GG, as we have just seen a few days ago. Julia Gillard in her last act as PM before she resigned recommended to the GG that the GG should install Rudd as PM. The GG followed her advice, and via the GG powers, Rudd was installed as PM. The new PM then recommended ministers to the GG and the GG swore them in, countersigning their appointments.

The GG also signs off on all laws in Australia.

As I said, unelected.

The GG has no choice but to do those things. If she didn't then she would be sacked. It is a ceremonial role only. Exactly the same role a President would be doing if we went down the republic route.

You do know who choses the GG don't you? Yes the PM choses the GG. That choice is then relayed to the monarchy who CANNOT refuse the appointment. That's right, the monarchy has absolutely no say in who the PM picks as a GG.

So in effect, the monarchy has no say in what Australia does.

George V was still very reluctant to accept Scullin's recommendation of Isaacs and asked him to consider Field Marshal Sir William Birdwood. However, Scullin stood firm and, on 29 November, the King agreed to Isaacs's appointment, but made it clear that he did so only because he felt he had no option.^[3] This right to not only advise the monarch directly, but also to expect that advice to be accepted, was soon taken up by all the other Dominion prime ministers. This, among other things, led to the Statute of Westminster 1931 and to the formal separation of the crowns of the Dominions. Now, the Queen of Australia is generally bound by constitutional convention to accept the advice of the Australian prime minister and state premiers about Australian and state constitutional matters, respectively.

[Publicus]

Boat people are a very hot topic in Australia. They represent a very small percentage of illegal immigrants but they are very costly for the Australian Government.

The Australian people are very divided about the boat people and this will be a highly contentious issue during the election run up.

That is so true. 1200 Sri Lankan's alone have been sent back this year after been found to be line jumpers and not refugees. This cost the tax payer millions and then Australia was branded as being racist. This is what annoys a lot of Aussies.

Yes, a country - a government - has the inherent right to control its borders. In the case of the island continent of Australia, its borders are the seas and oceans, which makes it much tougher and thus more expensive to Australian tax payers and somewhat concerning the labor market.

Economic refugees are overrunning western Europe, or so it could seem. A relatively small population country such as Australia easily can become overrun by economic refugees who come from a part of the world, south or east Asia, that is historically poor and generally over populated.

Australia used to get a lot of bad press in the West for its necessarily tough position concerning economic refugees, but it seems the Western press has, over time, come to realize the nature of the problem the flood of economic migrants poses to Australia. I think even the Thai English language newspapers have eased up somewhat on this point, which is a better approach than the hammering they used to give to OZ.

I think Australia has more understanding globally and somewhat regionally on this issue than it used to have, which is a good thing. No one likes detention camps, but in this matter what else would there be as a means to control foreigners who haven't any legal status to be in the country during the process of review of their applications. Without the camps, OZ would begin to have the same illegal immi problem the US has, and the US has a high and long fence at its border with Mexico but no immi detention camps

As nice as this warm and fuzzy discussion is, it is getting off-topic. Let's stick to Australia, the situation with the PM and those topics associated with the OP.

Thanks.

True it has diverted a little Scott but at least everyone is getting along and no bashing of each other.

Anyway Simon Crean is the latest labor minister and Gillard supporter to retire. How many is that now, 5? Huge dent in pot.

.

[Publicus]

As nice as this warm and fuzzy discussion is, it is getting off-topic. Let's stick to Australia, the situation with the PM and those topics associated with the OP.

Thanks.

True it has diverted a little Scott but at least everyone is getting along and no bashing of each other.

Anyway Simon Crean is the latest labor minister and Gillard supporter to retire. How many is that now, 5? Huge dent in pot.

Rudd wins and why should the Gillard supporters expect much, if anything, from him? He would owe others in the party big time, and also have personal feelings about the MP's who voted for Gillard. If I'd voted for Rudd but my area of ministerial expertise went to someone who voted for Gillard, I'd wonder what the rules of the game would be.

Edited to add: I see a glitch in the post immediately above. My regrets. Could someone straighten it out please? Thx.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Publicus

[David48]

.

New MP is first in Australia to be sworn in with Koran ...

Ed Husic becomes first Muslim frontbencher

AMONG the oaths, photographs and backslapping at Labor's latest ministerial swearing-in ceremony, a cultural milestone was passed for Australia's parliament.

Ed Husic, named parliament secretary to the Prime Minister and for broadband, became the first Muslim sworn on to a federal government frontbench.

A key supporter of Kevin Rudd, Mr Husic was elevated to the senior role at the expense of Andrew Leigh, who lost the role in the ministry reshuffle.

The milestone was acknowledged by Governor-General Quentin Bryce as she swore in Mr Husic and 24 of his Labor colleagues at a ceremony in Canberra.

“This is a wonderful day for multiculturalism, and everything it stands for in our country,” Ms Bryce told Mr Husic, to roars of “Hear Hear!” from his Labor colleagues.

I have mixed feeling about this - just wondering what you guys feel about this.

Is Australia too open?

Or should we open up more?

.

[David48]

Thanks. Winning elections is usually about internal politics. Immigrants and refugees are pretty low on the totem pole.

Scott, if you are not in Australia, you have probably missed a few comments re this issue ...

KEVIN Rudd says Tony Abbott's asylum-seeker boat tow back policy risks sparking a war with Indonesia.

In his first press conference as Prime Minister in which he took questions from media, Mr Rudd said the hard-line Coalition plan for asylum-seeker boats would risk a diplomatic crisis.

"There is a risk of diplomatic conflict and ... you've got to be mindful of where conflict leads you," Mr Rudd said.

"You really need to have some pretty cool hands on the tiller when you are dealing with Indonesian relations."

HERE

For those comments he was widely lambasted by both the media and the Opposition Leader.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, as you know, it's topic of debate in Australia and the votes seem to be with limiting the number of 'boat people'

So, without changing the Rules and Laws of Australia ... how does he achieve that goal?

He gets Minister for Foreign Affairs Bob Carr on the job ...

Are boat people 'economic migrants'?

As the Labor government changed captains this week, it signalled also a harder line on asylum seekers coming by boat – a line which seeks to match speed with the Coalition’s Stop the Boats campaign.

Soon after Kevin Rudd took over from Julia Gillard, the Foreign Minister Bob Carr said those coming to Australia by boat are not fleeing persecution but are "economic migrants".

His remarks seemed to get traction with Rudd, who told a Canberra news conference Friday that "a whole bunch of people who seek to come to this country are economic migrants, who are seeking to comport themselves as refugees".

Here

[Xangsamhua]

Why not open up? What's wrong with immigrants/refugees/displaced people/people who tell porkies to get in? The United States and Australia have benefited enormously from immigrants, regardless of their motivations.

But should every immigrant be entitled to social security? Should citizenship be freely available after only 3 years? Should ghettoization of the less assimilable be encouraged and nurtured? Probably not.

I'd be happy to see Waziri Afghans, Sri Lankan Tamils, and whoever, come to make a new life in Australia, but they should pay for the right. Let them come, but pay the money their families have got together for them to the Australian taxpayer rather than to people smugglers. Let them pool their resources and work hard for 10 years in Oz before gaining citizenship. In the meantime they can send their kids to school and have all the rights of permanent residence, but citizenship and the right to vote should be a highly prized privilege.

Australia opened its arms to Indochinese refugees in the 1970s and 80s and, with small exceptions, they've worked hard and been good citizens. I suspect others, if they've got the initiative to get to Australia, will be the same. We just have to remove (1) the middle man/people smuggler, (2) the red tape (points system) in emigration to Australia, and (3) the host society's fear of the stranger, especially if he or she looks different and speaks another language.

Of course, security and health checks will be necessary, and people who enter illegally and do not meet the requirements will be deported (as will those who arrive legally and commit serious crimes), but there will be no reason to arrive illegally unless you have something to hide.

[Sing_Sling]

Simon Crean? Good riddance to a bad smell

.

New MP is first in Australia to be sworn in with Koran ...

Ed Husic becomes first Muslim frontbencher

AMONG the oaths, photographs and backslapping at Labor's latest ministerial swearing-in ceremony, a cultural milestone was passed for Australia's parliament.

Ed Husic, named parliament secretary to the Prime Minister and for broadband, became the first Muslim sworn on to a federal government frontbench.

A key supporter of Kevin Rudd, Mr Husic was elevated to the senior role at the expense of Andrew Leigh, who lost the role in the ministry reshuffle.

The milestone was acknowledged by Governor-General Quentin Bryce as she swore in Mr Husic and 24 of his Labor colleagues at a ceremony in Canberra.

“This is a wonderful day for multiculturalism, and everything it stands for in our country,” Ms Bryce told Mr Husic, to roars of “Hear Hear!” from his Labor colleagues.

I have mixed feeling about this - just wondering what you guys feel about this.

Is Australia too open?

Or should we open up more?

.

I don't see a problem with this as it shows integration, true integration - and for there to be any problems with this in particular . . . the Muslim population isn't particularly large.

The problem we have always had is people holding onto their inherited bigotry and hatred and acting it out in Australia - two examples are the Serbs and Croats in foootball and the exploding Sunni/Shia catastrophe building in Sydney's inner west.

Ghettos? We've always had them and then the second generation starts moving out and getting married with those outside their ghetto . . . again, the major difference are Muslims who find that Aussies won't convert to get married, therefore continuing their 'separateness'

Multiculturalism?

[samran]

Quite proud to see Ed Husic get sworn in in the way he did. Even prouder that the koran was a footnote to the story, not a controversy.

So more muslims in public life? We already have it. Wondering about whether this is right or wrong seems the equivalent to wondering if Catholics and Jews should have had a role in public life, back when Australia saw itself as a WASP stronghold.

[simple1]

Immigration is an interesting subject. What affect will it have on the processing of refugees and the detention centers?

Exactly my thought. I seem to recall the past government promoting the "give us your tired, your hungry......" approach to refugees. I personally thought it was a mistake at the time. This isn't the 1900's.

Your comments are incorrect. The Oz government sets an annual quota for refuges that have been vetted by the UNHCR. As far as I am aware it never has been open ended. The asylum seekers entering Australia illegally by sea were a major issue for the Howard government who established off shore detention camps that were considered by the international community as unacceptable, mainly due to children, in effect, being imprisoned for years whilst the parents were being assessed. This policy was overturned by the Labor government that then led to an explosion of "boat people". It's a very complex issue and will be further exacerbated when NATO pulls out of Afghanistan & the predicted increase of Afghani ethic groups of asylum seekers escaping the ethnic cleansing campaigns by the Taliban. I understand NZ deports asylum seekers arriving without ID papers, but the challenge is returning to their country of origin where in many cases they may face imprisonment, torture and death. Add to this the problems for UNHCR programs, supported by member countries that often means delays of up to ten years or more for vetted asylum seekers being relocated; therefore leading to "queue jumping".

Edited July 2, 2013 by simple1

[GrantSmith]

Wasn't this whole asylum boat people thing supposed to be covered under the Malaysian agreement? We take the processed "refugees" and send the queue jumpers to Malaysia to be either assessed and then sent back here or returned to where they came from.

The sticking point being that Malaysia is not a signatory to the UNHCR convention, thus the Government being a minority one, couldn't push this through without the help of (or lack thereof in this case) The Greens (yawn) and the Independents (in particular, Wilkie - who should probably run under the Wikileaks party next time 'round) and the Coalition wasn't going to vote it in simply on principle..

As for Simon Crean, he was a turn coat and backed Rudd in the last couple of calls for a leadership change: The one that didn't eventuate - which resulted in him sitting with Rudd on the back benches and the recent one - which resulted in him not getting the DPM gig which went to Albo (hahah classic Rudd... "Deputy Prime Minister Albo") who has been a long term Rudd supporter, which then led to him deciding not to seek re-election.

Tony Burke's - a loyal Gillard gimp - resignation wasn't accepted by KRudd and he was handed the poisoned chalice portfolio. A bit of payback for Chris Bowen perhaps?

Pleased to see Kate Lundy get her comeuppance as well, losing her Sports portfolio, though handing it to Don Farrell doesn't make much sense. Then she has a sulk because KRudd didn't call her personally to tell her she wasn't keeping it, grow up princess, she's lucky to have kept the portfolios she did.

Tanya Pilbersek and Jennie Macklin should have also gotten the boot.

I'm a bit surprised by the sacking of Jason Claire (Minister for Home Affairs) though, he seemed to be quite capable in this role. Seems KRudd didn't like his showboating antics regarding the Customs issues. Not sure where his loyalties stood though.

And finally Minister for Feminist affairs - I mean leader of the Senate and Finance Minister Penny Wong. Hasn't she copped a bucket load from the sisterhood of traveling feminists! Being called a sell out, don't envy her one bit. I do enjoy watching Sen. Wong go about her parliamentary business in the Senate during question time, she's no nonsense and straight to the point, generally giving as good as she gets. Seems she only backed KRudd on the back of his recent stance on marriage equality.

Fun times in Canberra it seems...

[simple1]

Under the Australian/Malaysia proposed deal, Australia would have sent 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia for processing and received 4000 processed refugees in return, so in effect legalised queue jumping. Also Malaysia had not strengthed it's laws for human rights protection for asylum seekers, especially protection for children. So buggered to understand why Gillard expected the deal to be ratified in the first place. The High Court correctly rejected the proposed plan

[David48]

And finally Minister for Feminist affairs - I mean leader of the Senate and Finance Minister Penny Wong. Hasn't she copped a bucket load from the sisterhood of traveling feminists! Being called a sell out, don't envy her one bit.

...

I'm no Penny Wong fan.

I still reckon she and Kevin Rudd are twins

Put the glasses on her ...

Just saying like ...

.

[chooka]

I am curious as to how he was sworn in. Muslims can only swear their allegiance to Allah and swearing to a person or country is forbidden. Ed Husic did not swear to serve the office, country and Queen as the others were required to do. He swore to serve allah The constitution states that he must swear to serve Queen and country to hold the office and until the constitution is changed how can he hold the position. Also for a position to be recognised in Islam such a ceremony must be conducted by an Islamic Cleric and not a non believer. So on one side he has not taken the oath as per the constitution and on the other side he has not taken an oath as per Islam.

.

New MP is first in Australia to be sworn in with Koran ...

Ed Husic becomes first Muslim frontbencher

AMONG the oaths, photographs and backslapping at Labor's latest ministerial swearing-in ceremony, a cultural milestone was passed for Australia's parliament.

Ed Husic, named parliament secretary to the Prime Minister and for broadband, became the first Muslim sworn on to a federal government frontbench.

A key supporter of Kevin Rudd, Mr Husic was elevated to the senior role at the expense of Andrew Leigh, who lost the role in the ministry reshuffle.

The milestone was acknowledged by Governor-General Quentin Bryce as she swore in Mr Husic and 24 of his Labor colleagues at a ceremony in Canberra.

“This is a wonderful day for multiculturalism, and everything it stands for in our country,” Ms Bryce told Mr Husic, to roars of “Hear Hear!” from his Labor colleagues.

I have mixed feeling about this - just wondering what you guys feel about this.

Is Australia too open?

Or should we open up more?

.

No I am not Muslim bashing or against Muslims holding office.

This has caused a stink in Australia.

'Shame, shame, shame': Australia's first Muslim frontbencher abused for taking oath on Koran

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/shame-shame-shame-australias-first-muslim-frontbencher-abused-for-taking-oath-on-koran-20130702-2p8l2.html#ixzz2Xra4npJ4

[Sing_Sling]

So much aggro for so little . . . oaths mean very little when it comes to politics, I do wonder why we even bother with it anymore

[Old Croc]

Don't know why he didn't just take the Affirmation of Allegiance which doesn't involve the use of any holy book.

That's what this little atheist did many years ago!

(Unfortunately you still can't get away from the Queen and her local representative.)

The Oath of Allegiance reads as follows:

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

The Affirmation of Allegiance reads as follows:

I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

As per the schedule in the Constitution, the words "Her" and "Queen Victoria" are substituted as required with the pronoun and name of the reigning monarch.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Old Croc