ACT Election ’16 – now on!

mr_wowtrousers said :

neanderthalsis said :

The sad thing is that those who will be most affected by the changes to the environment the thing that concerns the Greens, .

If the environment so concerns the Greens, why does the federal Greens leader Richard di Natale never mention the environment?

It’s hard for di Natale to be seen as a hypocrite when the other Green in Canberra is overseeing the destruction of trees in Northbourne Avenue.
That’s not half as bad as our “media” who don’t question the Greens on anything that might show them up.

bj_ACT said :

rubaiyat said :

The Sex Party may well gain support from people who have previously voted Labor and/or Green, but who are now disaffected, or at least disappointed, but not to the extent that they will vote Liberal. With that prospect in mind, I would still bet on a Sex Party MLA supporting the continuation of Labor/Green rule.

Have you forgotten that Steven Bailey is a former Bob Katter Party candidate?

No, I did remember that, but as others have noted, Steven’s contributions to this site would suggest more sympathy with the Labor/Green world view.

Mordd said :

neanderthalsis said :

Mordd said :

JC said :

The grownups will vote Sex Party and leave the Greens vote to the undergraduates.

You may be right, a great many idealistic (but in my view) naive young people vote Green – but there is a third constituency, for whom the word ‘Green’ is a badge of moral superiority.

Such people are easy to spot, constantly online, constantly lecturing the great unwashed on human rights, tolerance, environmental awareness etc. But their true nature is obvious; their posts are almost always laughably self-serving, their ‘tolerance’ belied by the vitriol dripping from each of their long-winded rants.

Such people, and there are a growing number, support the Greens because it allows idle, ineffectual people a platform from which to lecture the world.

There are a great many narrow minded old people who vote Liberal or Labor out of nothing but habit or their parents’ habits.

If you actually knew anything on the subject, by say attending a Green’s meeting, you would discover that the Greens membership is actually older, usually professional, highly educated and choose to think for themselves on important matters and don’t think in slogans, in fact have a broad range of views on many subjects.

Having ideas and ideals deeply offends the narrow minded Right, (and also a Labor Party challenged by its lack of principles), distinguished by their general ignorance, ludicrous guesswork, and assumptions that their dated world has always been and always will be the natural order.

Conservatives always demonise and attack those who think for themselves. Obedience and dull subjugation is not an option, it is The Way Things Are, their divine right. Because attacking people “for being different” is the natural order, it is necessary to cast about for “reasons” for the instinctive dull resentment, so here you rattle out a few.

The sad thing is that those who will be most affected by the changes to the environment the thing that concerns the Greens, are rural voters who are self destructive in their voting habits, turning to the Agrarian Socialist Party to make it rain and to make water spring out of the ground on command, but which also subjects them to fracking, coal mining, foreign land acquisitions, Free Trade Agreements that aren’t, and stuffing up the NBN which would have benefitted them the most.

In truth the talk is big on “Individualism” and “Free Enterprise” and “High Sounding Words to Distract You” but conservatives in reality suck almightily from the middle class hand-out teat.

Losing that teat is what worries them more than ultimately losing their livelihood from the land, sea or whatever natural resource they take for granted with their short term thinking.

In The Last Emperor the scene of the eleven year old Pu Yi running screaming after his wet nurse as she is carted out of the Forbidden City brought to my mind conservatives generally, absolutely terrified of losing their privileges, and turning on anyone even talking about the possibility.

And right there, as if on cue, you perfectly illustrate the point Justin Heywood was making. Incredible.

And you, mine.

mr_wowtrousers said :

neanderthalsis said :

The sad thing is that those who will be most affected by the changes to the environment the thing that concerns the Greens, .

If the environment so concerns the Greens, why does the federal Greens leader Richard di Natale never mention the environment?

Tell a lie big enough and there’s bound to be a fool out there who’ll believe it:

https://www.facebook.com/senatordinatale/

http://richard-di-natale.greensmps.org.au/content/video/speech-richard-di-natale-wind-power-science-and-evidence-based-policymaking

http://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/richard-di-natale-the-party-leader-living-off-the-grid/

http://www.gq.com.au/success/opinions/greens+leader+richard+di+natale+has+eyes+on+the+prize+never+say+never,42345

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/never-say-never-skivvyswathed-richard-di-natale-open-to-coalition-with-the-liberal-party-20160308-gne4vu.html

wildturkeycanoe said :

You have completely overlooked the Liberal Democrats…

The Liberal Democrats stick to their ideology even though it provides no mechanism to address climate change. Diverse lines of compelling evidence show that the current instance of climate change is caused by human activity. However, the Liberal Democrats explicitly choose to disregard the expert scientific advice. If you ignore science when it doesn’t suit your preconceived position and you don’t change your opinion when the facts change, you disqualify yourself from any leadership position.
The same criticism applies to the Liberals and Nationals who show no sign of taking this seriously. At least the Liberal Democrats are explicit about their science denial.

rubaiyat said :

… surely you must recognise that the ACT Greens are in fact a “puppet” of ACT Labor ? Rattenburry is a Minister in the ACT Labor Government for goodness sakes…

Federally, our deputy prime minister is a member of the National Party. When two parties share power and manage to cooperate it is supporters of ‘The Coalition’ who are most critical, without appreciating the irony!

JC said :

Au contraire. The grownups will vote Sex Party and leave the Greens vote to the undergraduates.

So I presume you are in full support of the Sex Party’s attempt to have the ACL stripped of their tax-exempt status? I support it myself, just want to check we’re on the same page here…

https://www.facebook.com/AusSexPartyACT/posts/934711006627514?pnref=story

neanderthalsis said :

The sad thing is that those who will be most affected by the changes to the environment the thing that concerns the Greens, .

If the environment so concerns the Greens, why does the federal Greens leader Richard di Natale never mention the environment?

But credit where credit is due. Greg Hunt and the Liberal Party should get ALL the credit for low balling their proposed emissions reductions. Commiserations on not actually getting bottom of the list for advanced economy countries.

Better luck next time, shame that somebody else (how was that possible?) actually managed to aim to do less.

Definitely pushing the Great Barrier Reef up my To Do List, getting a bit urgent now. It is obviously not an important asset nor a big employer (at least personally to LNP politicians and their friends) otherwise we might be doing something to save it.

therightjob35up said :

Mordd said :

JC said :

The grownups will vote Sex Party and leave the Greens vote to the undergraduates.

You may be right, a great many idealistic (but in my view) naive young people vote Green – but there is a third constituency, for whom the word ‘Green’ is a badge of moral superiority.

Such people are easy to spot, constantly online, constantly lecturing the great unwashed on human rights, tolerance, environmental awareness etc. But their true nature is obvious; their posts are almost always laughably self-serving, their ‘tolerance’ belied by the vitriol dripping from each of their long-winded rants.

Such people, and there are a growing number, support the Greens because it allows idle, ineffectual people a platform from which to lecture the world.

Beautifully illustrated by Green Larissa Walter’s mean-spirited and negative response to Greg Hunt’s signing off on targets yesterday.

…and after all the nice things the Liberals and National Party said about the Labor and Greens’ environmental policies.

Liberal Green Targets! ROTFL. It’s all a fraud and a scam remember?

reddy84 said :

HenryBG said :

I saw in the paper this morning that Mr Charisma, Steve Doszpot is going again. Good luck to him. He’s a nice bloke actually and is not one of the nasty far-Right bunch that adorn the Opposition benches.

To the RA editor/s, can we perhaps get a political commentator who can see out of both eyes, rather than just their left? It’s becoming ridiculous.

HenryBG said :

I hope that the newcomers knock off the sitting members and we have a better “refreshment” than we have seen thus far.

Absolutely. It’s time for Barr & Co to take a hike.

Yes it’s not about how long individual members have been in government, it’s about the presumptuous and entitled nature of how they run the show.

neanderthalsis said :

Mordd said :

JC said :

The grownups will vote Sex Party and leave the Greens vote to the undergraduates.

You may be right, a great many idealistic (but in my view) naive young people vote Green – but there is a third constituency, for whom the word ‘Green’ is a badge of moral superiority.

Such people are easy to spot, constantly online, constantly lecturing the great unwashed on human rights, tolerance, environmental awareness etc. But their true nature is obvious; their posts are almost always laughably self-serving, their ‘tolerance’ belied by the vitriol dripping from each of their long-winded rants.

Such people, and there are a growing number, support the Greens because it allows idle, ineffectual people a platform from which to lecture the world.

There are a great many narrow minded old people who vote Liberal or Labor out of nothing but habit or their parents’ habits.

If you actually knew anything on the subject, by say attending a Green’s meeting, you would discover that the Greens membership is actually older, usually professional, highly educated and choose to think for themselves on important matters and don’t think in slogans, in fact have a broad range of views on many subjects.

Having ideas and ideals deeply offends the narrow minded Right, (and also a Labor Party challenged by its lack of principles), distinguished by their general ignorance, ludicrous guesswork, and assumptions that their dated world has always been and always will be the natural order.

Conservatives always demonise and attack those who think for themselves. Obedience and dull subjugation is not an option, it is The Way Things Are, their divine right. Because attacking people “for being different” is the natural order, it is necessary to cast about for “reasons” for the instinctive dull resentment, so here you rattle out a few.

The sad thing is that those who will be most affected by the changes to the environment the thing that concerns the Greens, are rural voters who are self destructive in their voting habits, turning to the Agrarian Socialist Party to make it rain and to make water spring out of the ground on command, but which also subjects them to fracking, coal mining, foreign land acquisitions, Free Trade Agreements that aren’t, and stuffing up the NBN which would have benefitted them the most.

In truth the talk is big on “Individualism” and “Free Enterprise” and “High Sounding Words to Distract You” but conservatives in reality suck almightily from the middle class hand-out teat.

Losing that teat is what worries them more than ultimately losing their livelihood from the land, sea or whatever natural resource they take for granted with their short term thinking.

In The Last Emperor the scene of the eleven year old Pu Yi running screaming after his wet nurse as she is carted out of the Forbidden City brought to my mind conservatives generally, absolutely terrified of losing their privileges, and turning on anyone even talking about the possibility.

And right there, as if on cue, you perfectly illustrate the point Justin Heywood was making. Incredible.

Mordd said :

JC said :

The grownups will vote Sex Party and leave the Greens vote to the undergraduates.

You may be right, a great many idealistic (but in my view) naive young people vote Green – but there is a third constituency, for whom the word ‘Green’ is a badge of moral superiority.

Such people are easy to spot, constantly online, constantly lecturing the great unwashed on human rights, tolerance, environmental awareness etc. But their true nature is obvious; their posts are almost always laughably self-serving, their ‘tolerance’ belied by the vitriol dripping from each of their long-winded rants.

Such people, and there are a growing number, support the Greens because it allows idle, ineffectual people a platform from which to lecture the world.

Beautifully illustrated by Green Larissa Walter’s mean-spirited and negative response to Greg Hunt’s signing off on targets yesterday.

Mordd said :

JC said :

The grownups will vote Sex Party and leave the Greens vote to the undergraduates.

You may be right, a great many idealistic (but in my view) naive young people vote Green – but there is a third constituency, for whom the word ‘Green’ is a badge of moral superiority.

Such people are easy to spot, constantly online, constantly lecturing the great unwashed on human rights, tolerance, environmental awareness etc. But their true nature is obvious; their posts are almost always laughably self-serving, their ‘tolerance’ belied by the vitriol dripping from each of their long-winded rants.

Such people, and there are a growing number, support the Greens because it allows idle, ineffectual people a platform from which to lecture the world.

There are a great many narrow minded old people who vote Liberal or Labor out of nothing but habit or their parents’ habits.

If you actually knew anything on the subject, by say attending a Green’s meeting, you would discover that the Greens membership is actually older, usually professional, highly educated and choose to think for themselves on important matters and don’t think in slogans, in fact have a broad range of views on many subjects.

Having ideas and ideals deeply offends the narrow minded Right, (and also a Labor Party challenged by its lack of principles), distinguished by their general ignorance, ludicrous guesswork, and assumptions that their dated world has always been and always will be the natural order.

Conservatives always demonise and attack those who think for themselves. Obedience and dull subjugation is not an option, it is The Way Things Are, their divine right. Because attacking people “for being different” is the natural order, it is necessary to cast about for “reasons” for the instinctive dull resentment, so here you rattle out a few.

The sad thing is that those who will be most affected by the changes to the environment the thing that concerns the Greens, are rural voters who are self destructive in their voting habits, turning to the Agrarian Socialist Party to make it rain and to make water spring out of the ground on command, but which also subjects them to fracking, coal mining, foreign land acquisitions, Free Trade Agreements that aren’t, and stuffing up the NBN which would have benefitted them the most.

In truth the talk is big on “Individualism” and “Free Enterprise” and “High Sounding Words to Distract You” but conservatives in reality suck almightily from the middle class hand-out teat.

Losing that teat is what worries them more than ultimately losing their livelihood from the land, sea or whatever natural resource they take for granted with their short term thinking.

In The Last Emperor the scene of the eleven year old Pu Yi running screaming after his wet nurse as she is carted out of the Forbidden City brought to my mind conservatives generally, absolutely terrified of losing their privileges, and turning on anyone even talking about the possibility.

JC said :

The grownups will vote Sex Party and leave the Greens vote to the undergraduates.

You may be right, a great many idealistic (but in my view) naive young people vote Green – but there is a third constituency, for whom the word ‘Green’ is a badge of moral superiority.

Such people are easy to spot, constantly online, constantly lecturing the great unwashed on human rights, tolerance, environmental awareness etc. But their true nature is obvious; their posts are almost always laughably self-serving, their ‘tolerance’ belied by the vitriol dripping from each of their long-winded rants.

Such people, and there are a growing number, support the Greens because it allows idle, ineffectual people a platform from which to lecture the world.

wildturkeycanoe said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

You have completely overlooked the Liberal Democrats who have a whole new team and much greater funding. We will be running candidates in all electorates and may finish up with the balance of power after the election.

The Liberal Democrats are a financially responsible and socially progressive party that has a policy mix that may be just right for many Canberra residents.

The 5 electorates, each electing 5 members means that a person requires 16.7% of the vote to get elected. Independents don’t stand a chance and that is the way the system was designed.

What are your policies on transport infrastructure?

http://ldp.org.au/ldp-policies/

“The LDP supports an immediate end to state and federal government ownership of:

• Bus, ferry and rail services”

In Energy I found this clincher:

“The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) believes:

• That atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing but considers the consequences of this, whether it is due to human influence and if anything can or should be done about it, as too uncertain to warrant government action.”

which contradicted their policies on industry paying the full cost of their production, including pollution. But then they are explicit in the Climate Skepticism:

“Global Warming

Scientific evidence suggests that the Earth’s climate has changed throughout its existence, sometimes dramatically, and that changes in climate have impacted human civilisation. Much of human history has been subject to the effects of global warming or cooling – the origins of the Sumerian, Babylonian and perhaps also biblical stories of a great flood, for example, are probably due to a massive rise in sea levels following global warming 7,600 years ago.

Global cooling from 1300 to 500 BC gave rise to the advance of glaciers, migration, invasion and famine. The Medieval Warm Period from 900 to 1300 AD led to the Vikings establishing colonies and trade routes.

Whether human activity is causing climate change or not, the important issue is whether governments are capable of implementing policies that mitigate it without reducing the prosperity of future generations.

Should the evidence become compelling that global warming is due to human activity, that such global warming is likely to have significantly negative consequences for human existence, and that changes in human activity could realistically reverse those consequences, the LDP would favour market-based options.”

An overall reading shows the Liberal Democrats are a Libertarian Party admiring American values particularly Jeffersonian principles, incorporating his hypocrisy re slavery I imagine. They certainly believe in the removal of workers compensation etc.

They appear to believe that Capitalism and a hypothetical Free Market will fix everything. I can not see what their response is (other than go for it!) to events like the GFC where Capitalism and the “Free Market” as manipulated by major players in Wall Street disappeared over US$5 trillion with substantial bits of it reappearing in the pockets of a small number of individuals.

wildturkeycanoe said :

You have completely overlooked the Liberal Democrats who have a whole new team and much greater funding. We will be running candidates in all electorates and may finish up with the balance of power after the election.

The Liberal Democrats are a financially responsible and socially progressive party that has a policy mix that may be just right for many Canberra residents.

The 5 electorates, each electing 5 members means that a person requires 16.7% of the vote to get elected. Independents don’t stand a chance and that is the way the system was designed.

What are your policies on transport infrastructure?

rubaiyat said :

sparrowitis said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The Sex Party is going to give the Greens a run for their money, for sure.

Despite their whacky name, the Sex Party seems a bit Greens-lite, certainly they’re chasing much the same inner-city demographic as the Greens, if Steven Bailey’s post here are a guide.

Is there a chance of a coalition do you think, like the Lib/Nats?

The Green Sex Coalition?The Sex(y) Green Coalition?
Imagine their TV ads. A camera pans across a field of organic cucumbers…

Despite the fact that they both share some socially progressive policies, the Greens and the Sex Party are completely different ideologically. Sex Party are free-marketeers backed by the sex industry, paying some lip service to environmental issues but hardly concerned with them. They are actually a lot closer to the Liberals in ideology than to the Greens. And given that Steven Bailey jumped happily from being a Bob Katter Party candidate to the Sex Party, the social progressive stuff can hardly be core. “Dangerous thinking” and an anti-censorship agenda is far more important to the Sex Party than free-range chickens and refugees.

The Sex Party may well gain support from people who have previously voted Labor and/or Green, but who are now disaffected, or at least disappointed, but not to the extent that they will vote Liberal. With that prospect in mind, I would still bet on a Sex Party MLA supporting the continuation of Labor/Green rule.

The core difference is that the Greens are UNDER your bed, at least in Tuggeranong it seems, and the Sex Party are IN your bed.

rubaiyat said :

The Sex Party may well gain support from people who have previously voted Labor and/or Green, but who are now disaffected, or at least disappointed, but not to the extent that they will vote Liberal. With that prospect in mind, I would still bet on a Sex Party MLA supporting the continuation of Labor/Green rule.

Have you forgotten that Steven Bailey is a former Bob Katter Party candidate?

John Moulis said :

sparrowitis said :

They [The Sex Party] are actually a lot closer to the Liberals in ideology than to the Greens….

I’m not sure that’s correct. A glance at The Sex Party’s ‘policies’ page lists a wide range of social issues, most of which appear to align pretty closely with Greens.

If they are genuinely competing for seats, I think The Sex Party need to more clearly establish their points of difference with the Greens if they want to attract more than just the votes of snickering teenagers.

Au contraire. The grownups will vote Sex Party and leave the Greens vote to the undergraduates.

You have completely overlooked the Liberal Democrats who have a whole new team and much greater funding. We will be running candidates in all electorates and may finish up with the balance of power after the election.

The Liberal Democrats are a financially responsible and socially progressive party that has a policy mix that may be just right for many Canberra residents.

The 5 electorates, each electing 5 members means that a person requires 16.7% of the vote to get elected. Independents don’t stand a chance and that is the way the system was designed.

sparrowitis said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The Sex Party is going to give the Greens a run for their money, for sure.

Despite their whacky name, the Sex Party seems a bit Greens-lite, certainly they’re chasing much the same inner-city demographic as the Greens, if Steven Bailey’s post here are a guide.

Is there a chance of a coalition do you think, like the Lib/Nats?

The Green Sex Coalition?The Sex(y) Green Coalition?
Imagine their TV ads. A camera pans across a field of organic cucumbers…

Despite the fact that they both share some socially progressive policies, the Greens and the Sex Party are completely different ideologically. Sex Party are free-marketeers backed by the sex industry, paying some lip service to environmental issues but hardly concerned with them. They are actually a lot closer to the Liberals in ideology than to the Greens. And given that Steven Bailey jumped happily from being a Bob Katter Party candidate to the Sex Party, the social progressive stuff can hardly be core. “Dangerous thinking” and an anti-censorship agenda is far more important to the Sex Party than free-range chickens and refugees.

The Sex Party may well gain support from people who have previously voted Labor and/or Green, but who are now disaffected, or at least disappointed, but not to the extent that they will vote Liberal. With that prospect in mind, I would still bet on a Sex Party MLA supporting the continuation of Labor/Green rule.

sparrowitis said :

They [The Sex Party] are actually a lot closer to the Liberals in ideology than to the Greens….

I’m not sure that’s correct. A glance at The Sex Party’s ‘policies’ page lists a wide range of social issues, most of which appear to align pretty closely with Greens.

If they are genuinely competing for seats, I think The Sex Party need to more clearly establish their points of difference with the Greens if they want to attract more than just the votes of snickering teenagers.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

The Sex Party is going to give the Greens a run for their money, for sure.

Despite their whacky name, the Sex Party seems a bit Greens-lite, certainly they’re chasing much the same inner-city demographic as the Greens, if Steven Bailey’s post here are a guide.

Is there a chance of a coalition do you think, like the Lib/Nats?

The Green Sex Coalition?The Sex(y) Green Coalition?
Imagine their TV ads. A camera pans across a field of organic cucumbers…

Despite the fact that they both share some socially progressive policies, the Greens and the Sex Party are completely different ideologically. Sex Party are free-marketeers backed by the sex industry, paying some lip service to environmental issues but hardly concerned with them. They are actually a lot closer to the Liberals in ideology than to the Greens. And given that Steven Bailey jumped happily from being a Bob Katter Party candidate to the Sex Party, the social progressive stuff can hardly be core. “Dangerous thinking” and an anti-censorship agenda is far more important to the Sex Party than free-range chickens and refugees.

“But the party to look out for is the Sex Party.

This one is the surprise packet of the election. Led by Steven Bailey, the party is a serious contender in this election. To take this lot lightly is to ignore the success of Fiona Patten in Victoria”.

But the party to look out for is the Animal Justice Party!
This one is the surprise packet of the election. The party is a serious contender in this election. To take this lot lightly is to ignore the success of Mark Pearson MLC in New South Wales.

rubaiyat said :

If the Unions want to be good citizens and alert the Government to dodgy businesses, they can do that without an MOU. If the Government is at all competent, they will perform their own checks on businesses tendering before granting contracts. The Royal Commission into the unions demonstrated that some in the union movement are out to bully and intimidate businesses into paying the union and/or workers more, thus driving up costs to consumers including governments. The ACT government telling unions which businesses are tendering gives the unions valuable information, which could potentially be used in such “negotiations” with those businesses. Not everyone in business is squeaky clean, but the same applies to the unions. The government doesn’t only have an obligation to protect workers from dodgy businesses, but also has an obligation to businesses to protect them from dodgy unions. The MOU should be scrapped.

100% correct.

rubaiyat said :

…nor Greens with sharp pointy teeth.

You forgot about the pointy ears and long pointy tail……..LOL……

steveu said :

rubaiyat said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors.

No its not.

The Chief Minister Andrew Barr told the ABC when this story 1st surfaced that the MOU allowed unions to alert the Government to possible wrongdoing by contractors.”. This is just plain WRONG.

Fact 1 : Disclosure of which suppliers bid and any documents associated with their lodged tender response, would have to be declared in the ACT Govt’s tender doc’s. Without acknowledgement of and agreement to that by tenderers, it may be a breach of Confidentiality by the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 2 : The ACT Govt has said that this MOU was to detect “possible wrongdoing” ? Possible ? Huh. That really opens up a can of worms for the unions to interpret “possible”.

Fact 3 : If any tenderer/contractor or sub contractor was successfully prosecuted in a court of Law for breach of any law or OH&S requirement, or had proceedings underway against them, would be on the public record which could of course, be discovered by the ACT Gov’t tender evaluation team or their Lawyers. There is absolutely no need for the Unions to provide that information to the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 4 : If any tenderer/contractor has been prosecuted for breach of any Law, that has to be declared by the tenderer in their tender response. Failure to do so would usually mean automatic exclusion from the tender evaluation process.

Fact 5 : If a tenderer/contractor has in fact been prosecuted for a breach of Law, they should be given the opportunity to provide a rectification plan to demonstrate how any further breaches of that Law can be mitigated. To do anything else, would be a denial of natural justice.

Fact 6 : Mr Barr has said that the MOU was designed to protect the rights and safety of workers on ACT Government projects. So what are the Laws for ? What is Worksafe & their inspectors for ? Maybe just employ a few more inspectors instead – they would be far more “independent” than hearsay/interpretation by Unions.

Fact 7 : The Greens Mr Rattenburry said “I have reviewed the MOU in depth and found that 90% of it simply reiterates the existing laws and procurement requirements operating in the ACT.” If that is so, then why is an MOU restating these even necessary ????

So, whilst the Chief Minister is probably correct in previously asserting that UnionsACT do not have “veto” power over tendrers (that would actually be exercised within the ACT Gov’t itself), the whole arrangement of vetting by UnionsACT is highly, highly inappropriate – and just plain stupid. It smacks of giving UnionsACT unnecessary and inappropriate potential influence on, visibility of and perceived input to, ACT Gov’t tender processes – that is something that should never happen !

Any “sham” contractors that are prosecuted at law (and so discoverable), can also be identified by exchange of information with State Governments.

Call it what it is – its an early “heads up” to the Union movement about which contractors had tendered so that they can identify their favorites (probably, those with the most highly unionised workforces).

The claim that the MOU between the ACT Gov’t (which Mr Rattenburry, as a Minister in the ACT Gov’t, said he knew nothing about) was to “protect Workforce” is just plain wrong and is a smokescreen by the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t and their proxies.

All of your “facts” are wrong. I was there and attest that the underlying aim was to s hare information to protect the workforce. Where sufficient concern was found, the relevant agency would address those concerns, be they Procurement Solutions who oversaw contracts, awarded large contracts over a certain figure or enforcement agencies like the Work Safe Commission or AFP.

Denying that tenderrs may not be as truthful, compliant or may be just plain dodgy and shiny is naive. Do you have a reason to deny the workforce such protection?

I meat shiny not shiny. Fat finger and auto spell are my undoing

Meant not meat and shonky not shiny

Shiraz is mine.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors.

No its not.

The Chief Minister Andrew Barr told the ABC when this story 1st surfaced that the MOU allowed unions to alert the Government to possible wrongdoing by contractors.”. This is just plain WRONG.

Fact 1 : Disclosure of which suppliers bid and any documents associated with their lodged tender response, would have to be declared in the ACT Govt’s tender doc’s. Without acknowledgement of and agreement to that by tenderers, it may be a breach of Confidentiality by the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 2 : The ACT Govt has said that this MOU was to detect “possible wrongdoing” ? Possible ? Huh. That really opens up a can of worms for the unions to interpret “possible”.

Fact 3 : If any tenderer/contractor or sub contractor was successfully prosecuted in a court of Law for breach of any law or OH&S requirement, or had proceedings underway against them, would be on the public record which could of course, be discovered by the ACT Gov’t tender evaluation team or their Lawyers. There is absolutely no need for the Unions to provide that information to the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 4 : If any tenderer/contractor has been prosecuted for breach of any Law, that has to be declared by the tenderer in their tender response. Failure to do so would usually mean automatic exclusion from the tender evaluation process.

Fact 5 : If a tenderer/contractor has in fact been prosecuted for a breach of Law, they should be given the opportunity to provide a rectification plan to demonstrate how any further breaches of that Law can be mitigated. To do anything else, would be a denial of natural justice.

Fact 6 : Mr Barr has said that the MOU was designed to protect the rights and safety of workers on ACT Government projects. So what are the Laws for ? What is Worksafe & their inspectors for ? Maybe just employ a few more inspectors instead – they would be far more “independent” than hearsay/interpretation by Unions.

Fact 7 : The Greens Mr Rattenburry said “I have reviewed the MOU in depth and found that 90% of it simply reiterates the existing laws and procurement requirements operating in the ACT.” If that is so, then why is an MOU restating these even necessary ????

So, whilst the Chief Minister is probably correct in previously asserting that UnionsACT do not have “veto” power over tendrers (that would actually be exercised within the ACT Gov’t itself), the whole arrangement of vetting by UnionsACT is highly, highly inappropriate – and just plain stupid. It smacks of giving UnionsACT unnecessary and inappropriate potential influence on, visibility of and perceived input to, ACT Gov’t tender processes – that is something that should never happen !

Any “sham” contractors that are prosecuted at law (and so discoverable), can also be identified by exchange of information with State Governments.

Call it what it is – its an early “heads up” to the Union movement about which contractors had tendered so that they can identify their favorites (probably, those with the most highly unionised workforces).

The claim that the MOU between the ACT Gov’t (which Mr Rattenburry, as a Minister in the ACT Gov’t, said he knew nothing about) was to “protect Workforce” is just plain wrong and is a smokescreen by the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t and their proxies.

All of your “facts” are wrong. I was there and attest that the underlying aim was to s hare information to protect the workforce. Where sufficient concern was found, the relevant agency would address those concerns, be they Procurement Solutions who oversaw contracts, awarded large contracts over a certain figure or enforcement agencies like the Work Safe Commission or AFP.

Denying that tenderrs may not be as truthful, compliant or may be just plain dodgy and shiny is naive. Do you have a reason to deny the workforce such protection?

If the Unions want to be good citizens and alert the Government to dodgy businesses, they can do that without an MOU. If the Government is at all competent, they will perform their own checks on businesses tendering before granting contracts. The Royal Commission into the unions demonstrated that some in the union movement are out to bully and intimidate businesses into paying the union and/or workers more, thus driving up costs to consumers including governments. The ACT government telling unions which businesses are tendering gives the unions valuable information, which could potentially be used in such “negotiations” with those businesses. Not everyone in business is squeaky clean, but the same applies to the unions. The government doesn’t only have an obligation to protect workers from dodgy businesses, but also has an obligation to businesses to protect them from dodgy unions. The MOU should be scrapped.

rubaiyat said :

Where sufficient concern was found, the relevant agency would address those concerns, be they Procurement Solutions who oversaw contracts, awarded large contracts over a certain figure or enforcement agencies like the Work Safe Commission or AFP.

So, let me get this right. The Union give “info” to the ACT Gov’t on “issues” with the actual tenderers. If there are not actual convictions or charges laid against those tenderers, then ACT Procurement Solutions are acting on hearsay. Sounds fair.

I would hope that the Unions report any such potential breaches of Law or potential wrongdoing by contractors direct to the enforcement Agencies and the relevant State Gov’t procurement/contract managers when that information comes to hand and not save those up, tell the ACT Gov’t and it is the ACT Govt who refers the incident to the enforcement Agencies.

rubaiyat said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors.

No its not.

The Chief Minister Andrew Barr told the ABC when this story 1st surfaced that the MOU allowed unions to alert the Government to possible wrongdoing by contractors.”. This is just plain WRONG.

Fact 1 : Disclosure of which suppliers bid and any documents associated with their lodged tender response, would have to be declared in the ACT Govt’s tender doc’s. Without acknowledgement of and agreement to that by tenderers, it may be a breach of Confidentiality by the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 2 : The ACT Govt has said that this MOU was to detect “possible wrongdoing” ? Possible ? Huh. That really opens up a can of worms for the unions to interpret “possible”.

Fact 3 : If any tenderer/contractor or sub contractor was successfully prosecuted in a court of Law for breach of any law or OH&S requirement, or had proceedings underway against them, would be on the public record which could of course, be discovered by the ACT Gov’t tender evaluation team or their Lawyers. There is absolutely no need for the Unions to provide that information to the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 4 : If any tenderer/contractor has been prosecuted for breach of any Law, that has to be declared by the tenderer in their tender response. Failure to do so would usually mean automatic exclusion from the tender evaluation process.

Fact 5 : If a tenderer/contractor has in fact been prosecuted for a breach of Law, they should be given the opportunity to provide a rectification plan to demonstrate how any further breaches of that Law can be mitigated. To do anything else, would be a denial of natural justice.

Fact 6 : Mr Barr has said that the MOU was designed to protect the rights and safety of workers on ACT Government projects. So what are the Laws for ? What is Worksafe & their inspectors for ? Maybe just employ a few more inspectors instead – they would be far more “independent” than hearsay/interpretation by Unions.

Fact 7 : The Greens Mr Rattenburry said “I have reviewed the MOU in depth and found that 90% of it simply reiterates the existing laws and procurement requirements operating in the ACT.” If that is so, then why is an MOU restating these even necessary ????

So, whilst the Chief Minister is probably correct in previously asserting that UnionsACT do not have “veto” power over tendrers (that would actually be exercised within the ACT Gov’t itself), the whole arrangement of vetting by UnionsACT is highly, highly inappropriate – and just plain stupid. It smacks of giving UnionsACT unnecessary and inappropriate potential influence on, visibility of and perceived input to, ACT Gov’t tender processes – that is something that should never happen !

Any “sham” contractors that are prosecuted at law (and so discoverable), can also be identified by exchange of information with State Governments.

Call it what it is – its an early “heads up” to the Union movement about which contractors had tendered so that they can identify their favorites (probably, those with the most highly unionised workforces).

The claim that the MOU between the ACT Gov’t (which Mr Rattenburry, as a Minister in the ACT Gov’t, said he knew nothing about) was to “protect Workforce” is just plain wrong and is a smokescreen by the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t and their proxies.

All of your “facts” are wrong. I was there and attest that the underlying aim was to s hare information to protect the workforce. Where sufficient concern was found, the relevant agency would address those concerns, be they Procurement Solutions who oversaw contracts, awarded large contracts over a certain figure or enforcement agencies like the Work Safe Commission or AFP.

Denying that tenderrs may not be as truthful, compliant or may be just plain dodgy and shiny is naive. Do you have a reason to deny the workforce such protection?

I meat shiny not shiny. Fat finger and auto spell are my undoing

Meant not meat and shonky not shiny

…nor Greens with sharp pointy teeth.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors.

No its not.

The Chief Minister Andrew Barr told the ABC when this story 1st surfaced that the MOU allowed unions to alert the Government to possible wrongdoing by contractors.”. This is just plain WRONG.

Fact 1 : Disclosure of which suppliers bid and any documents associated with their lodged tender response, would have to be declared in the ACT Govt’s tender doc’s. Without acknowledgement of and agreement to that by tenderers, it may be a breach of Confidentiality by the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 2 : The ACT Govt has said that this MOU was to detect “possible wrongdoing” ? Possible ? Huh. That really opens up a can of worms for the unions to interpret “possible”.

Fact 3 : If any tenderer/contractor or sub contractor was successfully prosecuted in a court of Law for breach of any law or OH&S requirement, or had proceedings underway against them, would be on the public record which could of course, be discovered by the ACT Gov’t tender evaluation team or their Lawyers. There is absolutely no need for the Unions to provide that information to the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 4 : If any tenderer/contractor has been prosecuted for breach of any Law, that has to be declared by the tenderer in their tender response. Failure to do so would usually mean automatic exclusion from the tender evaluation process.

Fact 5 : If a tenderer/contractor has in fact been prosecuted for a breach of Law, they should be given the opportunity to provide a rectification plan to demonstrate how any further breaches of that Law can be mitigated. To do anything else, would be a denial of natural justice.

Fact 6 : Mr Barr has said that the MOU was designed to protect the rights and safety of workers on ACT Government projects. So what are the Laws for ? What is Worksafe & their inspectors for ? Maybe just employ a few more inspectors instead – they would be far more “independent” than hearsay/interpretation by Unions.

Fact 7 : The Greens Mr Rattenburry said “I have reviewed the MOU in depth and found that 90% of it simply reiterates the existing laws and procurement requirements operating in the ACT.” If that is so, then why is an MOU restating these even necessary ????

So, whilst the Chief Minister is probably correct in previously asserting that UnionsACT do not have “veto” power over tendrers (that would actually be exercised within the ACT Gov’t itself), the whole arrangement of vetting by UnionsACT is highly, highly inappropriate – and just plain stupid. It smacks of giving UnionsACT unnecessary and inappropriate potential influence on, visibility of and perceived input to, ACT Gov’t tender processes – that is something that should never happen !

Any “sham” contractors that are prosecuted at law (and so discoverable), can also be identified by exchange of information with State Governments.

Call it what it is – its an early “heads up” to the Union movement about which contractors had tendered so that they can identify their favorites (probably, those with the most highly unionised workforces).

The claim that the MOU between the ACT Gov’t (which Mr Rattenburry, as a Minister in the ACT Gov’t, said he knew nothing about) was to “protect Workforce” is just plain wrong and is a smokescreen by the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t and their proxies.

Just checked.

Sorry, no Unions under my bed!

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors.

No its not.

The Chief Minister Andrew Barr told the ABC when this story 1st surfaced that the MOU allowed unions to alert the Government to possible wrongdoing by contractors.”. This is just plain WRONG.

Fact 1 : Disclosure of which suppliers bid and any documents associated with their lodged tender response, would have to be declared in the ACT Govt’s tender doc’s. Without acknowledgement of and agreement to that by tenderers, it may be a breach of Confidentiality by the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 2 : The ACT Govt has said that this MOU was to detect “possible wrongdoing” ? Possible ? Huh. That really opens up a can of worms for the unions to interpret “possible”.

Fact 3 : If any tenderer/contractor or sub contractor was successfully prosecuted in a court of Law for breach of any law or OH&S requirement, or had proceedings underway against them, would be on the public record which could of course, be discovered by the ACT Gov’t tender evaluation team or their Lawyers. There is absolutely no need for the Unions to provide that information to the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 4 : If any tenderer/contractor has been prosecuted for breach of any Law, that has to be declared by the tenderer in their tender response. Failure to do so would usually mean automatic exclusion from the tender evaluation process.

Fact 5 : If a tenderer/contractor has in fact been prosecuted for a breach of Law, they should be given the opportunity to provide a rectification plan to demonstrate how any further breaches of that Law can be mitigated. To do anything else, would be a denial of natural justice.

Fact 6 : Mr Barr has said that the MOU was designed to protect the rights and safety of workers on ACT Government projects. So what are the Laws for ? What is Worksafe & their inspectors for ? Maybe just employ a few more inspectors instead – they would be far more “independent” than hearsay/interpretation by Unions.

Fact 7 : The Greens Mr Rattenburry said “I have reviewed the MOU in depth and found that 90% of it simply reiterates the existing laws and procurement requirements operating in the ACT.” If that is so, then why is an MOU restating these even necessary ????

So, whilst the Chief Minister is probably correct in previously asserting that UnionsACT do not have “veto” power over tendrers (that would actually be exercised within the ACT Gov’t itself), the whole arrangement of vetting by UnionsACT is highly, highly inappropriate – and just plain stupid. It smacks of giving UnionsACT unnecessary and inappropriate potential influence on, visibility of and perceived input to, ACT Gov’t tender processes – that is something that should never happen !

Any “sham” contractors that are prosecuted at law (and so discoverable), can also be identified by exchange of information with State Governments.

Call it what it is – its an early “heads up” to the Union movement about which contractors had tendered so that they can identify their favorites (probably, those with the most highly unionised workforces).

The claim that the MOU between the ACT Gov’t (which Mr Rattenburry, as a Minister in the ACT Gov’t, said he knew nothing about) was to “protect Workforce” is just plain wrong and is a smokescreen by the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t and their proxies.

All of your “facts” are wrong. I was there and attest that the underlying aim was to s hare information to protect the workforce. Where sufficient concern was found, the relevant agency would address those concerns, be they Procurement Solutions who oversaw contracts, awarded large contracts over a certain figure or enforcement agencies like the Work Safe Commission or AFP.

Denying that tendeers may not be as truthful, compliant or may be just plain dodgy and shiny is naive. Do you have a reason to deny the workforce such protection?

Those facts are not wrong, John. You are an ex politician. I have spent over 20+ years in the field in question. What you do as a politician, is to cloud the issue by dressing it up as workforce protection.

I find it ironic that an ex politician could regard tenderers as potentially not truthful or dodgy. And there is no evidence of that from politicians past and present, of course.

I would love to see the ACT Auditor-General or some sort of ICAC look at this arrangement in detail, but we know that won’t happen.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors.

No its not.

The Chief Minister Andrew Barr told the ABC when this story 1st surfaced that the MOU allowed unions to alert the Government to possible wrongdoing by contractors.”. This is just plain WRONG.

Fact 1 : Disclosure of which suppliers bid and any documents associated with their lodged tender response, would have to be declared in the ACT Govt’s tender doc’s. Without acknowledgement of and agreement to that by tenderers, it may be a breach of Confidentiality by the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 2 : The ACT Govt has said that this MOU was to detect “possible wrongdoing” ? Possible ? Huh. That really opens up a can of worms for the unions to interpret “possible”.

Fact 3 : If any tenderer/contractor or sub contractor was successfully prosecuted in a court of Law for breach of any law or OH&S requirement, or had proceedings underway against them, would be on the public record which could of course, be discovered by the ACT Gov’t tender evaluation team or their Lawyers. There is absolutely no need for the Unions to provide that information to the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 4 : If any tenderer/contractor has been prosecuted for breach of any Law, that has to be declared by the tenderer in their tender response. Failure to do so would usually mean automatic exclusion from the tender evaluation process.

Fact 5 : If a tenderer/contractor has in fact been prosecuted for a breach of Law, they should be given the opportunity to provide a rectification plan to demonstrate how any further breaches of that Law can be mitigated. To do anything else, would be a denial of natural justice.

Fact 6 : Mr Barr has said that the MOU was designed to protect the rights and safety of workers on ACT Government projects. So what are the Laws for ? What is Worksafe & their inspectors for ? Maybe just employ a few more inspectors instead – they would be far more “independent” than hearsay/interpretation by Unions.

Fact 7 : The Greens Mr Rattenburry said “I have reviewed the MOU in depth and found that 90% of it simply reiterates the existing laws and procurement requirements operating in the ACT.” If that is so, then why is an MOU restating these even necessary ????

So, whilst the Chief Minister is probably correct in previously asserting that UnionsACT do not have “veto” power over tendrers (that would actually be exercised within the ACT Gov’t itself), the whole arrangement of vetting by UnionsACT is highly, highly inappropriate – and just plain stupid. It smacks of giving UnionsACT unnecessary and inappropriate potential influence on, visibility of and perceived input to, ACT Gov’t tender processes – that is something that should never happen !

Any “sham” contractors that are prosecuted at law (and so discoverable), can also be identified by exchange of information with State Governments.

Call it what it is – its an early “heads up” to the Union movement about which contractors had tendered so that they can identify their favorites (probably, those with the most highly unionised workforces).

The claim that the MOU between the ACT Gov’t (which Mr Rattenburry, as a Minister in the ACT Gov’t, said he knew nothing about) was to “protect Workforce” is just plain wrong and is a smokescreen by the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t and their proxies.

All of your “facts” are wrong. I was there and attest that the underlying aim was to s hare information to protect the workforce. Where sufficient concern was found, the relevant agency would address those concerns, be they Procurement Solutions who oversaw contracts, awarded large contracts over a certain figure or enforcement agencies like the Work Safe Commission or AFP.

Denying that tenderrs may not be as truthful, compliant or may be just plain dodgy and shiny is naive. Do you have a reason to deny the workforce such protection?

I meat shiny not shiny. Fat finger and auto spell are my undoing

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors.

No its not.

The Chief Minister Andrew Barr told the ABC when this story 1st surfaced that the MOU allowed unions to alert the Government to possible wrongdoing by contractors.”. This is just plain WRONG.

Fact 1 : Disclosure of which suppliers bid and any documents associated with their lodged tender response, would have to be declared in the ACT Govt’s tender doc’s. Without acknowledgement of and agreement to that by tenderers, it may be a breach of Confidentiality by the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 2 : The ACT Govt has said that this MOU was to detect “possible wrongdoing” ? Possible ? Huh. That really opens up a can of worms for the unions to interpret “possible”.

Fact 3 : If any tenderer/contractor or sub contractor was successfully prosecuted in a court of Law for breach of any law or OH&S requirement, or had proceedings underway against them, would be on the public record which could of course, be discovered by the ACT Gov’t tender evaluation team or their Lawyers. There is absolutely no need for the Unions to provide that information to the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 4 : If any tenderer/contractor has been prosecuted for breach of any Law, that has to be declared by the tenderer in their tender response. Failure to do so would usually mean automatic exclusion from the tender evaluation process.

Fact 5 : If a tenderer/contractor has in fact been prosecuted for a breach of Law, they should be given the opportunity to provide a rectification plan to demonstrate how any further breaches of that Law can be mitigated. To do anything else, would be a denial of natural justice.

Fact 6 : Mr Barr has said that the MOU was designed to protect the rights and safety of workers on ACT Government projects. So what are the Laws for ? What is Worksafe & their inspectors for ? Maybe just employ a few more inspectors instead – they would be far more “independent” than hearsay/interpretation by Unions.

Fact 7 : The Greens Mr Rattenburry said “I have reviewed the MOU in depth and found that 90% of it simply reiterates the existing laws and procurement requirements operating in the ACT.” If that is so, then why is an MOU restating these even necessary ????

So, whilst the Chief Minister is probably correct in previously asserting that UnionsACT do not have “veto” power over tendrers (that would actually be exercised within the ACT Gov’t itself), the whole arrangement of vetting by UnionsACT is highly, highly inappropriate – and just plain stupid. It smacks of giving UnionsACT unnecessary and inappropriate potential influence on, visibility of and perceived input to, ACT Gov’t tender processes – that is something that should never happen !

Any “sham” contractors that are prosecuted at law (and so discoverable), can also be identified by exchange of information with State Governments.

Call it what it is – its an early “heads up” to the Union movement about which contractors had tendered so that they can identify their favorites (probably, those with the most highly unionised workforces).

The claim that the MOU between the ACT Gov’t (which Mr Rattenburry, as a Minister in the ACT Gov’t, said he knew nothing about) was to “protect Workforce” is just plain wrong and is a smokescreen by the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t and their proxies.

All of your “facts” are wrong. I was there and attest that the underlying aim was to s hare information to protect the workforce. Where sufficient concern was found, the relevant agency would address those concerns, be they Procurement Solutions who oversaw contracts, awarded large contracts over a certain figure or enforcement agencies like the Work Safe Commission or AFP.

Denying that tenderrs may not be as truthful, compliant or may be just plain dodgy and shiny is naive. Do you have a reason to deny the workforce such protection?

Maya123 said :

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors.

As with anything and everything unions do, it’s about increasing union revenue and gaining perks for union leaders at the expense of consumers (in this case, ACT ratepayers).

Unions have a track record of black-banning companies who stand up to them. Think Boral and Grocon. The MOU is about making sure that ACT taxpayers’ money only goes to companies which are “union friendly”, ie which have highly unionised workforces and/or don’t stand up to union intimidation. Don’t expect to see Boral concrete being used in the construction of any bridges, roads or public schools in Canberra anytime soon.

As for Bill Kelty, the current rabble running unions in Australia are light years from his sensible and measured approach. Kelty is on record as saying that he wouldn’t allow the current industrial behaviour engaged in by unions and the huge payments and expenditure by union officials.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Kim Huynh said :

blandone said :

The ACT Greens are no-one’s puppet, nor are the Federal Greens for that matter. The recent Senate voting changes prove that the Greens will work with anyone on good policy, no matter if that is Labor or Liberal at the time, and it’s no different here in the ACT. Just because you don’t like this independent party doesn’t make them a puppet of the Labor government. In fact if they were such a puppet then why was Labor forced to adopt many policies they prefer they didn’t in order to secure the Greens support?

Re ACT Greens. The ACT Green, Rattenburry, is a Minister in the ACT Labor Government. Independent ? Not a puppet ? Well, I suppose if you say that it is not, you will eventually convince yourself of that.

IMHO, the ACT Greens and their supporters would have been better served by Rattenburry sitting on the cross benches and not having to do deals with ACT Labor to get proper Greens policies up. In fact, ACT Labor has just about “stolen” what I would have thought should have been ACT Greens policies. So the ACT Greens are “Independent” in the Legislative Assembly ? I think not.

That “independence” was clearly demonstrated recently when Rattenbury supported his own Labor minority/Green government over the union MOU “poorly worded” document.

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors. The Agreement between the Greens and the ALP in Government is just a fancy way of describing an MOU.

I remind people of the benefits of an MOU struck between Bob Hawke and Bill Kelty. The Prices and Income Accord, which gave us a fair wages system, fair pricing and a guaranteed Medicare. And the problem was?

I think you are confusion the Hawke/Kelty deal with the famous “wages accord” (which I don’t have a problem with).
I don’t recall an MOU being mentioned at that time.

Masquara said :

This is not one of those sham democracies with a First Past The Post system where minorities get to rule.

No – the ACT is a proper democracy – where a minority ACT Labor Govt gets to rule. You don’t need a sham democracy or 1st past the post for that to happen.

Maya123 said :

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors.

No its not.

The Chief Minister Andrew Barr told the ABC when this story 1st surfaced that the MOU allowed unions to alert the Government to possible wrongdoing by contractors.”. This is just plain WRONG.

Fact 1 : Disclosure of which suppliers bid and any documents associated with their lodged tender response, would have to be declared in the ACT Govt’s tender doc’s. Without acknowledgement of and agreement to that by tenderers, it may be a breach of Confidentiality by the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 2 : The ACT Govt has said that this MOU was to detect “possible wrongdoing” ? Possible ? Huh. That really opens up a can of worms for the unions to interpret “possible”.

Fact 3 : If any tenderer/contractor or sub contractor was successfully prosecuted in a court of Law for breach of any law or OH&S requirement, or had proceedings underway against them, would be on the public record which could of course, be discovered by the ACT Gov’t tender evaluation team or their Lawyers. There is absolutely no need for the Unions to provide that information to the ACT Gov’t.

Fact 4 : If any tenderer/contractor has been prosecuted for breach of any Law, that has to be declared by the tenderer in their tender response. Failure to do so would usually mean automatic exclusion from the tender evaluation process.

Fact 5 : If a tenderer/contractor has in fact been prosecuted for a breach of Law, they should be given the opportunity to provide a rectification plan to demonstrate how any further breaches of that Law can be mitigated. To do anything else, would be a denial of natural justice.

Fact 6 : Mr Barr has said that the MOU was designed to protect the rights and safety of workers on ACT Government projects. So what are the Laws for ? What is Worksafe & their inspectors for ? Maybe just employ a few more inspectors instead – they would be far more “independent” than hearsay/interpretation by Unions.

Fact 7 : The Greens Mr Rattenburry said “I have reviewed the MOU in depth and found that 90% of it simply reiterates the existing laws and procurement requirements operating in the ACT.” If that is so, then why is an MOU restating these even necessary ????

So, whilst the Chief Minister is probably correct in previously asserting that UnionsACT do not have “veto” power over tendrers (that would actually be exercised within the ACT Gov’t itself), the whole arrangement of vetting by UnionsACT is highly, highly inappropriate – and just plain stupid. It smacks of giving UnionsACT unnecessary and inappropriate potential influence on, visibility of and perceived input to, ACT Gov’t tender processes – that is something that should never happen !

Any “sham” contractors that are prosecuted at law (and so discoverable), can also be identified by exchange of information with State Governments.

Call it what it is – its an early “heads up” to the Union movement about which contractors had tendered so that they can identify their favorites (probably, those with the most highly unionised workforces).

The claim that the MOU between the ACT Gov’t (which Mr Rattenburry, as a Minister in the ACT Gov’t, said he knew nothing about) was to “protect Workforce” is just plain wrong and is a smokescreen by the ACT Labor/Greens Gov’t and their proxies.

dungfungus said :

Hopefully the labor green alliance gets popped this time around, labor had less primary votes than liberals last time and had no mandate for Light Rail. LR was only pushed due to the rattenbury alliance.
When we have infrastructure like hospitals that are rated the worst performing in the country, yet the most expensive place to live then build LR Canberra wide.

The combined Labor and Greens voters were for the Light Rail.

This is not one of those sham democracies with a First Past The Post system where minorities get to rule.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Kim Huynh said :

blandone said :

The ACT Greens are no-one’s puppet, nor are the Federal Greens for that matter. The recent Senate voting changes prove that the Greens will work with anyone on good policy, no matter if that is Labor or Liberal at the time, and it’s no different here in the ACT. Just because you don’t like this independent party doesn’t make them a puppet of the Labor government. In fact if they were such a puppet then why was Labor forced to adopt many policies they prefer they didn’t in order to secure the Greens support?

Re ACT Greens. The ACT Green, Rattenburry, is a Minister in the ACT Labor Government. Independent ? Not a puppet ? Well, I suppose if you say that it is not, you will eventually convince yourself of that.

IMHO, the ACT Greens and their supporters would have been better served by Rattenburry sitting on the cross benches and not having to do deals with ACT Labor to get proper Greens policies up. In fact, ACT Labor has just about “stolen” what I would have thought should have been ACT Greens policies. So the ACT Greens are “Independent” in the Legislative Assembly ? I think not.

That “independence” was clearly demonstrated recently when Rattenbury supported his own Labor minority/Green government over the union MOU “poorly worded” document.

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors. The Agreement between the Greens and the ALP in Government is just a fancy way of describing an MOU.

I remind people of the benefits of an MOU struck between Bob Hawke and Bill Kelty. The Prices and Income Accord, which gave us a fair wages system, fair pricing and a guaranteed Medicare. And the problem was?

I accept your point John but the point I was making was that Rattenbury is a minister of the Labor minority Green government so he is bound by the MOU which was signed by that government so he has no independence in the matter even though he protests he wasn’t aware it was signed.
That’s another sham.

dungfungus said :

Kim Huynh said :

blandone said :

The ACT Greens are no-one’s puppet, nor are the Federal Greens for that matter. The recent Senate voting changes prove that the Greens will work with anyone on good policy, no matter if that is Labor or Liberal at the time, and it’s no different here in the ACT. Just because you don’t like this independent party doesn’t make them a puppet of the Labor government. In fact if they were such a puppet then why was Labor forced to adopt many policies they prefer they didn’t in order to secure the Greens support?

Re ACT Greens. The ACT Green, Rattenburry, is a Minister in the ACT Labor Government. Independent ? Not a puppet ? Well, I suppose if you say that it is not, you will eventually convince yourself of that.

IMHO, the ACT Greens and their supporters would have been better served by Rattenburry sitting on the cross benches and not having to do deals with ACT Labor to get proper Greens policies up. In fact, ACT Labor has just about “stolen” what I would have thought should have been ACT Greens policies. So the ACT Greens are “Independent” in the Legislative Assembly ? I think not.

That “independence” was clearly demonstrated recently when Rattenbury supported his own Labor minority/Green government over the union MOU “poorly worded” document.

The MOU between the ALP and the unions (plural – not just a construction union) was about the exchange of information to protect the workforce and small contractors and to identify and expose sham contractors. The Agreement between the Greens and the ALP in Government is just a fancy way of describing an MOU.

I remind people of the benefits of an MOU struck between Bob Hawke and Bill Kelty. The Prices and Income Accord, which gave us a fair wages system, fair pricing and a guaranteed Medicare. And the problem was?

“On the multicultural stage, Labor has Ceramidas, Maftoum, Fischer, Kulasingham and Gupta, against the Liberals Doszpot, Lee and Vadakkedathu. The Greens have Merezian, Vassarotti and Faerber.”

What criteria are you using for this? Some of these guys are clearly second generation, if that – are you picking out non-Anglo-Saxon surnames? What about Seselja?

Kim Huynh said :

blandone said :

The ACT Greens are no-one’s puppet, nor are the Federal Greens for that matter. The recent Senate voting changes prove that the Greens will work with anyone on good policy, no matter if that is Labor or Liberal at the time, and it’s no different here in the ACT. Just because you don’t like this independent party doesn’t make them a puppet of the Labor government. In fact if they were such a puppet then why was Labor forced to adopt many policies they prefer they didn’t in order to secure the Greens support?

Re ACT Greens. The ACT Green, Rattenburry, is a Minister in the ACT Labor Government. Independent ? Not a puppet ? Well, I suppose if you say that it is not, you will eventually convince yourself of that.

IMHO, the ACT Greens and their supporters would have been better served by Rattenburry sitting on the cross benches and not having to do deals with ACT Labor to get proper Greens policies up. In fact, ACT Labor has just about “stolen” what I would have thought should have been ACT Greens policies. So the ACT Greens are “Independent” in the Legislative Assembly ? I think not.

That “independence” was clearly demonstrated recently when Rattenbury supported his own Labor minority/Green government over the union MOU “poorly worded” document.

blandone said :

The ACT Greens are no-one’s puppet, nor are the Federal Greens for that matter. The recent Senate voting changes prove that the Greens will work with anyone on good policy, no matter if that is Labor or Liberal at the time, and it’s no different here in the ACT. Just because you don’t like this independent party doesn’t make them a puppet of the Labor government. In fact if they were such a puppet then why was Labor forced to adopt many policies they prefer they didn’t in order to secure the Greens support?

Re ACT Greens. The ACT Green, Rattenburry, is a Minister in the ACT Labor Government. Independent ? Not a puppet ? Well, I suppose if you say that it is not, you will eventually convince yourself of that. IMHO, the ACT Greens and their supporters would have been better served by Rattenburry sitting on the cross benches and not having to do deals with ACT Labor to get proper Greens policies up. In fact, ACT Labor has just about “stolen” what I would have thought should have been ACT Greens policies. So the ACT Greens are “Independent” in the Legislative Assembly ? I think not.

dungfungus said :

Hopefully the labor green alliance gets popped this time around, labor had less primary votes than liberals last time and had no mandate for Light Rail. LR was only pushed due to the rattenbury alliance.
When we have infrastructure like hospitals that are rated the worst performing in the country, yet the most expensive place to live then build LR Canberra wide.

“Fewer” primary votes, not “less” primary votes.

blandone said :

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

I’m sure the Greens welcome the rise of any minor party that exists to give a voice to the disenfranchised as opposed to existing as a puppet of the major 2 parties. As a greens supporter, I wish them all the best in the election and look forward to seeing them in the chamber later in the year.

As a “greens supporter” (if u mean the ACT Greens ?), surely you must recognise that the ACT Greens are in fact a “puppet” of ACT Labor ? Rattenburry is a Minister in the ACT Labor Government for goodness sakes.

If that’s not a puppet, then what is ? There is no doubt that this lack of independence by the ACT Greens has given space for other parties and independents to move into the “green” policy space.

The ACT Greens are no-one’s puppet, nor are the Federal Greens for that matter. The recent Senate voting changes prove that the Greens will work with anyone on good policy, no matter if that is Labor or Liberal at the time, and it’s no different here in the ACT. Just because you don’t like this independent party doesn’t make them a puppet of the Labor government. In fact if they were such a puppet then why was Labor forced to adopt many policies they prefer they didn’t in order to secure the Greens support?

“good policy”?
Name me just a few.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

I’m sure the Greens welcome the rise of any minor party that exists to give a voice to the disenfranchised as opposed to existing as a puppet of the major 2 parties. As a greens supporter, I wish them all the best in the election and look forward to seeing them in the chamber later in the year.

As a “greens supporter” (if u mean the ACT Greens ?), surely you must recognise that the ACT Greens are in fact a “puppet” of ACT Labor ? Rattenburry is a Minister in the ACT Labor Government for goodness sakes.

If that’s not a puppet, then what is ? There is no doubt that this lack of independence by the ACT Greens has given space for other parties and independents to move into the “green” policy space.

The ACT Greens are no-one’s puppet, nor are the Federal Greens for that matter. The recent Senate voting changes prove that the Greens will work with anyone on good policy, no matter if that is Labor or Liberal at the time, and it’s no different here in the ACT. Just because you don’t like this independent party doesn’t make them a puppet of the Labor government. In fact if they were such a puppet then why was Labor forced to adopt many policies they prefer they didn’t in order to secure the Greens support?

rubaiyat said :

gooterz said :

ACT Labor may be “old and tired” but ACT Liberal does not offer that great of an alternative. It is up to the opposition to present a strong case for change of government, and so far the majority of that has been the campaign against the tram without offering many real alternative policies around the other issues.

Case in point, I live in public housing, and my block is due to be demolished in 2018 and the residents dispersed to new locations. I contacted ACT Liberals to ask if they would continue this policy if elected, and they can’t even give me a simple answer on that, telling me to wait until their policies are released in detail. When asked when that could be expected, they could not give me an answer on that either. Hardly a credible alternative there.

This mentality is why we are stuck with a lousy government. The current government has more than adequately proven that they shouldn’t be rewarded with the responsibility of governing for another term. Their track record is a case for a change of government. We all know they are going a poor job. But some people will just never vote any other way and use the “credible opposition” argument as a way to justify continuing to vote for a bunch of duds. You already know that the current government is going to push ahead with a policy you don’t like. So why keep voting for them?

It makes no sense.

You miss my point entirely, I support the current policy continuing as planned, which is why I want to know what the Libs will do if they were to win Government. Frankly id be happy for the status-quo to continue then I don’t need to worry about the policy changing, which for the record I fully support.

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

Is Labor going to do anything about its unhealthy dependence on cash from poker machines?

No.

More fool them. Look at Xenophon’s popularity. One of his key planks has been to reign in the pokie menace. ALP. A union gimp doped up on pokie money.

No Brianna Heseltine?

gazket said :

Is Nick Xenophon endorsing anyone?

I dont agree with everything Xenophon says, but compared to the current crop of Labor/Greens/Liberal robots in and standing for the ACt La election, I hop Xenophon stands some candidates.

Hopefully the labor green alliance gets popped this time around, labor had less primary votes than liberals last time and had no mandate for Light Rail. LR was only pushed due to the rattenbury alliance.
When we have infrastructure like hospitals that are rated the worst performing in the country, yet the most expensive place to live then build LR Canberra wide.

gazket said :

rubaiyat said :

gooterz said :

ACT Labor may be “old and tired” but ACT Liberal does not offer that great of an alternative. It is up to the opposition to present a strong case for change of government, and so far the majority of that has been the campaign against the tram without offering many real alternative policies around the other issues.

Case in point, I live in public housing, and my block is due to be demolished in 2018 and the residents dispersed to new locations. I contacted ACT Liberals to ask if they would continue this policy if elected, and they can’t even give me a simple answer on that, telling me to wait until their policies are released in detail. When asked when that could be expected, they could not give me an answer on that either. Hardly a credible alternative there.

This mentality is why we are stuck with a lousy government. The current government has more than adequately proven that they shouldn’t be rewarded with the responsibility of governing for another term. Their track record is a case for a change of government. We all know they are going a poor job. But some people will just never vote any other way and use the “credible opposition” argument as a way to justify continuing to vote for a bunch of duds. You already know that the current government is going to push ahead with a policy you don’t like. So why keep voting for them?

It makes no sense.

Well I guess that is coming from the “born to rule” and the failure of democracy in letting the great unwashed have a say, but unfortunately that is the system we have. Why even women, migrants and people who never went to private school are allowed to vote!

You should have stopped right there and spared the electrons. Reliance on nonsensical lefty catchphrases like “born to rule” discredits anything else you may have said.

rubaiyat said :

dungfungus said :

I’m sure the Greens welcome the rise of any minor party that exists to give a voice to the disenfranchised as opposed to existing as a puppet of the major 2 parties. As a greens supporter, I wish them all the best in the election and look forward to seeing them in the chamber later in the year.

As a “greens supporter” (if u mean the ACT Greens ?), surely you must recognise that the ACT Greens are in fact a “puppet” of ACT Labor ? Rattenburry is a Minister in the ACT Labor Government for goodness sakes.

If that’s not a puppet, then what is ? There is no doubt that this lack of independence by the ACT Greens has given space for other parties and independents to move into the “green” policy space.

Shane Rattenbury according to you seems to alternate between being an evil horned demon out to destroy Western Civilisation by manipulating the poor innocent duped Labor Government, or now suddenly a puppet of the Labor Party.

Make up your mind! …or, is rommeldog56 just a puppet of the Liberal Party?

rubaiyat said :

gooterz said :

ACT Labor may be “old and tired” but ACT Liberal does not offer that great of an alternative. It is up to the opposition to present a strong case for change of government, and so far the majority of that has been the campaign against the tram without offering many real alternative policies around the other issues.

Case in point, I live in public housing, and my block is due to be demolished in 2018 and the residents dispersed to new locations. I contacted ACT Liberals to ask if they would continue this policy if elected, and they can’t even give me a simple answer on that, telling me to wait until their policies are released in detail. When asked when that could be expected, they could not give me an answer on that either. Hardly a credible alternative there.

This mentality is why we are stuck with a lousy government. The current government has more than adequately proven that they shouldn’t be rewarded with the responsibility of governing for another term. Their track record is a case for a change of government. We all know they are going a poor job. But some people will just never vote any other way and use the “credible opposition” argument as a way to justify continuing to vote for a bunch of duds. You already know that the current government is going to push ahead with a policy you don’t like. So why keep voting for them?

It makes no sense.

Well I guess that is coming from the “born to rule” and the failure of democracy in letting the great unwashed have a say, but unfortunately that is the system we have. Why even women, migrants and people who never went to private school are allowed to vote!

Heavens sake it is almost like the Enlightenment actually happened and most of the electorate actually believes in science!!!!, when there is good old blind prejudice just waiting to have its turn again.

So I would guess the ACT Liberals may need to earn their way into government. As long as they are an unpalatable alternative they will sit in opposition. They did not have a good track record when they were in government which was why they got kicked out and have stayed out a long time.

To come back in an even more extreme right wing version threatening public servants, or the people who service the public service, who make up a large number of Canberrans, who are generally more liberal in the real meaning of the word, is an unwise move, and just how unwise do you want a government to be?

NSW was stuck with a truly dysfunctional Labor government which did an awful lot of damage before it was finally kicked out, exactly because the opposition was so woeful, people only turned to it in an act of absolute desperation. The Liberals then proved just how bad they were. Luckily the scandals and dirty laundry that came out in the first year got rid of all the rubbish at the top and they got what appears to be a younger, more tolerant, reasonable and moral leader in Mike Baird who appears to be doing a good job now.

What chance on that happening with the current collection of Liberal candidates? There is no depth or alternate views to fall back on.

My hope is that Canberrans wake up and realise they have an almost unique opportunity in Canberra of voting in a good number of independents who actually stand for something other than conduits for favours.

Is Nick Xenophon endorsing anyone?

dungfungus said :

Is Labor going to do anything about its unhealthy dependence on cash from poker machines?

AQUIS

I sincerely hope the independents put out some policy statements before the election and not just simple one-line slogans. If we are to drag ourselves away from the cumbersome Liberal/Labor cohorts who are so much like one another it is hard to see where one stops and the other starts, we need to know which of the independents is going to do the right thing by it’s electorate.
Trying to find where they stand is not easy. Apart from their major sales pitch of “for the community”, “your vote counts” and such dribble, they generally only have one policy. You can’t see what they think of other issues affecting Canberra such as jobs creation, transport infrastructure and taxation to name a few. It is also hard to see where their allegiances lie. Will they lean to the right or to the left. Most boast about being straight down the middle but some of their policies favor Liberal thinking whilst others totally contradict them. It is hard to vote a party in when you agree on one policy but totally disagree on another. As a voter you just can’t get your way.
I guess it will be up to us to sift through the media, internet and television [if anyone still watches local news on FTA] to see what issue is the most important and which nominee will back that philosophy. Then we have to hope they win, win by a majority and don’t back-flip or renege on their promises like almost all major parties have done on a regular basis. To add to all that, we also have to rely on the Feds to not step in and overturn any decision they make for us either.
No wonder nothing ever gets done.

rubaiyat said :

Is there a chance of a coalition do you think, like the Lib/Nats? The Green Sex Coalition?The Sex(y) Green Coalition? Imagine their TV ads. A camera pans across a field of organic cucumbers…

Hahaha……..priceless comment !!!!!

dungfungus said :

Is Labor going to do anything about its unhealthy dependence on cash from poker machines?

No.

dungfungus said :

I’m sure the Greens welcome the rise of any minor party that exists to give a voice to the disenfranchised as opposed to existing as a puppet of the major 2 parties. As a greens supporter, I wish them all the best in the election and look forward to seeing them in the chamber later in the year.

As a “greens supporter” (if u mean the ACT Greens ?), surely you must recognise that the ACT Greens are in fact a “puppet” of ACT Labor ? Rattenburry is a Minister in the ACT Labor Government for goodness sakes. If that’s not a puppet, then what is ? There is no doubt that this lack of independence by the ACT Greens has given space for other parties and independents to move into the “green” policy space.

Is Labor going to do anything about its unhealthy dependence on cash from poker machines?

dungfungus said :

Southmouth said :

The Sex Party isn’t the joke party many have dismissed it as. They have similarities with The Greens, and remember in the Assembly before this, The Greens held four seats. Also there is a tradition of sexual liberalism in the ACT including the fact that it was only the second jurisdiction in Australia to decriminalise homosexuality and nude bathing in 1976. Also the expanded Assembly gives a greater chance of independents and minor party candidates being elected. If former RiotACT contributor Steven Bailey can be persuaded to stand for the Sex Party I’m almost certain he would be elected.

The Sex Party is going to give the Greens a run for their money, for sure.

I’m sure the Greens welcome the rise of any minor party that exists to give a voice to the disenfranchised as opposed to existing as a puppet of the major 2 parties. As a greens supporter, I wish them all the best in the election and look forward to seeing them in the chamber later in the year.

dungfungus said :

The Sex Party is going to give the Greens a run for their money, for sure.

Despite their whacky name, the Sex Party seems a bit Greens-lite, certainly they’re chasing much the same inner-city demographic as the Greens, if Steven Bailey’s post here are a guide.

Is there a chance of a coalition do you think, like the Lib/Nats?

The Green Sex Coalition?The Sex(y) Green Coalition?
Imagine their TV ads. A camera pans across a field of organic cucumbers…

gooterz said :

ACT Labor may be “old and tired” but ACT Liberal does not offer that great of an alternative. It is up to the opposition to present a strong case for change of government, and so far the majority of that has been the campaign against the tram without offering many real alternative policies around the other issues.

Case in point, I live in public housing, and my block is due to be demolished in 2018 and the residents dispersed to new locations. I contacted ACT Liberals to ask if they would continue this policy if elected, and they can’t even give me a simple answer on that, telling me to wait until their policies are released in detail. When asked when that could be expected, they could not give me an answer on that either. Hardly a credible alternative there.

This mentality is why we are stuck with a lousy government. The current government has more than adequately proven that they shouldn’t be rewarded with the responsibility of governing for another term. Their track record is a case for a change of government. We all know they are going a poor job. But some people will just never vote any other way and use the “credible opposition” argument as a way to justify continuing to vote for a bunch of duds. You already know that the current government is going to push ahead with a policy you don’t like. So why keep voting for them?

It makes no sense.

That’s a bit rough John. You of all people should know how hard it is for Independents to get any attention at all. Not through the lack of trying I assure you.

I can tell you that I am a genuine independent and there are actually a couple of us out here. I hope your next update includes a few more people than those who you believe relevant. If you would like a few links, let me know. I have a couple handy.

Hoping to read some more informed information in the future.

Andrew

dungfungus said :

What we need is better quality candidates in the major parties.

The mechanisms within the major parties are designed to trade factional favours for mates and support, not to get better candidates.

The seats go to whoever has brown nosed hardest and longest. Both the Liberals and Labor make a great show of hating on each other, but they have far more in common with each other than they have with anybody trying to bust up the duopoly and bring back any purpose to democracy other than hoodwinking the voters.

The trouble is the very few honest politicians, like Ted Mack and Nick Xenophon, don’t put their principles up for sale. Ted Mack even refused his parliamentary entitlements when he retired.

Southmouth said :

The Sex Party isn’t the joke party many have dismissed it as. They have similarities with The Greens, and remember in the Assembly before this, The Greens held four seats. Also there is a tradition of sexual liberalism in the ACT including the fact that it was only the second jurisdiction in Australia to decriminalise homosexuality and nude bathing in 1976. Also the expanded Assembly gives a greater chance of independents and minor party candidates being elected. If former RiotACT contributor Steven Bailey can be persuaded to stand for the Sex Party I’m almost certain he would be elected.

The Sex Party is going to give the Greens a run for their money, for sure.

Southmouth said :

The Sex Party isn’t the joke party many have dismissed it as. They have similarities with The Greens, …

I agree with half of what you said there.

ACT Labor may be “old and tired” but ACT Liberal does not offer that great of an alternative. It is up to the opposition to present a strong case for change of government, and so far the majority of that has been the campaign against the tram without offering many real alternative policies around the other issues.

Case in point, I live in public housing, and my block is due to be demolished in 2018 and the residents dispersed to new locations. I contacted ACT Liberals to ask if they would continue this policy if elected, and they can’t even give me a simple answer on that, telling me to wait until their policies are released in detail. When asked when that could be expected, they could not give me an answer on that either. Hardly a credible alternative there.

Hey John,

Did you predict more people voting Liberal than Labor in 2012???

Did you predict 4 Greens getting elected in 2008, did anyone???

Did you predict the Greens only getting 10.7% of the vote and losing 3 seats in 2012????

—–

But hey why not write an article plugging your on personal interests in the upcoming election, you would be crazy not to.

Why don’t you write about a couple of these things:
——————–
– the need to clean up act politics starting with an ACT ICAC, just like in SA, WA, NSW, QLD and VIC
– explain how the career politician culture in the ACT Labor and Liberal parties is good for Canberra, is it?
– explain how our major parties got away with increasing the electoral funding from $2.50 per vote to $8, when federal AEC funding is only $2.21

Cheers
Tim Böhm
Like Canberra Party Founder
Bullet Train for Australia President

At least we now know (as of about ten minutes ago) that the federal election will be over and done with by the time of the ACT election – which should, in a number of respects, make it easier for ACT voters to make a clear choice.

No_Nose said :

I understand that Steven [Bailey] is going to stand. He would shake them all up. .

‘Shake them up’ like Clive Palmer, Motorists Party, Family First, Liberal Democrats?

We don’t need more fringe parties with no other ambition or hope than gaining the balance of power and leveraging that power into more than it should be.

What we need is better quality candidates in the major parties.

Southmouth said :

The Sex Party isn’t the joke party many have dismissed it as. They have similarities with The Greens, and remember in the Assembly before this, The Greens held four seats. Also there is a tradition of sexual liberalism in the ACT including the fact that it was only the second jurisdiction in Australia to decriminalise homosexuality and nude bathing in 1976. Also the expanded Assembly gives a greater chance of independents and minor party candidates being elected. If former RiotACT contributor Steven Bailey can be persuaded to stand for the Sex Party I’m almost certain he would be elected.

I understand that Steven is going to stand. He would shake them all up. As for Andrew Dewson, one sparrow does not a summer make…

The Sex Party isn’t the joke party many have dismissed it as. They have similarities with The Greens, and remember in the Assembly before this, The Greens held four seats. Also there is a tradition of sexual liberalism in the ACT including the fact that it was only the second jurisdiction in Australia to decriminalise homosexuality and nude bathing in 1976. Also the expanded Assembly gives a greater chance of independents and minor party candidates being elected. If former RiotACT contributor Steven Bailey can be persuaded to stand for the Sex Party I’m almost certain he would be elected.

HenryBG said :

I saw in the paper this morning that Mr Charisma, Steve Doszpot is going again. Good luck to him. He’s a nice bloke actually and is not one of the nasty far-Right bunch that adorn the Opposition benches.

To the RA editor/s, can we perhaps get a political commentator who can see out of both eyes, rather than just their left? It’s becoming ridiculous.

HenryBG said :

I hope that the newcomers knock off the sitting members and we have a better “refreshment” than we have seen thus far.

Absolutely. It’s time for Barr & Co to take a hike.

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Well John,

Ill put my hand up for independent nomination.
Ill register with Elections ACT as appropriate.

Regards,

Jason Preston
Palmerston ACT

Excellent. Everyone has the right to do just that. My point was that no independents have emerged in the media as of yet. It means that as each month goes by with no announcement, it becomes harder to get airspace and circulation. Honest independents, and I mean truly honest, are a welcome breath of fresh air.

Perhaps you should have looked a bit harder:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/independent-andrew-dewson-contesting-yerrabi-at-act-election-20160408-go1kxj.html

I’m curious why Hume and Symonston didn’t go to the below quota southern Brindabella instead of the over quota central Kurrajong.

I get that they are trying to make 5 x 5 electorates but that does override the more logical regional concerns. Excising north east Belconnen to add it to Yerrabi (Gungahlin) seems to me to go against the logical interests of those suburbs in being in Gininderra (Belconnen).

Give Yerrabi 4 members and Gininderra 6. Eventually as Gungahlin grows the number of members in Yerrabi will rise.

Otherwise considering we are a unicameral Territory, covering two levels of government, the number of politicians is about right and hopefully will give whoever succeeds in the next election, a greater selection for cabinet.

To help the ACT voters:

http://www.elections.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/838892/Final_map_of_ACT_electoral_boundaries_-_2015.pdf

I saw in the paper this morning that Mr Charisma, Steve Doszpot is going again. Good luck to him. He’s a nice bloke actually and is not one of the nasty far-Right bunch that adorn the Opposition benches.

I hope that the newcomers knock off the sitting members and we have a better “refreshment” than we have seen thus far. But then, I’m a big time Labor supporter, a secular Catholic and a Collingwood supporter so I don’t expect much more than a flogging from those of opposing views.

rubaiyat said :

Well John,

Ill put my hand up for independent nomination.
Ill register with Elections ACT as appropriate.

Regards,

Jason Preston
Palmerston ACT

Excellent. Everyone has the right to do just that. My point was that no independents have emerged in the media as of yet. It means that as each month goes by with no announcement, it becomes harder to get airspace and circulation. Honest independents, and I mean truly honest, are a welcome breath of fresh air.

Well I can say that many Labor voters are fed up with Mr Barr – goodbye.

Well John,

Ill put my hand up for independent nomination.
Ill register with Elections ACT as appropriate.

Regards,

Jason Preston
Palmerston ACT