Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

In the fight of your life
you need the best at your side

Governor-General, please dissolve the ACT Government [With Poll]

PantsMan 21 October 2013 71

Quite frankly, I’ve had enough of Katy, Barr, Corbell, and that court jester Rattenbury. They have surely got to be the most irresponsible, dangerous, and seemingly unaccountable excuse for a government within the Australian Federation.

They appear to have largely abandoned any attempt to effectively deliver the core governmental services for which they are actually responsible, such as healthcare and policing. Or they are simply incapable of so delivering. When they have attempted to do anything in these areas they have almost universally been absolute scandalous disasters. For example, Katy Gallagher, as Health Minister, presided over the falsification of health statistics by a family associate; falsification which seemingly had the effect of defrauding the Commonwealth of otherwise forgone incentive payments. If this had happened in NSW, they would all be before ICAC. And now we hear we have the worst health system in the country.

Shane Rattenbury demanded that Katy, Barr, and Corbell, in return for continuing in power, sign up to build a $700 – $860 million Capital Metro Project (with your taxes) that has no business case, no cost benefit analysis, no passenger number projections, and no hope or chance of either being delivered on time or ever making any money (even given appropriate levels of subsidy to take in non-financial considerations).

Corbell, seemingly at the behest of Barr, has decided to enact legislation patently beyond the power of the ACT Legislative Assembly in order to politically wedge the Abbott Federal Government (something which they did not consider necessary to do to the former Rudd/Gillard/Rudd Governments) and bring on a High Court challenge; which they will defend with millions of dollars of your money.

The only growth industry in the ACT is the ‘human rights’ industry; that consists of the ACT Government paying human rights lawyers (who often seem to be connected to ACT Labor) to comment upon and advise upon endless harebrained schemes that are largely aimed at correcting non-problems, while anyone who ever tries to evoke their purported human rights (often against the ACT Government itself) discovers they have none. (Don’t worry, the ACT Government pays more human rights lawyers to write up summaries of how you, in fact, have no human rights.) Meanwhile, our $100 million human rights compliant jail is full, and inmates are having their human rights violated by the ACT Government.

* ACTEW executive pay and sponsorship scandal — no one told Katy and Barr (asleep at the wheel).

* Highest utilities prices in the country, used as a quasi-tax by Katy and Co.

* Banning plastic shopping bags.

* $5,500 fines for leaving a shopping trolley in the street.

The list goes on.

Under the ACT Self Government Act, the Governor-General has the power to call an end to this madness and appoint a Commissioner to conduct the affairs of the ACT. The provision is as follows:

Dissolution of Assembly by Governor-General
(1) If, in the opinion of the Governor-General, the Assembly:

(a) is incapable of effectively performing its functions; or

(b) is conducting its affairs in a grossly improper manner;

the Governor-General may dissolve the Assembly.

(2) Where the Assembly is dissolved:

(a) the Governor-General:

(i) shall appoint a Commissioner for the purposes of this section; and

(ii) may, at any time, give directions to the Commissioner about the exercise of the powers of the Executive; and

Given all this, should the Federal Government advise the Governor-General dissolve the ACT Legislative Assembly and end this chaos:

Should the Federal Government advise the Governor-General dissolve the ACT Legislative Assembly

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
71 Responses to Governor-General, please dissolve the ACT Government [With Poll]
Filter
Order
IrishPete IrishPete 12:27 pm 24 Oct 13

Robertson said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

It may have been convenient to lump the ALP and Greens together, but it wasn’t accurate given the Greens tore up the agreement earlier this year, there were a whole lot of other people involved (Slipper, independents), and the ALP policies and those of the Greens at Federal level are an ocean apart (an ocean full of drowning refugees from Australia’s warmongering, perhaps).

IP

Seeing as you are so concerned about accuracy, please explain which Australian warmongering is responsible for all the Sri Lankans, Iranians, and Burmese coming here on boats?

If you’re going to criticise the rightards for their irrational beliefs, your first step should be to ensure you ditch yours first. Otherwqise it’s pretty much a glass houses thing.

Anhh, cherry picking is always lovely. Let’s just exclude the obvious country’s ip was actually referring too, shall we?

The fact Sri Lankans, Iranians and Burmese are coming here in large numbers disproves your implication that “Australian warmongering” is responsible for refugee arrivals to Australia.

2011-2012 had just under 1,000 Sri Lankan refugees apply, 1,200 Chinese, and 1300 Pakistanis. If “Australian warmongering” isn’t responsible for those refugees, then there appears to be no rational reason for your belief that “Australian warmongering” is responsible for any others.

You have demonstrated (once again) that the rightards you criticise by no means have a monopoly on irrational beliefs.

Please feel free to quote the number of Iraqi and Afghani refugees for the last 10 years rather than cherrypicking one year’s worth of stats.

And I don’t think many (any?) Chinese arrive by boat, so you can knock them out of your stats right now.

Pakistanis? Well being next door to Afghanistan, with the spillover of that war and the illegal drone attacks by our wonderful allies, I think one could make a strong case for saying they are fleeing the instability caused by Australia’s invasion of Afghanistan.

Sri Lankans, yes they are another case entirely. So you got one out of three right.

IP

Robertson Robertson 12:17 pm 24 Oct 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

It may have been convenient to lump the ALP and Greens together, but it wasn’t accurate given the Greens tore up the agreement earlier this year, there were a whole lot of other people involved (Slipper, independents), and the ALP policies and those of the Greens at Federal level are an ocean apart (an ocean full of drowning refugees from Australia’s warmongering, perhaps).

IP

Seeing as you are so concerned about accuracy, please explain which Australian warmongering is responsible for all the Sri Lankans, Iranians, and Burmese coming here on boats?

If you’re going to criticise the rightards for their irrational beliefs, your first step should be to ensure you ditch yours first. Otherwqise it’s pretty much a glass houses thing.

Anhh, cherry picking is always lovely. Let’s just exclude the obvious country’s ip was actually referring too, shall we?

The fact Sri Lankans, Iranians and Burmese are coming here in large numbers disproves your implication that “Australian warmongering” is responsible for refugee arrivals to Australia.

2011-2012 had just under 1,000 Sri Lankan refugees apply, 1,200 Chinese, and 1300 Pakistanis. If “Australian warmongering” isn’t responsible for those refugees, then there appears to be no rational reason for your belief that “Australian warmongering” is responsible for any others.

You have demonstrated (once again) that the rightards you criticise by no means have a monopoly on irrational beliefs.

JC JC 10:25 am 24 Oct 13

funbutalsoserious said :

This is the worst government in the country at the moment, and yet we still voted them in (not me though)

Why don’t they prioritise what they are spending their time on and our money on, like the basics of hospitals, education, roads, mowing, etc.

Umm they are… I guess the issue is YOU don’t like their priorities. As I said to the poster above, not happy vote them out. But remember yours is just 1 of 200,000+ odd votes, so if the same government gets re-elected it means that other people disagree with you. It’s called democracy.

JC JC 10:22 am 24 Oct 13

OP your lucky ACT Labor has stuff up the health system so badly (in your eyes anyway) If they hadn’t then I am sure the loony bin van would be paying you a visit and dragging you off for some counselling.

PS other than headlines do you have any evidence of how bad it is here in Canberra. Take health for example, so far this year my mother has gone to hospital a total of 4 times and was looked after exceptionally well every single time. My wife has also just had a baby in the ACT Health system, again cannot give them enough praise.

You also mention police, pray tell where is there any problem (other than perceived) with policing in the ACT?

At the end of the day if you are not happy with the government, then every 4 years you get your chance to say so. Now the fact that Labor keeps getting re-elected may give you a hint that the majority of the people in this town are happy with what ACT Labor (and the greens) are doing. That is called democracy. If your not happy with that then I am sure there are some non democratic countries you would be more comfortable living in. No doubt things will seem like they run like clock work, tough deep down the issues will be there, just not reported.

Oops the latter sounds like our new Federal (Liberal/National) Government. No news is good news, every bit of bad news is a headline crisis, so keep all news out of the news.

davo101 davo101 9:59 am 24 Oct 13

Objective said :

Do you actually have experience in economics or are you talking out your ass?

Given that most economic “science” is hokum I don’t think experience in one is going to prevent the other. Look at this year’s Nobel winners: one gentleman won for proving markets are efficient, another for proving markets are not efficient.

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 9:58 am 24 Oct 13

Kim F said :

IrishPete said :

Roundhead89 said :

Yes and when we get a recall election what will happen? Left wing Canberra will vote for Labor and The Greens yet again and nothing will be resolved. Like it or not the ACT has effectively become a one party state.

I do love that the Right-wingers, who believe they were Born To Rule, can’t even count to two.

IP

Coffee Spray – Thanks IP

Bwahahaha! Me too.

Wht a farcical post.
How dare they implement the promise they took to the election to build light rail. World ending…

IrishPete IrishPete 9:36 am 24 Oct 13

Objective said :

IrishPete said :

Objective said :

IrishPete said :

neanderthalsis said :

IrishPete said :

Oh dear, PantsMan is confused “no hope or chance of either being delivered on time or ever making any money (even given appropriate levels of subsidy to take in non-financial considerations).” Which is to be, subsidised or profitable? It can’t be both?

One only has to look at agricultural production in the EU or Japan to see evidence of heavily subsidised industries that are also quite profitable. I don’t think our dodgy one track tram system that will only link the city centre to one small urban centre will ever be profitable though.

No, if it is subsidised then by definition it is not profitable, unless the subsidy is less than the profit, which then begs the question why it is subsidised.

IP

Fabulous false dichotomy you’ve said there.

Do you actually have experience in economics or are you talking out your ass? The fact you obnoxiously sign all of your posts leads me to believe it’s the later. People can see your username, ya know?

It’s obnoxious to sign my posts? Wow. Some people are so sensitive.

It’s not economics, it’s arithmetic. If the government gives a $100 subsidy to a business and the business makes a $99 profit, it’s not profitable.

IP

So the answer to my question is – no, you have no experience. Enjoy reveling in your ignorance

And it’s not a matter of sensitivity. It’s just obnoxious, simple as that.

I have experience adding. I can count to two, unlike the pro-Liberal posters on here.

One person’s obnoxious is another person’s something else.

But I have lived in the EU where subsidies are rorted to the max. They distort markets and are generally an evil thing.

If you can point me to an economist who has actually done something useful, I will defer to their expertise. “God Created Economists To Make Astrologers Look Good.”

IP

Objective Objective 1:25 am 24 Oct 13

IrishPete said :

Objective said :

IrishPete said :

neanderthalsis said :

IrishPete said :

Oh dear, PantsMan is confused “no hope or chance of either being delivered on time or ever making any money (even given appropriate levels of subsidy to take in non-financial considerations).” Which is to be, subsidised or profitable? It can’t be both?

One only has to look at agricultural production in the EU or Japan to see evidence of heavily subsidised industries that are also quite profitable. I don’t think our dodgy one track tram system that will only link the city centre to one small urban centre will ever be profitable though.

No, if it is subsidised then by definition it is not profitable, unless the subsidy is less than the profit, which then begs the question why it is subsidised.

IP

Fabulous false dichotomy you’ve said there.

Do you actually have experience in economics or are you talking out your ass? The fact you obnoxiously sign all of your posts leads me to believe it’s the later. People can see your username, ya know?

It’s obnoxious to sign my posts? Wow. Some people are so sensitive.

It’s not economics, it’s arithmetic. If the government gives a $100 subsidy to a business and the business makes a $99 profit, it’s not profitable.

IP

So the answer to my question is – no, you have no experience. Enjoy reveling in your ignorance

And it’s not a matter of sensitivity. It’s just obnoxious, simple as that.

funbutalsoserious funbutalsoserious 9:54 am 22 Oct 13

This is the worst government in the country at the moment, and yet we still voted them in (not me though)

Why don’t they prioritise what they are spending their time on and our money on, like the basics of hospitals, education, roads, mowing, etc.

Thumper Thumper 8:12 am 22 Oct 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

magiccar9 said :

scoot said :

I, along with most people <30 in the ACT, would vote the same government back in.

That’s the problem. The less than 30 demographic are the ones who struggle with independent thought it seems. The current government just needs to flash something ‘hip and cool’ and they win the vote. I bet you couldn’t point me to 10% of the under 30’s that voted for The Greens/Labor based on their overall policies, instead of something like gay marriage or the NBN that is considered a ‘cool’ talking point of the time. (I’m not for/against gay marriage for the record, I just wish they would get on with the issue and make a decision and live with it)

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe any of the current parties, local or federal, deserve to be leading the country/state/territory. Until they actually start governing for the people they’re supposed to represent they’ll fail to get my vote.

Anybody who thinks the nbn is nothing more than a cool talking point for under 30s should not be allowed to vote.

Moron,

Geez man, been on the angry pills?

Chill out, people are allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours.

IrishPete IrishPete 7:32 am 22 Oct 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

It may have been convenient to lump the ALP and Greens together, but it wasn’t accurate given the Greens tore up the agreement earlier this year, there were a whole lot of other people involved (Slipper, independents), and the ALP policies and those of the Greens at Federal level are an ocean apart (an ocean full of drowning refugees from Australia’s warmongering, perhaps).

IP

Seeing as you are so concerned about accuracy, please explain which Australian warmongering is responsible for all the Sri Lankans, Iranians, and Burmese coming here on boats?

If you’re going to criticise the rightards for their irrational beliefs, your first step should be to ensure you ditch yours first. Otherwqise it’s pretty much a glass houses thing.

Anhh, cherry picking is always lovely. Let’s just exclude the obvious country’s ip was actually referring too, shall we?

Thanks for answering for me. Yes, obviously in recent times the vast majority of refugees coming to Australia by boat have been from Iraq and Afghanistan. A previous wave came from Vietnam. If I was Iranian I would probably leave and live in Iraq or Pakistan, but they’re pretty grim at the moment too so I don’t blame them for travelling further..

The problem is the disconnect between our refugee settlement policies, our overseas aid policies, our foreign policies and our defence policies. The defence link is obvious. But how can we justify accepting refugees from countries like China, Sri Lanka, Burma and so on while maintaining normal diplomatic relations with those countries, even giving them lots of our foreign aid (we do we give one cent to China?)?

And for all their faults, initial impressions are that the new federal government is getting Indonesia to be more proactive in the problem of leaky, unreliable and overcrowded boats. Roll on Palmer’s Titanic 2 which can bring them over in safety.

IP

IrishPete IrishPete 7:27 am 22 Oct 13

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Anybody who thinks the nbn is nothing more than a cool talking point for under 30s should not be allowed to vote.

Moron,

Oh dear, that’s me. Now if it was truly national, I might change my mind. But living outside a major centre, I was always going to get a low rent version, via wireless or if I am really unlucky via satellite with the problems of latency. And originally I was going to get latency in all my telephone calls, but then they quietly decided to leave the copper network going for a few more years.

I’d be quite happy with decent ADSL2, but the very poor quality connection to my house from the exchange is probably the bottleneck. It wouldn’t take squillions to fix, just a bit of motivation by Telstra.

IP

IrishPete IrishPete 7:24 am 22 Oct 13

Objective said :

IrishPete said :

neanderthalsis said :

IrishPete said :

Oh dear, PantsMan is confused “no hope or chance of either being delivered on time or ever making any money (even given appropriate levels of subsidy to take in non-financial considerations).” Which is to be, subsidised or profitable? It can’t be both?

One only has to look at agricultural production in the EU or Japan to see evidence of heavily subsidised industries that are also quite profitable. I don’t think our dodgy one track tram system that will only link the city centre to one small urban centre will ever be profitable though.

No, if it is subsidised then by definition it is not profitable, unless the subsidy is less than the profit, which then begs the question why it is subsidised.

IP

Fabulous false dichotomy you’ve said there.

Do you actually have experience in economics or are you talking out your ass? The fact you obnoxiously sign all of your posts leads me to believe it’s the later. People can see your username, ya know?

It’s obnoxious to sign my posts? Wow. Some people are so sensitive.

It’s not economics, it’s arithmetic. If the government gives a $100 subsidy to a business and the business makes a $99 profit, it’s not profitable.

IP

Grail Grail 7:18 am 22 Oct 13

Objective said :

Do you actually have experience in economics or are you talking out your ass? The fact you obnoxiously sign all of your posts leads me to believe it’s the later. People can see your username, ya know?

I guess he hasn’t heard about the diesel fuel rebate which is a major subsidy for Australian mining companies. Or negative gearing which is a major subsidy for landlords. Those industries are both profitable without the subsidies, and far more profitable with them.

housebound housebound 1:25 am 22 Oct 13

bikhet said :

housebound said :

My personal preference would be for governments of all flavours to be limited to two terms so avoid those terrible third-term behaviours. It stops our overlords from getting that little bit too cosy. Sorry if that’s too right wing for you.

You can apply term limits to the members who make up a government, but not to the government itself. If you tried to do the latter the existing members could simply form a new party and get themselves re-elected.

While I’m generally in favour of term limits for members, though I recognise that there are problems with this, limiting the number of terms a member can serve won’t necessarily change the govenrment.

I know all that. It doesn’t mean we can’t dream of more effective limits to power, which appears to be what the OP may have been getting at.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 10:47 pm 21 Oct 13

magiccar9 said :

scoot said :

I, along with most people <30 in the ACT, would vote the same government back in.

That’s the problem. The less than 30 demographic are the ones who struggle with independent thought it seems. The current government just needs to flash something ‘hip and cool’ and they win the vote. I bet you couldn’t point me to 10% of the under 30’s that voted for The Greens/Labor based on their overall policies, instead of something like gay marriage or the NBN that is considered a ‘cool’ talking point of the time. (I’m not for/against gay marriage for the record, I just wish they would get on with the issue and make a decision and live with it)

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe any of the current parties, local or federal, deserve to be leading the country/state/territory. Until they actually start governing for the people they’re supposed to represent they’ll fail to get my vote.

Anybody who thinks the nbn is nothing more than a cool talking point for under 30s should not be allowed to vote.

Moron,

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 10:45 pm 21 Oct 13

CraigT said :

IrishPete said :

It may have been convenient to lump the ALP and Greens together, but it wasn’t accurate given the Greens tore up the agreement earlier this year, there were a whole lot of other people involved (Slipper, independents), and the ALP policies and those of the Greens at Federal level are an ocean apart (an ocean full of drowning refugees from Australia’s warmongering, perhaps).

IP

Seeing as you are so concerned about accuracy, please explain which Australian warmongering is responsible for all the Sri Lankans, Iranians, and Burmese coming here on boats?

If you’re going to criticise the rightards for their irrational beliefs, your first step should be to ensure you ditch yours first. Otherwqise it’s pretty much a glass houses thing.

Anhh, cherry picking is always lovely. Let’s just exclude the obvious country’s ip was actually referring too, shall we?

Anna Key Anna Key 10:08 pm 21 Oct 13

morticia said :

I honestly think voting should start at 25-30, because only after some life experience and living on your own you get to see what’s really important in society – rhetorical, don’t bother flaming me. Also, many people think ACT Labor was recently voted in with a majority, sorry to disappoint you guys, they had fewer votes than Libs, and were pushed over the line by Rattenbug – yes, 1 single person decided on the ACT government for all of us.

In fact, shouldn’t the under 25s be off fighting a war somewhere rather than slouching around shopping centres, bus interchanges and supporting gay marriage.

And one single person does not decide on the ACT govt. 200,000+ voters did. Rattenbury is only one of 17 members so not sure why he gets to choose, unless its the entrenchment of the two party system that requires one side to automatically oppose the other.

Anna Key Anna Key 9:51 pm 21 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Ok Pantsman, who would you like in the government then? Options are a bit limited unless you want some extreme thinking folk who wouldn’t know where the keys to this Territory are kept, let alone how to drive it.

I thought Jeremy’s wife has the keys to the Territory
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/road-rage-govt-sees-red-over-car-claim-20120909-25mrs.html

Objective Objective 9:01 pm 21 Oct 13

IrishPete said :

neanderthalsis said :

IrishPete said :

Oh dear, PantsMan is confused “no hope or chance of either being delivered on time or ever making any money (even given appropriate levels of subsidy to take in non-financial considerations).” Which is to be, subsidised or profitable? It can’t be both?

One only has to look at agricultural production in the EU or Japan to see evidence of heavily subsidised industries that are also quite profitable. I don’t think our dodgy one track tram system that will only link the city centre to one small urban centre will ever be profitable though.

No, if it is subsidised then by definition it is not profitable, unless the subsidy is less than the profit, which then begs the question why it is subsidised.

IP

Fabulous false dichotomy you’ve said there.

Do you actually have experience in economics or are you talking out your ass? The fact you obnoxiously sign all of your posts leads me to believe it’s the later. People can see your username, ya know?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site