Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Buying or selling?
Get the right advice

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 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?

magiccar9 magiccar9 8:24 pm 21 Oct 13

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.

chewy14 chewy14 8:11 pm 21 Oct 13

IrishPete said :

Every ALP supporter I know has accepted the result of the federal election with good grace.
IP

So you don’t actually know any ALP supporters then?

CraigT CraigT 7:16 pm 21 Oct 13

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.

voytek3 voytek3 5:59 pm 21 Oct 13

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.

Well observed, moron. Canberra has always been left. Did you just complete your first unit in political studies?

IrishPete IrishPete 5:47 pm 21 Oct 13

Robertson said :

IrishPete said :

Anyway, you seem to have completely missed my point: Greens + Labor = two parties, not one. Try counting them on your fingers if that helps.

It appears his point went over your head.

It should have been blindingly obvious if you were reading the IPA/Murdoch pre-election propaganda that the climate-change-denying rampant were labelling the ALP/Greens as a single party bent on destroying the economy in favour of fringe issues.

It didn’t go over my head, it’s just inaccurate.

Indeed the people you refer to were labeling the ALP and Greens as a single party, which makes the number of people who can’t count to two rather a lot more than the couple I found on this RiotACT discussion thread…

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

pepmeup pepmeup 4:46 pm 21 Oct 13

The biggest problem with the legislative assembly is that it does not attract smart able people, I don’t believe there is anyone currently in the Assembly who would earn more money in the private sector. I cant imagine that you could say that of any other government in the country. I would go as far as saying a few of the current members went into local politics for the money.

we need quality candidates who have achieved in their real lives before entering politics, not money grabbers, or career politicians.

We need to vote more carefully at the next election, Corbel nearly lost his seat last time, he might this time, hopefully Labor have some better candidates, and on the other side I think we can do better that Guilia and (Ctrl C, Ctrl V) Dozspot.

we need a better gov and a better opposition that both have good ideas for the future of Canberra

Robertson Robertson 4:35 pm 21 Oct 13

IrishPete said :

Anyway, you seem to have completely missed my point: Greens + Labor = two parties, not one. Try counting them on your fingers if that helps.

It appears his point went over your head.

It should have been blindingly obvious if you were reading the IPA/Murdoch pre-election propaganda that the climate-change-denying rampant were labelling the ALP/Greens as a single party bent on destroying the economy in favour of fringe issues.

MarkG MarkG 4:33 pm 21 Oct 13

Meh. The author could learn a thing or two from Tony Abbott about sharpening his talking points. Most of those ones relate to issues already adjudicated on by the public at the last election. This notion that the public should be obliged to vote on the same stuff over and over until the “right” result turns up – very much from the born to rule playbook. Unattractive.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 4:29 pm 21 Oct 13

First world problems. If these are your only complaints in life then you are pretty well off.

Also, anybody who complains about human rights and protecting the environment should not be allowed to vote anyways .

Moron.

HiddenDragon HiddenDragon 3:55 pm 21 Oct 13

I began thinking “he does make some good points” and then cast my mind back to gems such as the Hospital implosion and the Futsal slab. Perhaps one of the problems is that just doing the stuff that really needs to be done by the Territory government is quite boring, and so those who grace the political stage need a regular supply of shiny, new and appealing (to them and their supporters) things to keep them amused.

I have some faint hope that the tougher economic times which Canberra now faces, combined with the new rates and land tax system, will mean that more people will be focused on the practicalities expected of government, and less so on what, at times, seem like “bells and whistles”. That said, there will only be change, or the prospect of it, if there is a clear plausible, coherent alternative to what we have at present.

In the meantime, I will stick to my view that self-government was essentially a fiscal fraud perpretated on the people of Canberra, and that whoever had been in power locally, it would not be easy.

DJ Mac DJ Mac 3:29 pm 21 Oct 13

OK If you think you can do better run for office at the next election – that’s what happens in democracies.

To the issues you have raised.
1) yeah the issues with ACTEW are a problem and they need to be sorted, but things like that happen under all sorts of governments and I would prefer the appropriate authorities sort it out instead of turning it into a political issue on either side
2) would need to see the figures on that but having seen bills from family members in both Sydney and Melbourne I think you may have that wrong.
3) I have no issues with the ban on plastic bags but for me its a non issue
4) most places have fines for leaving shopping trolleys in the street – I know Melbourne and Sydney do – so what?

I have yet to see a public transport system that is not highly subsidised – especially in the initial phases.

Personally I look forward to reading your policies on addressing the other issues. Fully costed, of course.

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