Support NeoGAF

[D.Lo]

I think they can be forgiven for acting like they are permanently in opposition because , especially if they regard themselves as a potential Government, they effectively are. While their ideals are closer to Labor than the Liberals, there's significantly more divide between Labor and the Greens than say the Libs and the Nationals. In some policy areas there's a greater gap between Labor and the Greens than the LNP and Labor.

I'm not blaming them for acting like they are permanently in opposition, I was just saying that's how it is. Labor is now in opposition, they won't be running departments either.

Disagree about differences between Libs and Nationals though, at least in principal. They've become similar through the coalition, but really over the years Labor is better to regional people than pro-big business Libs.

They're just like the republicans in the US, Bible belt+rednecks+big business, they're a coalition against progressive social policy, but economically they should not be bedfellows.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I'm not blaming them for acting like they are permanently in opposition, I was just saying that's how it is. Labor is now in opposition, they won't be running departments either.

Disagree about differences between Libs and Nationals though, at least in principal. They've become similar through the coalition, but really over the years Labor is better to regional people than pro-big business Libs.

They're just like the republicans in the US, Bible belt+rednecks+big business, they're a coalition against progressive social policy, but economically they should not be bedfellows.

Yeah, I think I largely agree with you there. There are certainly splits.

The thing is the Nationals aren't for regional people, not really, they are for farm and livestock owners. They picked up the general rural base pretty much by happenstance since doing good things for farmers and livestock owners generally helped other rural people who worked on or provided services to the former, pretty much by default. That these people tend to be conservative and religious (and thus very much against certain types of social change) has essentially welded them to the National party, even though Labor's infrastructure, healthcare and education reforms generally benefit them more than the scraps the Nationals let fall to them.

There certainly are major economic splits but its not because one favors business and the other doesn't, it's because the Nationals favor large rural businesses (who need protection from globalization) while the Liberals favor large urban businesses (who benefit from a global economic race to the bottom). The compromise of an economic race to the bottom while pumping money into farmers and having strong import restrictions , seems to be a compromise both are reasonable happy with. Though I guess you could say cracks are showing as Coles and Woolworths are putting the boot in to the farmers.

But even with that, the same people who adored Katter for being willing to take on Coles and Woolworths tossed him into the bin, as soon as he looked even a little bit friendly to the ALP.

 

[hidys]

No, it's quite often the reality that you have to choose between the country getting punched in the stomach or kicked in the groin. That's the balancing act of government. For example, choosing what research to fund, where aid should go, or what dugs get funded. Someone always loses, it cannot be perfect for everyone.

There's no point having a 'be nice to everyone' policy when it isn't realistic. Minor parties can get away with rhetoric like that but the Greens are no longer very minor and should make adult decisions.

For example, they killed Rudd's ETS in 2009, by voting with the Libs. They then forced Labor in minority government to introduce an ETS that everyone knew was politically difficult. Labor has now been voted out as a result, and they will now get basically NO ETS.
They rejected a 6/10 policy, forced a 7/10 policy on Labor, and the country will now end up with a 3/10 policy.

Who's better off in the end? Nobody except Abbott and big business. They could have compromised better on the first ETS, and tried to build from there. It's easier to go from 6 to 10 than it is from 3 to 10.

That's not how preferences work. The Greens are free to preference Libs or other right-wing nutters over Labor. But if they do, it will hurt them for breaking their ideology, which, as demonstrated in their policy decisions, is their only selling point.

Labor can comfortably rely on those preferences, because you will be hard pressed to find a Green voter who would prefer Liberal to Labor. However, many Labor people may prefer Liberal to Greens running the country.

And the reality is the Melbourne if have a risk of going to the Libs by Labor and the Greens splitting the vote, depending who got knocked out first, because of the haphazard way the preferences could flow.

Personally I am closer to the Greens platform in policy preference. But as a party they too often act as a special interest group or a protest group, and not as country-managers.

That to put it simply is completely false. What Labor and the Liberals agreed to in 2009 was nothing more than a farce. It would have done jack shit to lower emissions in Australia. That was the reason the Liberals agreed to it in the first place, so Malcolm Turnbull (the reason for his excessive popularity I will never understand) could feel good about himself while accomplishing nothing. I'd give this policy a 2/10 frankly.

If you think the current policy was merely forced upon Labor while the Greens didn't compromise anything is simply a fallacy. First off do you really think the Greens wanted a 5% reduction by 2020? Of course not their target is much bigger than that. Not to mention the excessive subsidies that the coal industry still get. The current carbon tax was as a whole a product of compromise. This one deserves a 6/10.

Tony Abbott's plan is so useless and wasteful it isn't even worth pursuing even if they dump the carbon tax and really it is a 0/10

Shit for that matter what about the mining tax was another example of compromise by the Greens. We know they wanted a bigger tax than the MRRT gave but they bit the bullet and voted for it anyway.

 

[Elaugaufein]

That to put it simply is completely false. What Labor and the Liberals agreed to in 2009 was nothing more than a farce. It would have done jack shit to lower emissions in Australia. That was the reason the Liberals agreed to it in the first place, so Malcolm Turnbull (the reason for his excessive popularity I will never understand) could feel good about himself while accomplishing nothing. I'd give this policy a 2/10 frankly.

If you think the current policy was merely forced upon Labor while the Greens didn't compromise anything is simply a fallacy. First off do you really think the Greens wanted a 5% reduction by 2020? Of course not their target is much bigger than that. Not to mention the excessive subsidies that the coal industry still get. The current carbon tax was as a whole a product of compromise. This one deserves a 6/10.

Tony Abbott's plan is so useless and wasteful it isn't even worth pursuing even if they dump the carbon tax and really it is a 0/10

Shit for that matter what about the mining tax was another example of compromise by the Greens. We know they wanted a bigger tax than the MRRT gave but they bit the bullet and voted for it anyway.

I'm pretty sure that giving Abbot's direct action plan a 0/10 is being generous. He's throwing money to large polluters and nicely asking them to pollute less. I'd want to at least not be throwing money down the drain for no gain to award a 0/10.

 

[D.Lo]

That to put it simply is completely false. What Labor and the Liberals agreed to in 2009 was nothing more than a farce. It would have done jack shit to lower emissions in Australia. That was the reason the Liberals agreed to it in the first place, so Malcolm Turnbull (the reason for his excessive popularity I will never understand) could feel good about himself while accomplishing nothing. I'd give this policy a 2/10 frankly.

If you think the current policy was merely forced upon Labor while the Greens didn't compromise anything is simply a fallacy. First off do you really think the Greens wanted a 5% reduction by 2020? Of course not their target is much bigger than that. Not to mention the excessive subsidies that the coal industry still get. The current carbon tax was as a whole a product of compromise. This one deserves a 6/10.

Tony Abbott's plan is so useless and wasteful it isn't even worth pursuing even if they dump the carbon tax and really it is a 0/10

Shit for that matter what about the mining tax was another example of compromise by the Greens. We know they wanted a bigger tax than the MRRT gave but they bit the bullet and voted for it anyway.

It was just an example to demonstrate a larger point. You can disagree with the values, but the point still stands, they'll end up with, in your ratings, a 0/10 scheme for quite a few years now. In fact Abbott's one is even worse than that, it may work to some small extent (buying changed behaviour), but he's paying business to do it? Bleugh, middle class welfare for business.

 

[Dryk]

It continues to baffle me how the conservatives are trying to dismantle a program that generates market forces and install a giant money sink. I fear that they know full-well it's not going to work and they just see it as a $3 billion (and dropping) write-off to get more votes.

 

[Elaugaufein]

It continues to baffle me how the conservatives are trying to dismantle a program that generates market forces and install a giant money sink. I fear that they know full-well it's not going to work and they just see it as a $3 billion (and dropping) write-off to get more votes.

I don't think you'll even find the Liberal's needing to "write off" a $3 billion give me to business as a way to get more votes. "Giving more to business" is practically the LNP mantra.

 

[hidys]

It was just an example to demonstrate a larger point. You can disagree with the values, but the point still stands, they'll end up with, in your ratings, a 0/10 scheme for quite a few years now. In fact Abbott's one is even worse than that, it may work to some small extent (buying changed behaviour), but he's paying business to do it? Bleugh, middle class welfare for business.

Your point above seemed to indicate that there was only a marginal difference between the two schemes, which there wasn't and that the Greens don't compromise, which they do. The only policy which will have any meaningful impact on emissions is the current one (which also has an 80% reduction by 2050). Why should the Greens have voted for policy which would not have had any meaningful impact long term? Just so the Coalition don't ruin it? Fuck the Coalition most of them don't support doing a goddamn thing on climate change. Also your assuming another key point which is that the Turnbull agreement would have stayed in place. Tony Abbott may very well have tried to repeal that once he got in.

Climate Change is too serious an issue to put in the too hard basket because it is politically inconvenient to do something about it.

As a side point I really don't think the Coalition is going to go through with its Direct Action. The current mad fuckers in the senate like the Motoring Enthusiasts won't accept it and I hope Labor and the Greens vote against it.

I'm pretty sure that giving Abbot's direct action plan a 0/10 is being generous. He's throwing money to large polluters and nicely asking them to pollute less. I'd want to at least not be throwing money down the drain for no gain to award a 0/10.

I can't give it a negative score because at least (as far as I know) it doesn't increase emissions.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Your point above seemed to indicate that there was only a marginal difference between the two schemes, which there wasn't and that the Greens don't compromise, which they do. The only policy which will have any meaningful impact on emissions is the current one (which also has an 80% reduction by 2050). Why should the Greens have voted for policy which would not have had any meaningful impact long term? Just so the Coalition don't ruin it? Fuck the Coalition most of them don't support doing a goddamn thing on climate change. Also your assuming another key point which is that the Turnbull agreement would have stayed in place. Tony Abbott may very well have tried to repeal that once he got in.

Climate Change is too serious an issue to put in the too hard basket because it is politically inconvenient to do something about it.

As a side point I really don't think the Coalition is going to go through with its Direct Action. The current mad fuckers in the senate like the Motoring Enthusiasts won't accept it and I hope Labor and the Greens vote against it.



I can't give it a negative score because at least (as far as I know) it doesn't increase emissions.

Ahh kay. You're just rating it in terms of effect on the environment. I was evaluating it as policy and docking points for wasting money.

 

[hidys]

Ahh kay. You're just rating it in terms of effect on the environment. I was evaluating it as policy and docking points for wasting money.

Perhaps your right but these weren't numbers that I meticulously thought up they were really just pulled from my ass and reflect my general feelings (like review scores) on each of these policies. My main point was that it is so shit that it isn't worth pursuing under any circumstances. Plus it may at least have some environmental benefits to it (there will be more tress and carbon sequestration is not the worst thing). Christ I've just read the policy from their website to try and get at least some detail and it just reads like a bunch of slogans (green army, "Reducing carbon emissions inside Australia, not overseas"). Its like all they've done is ask some focus groups from Western Sydney what should be done about climate change and this is the result.

 

[hidys]

Albo now has an official website http://www.alboforleader.com/. You can even "endorse" him which seems like the equivalent of an internet petition. I wonder where Shorten's is? Is that man even trying to win the rank and file vote?

 

[D.Lo]

Your point above seemed to indicate that there was only a marginal difference between the two schemes, which there wasn't and that the Greens don't compromise, which they do. The only policy which will have any meaningful impact on emissions is the current one (which also has an 80% reduction by 2050). Why should the Greens have voted for policy which would not have had any meaningful impact long term? Just so the Coalition don't ruin it? Fuck the Coalition most of them don't support doing a goddamn thing on climate change. Also your assuming another key point which is that the Turnbull agreement would have stayed in place. Tony Abbott may very well have tried to repeal that once he got in.

Climate Change is too serious an issue to put in the too hard basket because it is politically inconvenient to do something about it.

As a side point I really don't think the Coalition is going to go through with its Direct Action. The current mad fuckers in the senate like the Motoring Enthusiasts won't accept it and I hope Labor and the Greens vote against it.

I don't agree with your assessment of the relative merits of the policies, I think the Rudd Turnbull one could have been built on if it had stood, as something through with at least partial bipartisan support.

I also disagree about not the seriousness of the issue, but about the way it was handled. Rudd was forced, by the Greens, to shelve a key policy, that made him look weak, which hurt his polling, which gave Shorten/Abib/Gillard an excuse to decapitate their party. Which eventually has lead to the 0/10 policy and no hope of anything better until 2016 at the earliest. Had they got on board in 2009, I really can't see what would've happened to climate change policy being in a worse position than it is today.

But was keen on skipping that argument because it wasn't my main point, it was just one example of what I've found annoying about the Greens.

 

[hidys]

I don't agree with your assessment of the relative merits of the policies, I think the Rudd Turnbull one could have been built on if it had stood, as something through with at least partial bipartisan support.

I also disagree about not the seriousness of the issue, but about the way it was handled. Rudd was forced, by the Greens, to shelve a key policy, that made him look weak, which hurt his polling, which gave Shorten/Abib/Gillard an excuse to decapitate their party. Which eventually has lead to the 0/10 policy and no hope of anything better until 2016 at the earliest. Had they got on board in 2009, I really can't see what would've happened to climate change policy being in a worse position than it is today.

But was keen on skipping that argument because it wasn't my main point, it was just one example of what I've found annoying about the Greens.

I find it highly unlikely that the policy would have been improved upon, given that it was the LIbs who watered it down in the first place.

Rudd wasn't forced to do anything. He could have done to a double-dissolution on the issue (which he would have won easily) but he didn't he chose to shelve the issue and as a consequence his polling fell.

I also firmly believe that the reason the carbon tax became so unpopular was that Labor were shit at trying to sell the thing. They didn't even try to show that a carbon tax is basically the same thing as an ETS, except one has a fixed price the other has a floating price. Why was everyone on board with this in 2009 but in 2011 everyone lost their shit?

The key arguments against the Greens are that they are uncompromising (not the case) and that they are some how extreme (not saying that this is your view but some time ago Peter Martin wrote an article showing that this is not the case). This just isn't the case they are by far the most sensible party in the parliament today.

 

[wonzo]

I can't give it a negative score because at least (as far as I know) it doesn't increase emissions.

I'm p. sure emissions are still going to increase by at least 9%.

Modelling by Sinclair Knight Merz/MMA for The Climate Institute found the Coalition would have to find at least another $4bn for its climate policy or else break its pledge to cut emissions by 5% by 2020 and instead allow them to increase by 9%.

 

[markot]

Albo now has an official website http://www.alboforleader.com/. You can even "endorse" him which seems like the equivalent of an internet petition. I wonder where Shorten's is? Is that man even trying to win the rank and file vote?

>_< did he make that website himself?

 

[hidys]

I'm p. sure emissions are still going to increase by at least 9%.

The policy itself doesn't increase emissions. That happens of its own accord.

>_< did he make that website himself?

Well I can't imagine he has the technical wizardry to set up a website himself. He is basically trying to run a campaign to get members to vote for him, so having a website is probably better than not. I maintain that it is more pathetic for Shorten to not have a website than it is for Albo to have one.

 

[roosters93]

There is this
http://letsbackbill.nationbuilder.com

 

[hidys]

There is this
http://letsbackbill.nationbuilder.com

Man that is a piss poor website. It appears they both use NationBuiler to make there websites but at least Albo put some thought into his.

 

[Dryk]

#stoptheroads

A week after Tony Abbott won the federal election, motorists will now feel the full impact of the escalating row between the Commonwealth and State Governments.

Work is already advanced on the Torrens Rd bottleneck but the Abbott Government wants to green-light the upgrade of the southern Darlington section.

This means the State Government must submit plans to Infrastructure Australia, with a turnaround time for final approval of at least 12 months, meaning that work must cease at Torrens Rd as there are no guarantees of ongoing funding for that northern section.

The worst case scenario is that work will even cease until as late as May 2015.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/motorists-face-12month-delay-to-all-works-on-south-road/story-fni6uo1m-1226719307750


I said it before the election and I'll say it again. He will be known as an infrastructure Prime Minister, but not in the way he thinks.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Man that is a piss poor website. It appears they both use NationBuiler to make there websites but at least Albo put some thought into his.

I can't help but feel that they're both deliberately going for a simple grassroots feel for this. Beyond the designs, "Let's back Bill" and "Albo for Leader" are both pretty folksy names. Also, the website doesn't have to be too flash when it's basically a social media portal with a one month use-by date on it.

 

[roosters93]

Another quality piece by Paul Sheehan.

 

[DrSlek]

I had my parents over for lunch on Saturday. They've never voted for the LNP in their life until this election because apparently "labor were hopeless".

A Labor cantidate won their seat anyway, so no major harm done.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Another quality piece by Paul Sheehan.

Confirmation Bias 101: An Exploration Through Irony.

 

[CrazedProfessional]

Joe Hockey confirms he'll delay the mid-year budget to late January. I guess Budget Emergencies can wait, or maybe they're waiting to find a biased auditor like they did in Queensland.

 

[Dead Man]

Another quality piece by Paul Sheehan.

Why did you make me click it Utter tripe.

Joe Hockey confirms he'll delay the mid-year budget to late January. I guess Budget Emergencies can wait, or maybe they're waiting to find a biased auditor like they did in Queensland.

That's not how budgets are supposed to work Joe.

 

[Jintor]

I scanned that Sheehan article quickly and it looks like he's never been exposed to the internet before. I could find him some equally vitriolic sites about how Bayonetta 2 shouldn't have been on the Wii U if he likes

 

[BumblebeeCody]

There is this
http://letsbackbill.nationbuilder.com

It has red white and blue, therefore, it's for the country!

 

[Dead Man]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-15/tony-abbott-set-to-announce-frontbench/4959184

Liberal Party elder Bronwyn Bishop has been nominated for the role of Speaker, with Mr Abbott saying she will help return dignity to parliament.

Yes, it will help when opposition members aren't scurrying out like school kids top avoid having votes counted. :/

 

[Rubixcuba]

Another quality piece by Paul Sheehan.

The equivalent of an old man yelling at clouds. Get Up and the Greens are far left radicals? Okay then buddy.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I scanned that Sheehan article quickly and it looks like he's never been exposed to the internet before. I could find him some equally vitriolic sites about how Bayonetta 2 shouldn't have been on the Wii U if he likes

Haha.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-1...tbench/4959184

Yes, it will help when opposition members aren't scurrying out like school kids top avoid having votes counted. :/

Is Pyne going to become Leader of the House? I wonder what he'll do when they can no longer waste time with failed attempts to suspend standing orders. I also like how the Coalition are either implying that Anna Burke was an undignified speaker or just glossing over her time in the role completely. Rewriting history, one day at a time.

 

[Dryk]

Julie Bishop continues to wield the sledgehammer of diplomacy

"What we have in place is a series of policies that we intend to implement by legislation and operationally, and they will not breach Indonesia's sovereignty," she said.

"We're not asking for Indonesia's permission, we're asking for their understanding.

"Of course all relationships require managing, but there is a level of mutual respect between Indonesia and Australia and we will maintain that.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-...esia-for-understanding-not-permission/4959976

 

[Jintor]

Huh. ACT pushing to legalise same-sex marriage. Interesting.

Don't know what the legal form will take, given that the amended Marriage Act (Cth) defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman, but I assume it'll follow the legislation that was attempted to be introduced in Tasmania a few months back in not actually calling it 'marriage' as such.

Also, fuck the ACL.

 

[bobnowhere]

Huh. ACT pushing to legalise same-sex marriage. Interesting.

Don't know what the legal form will take, given that the amended Marriage Act (Cth) defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman, but I assume it'll follow the legislation that was attempted to be introduced in Tasmania a few months back in not actually calling it 'marriage' as such.

Also, fuck the ACL.

This is 4th or 5th time they have tried and the Federal Parliament have knocked it back every time. From memory, once or twice by Howard, once by Rudd and once more by Gillard. Because the ACT is not a state, the federal minister in charge of the territories has the final say and will knock it back again.

Edit: Lol, sorry didn't read the end of the article. It seems they have changed the law and territory laws can only be struck down by a vote from both houses now. Interesting, I can't see the Labor/green majority voting to change it back even with Conroy still there, so they may have to wait for the right-wing nut parties to take over next July.

 

[bomma_man]

Huh. ACT pushing to legalise same-sex marriage. Interesting.

Don't know what the legal form will take, given that the amended Marriage Act (Cth) defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman, but I assume it'll follow the legislation that was attempted to be introduced in Tasmania a few months back in not actually calling it 'marriage' as such.

Also, fuck the ACL.

I think that definition will probably be amended soon. It would allow states to do what they want but still somewhat appease the conservative fuckheads. In essence make it more like the current American situation.

 

[Jintor]

Well, the news is out. Porfolio is live.

Warren Entch (Former Opposition whip) is chairing a committee on Northern Australia. Phillip Ruddock is the new whip. Bronwyn Bishop is Speaker.

Mathias Cormann - Finance Minister.
Andrew Robb - Trade Minister.
Warren Truss (Deputy PM) - Infrastructure and Regional Development.
Julie Bishop - Foreign Minister
Barnaby Joyce - Agriculture.
Joe Hockey - Treasurer
Christopher Pyne - Education (LOL)
Peter Dutton - Health and Sports
Scott Morrison - Immigration and Border Control
Greg Hunt - Environment Minister
Malcolm Turnbull - Communications and Broadband
Eric Abetz - Employment
George Brandis - Arts / Attorney-General
Nigel Scullion - Indigenous Affairs
Kevin Andrews - Social Services
Bruce Billson - Small Business
David Johnston - Defence

Arthur Sinodinos is in the Junior Ministry.

Ian Macdonald and Teresa Gambaro are out on their ear.

No Science minister. Abbott is saying it's been folded into Education and Trade (whoops) Industry (re: the CSIRO). Probably will attract some criticism because Bishop is the only lady in the cabinet, but eh, that's the LNP for you. No mention on reshuffling department heads atm. No commentary on Indonesian relations, but he wants to jet over asap.

No talk about 'buying fishing boats' either.

Full list here, including Outer Ministry and Secretaries.

 

[CrazedProfessional]

No Youth Ministry, No Early Childhood Ministry, No Science Ministry, No Climate Change Ministry, No Disability Ministry, No Aged Care Ministry, No Workplace Relations Ministry BUT there's a Minister for ANZAC Day!

 

[HolyCheck]

No Science minister. Abbott is saying it's been folded into Education and Trade (re: the CSIRO). Probably will attract some criticism because Bishop is the only lady in the cabinet, but eh, that's the LNP for you. No mention on reshuffling department heads atm. No commentary on Indonesian relations, but he wants to jet over asap.

No talk about 'buying fishing boats' either.

Not the full list yet, give me a tick.

If they believe that those they have chosen are the best for the job, why the hell should their gender matter at all?

I'm not saying you are, but others will be saying shit about them not selecting women. Why should they select women just because they're women.

 

[Jintor]

If they believe that those they have chosen are the best for the job, why the hell should their gender matter at all?

I'm not saying you are, but others will be saying shit about them not selecting women. Why should they select women just because they're women.

Right, women shouldn't be token appointments, but by the same metric it means that there aren't any women in the LNP that are the best for the job and that should in itself kind of be worrying.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I think that definition will probably be amended soon. It would allow states to do what they want but still somewhat appease the conservative fuckheads. In essence make it more like the current American situation.

I doubt it. Abbott is not in favor of SSM, at least one of the right wing Senators he's going to need to court next year is at least as disapproving as Abbott. Essentially there's no motivation for it to happen.

The equivalent of an old man yelling at clouds. Get Up and the Greens are far left radicals? Okay then buddy.

I kind of want to try an experiment where I get an LNP member, a populist centrist, an ALP Right winger , an ALP left winger, a Green , a Socialist and a Communist , and see where the ability of these people to distinguish the nuance in left-wing politics goes over a cliff.

No Youth Ministry, No Early Childhood Ministry, No Science Ministry, No Climate Change Ministry, No Disability Ministry, No Aged Care Ministry, No Workplace Relations Ministry BUT there's a Minister for ANZAC Day!

Given this is a Coalition government you should probably be happy there's no Climate Change or Workplace Relations Ministry given that their primary role in those areas would be to beat them around the head on a constant basis.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Double Post

 

[Omikron]

No Youth Ministry, No Early Childhood Ministry, No Science Ministry, No Climate Change Ministry, No Disability Ministry, No Aged Care Ministry, No Workplace Relations Ministry BUT there's a Minister for ANZAC Day!

LNP took a big dump on early childhood education 2 days before the election, so this is not surprising.

 

[hidys]

No Youth Ministry, No Early Childhood Ministry, No Science Ministry, No Climate Change Ministry, No Disability Ministry, No Aged Care Ministry, No Workplace Relations Ministry BUT there's a Minister for ANZAC Day!

Back to the Howard era...

EDIT: I've just found out that this is not the first time we've had an ANZAC Day minister. Warren Snowdon held it at one time during the last government. But the exceptionally important portfolio of sport has moved from the outer ministry to the cabinet. Finally this country has the correct priorities!!!

 

[Dryk]

No Science minister. Abbott is saying it's been folded into Education and Trade (whoops) Industry (re: the CSIRO).

Well I can see that I'm not wanted here.

 

[Jintor]

At least that prat Dennis Jensen didn't get the portfolio

 

[hidys]

At least that prat Dennis Jensen didn't get the portfolio

Yeah instead we have another climate change skeptic heading the CSIRO. YAY!!!

Not true sorry for the misinformation.

 

[Jintor]

Adding onto the MIA Ministries: Citizenship, Multicultural Affairs, and International Development. (??? Status: Status of Women portfolio, little known and now quietly swept under a rug apparently)

But now we've got a fucking ministry for border protection so GLORY TO ARSTOTZKA

Note that Abbott has stated that the CSIRO will go under the Industry portfolio, but who knows regarding the Australian Research Council?

 

[saunderez]

But now we've got a fucking ministry for border protection so GLORY TO ARSTOTZKA

Oh man that job would be perfect for me. I've got a heart of ice, ain't nobody getting through my checkpoint without valid documentation.

 

[Arozay]

Oh man that job would be perfect for me. I've got a heart of ice, ain't nobody getting through my checkpoint without valid documentation.

Glory to Arstotzka!

 

[Ventron]

Seriously? Ministerial titles are what everyone is up in arms about? Just because it's not spelled out doesn't mean it won't be dealt with. I for one think it's a relief that we no longer have a government whose solution to everything is to assign a minister for it (Minister of sustainable population, Minister of cities...)

 

[Myansie]

If they believe that those they have chosen are the best for the job, why the hell should their gender matter at all?

I'm not saying you are, but others will be saying shit about them not selecting women. Why should they select women just because they're women.

I count 41 positions and 4 women. Are you arguing that all 37 of those men are smarter and more capable than the 5th most capable woman in the country?

He's had 4 years to fix this, it's disgusting. These people are supposed to be representative of the country, instead we have 38 old heterosexual wealthy white men. Who's interests are they going to vote for? By the admission of their own ideology, in their own self interest.

Misogynist indeed.