• Government given double dissolution trigger as Clean Energy Finance Corporation abolition bill voted
    31 replies, posted
[quote]Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been handed his first double dissolution trigger but it appears it will not be used. The Greens and Labor today combined to vote down, by a margin of 35–28, bills which seek to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), a multi-billion-dollar agency which funds renewable technology developments and projects. It is the second time they have combined to vote down the bills, meaning the Government could use the issue to call a full Senate and lower house election. Greens leader Christine Milne has dared Mr Abbott to act on the result. "Go to an election on it, that's what I say," she said. But senior Government Minister Julie Bishop has given a strong indication the Coalition will not call a double dissolution election. "Just because you're given a trigger, it doesn't mean you have to ... pull it," she said. "I think the Australian people ... were sick and tired of the instability and the uncertainty that was the hallmark of the last at least five years." In a joint statement, Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann accused Labor and the Greens of acting in defiance of the election result by voting against the legislation. They say the Coalition will introduce the bill again next week. "The Government does not believe it is appropriate to keep borrowing money to underwrite a $10 billion taxpayer funded bank that cherry picks investments in direct competition with the private sector," the statement said. [/quote] [url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-18/abbott-government-given-first-double-dissolution-trigger/5532358]Source[/url] Do it Abbott, pull the trigger. It's pressed right against your temple.
[QUOTE=The Aussie;45142067] Do it Abbott, pull the trigger. It's pressed right against your temple.[/QUOTE] I really wish he'd off himself. Instead I'll have to settle for an early election. At what point will an election be forced I wonder?
As far as i know, only the government or the governor general can do it. I'm pretty sure abbott isn't delusional enough to call an election, although i'm not so sure the governor general will do it. He may though, one can only hope.
This cunt decides to call a DD he's going to be ousted immediately, the amount of bullshit and embarrassment this man has brought us is revolting
[QUOTE=download;45142102]I really wish he'd off himself. Instead I'll have to settle for an early election. At what point will an election be forced I wonder?[/QUOTE] Hey atleast you guys don´t have [I]2 early elections[/I] in a row. [editline]18th June 2014[/editline] 4 early elections in 4 years*
[QUOTE]The Greens and Labor today combined to vote down, by a margin of 35–28[/QUOTE] If they can out-vote the government, why don't they just have a vote of no-confidence?
[QUOTE=The mouse;45142231]If they can out-vote the government, why don't they just have a vote of no-confidence?[/QUOTE] They have two houses with apparently different election times which means they can have a stalemate on bills without getting the majority in the house that controls the no-confidence vote (or so I assume from the article, I don't actually know much about Australian politics). Something like this can happen in Germany too due to its federal nature, but I'm not sure how the houses are filled in Australia so I have no idea if the reason is similar.
He's not going to do it, obviously. The senate swaps over soon so they're fine from then on and he can pass a lot more and finally get shit done. If we had an election every time the public starts disliking a government we'd have one every year. He was elected for a term and will be staying for it, the coalition have more unity and support for their PM's than labor so I highly doubt there will be a leadership spill. But if labor wants any chance at winning the next election they need someone better than Shorten.
[QUOTE=Tasm;45142322]He's not going to do it, obviously. The senate swaps over soon so they're fine from then on and he can pass a lot more and finally get shit done.[/QUOTE] but the shit he wants done is starting to be frowned upon by his own party that's saying something
[QUOTE=Tamschi;45142292]They have two houses with apparently different election times which means they can have a stalemate on bills without getting the majority in the house that controls the no-confidence vote (or so I assume from the article, I don't actually know much about Australian politics). Something like this can happen in Germany too due to its federal nature, but I'm not sure how the houses are filled in Australia so I have no idea if the reason is similar.[/QUOTE] Elections for both the Senate and Parliament happen every three years at the same time but seats on the Senate last 6 years so only 50% of them come up for voting each election.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;45142332]but the shit he wants done is starting to be frowned upon by his own party that's saying something[/QUOTE] Not really. Happens in every government, not everyone agrees with everything. And that brings better transparency imo, lets the bills be criticized more harshly. Plus the coalition is made up of the liberals and nationals so ofc there's a slight divide in interests. However there won't be anything like a leadership spill, and if there was I would be genuinely surprised.
[QUOTE=Tasm;45142322]He's not going to do it, obviously. The senate swaps over soon so they're fine from then on and he can pass a lot more and finally get shit done. If we had an election every time the public starts disliking a government we'd have one every year. He was elected for a term and will be staying for it, the coalition have more unity and support for their PM's than labor so I highly doubt there will be a leadership spill. But if labor wants any chance at winning the next election they need someone better than Shorten.[/QUOTE] I don't think it's an issue of not liking the government. It's the issue of people being fucked for a non-existent debt crisis, Abbott, more than once, outright lying to Australia on camera, and the government literally not giving a flying fuck about what they got voted in to do, and breaking promises faster than i've ever seen.
[QUOTE=The Aussie;45142427]I don't think it's an issue of not liking the government. It's the issue of people being fucked for a non-existent debt crisis, Abbott, more than once, outright lying to Australia on camera, and the government literally not giving a flying fuck about what they got voted in to do, and breaking promises faster than i've ever seen.[/QUOTE] You're not 4 years old. So it's probably not the fastest you've ever seen. It's repeated through history and it's a sad fact about politics. However the debt crisis is not false, there's just not a huge urgency with it, people don't like when the government cuts spending. That's a given, but three years is not a long time and if the people don't like it, it's going to be righted in the next term if it hasn't been before then already. Hell, a lot of good is coming from the budget too, long term investments and short term infrastructure investments which was actually desperately needed. Not saying it's all fine and dandy, it needs work. But yeah you basically summed up every government in Australia's history
I wouldn't really say that the debt crisis isn't false. We've actually got significantly lower debt compared to other OECD countries. I'm quit worried about his blatant disregard for the environment, such as his plans to dredge the GBR for a larger coal port, or his retarded climate change denial. Also, read this, you might find it [url=http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/is-australia-run-by-compulsive-liars-part-two-abbotts-astonishing-30-lies,6398]interesting.[/url] [editline]18th June 2014[/editline] On infrastructure, he did a great job neutering our tech sector for the next few years. I'm quite pissed about that too.
[QUOTE=The Aussie;45142577]I wouldn't really say that the debt crisis isn't false. We've actually got significantly lower debt compared to other OECD countries. I'm quit worried about his blatant disregard for the environment, such as his plans to dredge the GBR for a larger coal port, or his retarded climate change denial. Also, read this, you might find it [url=http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/is-australia-run-by-compulsive-liars-part-two-abbotts-astonishing-30-lies,6398]interesting.[/url] [editline]18th June 2014[/editline] On infrastructure, he did a great job neutering our tech sector for the next few years. I'm quite pissed about that too.[/QUOTE] That link is bollocks, plain and simple. It's a bias article with bias content, not in the least surprised. Let me go link you some pre election Murdoch stuff, you'll find some of that interesting too!! Hell maybe you might support such an all round cool guy and bestleaderforaustralia like Abbott after that ?! And like I said, it needs work. I'm well aware of what is wrong with it.
Oh course it's biased. But part of being able to look at a source well is removing that bias. [editline]18th June 2014[/editline] Just because it's biased (a centre left leaning publication in Australia, whoops) doesn't make it's core message any less true. If you don't mind me asking, what's your political affiliation?
[QUOTE=download;45142102]I really wish he'd off himself. Instead I'll have to settle for an early election. At what point will an election be forced I wonder?[/QUOTE] It will be my third time voting in the Federal election (WA had some problems with senate voting) and these were just after voting for the state government. But I don't care a single bit, I'll rather vote to rid Abbott [editline]18th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Tasm;45142322] But if labor wants any chance at winning the next election they need someone better than Shorten.[/QUOTE] I agree, he was also involved in the whole Gillard-Rudd mess.
[QUOTE=The Aussie;45142726]Oh course it's biased. But part of being able to look at a source well is removing that bias. [editline]18th June 2014[/editline] Just because it's biased (a centre left leaning publication in Australia, whoops) doesn't make it's core message any less true. If you don't mind me asking, what's your political affiliation?[/QUOTE] Yes, I do mind you asking. Would you like to judge and jump on me and tell me everything wrong with the coalition if I say them, and tell me how I'm an idiot and a bad person for saying I support them? For a matter of fact I don't affiliate with any party. They're both terrible, and I make sure I judge after their term is complete whether or not I still want them in. I vote for the party I agree most with. My decision is also based on their past records, and who their ministers are. I also look for the qualifications of the ministers. I voted coalition last election on the pretense I knew most of this would happen as well, in a similar fashion. I'm not surprised at what has happened but I think this public backlash is beneficial to LNP tweaking their policies. While I don't like many aspects, and they could have chose a better leader, when it comes down to the current alternative, I would apprehensively vote LNP still. I am very happy with one aspect of the budget more than anything else though, as I'm in the field of biomedical research, which really did need a long term funding boost.
Generally knowing someones political affiliation makes it easier to debate them. I asked you politely, so please don't jump down my throat. I don't really get how you knew that the coalition would do most of this shit and you voted for them anyway. I understood it benefited your industry, but would you argue that the changes made by the budget made up for it? I wouldn't. I'm extremely against the party because of the downright ridiculous corporate pandering that the coalition has shown itself to be subject too. What does it say when a party would prefer to protect the interests of corporations rather than the working class citizen, what are we supposed to do? What the fuck am i supposed to do when i leave university? Thanks tony for shrinking the funding for the sectors i'm going into. What the fuck am i supposed to do about this lovely debt, the inevitable rise of living costs? What if God forbid, i can't find a job in this market? I'm fucked aren't i? I'm going to be living with my parents until i'm bloody 25 at this rate. I live in the most expensive city in australia, and i'm fucked. Fucked. It's not just me either, it's every other bloody person in my cohort, whether they know it or not.
[QUOTE=The Aussie;45143045]Generally knowing someones political affiliation makes it easier to debate them. I asked you politely, so please don't jump down my throat. I don't really get how you knew that the coalition would do most of this shit and you voted for them anyway. I understood it benefited your industry, but would you argue that the changes made by the budget made up for it? I wouldn't. I'm extremely against the party because of the downright ridiculous corporate pandering that the coalition has shown itself to be subject too. What does it say when a party would prefer to protect the interests of corporations rather than the working class citizen, what are we supposed to do? What the fuck am i supposed to do when i leave university? Thanks tony for shrinking the funding for the sectors i'm going into. What the fuck am i supposed to do about this lovely debt, the inevitable rise of living costs? What if God forbid, i can't find a job in this market? I'm fucked aren't i? I'm going to be living with my parents until i'm bloody 25 at this rate. I live in the most expensive city in australia, and i'm fucked. Fucked. It's not just me either, it's every other bloody person in my cohort, whether they know it or not.[/QUOTE] Welcome to the fucked club! Would you like a complimentary nothing for joining? It's helping my field yes, but I was viewing that from a standpoint where it would benefit everyone, not just my pockets. Being in medical research doesn't guarantee a job, we've got to work on almost minimum pay until we get a lot higher up as well, and rely on funding grants. I'm actually going to be living at home until 28, sucks. But it's not directly the government's fault for that, they aren't killing off industries for the sake of it, they're pulling funding for projects that aren't self sustainable. Yes that sucks, but companies need to be sustainable on their own to a degree. It's not like the money goes into thin air, the money you have had taken away has been placed elsewhere and given jobs in other areas, yes that does suck. But join the club, I've been about a year without a stable income because of the small amount of research grants being given out. But yeah, if you can't get a job, do what everyone else does. Study more, or move. It sucks ass but that's all there is, you can't rely on the government or you'll keep being disappointed like myself. I chose to not move because I thought there would be ample opportunities in Brisbane (boy was I wrong). Hell, I've been looking at getting a second job at a retail store for extra cash on the side of being a lab assistant (I'm overqualified for that too, that's just all I can get here and it's not even full time).
I feel bond villain Tony is always relevant. [img]http://i.imgur.com/0Pknw8s.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Tasm;45143168]Welcome to the fucked club! Would you like a complimentary nothing for joining? It's helping my field yes, but I was viewing that from a standpoint where it would benefit everyone, not just my pockets. Being in medical research doesn't guarantee a job, we've got to work on almost minimum pay until we get a lot higher up as well, and rely on funding grants. I'm actually going to be living at home until 28, sucks. But it's not directly the government's fault for that, they aren't killing off industries for the sake of it, they're pulling funding for projects that aren't self sustainable. Yes that sucks, but companies need to be sustainable on their own to a degree. It's not like the money goes into thin air, the money you have had taken away has been placed elsewhere and given jobs in other areas, yes that does suck. But join the club, I've been about a year without a stable income because of the small amount of research grants being given out. But yeah, if you can't get a job, do what everyone else does. Study more, or move. It sucks ass but that's all there is, you can't rely on the government or you'll keep being disappointed like myself. I chose to not move because I thought there would be ample opportunities in Brisbane (boy was I wrong). Hell, I've been looking at getting a second job at a retail store for extra cash on the side of being a lab assistant (I'm overqualified for that too, that's just all I can get here and it's not even full time).[/QUOTE] Shit sucks for all of us. I'm worried about my future, i'm assuming you are to at least some degree, and so are most of my cohort. I've really ticked off about this CEFC thing though, since the government insists on shutting it down now because it's a money sink, but because it's green energy. The group actually gave a 7% profit in 2013. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Energy_Finance_Corporation]Source. Yes it's wikipedia but the figure is cited.[/url] Anyway, it's late. Thanks for the debate, it was fun.
relevant [IMG]http://thatsace.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/thatsace_tonyabbott.gif[/IMG]
So many big words in the title I had to click the thread to know if it was good or bad.
I've been yearning for a double dissolution since the election. I hope GG Cosgrove gets a phone call from Abbott in the near future.
I know in Canada, almost every motion put before the house is a confidence motion, so if shit got shot down, the government collapses. Don't know if that's how it works in Aus, after all, I'm not a suppository of all wisdom.
[QUOTE=The mouse;45142231]If they can out-vote the government, why don't they just have a vote of no-confidence?[/QUOTE] The vote that failed happened in the Senate, which is voted in via a proportional vote rather than the House that is voted in via a majoritarian system. It means that the House tends to swing between governance by the Coalition or Labor, while no party ever holds a majority in the Senate. A vote of no-confidence can only occur in the House, where government is formed. [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;45145347]I know in Canada, almost every motion put before the house is a confidence motion, so if shit got shot down, the government collapses. Don't know if that's how it works in Aus, after all, I'm not a suppository of all wisdom.[/QUOTE] The vote that failed happened in the Senate, not the House. If this failed in the House then that would effectively be lack of confidence and the government would have to resign. [editline]19th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Tasm;45142322]He's not going to do it, obviously. The senate swaps over soon so they're fine from then on and he can pass a lot more and finally get shit done. If we had an election every time the public starts disliking a government we'd have one every year. He was elected for a term and will be staying for it, the coalition have more unity and support for their PM's than labor so I highly doubt there will be a leadership spill. But if labor wants any chance at winning the next election they need someone better than Shorten.[/QUOTE] The Coalition is actually one seat worse-off in the new Senate and would have to negotiate with Palmer's Senators, and Palmer himself has said he disagrees with many aspects of the budget. Labor doesn't need to get rid of Shorten to secure a majority in the next election. Abbott effectively guaranteed a Labor victory by lying worse than Labor has ever done before, and being out of touch with the Australian people while claiming they have a mandate to do whatever they want. The reality is that the Senate better reflects the mandate of the Australian people, and it has just shot down this legislation.
[QUOTE=Ta16;45143223]I feel bond villain Tony is always relevant. [img]http://i.imgur.com/0Pknw8s.png[/img][/QUOTE] This picture is fucking great but I feel like Bond needs a new face as well. Who is Tony sawing in half? Plenty of options there I bet.
Rudd maybe?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45148694] The Coalition is actually one seat worse-off in the new Senate and would have to negotiate with Palmer's Senators, and Palmer himself has said he disagrees with many aspects of the budget. Labor doesn't need to get rid of Shorten to secure a majority in the next election. Abbott effectively guaranteed a Labor victory by lying worse than Labor has ever done before, and being out of touch with the Australian people while claiming they have a mandate to do whatever they want. The reality is that the Senate better reflects the mandate of the Australian people, and it has just shot down this legislation.[/QUOTE] Yes they are worse off slightly, but labor has lost a lot of ground, and even when the greens gained another seat (god knows why, their policies are hilarious), the coalition has more leg room, because the greens almost always side with labor, and that gave them majority of the senate before. But now, the coalition actually can pass bills if they get support of a couple willing parties. Also, the new senate does reflect what the people want, regardless of your opinion, which is clearly not labor. The old senate which shot down the legislation is back when labor had the will of the people, but that has changed. The hate against Abbott now is nearsighted, when the alternative steps up at the election people will realize that both parties have shitty leaders. Also the LNP propaganda machine is a force to be reckoned with, same with labor, however they've seemed to be outdone last election in terms of propaganda.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.