We have a very unique political setup in Australia at the moment. Technically the official results (Elected MP's and Senators) won't be released by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) until the middle of next week. The Governor General has appointed a PM, a Deputy PM and a couple of interim ministers until the official results come out. The new PM has left the country with the new Foreign Minister so the new Deputy PM is the Acting PM and there are no officially elected MP's in the country. The new PM/Acting PM and the new interim ministers have full control over all of the government departments until we get a real federal government. I'm not surprised the PM left the country or he might have had to explain why he replaced a caretaker government with a political Junta!
1.2 The caretaker period begins at the time the House of Representatives is dissolved and continues until the election result is clear or, if there is a change of government, until the new government is appointed. Didn't the Governor General just appoint a Prime Minister and a bunch of other ministers to various portfolios? This is hardly a coup. True, the vote counting is not yet finished, but the result, give or take a handful of seats in both chambers, is clear. The former PM has conceded that his party cannot form the next government and has publically acknowledged the transition to a Labor-led government. The reason for the unusual interim measures - call it a rush if you like - is that somebody needs to represent Australia at the upcoming Quad meeting between the USA, India, Japan and Australia. It makes no sense for the nation to be represented by an outgoing Prime Minister who will not be in a position to progress any of the decisions that are made there. There is no doubt as to which party will form the government, or who the Prime Minister will be once the vote counting is finished. What alternative solution do you propose?
Nope none of the above Most times voted Labour nutty minor party Agree can't see me heading there Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They have already hit majority, Laurie. I'll give you a moment to grieve if you like. And no party will ever win an election with the highest first preference simply because of the spread of first preference votes now. The LNP will never be able to regain power if they lose moderate voters. This election has taught us that. I find it interesting that the right wing pundits are now screaming and screeching about the need to move more to the right, because those who lost their seats were the so called "moderates". Failing to note that the reason they lost their seats was because they were not moderate enough and people were fed up with politicians who ignored their communities and instead, were more focused on party allegiances, even when those allegiances went against everything their constituents and communities believed in. So the idea of moving more to the right makes no sense, when they are losing voters because they were not moderate enough. And they may have to embrace or form a coalition with Palmer. All the seats they lost is where all their money comes from for the party. That would entail Dutton and Joyce eating a huge chunk of humble pie and I don't see that happening anytime soon. The "Teals" won't re-enter the fold if their demands and their platform on climate change, integrity and women's and human rights are not met. The "Teals" will also be mindful that preferences flowed to them from the ALP and the Greens, without whom, they could not have won, because their platform was so closely aligned to the Greens and ALP in many areas. Should also note that the swing towards the Greens and non "Teal" independent who pushed a more moderate and centre left platform could be seen all over the country. The political tide is changing in this country.. After the fires and numerous floods, droughts, mice plagues caused by climate effects on the weather. Whether Dutton accepts this remains to be seen. There is already trouble brewing with many moderates in the party saying they would resist a push to shift to the right. We could see the party fracture further and it could end up with those moderates going independent themselves, depending on what their constituents say.
What? They had to be sworn in today, as the leader of the country had to attend the QUAD meeting in Japan. Given Morrison lost, that's why they had Albanese sworn in immediately to allow him to attend. Everyone knew this. You didn't? The new incoming ministers and government were therefore forced to go into caretaker mode (something the outgoing Government would normally do) until they are officially sworn in. Currently they were able to get the bare minimum sworn in because of QUAD. Perhaps you should turn Sky News off for a bit.. Because this is Peta Credlin level of stupid argument..
VOTERS ARE TO BLAME SO now we all gotta suffer more taxes thanks to losers that voted for an idiot and minor parties. We get the government we deserve when morons en masse throw their votes behind weak little parties. We are doomed! VNM The above from today's NT News letters to the editor, now called YOUR SAY I am not VNM Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Promises made Australia will have a second Parliament Not going to happen Australia will go carbon neutral Not going to happen Trying to achieve pie in the sky (Australia will have a second Parliament) fantasy will split Australians apart Trying to achieve pie in the sky (Australia will go carbon neutral) fantasy will devastate economy if only partially achieved Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Who promised a second parliament? What? The goal is carbon neutral. You're carrying on as though they are doing it right now. They said by 2050. So calm your farm. Perhaps you haven't been affected by the changing climate, but I can assure you, millions of us are affected by it and are voting for a change in policies to slow down those effects and we have had to put up with a Prime Minister who simply didn't give a crap and instead, funnelled cash to people who were in LNP seats, while ignoring the others who had suffered just as badly and providing little to no support for them. You want to complain about Australia going carbon neutral? Go to Northern NSW or areas of QLD that are still in flood (3rd or 4th time this year) and tell them that it's useless as they are still shovelling crap out of their homes from the latest flood event. I do not know of anyone in the ALP who promised a second parliament. You're arguing against and about something that doesn't actually exist. Nonsense.
Anthony Albanese promised action on the Uluru Statement from the Heart. So what is the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament? We will, of course, be advancing the need to have constitutional recognition of First Nations people, including a Voice to Parliament that is enshrined in that constitution," he said. Any attempt to enshrined in that constitution will need a affirmative referendum Not going to happen but if it even goes to a vote very divisive Remember this voice in Parliament will only be for persons CLAIMING to be Aboriginal - no proof needed and will have their own overseas ambassador Not yet but..... Seems the Aboriginal voice not being heard requirers a coexisting Aboriginal Parliament Happening now America Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Michael, Labor's campaign promises will be more costly than the Lib/Nat coalition's. However, Labor did not say that they would raises taxes. As I understand it, their plan to cover the extra cost is to borrow more. This will increase the national debt, but that isn't necessarily a problem. Certainly, the increase will be a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit the Morrison government accrued over the last two years. There was no such promise. It has to happen if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. It sounds like you're upset about the idea of a First Nations voice to Parliament. Why? Especially since a specific proposal for that voice has yet to be formulated, let alone put to a referendum. Yes. That's what constitutional amendments always require. What would be divisive about it? Are you worried about racists who will consider it divisive? What kind of proof would you require? What ancestral background do you claim for yourself, and what kind of proof have you got to offer to prove it? Do you think there should be some general provision in the Constitution that requires proof of ancestry in order to be part of a representative body? Why? Why? ???
No As I understand the format will be while any Australian can stand for Parliament ONLY Aborigines will be able to stand for Parliament 2 I know I am concerned this aspect is divisive ONLY Aborigines will be able to stand for Parliament 2 I don't. If pushed I'd go for Homo Sapien like the other 7 billion + occupants of Earth And you know "race" is artificial classification which really does not exist with defined boundaries If you are going to ONLY allow Aborigines to be able to stand for Parliament 2 would seem to be common sense to ensure ONLY Aborigines do stand aboriginal inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists; indigenous. How you define decedent's of indigenous people would be tricky (I'm guessing DNA would be frowned upon?) but a claim, without any proof is just that, a claim only Look at gas prices as they go green and have gone from gasoline exporter to importer since shutting down exploration Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There have been a handful of politicians sworn in as ministers by the Governor General and there are no duly elected Members of the House of Representatives so the 'government' is a political Junta by definition.
There's just a little problem with the 'government' as there are currently no members of the House of Representatives as they all resigned before the election. Also, all of the appointed ministers are covering all of the ministerial portfolios until the real government ministers are appointed.
Gee, I just looked at the ABC and they only called 74 for the 'government' when a majority is 76. The AEC has to finish counting all of the votes and then recount them again before it releases the official results some time next week.
You understand why that is so, yes? I mean, it's disingenuous to simply ignore the reason they had to be sworn in the next day. It's literally as though you've been glued to Peta Credlin and Sky News for the last 3 days. If only you had selected the "seats in doubt" tab.. https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/results?filter=indoubt&sort=az&state=all ALP will likely gain 2 more seats. Add 2 to that 74 and you get the miraculous 76! I know, it's shocking. They might even just scrape in Brisbane as well, but that will depend wholly on preferences - https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/bris As for the other two seats: Macnamara: https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/macn Lyons: https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/lyon Both will come down to preferences. Macnamara has a slight chance of going to the Greens, but given the ALP's lead in that seat, I doubt it. The LNP will likely finish with 59 - I say likely because there are two seats that have less than 1000 votes separating them in Deakin and Gillmore it's like 120 votes or something and it will likely come down to preferences. Those seats are: Deakin: https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/deak Gilmore: https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2022/guide/gilm In Gilmore, preferences from Pauline and Clive's respective parties will more than likely flow onto the Liberal candidate, the Independent in that seat is an anti-vaxxer, so her preference will likely go to Clive and so on and so forth. Greens preferences will probably go to the ALP or the Independent, depending on their how to vote cards and if people followed them. Right now everyone is watching QLD Senate and whether Pauline will lose her seat. Makes for great viewing.
