MEDIA RELEASE
GILLARD NEEDS TO COME CLEAN ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
The Gillard Government has been attacked for sending mixed messages about its support for traditional marriage.
SA DLP Senate Candidate Paul Russell responded to comments by Labor heavyweight Graham Richardson, made on the ABC’s Q & A program on Monday night.
“Ms Gillard has stated her personal opposition to same-sex marriage, but with the likelihood that the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate after August 21, the ALP leader needs to let all Australians know if she will hold her colleagues to the supposed party line,” said Mr. Russell.
“The Prime Minister’s personal views are simply not enough. Graham Richardson’s comments that ALP support for same-sex marriage is ultimately inevitable make that perfectly clear.”
“Richardson’s remark that Penny Wong would successfully agitate for same-sex marriage highlights that Gillard’s pledge in support of traditional marriage rings hollow,” Mr. Russell added.
The DLP has called on all Labor-minded voters to abandon support for the Green / ALP machine and support a real Labor Party with traditional labor and family values.
The DLP is currently represented in the Victorian State Parliament and is seeking to return to the Senate. Candidates are standing in every state at the Federal Election.
For further comment, contact Paul Russell on 0407 500 881
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Time to actively support Traditional Marriage
I found myself somewhat in disbelief the other evening as I watched Greens Senate Leader, Bob Brown being interviewed on a late night TV program.
We all should know that the Greens actively support same-sex marriage. Indeed, Greens SA Senator Hanson-Young sponsored a same-sex marriage bill that failed in the last parliament.
What surprised me by Bob Brown's statement that night was his identification of same-sex marriage as one of the top policy priorities for his party under the hackneyed phraseology of 'ending discrimination in marriage' (or some such).
Like many of my colleagues, I've long noted that the Greens aren't simply a feel-good, tree-hugging environmental party, but I never really expected that they'd be so bold as to put this 'other agenda' out there in policy land front-and-centre.
They must believe that same-sex marriage is a policy winner for them - that's the only conclusion I can come to. Into the bargain, they must also believe that, even with voters who don't actively support this policy, that it's not a turn off.
If this is so, and if their premise is indeed that and, more significantly, if they are correct, then Marriage as we know it is definitely under direct threat from the Green ALP Alliance.
But Julia Gillard has said that she doesn't support same-sex marriage so what's the worry? It is indeed a worry when you consider political reality.
If the Greens gain the balance of power in their own right in the Senate after this election (a distinct possibility) then they are obviously in a very strong negotiating position. It is well within the bounds of possibility and, perhaps, even an inevitability, that the Greens would bargain same-sex marriage as a trade off for supporting some other ALP government legislation.
But Julia said... yes, but funny things happen when parties horse trade. I believe that, when the Greens re-introduce same-sex marriage legislation in the new parliament, Ms Gillard will re-affirm her opposition to it - but offer her party members a conscience vote on a private member's bill. (remember that both major parties organised party votes against the last bill)
There's no telling what the Coalition might do but my feeling is that they'd stand against same-sex marriage as a party (even though there are clearly those in their ranks that would privately support such a move).
Notwithstanding this possibility, there may yet not be a majority in either house for such a bill. But having a major party open the debate up to a matter of conscience means its simply a matter of time. Progressives like the Greens and those on the Left of Labor know that the Fabian philosophy of incrementalism will bring them success eventually and I don't think it would take very long at all.
This election may very well be a last stand.
We all should know that the Greens actively support same-sex marriage. Indeed, Greens SA Senator Hanson-Young sponsored a same-sex marriage bill that failed in the last parliament.
What surprised me by Bob Brown's statement that night was his identification of same-sex marriage as one of the top policy priorities for his party under the hackneyed phraseology of 'ending discrimination in marriage' (or some such).
Like many of my colleagues, I've long noted that the Greens aren't simply a feel-good, tree-hugging environmental party, but I never really expected that they'd be so bold as to put this 'other agenda' out there in policy land front-and-centre.
They must believe that same-sex marriage is a policy winner for them - that's the only conclusion I can come to. Into the bargain, they must also believe that, even with voters who don't actively support this policy, that it's not a turn off.
If this is so, and if their premise is indeed that and, more significantly, if they are correct, then Marriage as we know it is definitely under direct threat from the Green ALP Alliance.
But Julia Gillard has said that she doesn't support same-sex marriage so what's the worry? It is indeed a worry when you consider political reality.
If the Greens gain the balance of power in their own right in the Senate after this election (a distinct possibility) then they are obviously in a very strong negotiating position. It is well within the bounds of possibility and, perhaps, even an inevitability, that the Greens would bargain same-sex marriage as a trade off for supporting some other ALP government legislation.
But Julia said... yes, but funny things happen when parties horse trade. I believe that, when the Greens re-introduce same-sex marriage legislation in the new parliament, Ms Gillard will re-affirm her opposition to it - but offer her party members a conscience vote on a private member's bill. (remember that both major parties organised party votes against the last bill)
There's no telling what the Coalition might do but my feeling is that they'd stand against same-sex marriage as a party (even though there are clearly those in their ranks that would privately support such a move).
Notwithstanding this possibility, there may yet not be a majority in either house for such a bill. But having a major party open the debate up to a matter of conscience means its simply a matter of time. Progressives like the Greens and those on the Left of Labor know that the Fabian philosophy of incrementalism will bring them success eventually and I don't think it would take very long at all.
This election may very well be a last stand.
Hip Pocket to take a hit under ALP
Sometimes I miss the little gems as I scan the daily paper. Often it's my wife, Anne, who picks up these gems in the smaller articles. Perhaps she reads at a more leisurely pace - or maybe she's a better reader generally, I'm not sure.
Page 11 of last Friday's Adelaide Advertiser held one such story. Under the headline: HEALTH INSURANCE voters could pay extra, the article described how, under a Green/ALP alliance, private health insurance would rise by $1500 per annum and university students would be slugged a $250-00 "levy" (when is a levy NOT a tax) to pay for campus childcare and sports services.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, be careful what you vote for. While not every Australian is in a private health fund, an increase of $1500 will most surely reduce that number putting extra pressure on the public system and increasing public waiting lists. The Student 'levy' for the sake of childcare and sports is, in reality, a reintroduction of Compulsory Student Unionism by stealth and something that all reasonable people should reject as anarchic and just plain wrong!
Why didn't we hear about this in the 'great' debate!
Page 11 of last Friday's Adelaide Advertiser held one such story. Under the headline: HEALTH INSURANCE voters could pay extra, the article described how, under a Green/ALP alliance, private health insurance would rise by $1500 per annum and university students would be slugged a $250-00 "levy" (when is a levy NOT a tax) to pay for campus childcare and sports services.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, be careful what you vote for. While not every Australian is in a private health fund, an increase of $1500 will most surely reduce that number putting extra pressure on the public system and increasing public waiting lists. The Student 'levy' for the sake of childcare and sports is, in reality, a reintroduction of Compulsory Student Unionism by stealth and something that all reasonable people should reject as anarchic and just plain wrong!
Why didn't we hear about this in the 'great' debate!
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Be careful what you vote for: Green's madness puts SA's future at risk
Recent news that the Greens would stop the $21 billion expansion of Olympic Dam is putting thousands of SA jobs in jeopardy
SA Greens Senate candidate, Penny Wright, told the Advertiser (July 20) that the Greens’ policy was to, "end the exploration for, and the mining and export of, uranium". This would spell the end of the massive Olympic Dam expansion in South Australia’s far north.
Under the Green’s South Australia’s economic future would be bleak indeed. Penny Wright wants South Australians to put her in the Senate where she and her colleagues would put this state to the sword. This is madness!
Much of the planned growth in South Australia is built on the back of our mining success. It’s a great story and one that all South Australians will profit from through thousands of new jobs, new homes, new support industries etc. A vote for the Greens will put all that at risk.
But a vote for Labor in the Senate might bring about the same result. The Labor / Green preference deal could see Penny Wright elected on Labor preferences. Don’t put your family’s future at risk.
A vote for Labor or the Greens in the Senate could kill off SA’s future prosperity. Vote 1, Paul Russell in the Senate to keep our future safe.
SA Greens Senate candidate, Penny Wright, told the Advertiser (July 20) that the Greens’ policy was to, "end the exploration for, and the mining and export of, uranium". This would spell the end of the massive Olympic Dam expansion in South Australia’s far north.
Under the Green’s South Australia’s economic future would be bleak indeed. Penny Wright wants South Australians to put her in the Senate where she and her colleagues would put this state to the sword. This is madness!
Much of the planned growth in South Australia is built on the back of our mining success. It’s a great story and one that all South Australians will profit from through thousands of new jobs, new homes, new support industries etc. A vote for the Greens will put all that at risk.
But a vote for Labor in the Senate might bring about the same result. The Labor / Green preference deal could see Penny Wright elected on Labor preferences. Don’t put your family’s future at risk.
A vote for Labor or the Greens in the Senate could kill off SA’s future prosperity. Vote 1, Paul Russell in the Senate to keep our future safe.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The DLP an independent voice
Not long after the 2004 Federal election, I was at a function addressed by the new Coalition Health Minister, Tony Abbott. It was essentially a gathering of the Liberal Party faithful.
You will recall on Election Day the elation in Coalition ranks when Senator Boswell phoned Prime Minister Howard with the news that Senator Elect, Barnaby Joyce, had effectively given control of the Senate to the Government benches.
Abbott, in his talk that day assured those present that the Liberal Coalition would not abuse this rare and welcome control of both houses.
Barely a year later, this same government introduced Work Choices. Properly titled the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, the problems of workers’ rights and protection from unfair dismissal, the no disadvantage test etc. that this bill created, seem now like a distant nightmare.
Make no mistake; no matter who is elected to lead Australia for the next three years, giving that same party control of the Senate would neuter the house of review as well as the proper scrutiny of every piece of legislation that should take place if our system of government is to be effective. The same could be said for Labor/Green alliance.
That’s why we believe that it is in the best interest of all South Australians and every Australian that the DLP should represent South Australia in the Senate.
The DLP is an effective independent voice. We are not beholden to big business or to union heavies and we don’t have any direct interests in any industry (other than a general interest in an economic sense for the benefit of all). We have a long and proud history of doing what we believe is best for our nation and we believe in progress.
Make your vote in the Senate count and VOTE 1 DLP.
You will recall on Election Day the elation in Coalition ranks when Senator Boswell phoned Prime Minister Howard with the news that Senator Elect, Barnaby Joyce, had effectively given control of the Senate to the Government benches.
Abbott, in his talk that day assured those present that the Liberal Coalition would not abuse this rare and welcome control of both houses.
Barely a year later, this same government introduced Work Choices. Properly titled the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, the problems of workers’ rights and protection from unfair dismissal, the no disadvantage test etc. that this bill created, seem now like a distant nightmare.
Make no mistake; no matter who is elected to lead Australia for the next three years, giving that same party control of the Senate would neuter the house of review as well as the proper scrutiny of every piece of legislation that should take place if our system of government is to be effective. The same could be said for Labor/Green alliance.
That’s why we believe that it is in the best interest of all South Australians and every Australian that the DLP should represent South Australia in the Senate.
The DLP is an effective independent voice. We are not beholden to big business or to union heavies and we don’t have any direct interests in any industry (other than a general interest in an economic sense for the benefit of all). We have a long and proud history of doing what we believe is best for our nation and we believe in progress.
Make your vote in the Senate count and VOTE 1 DLP.
On Asylum Seekers
Like most Australians, I held some hope that the coming Federal Election might have prompted both major parties to look seriously at the problem of asylum seekers and the stream of leaky boats that have been processing towards our northern waters for some time now.
Instead all we heard from both Gillard and Abbott were poll-driven non-solutions that were more about neutralizing the issue rather than solving it.
Gillard’s East Timor Solution, as has been said, is nothing more than Howard’s Pacific Solution moved a 1000 kilometres or so westward. Had Gillard talked it over beforehand with our northern neighbours or New Zealand? Apparently not. What an insult! Fancy dragging our nearest friends into a political storm – and without even asking them!
Abbott said that he’d turn the boats back and reject any illegal immigrant who did not have his or her papers. That may have stopped boats in the past; but will it work now? And, more importantly, is it the right thing to do?
Surely stopping the boats is the primary concern here. Not because we’re heartless; not because we don’t care – but because we do! We need to stop innocent people risking their lives on the ocean, it’s that simple.
Gillard’s solution won’t stop the boats. Those who take such risks to get to Australia won’t be deterred by a detour to East Timor. They’d be processed offshore anyway, so what’s the real difference.
As I said earlier, it’s clear that neither major party really want to deal with the issue. I think it’s particularly cruel and shameful to use these people for political point scoring; but that’s about all that has happened.
The DLP believes that every boat arrival should be flown straight back to Indonesia. Why? Simply because Indonesia was and is a safe haven. It is probably the first safe haven that genuine refugees entered upon leaving their homeland but, most certainly, the last before leaving for Australia.
In short, these people are in reality, Indonesia’s problem. Kevin Rudd, to his credit, recognised this and began financially supporting the Indonesian government towards a more effective intervention.
The DLP would even further assist Indonesia to make sure that all asylum seekers, both those who have left their homeland and those returned from Australian waters, are well treated and processed quickly and properly under the supervision of the UN High Commission for Refugees.
This would stop the boats almost instantly and put those who trade immorally upon people’s emotions by selling them passage to Australia on leaky boats in dangerous seas well and truly out of work.
Some have called these people ‘queue jumpers’. There is clearly a queue. I personally know people who waited for their chance to settle in Australia who endured many years, even decades in refugee camps in Africa and South East Asia. People like these deserve a break too. They can’t jump on a plane to Indonesia, let alone a boat to Australia. I wonder what they would think about those who can afford to take a plane to Indonesia and pay for a boat ride to Australia.
That’s why the DLP would bring two refugees to Australia from other camps for every boat arrival sent back to Indonesia. Once the boats have stopped, and they will under this policy, we can begin accepting those from the Indonesian processing facility.
That’s a real policy to solve a problem.
That’s why the DLP is worth supporting!
Instead all we heard from both Gillard and Abbott were poll-driven non-solutions that were more about neutralizing the issue rather than solving it.
Gillard’s East Timor Solution, as has been said, is nothing more than Howard’s Pacific Solution moved a 1000 kilometres or so westward. Had Gillard talked it over beforehand with our northern neighbours or New Zealand? Apparently not. What an insult! Fancy dragging our nearest friends into a political storm – and without even asking them!
Abbott said that he’d turn the boats back and reject any illegal immigrant who did not have his or her papers. That may have stopped boats in the past; but will it work now? And, more importantly, is it the right thing to do?
Surely stopping the boats is the primary concern here. Not because we’re heartless; not because we don’t care – but because we do! We need to stop innocent people risking their lives on the ocean, it’s that simple.
Gillard’s solution won’t stop the boats. Those who take such risks to get to Australia won’t be deterred by a detour to East Timor. They’d be processed offshore anyway, so what’s the real difference.
As I said earlier, it’s clear that neither major party really want to deal with the issue. I think it’s particularly cruel and shameful to use these people for political point scoring; but that’s about all that has happened.
The DLP believes that every boat arrival should be flown straight back to Indonesia. Why? Simply because Indonesia was and is a safe haven. It is probably the first safe haven that genuine refugees entered upon leaving their homeland but, most certainly, the last before leaving for Australia.
In short, these people are in reality, Indonesia’s problem. Kevin Rudd, to his credit, recognised this and began financially supporting the Indonesian government towards a more effective intervention.
The DLP would even further assist Indonesia to make sure that all asylum seekers, both those who have left their homeland and those returned from Australian waters, are well treated and processed quickly and properly under the supervision of the UN High Commission for Refugees.
This would stop the boats almost instantly and put those who trade immorally upon people’s emotions by selling them passage to Australia on leaky boats in dangerous seas well and truly out of work.
Some have called these people ‘queue jumpers’. There is clearly a queue. I personally know people who waited for their chance to settle in Australia who endured many years, even decades in refugee camps in Africa and South East Asia. People like these deserve a break too. They can’t jump on a plane to Indonesia, let alone a boat to Australia. I wonder what they would think about those who can afford to take a plane to Indonesia and pay for a boat ride to Australia.
That’s why the DLP would bring two refugees to Australia from other camps for every boat arrival sent back to Indonesia. Once the boats have stopped, and they will under this policy, we can begin accepting those from the Indonesian processing facility.
That’s a real policy to solve a problem.
That’s why the DLP is worth supporting!
Paid Parental Leave – creating second class parents
You know, it’s an unfortunate state of affairs in this country that the value of our wages has effectively halved in the last generation or so. When my wife and I bought our first home we were able, sometimes only just, to get by on one income. Try doing that now.
While we might lament the current high house prices that need both parents in the workforce to pay their bills and the fact that so many of our young children are cared for more and more away from their hard working mums and dads, this is the world that we find ourselves in. In that context, it’s not unreasonable that our government should look to ease something of the extra burden that families face with the birth of a child and loss of one income for an extended period.
You might think that this would mean that the DLP would give a nod to Labor’s recent introduction of a paid 18 weeks of leave at the level of the basic wage. Sure, it’s a step in the right direction (and far better than Abbott’s proposal – more on that later), but just like the Coalition’s position, it creates second class parents and effectively puts a different value on babies of working mothers and those that don’t work.
Abbott’s proposal is far worse. The coalition’s policy ensures that those in high-paid jobs get more financial support than those in lower paid jobs. On top of that, they expect business to pay for it! Again, stay-at-home mums miss out.
It’s not an ideal situation, but there is a clear consensus that something should be done. We support the extension of the Rudd policy of 18 weeks paid at the basic wage to all new mothers and their families. The principle here is about supporting all parents and their new child – that’s got to be a better way.
While we might lament the current high house prices that need both parents in the workforce to pay their bills and the fact that so many of our young children are cared for more and more away from their hard working mums and dads, this is the world that we find ourselves in. In that context, it’s not unreasonable that our government should look to ease something of the extra burden that families face with the birth of a child and loss of one income for an extended period.
You might think that this would mean that the DLP would give a nod to Labor’s recent introduction of a paid 18 weeks of leave at the level of the basic wage. Sure, it’s a step in the right direction (and far better than Abbott’s proposal – more on that later), but just like the Coalition’s position, it creates second class parents and effectively puts a different value on babies of working mothers and those that don’t work.
Abbott’s proposal is far worse. The coalition’s policy ensures that those in high-paid jobs get more financial support than those in lower paid jobs. On top of that, they expect business to pay for it! Again, stay-at-home mums miss out.
It’s not an ideal situation, but there is a clear consensus that something should be done. We support the extension of the Rudd policy of 18 weeks paid at the basic wage to all new mothers and their families. The principle here is about supporting all parents and their new child – that’s got to be a better way.
Health – decentralization is the key
None of us should be in any doubt that health and the growing national health bill will be significant issues for the foreseeable future. The solutions will not be easy, but there are principles which the DLP believes need to be adopted so that we’ve got the basic framework right for the future.
That principle is decentralization or, to use and old word, subsidiarity. This essentially means that decision making should occur at the lowest possible competent level. Put simply: local decisions for local needs.
When he was Health Minister, Tony Abbott made no secret of his desire for the Federal Government to take over the running of our hospital system. The Rudd/Gillard new deal on health is similar, but with a dramatic increase in bureaucracy to boot.
Kevin Rudd was right about one thing: there are problems in the system and that health can and should be delivered more equitably and efficiently. In announcing his policy, however, he did not make anything like a convincing case for a federal takeover just as he failed to show us what the efficiency dividends might be. That’s because, in our opinion, there are none.
Last week Tony Abbott announced that a Coalition government would allow local schools to manage their own Building Education Revolution projects; arguing that this would save costs and provide better outcomes. Sound familiar? Then why not in the health sector?
The DLP, like Abbott on the BER, believes that local is better and that local hospital boards can and should have the opportunity to manage their facilities with the local community in mind.
That principle is decentralization or, to use and old word, subsidiarity. This essentially means that decision making should occur at the lowest possible competent level. Put simply: local decisions for local needs.
When he was Health Minister, Tony Abbott made no secret of his desire for the Federal Government to take over the running of our hospital system. The Rudd/Gillard new deal on health is similar, but with a dramatic increase in bureaucracy to boot.
Kevin Rudd was right about one thing: there are problems in the system and that health can and should be delivered more equitably and efficiently. In announcing his policy, however, he did not make anything like a convincing case for a federal takeover just as he failed to show us what the efficiency dividends might be. That’s because, in our opinion, there are none.
Last week Tony Abbott announced that a Coalition government would allow local schools to manage their own Building Education Revolution projects; arguing that this would save costs and provide better outcomes. Sound familiar? Then why not in the health sector?
The DLP, like Abbott on the BER, believes that local is better and that local hospital boards can and should have the opportunity to manage their facilities with the local community in mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
