The last days of an election campaign are a mixture of thoughts for what has been done and panic for what is still to be done.
I can only speak for myself, but I can't help but look back over the last six weeks of electioneering from the leaders of our two main parties and wonder 'what was that all about anyway?'
Unlike the 2007 election and others besides, there has been a distinct lack of vision expressed by either party. Sure, they've packaged up their bread and circus type annoncement with grand motherhood statements but they don't speak to me at all about where we're headed as a nation.
On Sunday morning we will probably know who will lead our nation for the next three years. It seems likely that, beit ALP or The Coalition, that the Greens will be a constant thorn in the side of government.
I've said it before, but it's worth a reminder: the ALP/Green pact will probably deliver the Greens the balance of power int he Senate and that, under an ALP Government, we can be almost certain that Rainbow Labor and the Greens will be pushing Gillard hard for a free vote on same-sex marriage.
There are many reasons why a vote for the DLP on Saturday is important, protecting Marriage must surely be the highest.
At this, the eleventh hour, think clearly and soberly about our nation's future and cast your vote carefully.
Showing posts with label Federal Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Election. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
DLP SA Press Release on Marriage
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
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
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
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)
