Home > Current Affairs, Politics - Domestic, The EYE-BALL Opinion > EYE-BALL Opinion – Gillard Sunburnt – the flames of discontent begin to impact –

EYE-BALL Opinion – Gillard Sunburnt – the flames of discontent begin to impact –

The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2

Latest ‘EYE-BALL Opinion’ Posts:


– 2nd Nov – A Montage of AWU Scandal Reports – Gillard to become “Open-Season” –


– 1st Nov – Education … A white Elephant – Politicising the future of young Australians –


– 30th Oct – How do you awake a slumbering nation – Politicians – the most empty of vessels –


– 30th Oct – Whistleblowers – love ‘em’ or hate ‘em’ –


– 29th Oct – Polls pressure Abbott’s Leadership – Worst PM ever holds lead and flaunts her position –


– 28th Oct – Eye-Ball’s “YUCK FILES -1” – ABC’s “Insiders” – Barry Cassidy –


– 21st Oct – Political and Media ‘Noise’ – Altering The meaning of the word ‘Misogynist’ –


20th Oct – The White-ants have taken over – Parliamentary Foundations are under threat –


– 16th Oct – Cheap Wine No More – A blog respondent’s comments –


– 15th Oct – The Future – Welfare Raised Children – Government making it harder for Society to survive –


– 14th Oct – I am OFFENDED – All Australia is OFFENDED – why would it matter if PM Gillard is OFFENDED –


– 10th Oct – The Misogynist v Misandrist debate – there can be no winner and Society loses –


– 10th Oct – The Circus that never ends – Problem is nobody is buying tickets –


– 8th Oct – Carr’s Lunacy – Suggests Assassination to end Syria’s Civil War –


– 6th Oct – Gillards Culpability – On the ropes but nobody is game to deliver the knockout blow… –


– 5th Oct – Abbott’s Desperation – he thinks it’s a popularity contest –


– 3rd Oct – Gillards Legacy – Examples of Lunacy, Desperation and Stupidity –


– 25 Sept – The vacuum of Politics – do they ever listen to or watch replays of themselves?


– 25th Sept – Alas, Hedley Thomas has returned – Not to Sink Gillard, but to sink Campbell Newman’s Wivenhoe Dam coverup –


To see more EYE-BALL ‘Opinion’ posts:

click here …


Title:
– Gillard Sunburnt –
– the flames of discontent begin to impact  –
| Author: EYE-BALL Opinion | 4th Nov 2012 |
T his weekend may well be pivotal in the Nation’s political history – the AWU scandal has hit a major snag for Gillard.

Her continued denials to respond may have entrapped her – whether her response to a question by Julie Bishop during the Parliamentary session during the week was a slip up, or the evidence trail being uncovered and used to corner the PM is stacking up – it now seems certain that there is more than a case to claim that PM Gillard has misled parliament, and the Australian public about her knowledge of, and involvement in the AWU scandal.

Firstly – ‘The Weekend Australian’ National Correspondent – Hedley Thomas filed a story yesterday that revealed a large time gap into when Gillard claimed that the matter was first investigated, and when the AWU first became aware that a fraud had occurred.   Read story hereto:


Gillard failed to disclose slush fund’s existence


| Author: Hedley Thomas | Date: 3rd Nov 2012 | Link to On-Line Story. |

TWO disgraced union officials were able to sell a Melbourne terrace house and keep fraudulently obtained money after Julia Gillard failed to disclose to the union’s national leadership, or to authorities, the existence of a secret slush fund she had helped set up for them.

Documents examined by The Weekend Australian show that at the time of the sale in February 1996 the leadership of the AWU, Bill Ludwig and Ian Cambridge, still had no inkling that a slush fund bearing the union’s name had ever been established.

The AWU heavyweights could not take legal action to stop the sale because they lacked any knowledge of either the slush fund or of the terrace house that had been purchased by the slush fund.

The AWU was the client of Ms Gillard and of her employer, Slater & Gordon. However, the slush fund that bore the name of the union was never disclosed to the union heads by either the solicitor or her firm.

This is despite Ms Gillard having been closely questioned six months earlier – in September 1995 – by Slater & Gordon head Peter Gordon about the slush fund, the related fraud claims involving her then boyfriend, AWU official Bruce Wilson, and the terrace house in Fitzroy.

The firm’s serious concerns after its own internal probe led to the AWU, Mr Wilson and fellow official Ralph Blewitt being abruptly dropped as clients of Slater & Gordon, and Ms Gillard leaving her job in September 1995.

Julie Bishop asked the Prime Minister in federal parliament on Thursday: “Why did not the Prime Minister herself report the fraud involving the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association that she helped establish?”

Ms Gillard replied: “By the time the matters she refers to came to my attention, they were already the subject of inquiry and investigation.”

Documents show that from August 1995 the AWU’s national leaders, Mr Ludwig and Mr Cambridge, were openly and actively using legal and other measures to try to find out everything they could about possible fraudulent conduct, but were stymied by a lack of disclosure.

They did not discover until later in 1996 that the terrace house had been purchased in early 1993 with money from the slush fund.

Ms Gillard attended the 1993 auction and was involved in the conveyancing, and has always insisted she knew nothing of the slush fund’s workings.

The house, which had been bought by Mr Blewitt with almost $100,000 in cash stolen from the slush fund – the AWU Workplace Reform Association – was sold for $230,000 in February 1996.

The beneficiaries from the sale of the house, Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt, shared about $80,000 after the repayment of a loan from Slater & Gordon’s mortgage lending scheme.

From August 1995, the AWU was doing an intense and public investigation of alleged fraud and seeking a freeze on unauthorised bank accounts, while Slater & Gordon was doing a separate, secret internal probe.

The AWU leadership was alerted to the slush fund for the first time on April 3, 1996, by a Commonwealth Bank officer, Andrew Chalker, who had been asked to identify and report back on every account related to the AWU.

It took several more weeks before the AWU heads received copies of cheques proving slush fund money had helped purchase the house.

The Prime Minister was asked yesterday if she would welcome a renewed police investigation, following Mr Blewitt’s admissions to The Australian in August this year that he was involved in “sham transactions” and fraud with the slush fund.

Ms Gillard, who has repeatedly insisted she did nothing wrong and that she was never aware of the workings of the slush fund, said the police “can do whatever they want to do”.

“Any authority that wants to do anything about any aspect of it is fine by me,” Ms Gillard said.

“I’m not at all worried about anything to do with any of this, it’s 17 years ago.

“The fact that the opposition is, in this sleaze atmosphere, is just telling people they haven’t got any ideas for the future.”

The slush fund secretly received more than $400,000 by issuing invoices in the name of the union for bogus work to major builder, Thiess Contractors.

The Prime Minister’s performance in the House last week under questioning from the Opposition Deputy Leader – Julie Bishop, who I might add has finally given this author some insight into why she is the Opposition Deputy Leader – was less than convincing.  Her body language showed the weight of her involvement, and the truth she is yet to tell us all is having its impact.  The PM needed the help of her Front-Bench Cabinet minders to deflect the attacks coming from Bishop and the interjectors and it was obvious.

The Bishop questions were targeted at getting Gillard ‘on the record’ and to that aim – they were successful.   A  copy of the Hansard transcript of the questions posed by Julie Bishop is pasted below:

Hansard Record 1st Nov 2012 extract: linked here … [link updated 26/11/12]

Union Funds

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:41): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to her claim on 23 August that she had no involvement with the AWU workplace reform fund after she helped set it up in early 1992. I refer the Prime Minister to the power of attorney, which I have a copy of, that carries the Prime Minister’s signature as a witness on 4 February 1993 from Mr Ralph Blewitt to Mr Bruce Wilson. Mr Blewitt has stated publicly that he did not sign the power of attorney on that date and nor did he sign it in your presence. Did the Prime Minister witness this document in the presence of Mr Blewitt and on the date nominated?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:42): We could not get a sharper contrast between a government focused on the future and an opposition focused on sleaze and smear from 17 years in the past.

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the question before the chair.

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister is accusing the opposition of smear but the stories that are being written about this are being written by Hedley Thomas, Mark Baker and Samantha Maiden. Is she accusing them of smear?

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition business will resume his seat.

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: what was the point of that point of order from the Manager of Opposition Business?

The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will—

Mr Albanese: My point is that a point of order has to be about the standing orders being breached. The Prime Minister was perfectly within the standing orders in calling you out on your sleaze campaign.

Mr Simpkins: It is about accountability!

The SPEAKER: The member for Cowan will leave the chamber under 94(a). The Prime Minister has the call and will refer to the question.

Ms GILLARD: I stand by my comments on the public record in relation to this matter. Let me make it clear: my accusation of the opposition is hypocrisy. I table a record of the press conference held by the Leader of the Opposition at the start of this week, 29 October, in which he said—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to page 565 of the Practice, where it says that it is established practice of the House that where a minister refuses to answer a question it is usually on the basis that it deals with national security or other matters. Clearly that does not come into the failure to answer these questions. The Prime Minister should either take it on notice and supply the answer or answer the questions that have been deliberately put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. These are questions that have in fact never been addressed by the Prime Minister, including in her press conference.

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order again: that contained argument. There is a process in which that is quite clearly out of order. If someone wants to object on the basis of relevance, they simply have to state that, rather than put an argument before the House.

The SPEAKER: Leader of the House, I was going to point out to the member for Mackellar that until the end of the point of order she was making a relevant point of order. The last part, however, was not relevant. It was introducing argument, and points of order should be on issues of procedure. The Prime Minister has the call and will be relevant to the question.

Ms GILLARD: When I was interrupted, I was tabling a document containing a statement of the Leader of the Opposition from 29 October where he says:

‘I will leave the nasty personal politics to the Labor Party. I predict that we will see a lot more of that in the months leading up to the next election, but I am going to focus every day on what matters to the Australian people and that is sensible, careful, responsible change that will give them a stronger economy and a more cohesive society.’

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will table the document and resume her seat.

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:45): Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. I refer the Prime Minister to the internal Slater & Gordon memo that confirms the power of attorney was used to secure a mortgage of $150,000, borrowed from Slater & Gordon, in addition to money from the AWU’s slush fund to purchase a Fitzroy property. Why won’t the Prime Minister come clean on her ongoing involvement in the AWU slush fund, the year after she claimed she had no involvement? (Time expired)

Mrs Mirabella interjecting—

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, but I would ask that that be withdrawn first.

The SPEAKER: The member for Indi will withdraw.

Mrs Mirabella: I withdraw.

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, the question went to issues which allegedly were ongoing. The Prime Minister responded to all of these questions at least 17 years ago.

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise—

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The question did contain a great deal of argument. As it was a supplementary, I think that is invalid. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is welcome to restate the question and exclude the argument.

Ms JULIE BISHOP: I refer the Prime Minister to the internal Slater & Gordon memo that confirms the power of attorney was used to secure a mortgage of $150,000, borrowed from Slater & Gordon, in addition to money from the AWU fund to purchase a Fitzroy property. Why won’t the Prime Minister inform the House why she said on 23 August she had no involvement, when this proves that 12 months later she did?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:48): I have in fact dealt with these questions on the public record. I stand by those truthful statements, and the construction that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is trying to put on them is not a fair construction. I refer her to my extensive press conference, where I dealt with all of these issues in a great deal of detail. No amount of muckraking by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in contrast to the promise of the Leader of the Opposition—who is out there telling the Australian people he is going to be responsible, and then we have this—

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of the question is very clear and it is very straightforward for the Prime Minister to answer, and that is—

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his—

Mr Pyne: No, I have not made my point of—

The SPEAKER: Order! Screeching across the dispatch box by people who are meant to be in charge of the operation of the chamber will not be tolerated.

Ms GILLARD: I had intended to conclude my answer before the shadow minister commenced making his vile and ridiculous statements.

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will withdraw.

Ms Gillard: I withdraw.

The SPEAKER: I thank the Prime Minister.

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Moncrieff will withdraw.

Mr Randall interjecting—

The SPEAKER: In that context, the member for Moncrieff will withdraw and the member for Canning will stop interjecting.

Mr Ciobo: I withdraw.

The SPEAKER: I thank the member.

It was only a few moments later when Ms Bishop had another go …

Union Funds

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:55): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to her claim on 23 August that she had no involvement in the AWU fund after helping set it up in early 1992. I refer to this article by Hedley Thomas which states that the Prime Minister and Bernard Murphy were advising Ralph Blewitt in a defamation action against AWU officials in late 1993. It says:

Mr Blewitt said the defamation action was vital to silence dissenters because if they had succeeded in ousting him the slush fund … would have been exposed …

Given the Prime Minister’s involvement in this defamation action don’t you agree that— (Time expired)

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was no question attached to the statement within the prescribed time.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition ran out of time before she stated the question. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition could restate the question without as much argument. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Ms JULIE BISHOP: I refer to her claim on 23 August that she had no involvement in the AWU fund after setting it up in early 1992. I refer to this article by Hedley Thomas which states that the Prime Minister and Bernard Murphy were advising Ralph Blewitt in a defamation action. The article said:

******

‘Mr Blewitt said the defamation action was vital to silence dissenters because if they had succeeded in ousting him the slush fund … would have been exposed …’

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will get to the question.

Ms JULIE BISHOP: Does the Prime Minister agree that this was the purpose of the action?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:57): I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has a future as a race caller, if nothing else! To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I say that I stand by my statement of 23 August. To the opposition in general: I draw their attention to the Leader of the Opposition’s statement on 22 August, ‘In relation to these matters this is not the main game for us,’—yet another hypocritical statement from the opposition.

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will recall to the question.

Ms GILLARD: On the tenor of this question and the ones that have preceded it, as question time draws to an end at the end of this sitting week, you could not have a clearer choice between a political party with a plan for the future and a party of scare and sleaze and smear. Despite the protestations of the Leader of the Opposition that he was not going to be into this, there they are full of negativity, out of ideas. Scare, sleaze and smear is all they know.

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:59): Madam Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Given the Prime Minister’s involvement in the power of attorney in early 1993 and the defamation action in late 1993, how can the Prime Minister continue to—

Mrs Mirabella interjecting—

Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I ask the member for Indi to withdraw.

The SPEAKER: The member for Indi will assist the House by withdrawing. I must admit I did not hear what the member for Indi said.

Mrs Mirabella: I withdraw.

The SPEAKER: For the betterment of the House, I thank the member for Indi. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will commence her question again, but I am being very magnanimous.

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:59): Given the Prime Minister’s involvement in the power of attorney in early 1993 and in the defamation case in late 1993, how can the Prime Minister continue to claim, as she did to journalists at her press conference on 23 August, that her involvement in the AWU fund ceased in early 1992?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:59): I continue to stand by what I said at that press conference. What I said at that press conference was the truth. Can I suggest to the deputy leader of the opposition she does not want to believe everything that she reads in the newspapers. I have also read in some articles in the newspapers that I gave ‘an impromptu press conference’, which is a reference to one of the longest and most detailed prime ministerial press conferences ever given, where I answered every question that the press gallery had.

Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the issue of relevance: the question to the Prime Minister was that at her press conference on 23 August she said one thing, which was untrue and the proof is the power of attorney—

The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.

Ms GILLARD: Following that interjection and just for the edification of the member who has made a false claim in this parliament, I stand by what I said at the press conference.

… and again a few moments later …

Union Funds

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to a statement on 20 September by former High Court Judge Michael Kirby which said:

… if a person is aware of a serious crime and doesn’t report it to the police, that is what we call misprision of a felony; if there is a felony, you have to report it, it is a citizen’s duty.’

Why did not the Prime Minister herself report the fraud involving the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association that she helped establish?’

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (15:05): This question has been asked in the past. I refer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to when I dealt with all of these issues extensively on the public record. By the time the matters she refers to came to my attention they were already the subject of inquiry and investigation.

You read and you can weep – Gillard’s statement [highlighted above] – no matter how dismissive, how insidious, the fact now rests on the gap as Hedley Thomas story highlights and how Gillard must now explain the discrepancy of time between her statement on the record, and the evidence of facts that paint a different picture.

The performance of the Opposition for the week was targeted and would suggest they have finally awoken to what the Australian public want to hear.    They went on the attack over the AWU scandal – something they should have done months ago. The question now is whether the mainstream media will take the lead and do likewise … in short the answer will be no!!!

Long time Gillard basher Andrew Bolt went on the attack today on his Herald Sun blog-site.  He highlighted the ABC’s ‘Insiders’ program content this morning – that text is posted below:

Abbott … Abbott … Abbott


| Author:  Andrew Bolt | Date: 4th Nov 2012 8:40am | Link to On-Line Story. |

Insiders, a program of the publicly funded ABC, discusses the political week that was. Presenter Barrie Cassidy introduces the topics for panel discussion.

First topic: How Tony Abbott had trouble with wheat deregulation, which could cause real tension in the Coalition.

Second topic: How Tony Abbott went too far in fighting the carbon tax, and just exaggerates “all the time”.

Third topic: How Tony Abbott was too flip in dismissing the White Paper on Asia.

Fourth topic: the Government (at last!) edges away from is promise to deliver a surplus.

Fifth topic: what chances of an early election?

Sixth: which of the two leaders is the most vulnerable going to the election?

Seventh: the Maxine McKew book – just briefly, to show Labor’s Anthony Albanese making light of it.

Eighth: Labor’s Greg Combet mocking Abbott. Long grab shown.

Ninth: Labor backflipping on asylum policy. Brief.

Tenth: Julia Gillard not answering questions on the AWU scandal. The Liberals need a result “or else it starts to get a bit tacky.” Brief. Only Savva comments.

Do you get the impression that the ‘AbbottAbbottAbbott’ actually runs the country, and gets the scrutiny more appropriate for a government, especially one as incompetent and deceitful as this?

Last week the EYE-BALL Opinion started up a ‘YUCK-FILES’ page and the ABC’s ‘Insiders’ was the subject of that initiation … read that story here

The ABC should have a problem with Barry Cassidy’s bias – he is so besotted under the charms of Julia Gillard – his objectivity and that of his panel, including the red underwear wearing ALP card-carrying Courier Mail journalist Dennis Atkins … the program’s bias against the Opposition and blind support for Gillard could not be more dis-serving to the Australian public’s faith and trust.

On the ‘Bolt Report’ this morning – Opposition Senator Eric Abetz gave one of his best performances ever – I’m no fan yet he articulated his comments this morning so as to draw the long-bow aimed at Gillard,  and even convinced me that he has the shot aimed at a live target.

See the interview below:

Also on the show was an interview with former Victorian president of the Liberal party Michael Kroger, and Labor campaign adviser Bruce Hawker.

That interview appears below:

This interview gave me shivers when I listened to Bruce Hawker try to defend the PM – this after his profile suffered greatly when he first supported and advised Kevin Rudd earlier this year when there was a Leadership spill … and then the QLD election debacle when he was Anna Bligh’s campaign manager.  We all remember the QLD ALP only won seven seats in that State election.

What creditability can Bruce Hawker still have?

His performance in the video clip above highlights how thin the PM’s PR team is when it comes to ALP supporters wanting to go on the record to defend her.   The ‘Bolt Report’ is no friend to the Government and in particular Gillard – and I struggle with Andrew Bolt myself from his ‘Insiders’ days.   But his opinion on Gillard is spot on and he is one of the few Journalists giving air-time to the AWU scandal and that yields him some kudos from my perspective.

Gillard’s ‘chook-neck’ seems exposed – void of the expensive jewelry in recent days – perhaps she can feel the ‘guillotine’s edge’  …

You can be sure that Caucus members mobile phones are in overuse mode today.  This despite the recent ALP poll surge in the Gillard’s ‘preferred PM’ gap over Tony Abbott – and the ALP narrowing of the gap with the Coalition.

Discussions will be including matters like a possible early election’ timing,  the budget surplus disappearance,  the emerging NSW Transport Workers Union Fraud involving Tony Sheldon and John Della Bosca that came to light during the week,  story linked here – the impending Peter Slipper court decision, the Craig Thompson and Mike Williamson HSU charges – and these are the front page stories – there are many more as well – it would seem that the ALP have more than the Leadership agenda issues to talk about.

What amazes is that this Government has walked itself so far down a ‘ferret-hole’ they have left no room for retreat or escape.   Their language on the ‘guaranteed’ budget surplus’ has altered and everybody has picked up on it.  Then there was the Penny Wong demotion requiring Senator Farrell to abdicate his No 1 position on the Senate ticket to appease senior ALP Ministers.

What about the RBA Governor Glenn Stevens having been caught misleading, and/or possibly lying under oath to the Senate enquiry into the ‘Securency’ enquiry.

There are fires alight all around the Government and the Treasury is bare – they cannot spend their way out of this … the current debt owing is $260 billion against a debt ceiling of $300 billion, established and increased three times since the 2007 election.   Backing all this is the election timeframe of 12 months making the escape hatches limited and confining.   Nothing short of a Houdini act will Save Gillard and this Government, and as the markets come to realise this – perhaps the long awaited high A$ relief will happen to give exporters, miners and farmers the joy they so desperately want and need.

For the Australian electorate – the choice of the alternative is a default choice – Abbott looks done, his persona is wrinkled – he is unable to evade the spotlight Gillard manages to point in his direction ever time he opens his mouth … of course it helps when you have a lazy and incompetent media that only looks at where the spotlight shines – but Abbott looks certain to join the asylum boat seekers on an exit journey some time soon.

Australia demands a Leader of worth – and what we have in Gillard and Abbott, and their backups Swan and Bishop, are second and third stringers when the star players are still to emerge.

The next few months and over the Christmas break, Australian Politics will be engaging … does Rudd want to make yet another run at the top job in the face of what the ALP will be confronted with next year … has Malcolm Turnbull become impotent in political terms after the Gordon Gretch affair,  who will emerge on the ALP side to disburse Gillards ashes when the public burn her at the stake?

If one casts an eye on the potential contenders on both sides of the House .. all I see is pathetic under-achievers who have already over-achieved to have advanced as far as they have …

A Referendum discussion:

To settle a number of contentious issues that cross the political divide and cannot be resolved with a vote for either party – is it time to include some referendum topics for discussion and debate with a mind to framing questions to put to the public at the next Federal Election in referendum form – i.e.

  1. Asylum Seekers, the Immigration intake, and whether the Nation wants on-shore or off-shore processing – and whether Australia’s concerns are attached to the ‘islamic’ threats posed by those seeking political or refugee status ……
  2. Australia’s blind participation in Afghanistan and future foreign conflicts as a part of US backed military efforts …
  3. The debate on climate change and the Carbon Tax be allowed to be decided by the Australian people rather than politicians …
  4. A limit on future Government new spending linked to a percentage of GDP …
  5. Compulsory voting and the Electoral funding of Major Parties …
  6. Whether all Unions should be made to lodge public returns to account for their spending of members funds …

The framing and language of the questions above would need to be hashed out with bi-partisan contributions, and an agreement by all Political party’s to the terms and conditions of the referendum outcome …

This Nation desperately needs direction and neither party has the political policies to ignite a Nation in its support …

Under Gillard the Government has become a ‘hip-shootin” failure on many major policy issues included in the list above.   The Opposition policies on these matters are stilled to be thoroughly voiced and costed.

One could say that since the PM replaced Rudd – her policies have all been ill-advised and lacking in their vision and purpose … i.e. MRRT, Carbon Tax, Asylum seekers.

It is a fact that the Nation no longer has faith in this Government and its Leaders to make the best judgements on behalf of the people.   Who will step up to the plate to take their place.

 

Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please click your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story.Thankyou.


Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s


The EYE-BALL Opinion …

Advertisements
  1. Cowboy
    November 4, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    On the ‘referendum’ matter the US often have referundum votes during their elections, be it Federal and/or State issues involved.

    Given the divide in policy matters there in Aussie land – would it not be more democratic to have the electorate weigh into difficult issues as included in your post. Government policies that divide a Nation is not good for anybody …

  2. Hog Shooter
    November 4, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Awesome post Eyeball.

    Have spent some time reading your past blogs and you really hit some balls. I subscribed and look forward to more of the same.

  3. Gerry Hatrick
    November 5, 2012 at 2:52 am

    In Australia referendum generally result in a no. To make matters worse, they must be agreed to by a majority of states (4).

    The wording of the question is critical.

    Do you believe in climate change and government initiatives to curb carbon pollution?

    Do you believe in a Carbon Tax?

    Do you want a tax on carbon pollution emanated by electricity producers?

    Do you want the carbon tax removed?

    The military question would really get some hackles up. Constitutional reform is the toughest, particularly given apathy. Why change what ain’t broke, this is all a con. In the republican debate process the question of a constitutional preamble (unspecified) was frightening. I always believed that was a John Howard rouse to get the republican question defeated.

    Non compulsory voting would be a cracker of a question. I would back that to succeed. Across the spectrum, people don’t like compulsory voting. Seriously political people believe their valid vote is countered, and people who don’t really care would be much more at ease. Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for the bastards.

  4. The Parable
    November 5, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    Without thinking or feeling they prey upon the flesh,
    Without regard to how recipient, or as to how fresh,
    While always returning earthly form to the earth,
    The cosmic karma is intact, as it was at its birth.

    The birth is in question, for the genesis is unknown,
    The parentage is of earth, yet this soul is alone,
    It’s evolution is of earth, or in its survival.

  5. Hog Shooter
    November 5, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    What are you smokin’ pal …

    Sound like your listenin’ to David Bowie or somethin’ …

  6. assassin's creed 3
    November 9, 2012 at 5:31 am

    Howdy would you mind sharing which blog platform you’re working with? I’m going to start my own blog soon but I’m having a tough time choosing between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design and style seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something completely unique.

    P.S My apologies for getting off-topic but I had to ask!

  7. November 9, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Hello there – I use WordPress and thr INove theme – however the ‘body’ of the post comments is basic ‘html’ using ‘style’ formating …

    Hope this helps … EYE-BALL

  8. November 16, 2012 at 3:33 am

    I’m talking on my site about this situation aswell. So I totally agree with you!

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: