ACT ELECTION

Neferti wrote:

Bobby2 wrote:

Canberra should never have been created.

The center of either Melbourne or Sydney
should have been the capital of Australia.

Melbourne was the Capital until 1927. Sydney want to be, so there was a bit of a punch up between Melbourne and Sydney,  so they decided on a sheep farm called Canberry (I think) and started planning here.

They should have kept it in Melbourne.
Canberra goes to minus 6 degrees in Winter.

Bobby2 wrote:

Canberra should never have been created.

The center of either Melbourne or Sydney
should have been the capital of Australia.

Melbourne was the Capital until 1927. Sydney want to be, so there was a bit of a punch up between Melbourne and Sydney,  so they decided on a sheep farm called Canberry (I think) and started planning here.

Canberra should never have been created.

The center of either Melbourne or Sydney
should have been the capital of Australia.

Canberra Liberals promise increased bulk-billing, after-hours care

The Canberra Liberals have promised to incentivise increased bulk-billing and after-hours GP services, which they say will save Canberra families more than $200 per year in doctors' fees.
Canberra has the lowest bulk-billing rates in the country, and is ineligible for federal government incentives for rural doctors.
If elected, the Canberra Liberals promise to develop a business assistance program to integrate local clinics with public health services and incentivise GP offices to offer bulk-billing and after-hours care.
Liberal health spokesperson Vicki Dunne said the Canberra Liberals would develop the program by working closely with peak health bodies such as the AMA, the College of General Practitioners and the Capital Health Network.
"The high cost of living in Canberra has too many people avoiding a trip to the doctor because it's simply too expensive," Mrs Dunne said.
"The knock-on effect of this is more people neglecting their health and more people in the emergency department, which is already under extraordinary pressure.
"The Canberra Liberals believe in a better way."

Canberra Liberals leader Alistair Coe said increasing bulk-billing was paramount as Canberrans reconsidered their financial situation due to the COVID-19 recession.
"No one should compromise their health because they cannot afford healthcare," Mr Coe said.
"That's why we're committed to doing everything we can to reduce cost-of-living pressures to help more stressed Canberra families get ahead.
"Saving the average family $200 on trips to the doctor will act as a key stimulus measure to give household budgets a shot in arm in the immediate term.
"We want to make Canberra the best place to live, work and raise a family."
Liberal assistant health spokesperson Giulia Jones said this announcement would take pressure off families doing it tough.
"No parent should have to choose between paying the bills and putting food on the table or their child's health," Mrs Jones said.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6935231/canberra-liberals-promise-increased-bulk-billing-after-hours-care/?cs=14225

BIG-BUCKS-EARNING Queensland PUBLIC SERVANT NUMBERS JUMP AGAIN
Close to 30,000 public servants now earn at least $120,000 each following another increase in roles added to the books, just months after the $120k-plus wage bracket took a 16 per cent jump.

Whenever a Socialist Labor State "Govt" gets in with stacked branches there is a massive bloating of the Public Service and WOKE Socialist people "employed" at Centrelink.




Queensland's public service wage bill surges by $500 million
By Lydia Lynch and Toby Crockford September 7, 2020 — 4.11pm

Queensland’s public service workforce has grown by 35,697 since Labor returned to power in 2015 and the state's wage bill has increased by a half a billion dollars this year alone.

That means the 14,000 public servants sacked by Campbell Newman have been replaced more than twice over, the latest public service figures show.

The figures, from the March quarter, show there are 232,554 full-time equivalent public sector employees.



The public service has grown under the Palaszczuk government.CREDIT:TAMMY LAW


The state government has a fiscal principle to keep growth in the public service aligned with population growth, which it failed to achieve.

The two-year average growth of the public service was 2.2 per cent, compared with population growth at 1.25 per cent.

Population growth is expected to stall during 2020-21 as state and international borders remain closed.

The state's wage bill was now expected to come in at $26.3 billion on June 30, up from the $25.8 billion forecast in December.

The overspend was expected despite new laws that have frozen the wages of of hundreds of thousands of public servants until 2022.

Legislation to defer pay rises it had already promised workers was rushed through Parliament in June, in the hope of clawing back $500 million.

The average Queensland public servant lives outside of Brisbane, works in health or education and earns between $50,000 and $100,000 each year.

Across the public service, a third of employees made more than $100,000 each year.

Most of the top earners, making more than $180,000 a year, work in health.

Treasurer Cameron Dick said the government's top three priorities were infrastructure, jobs and funding frontline services.

"You have to continue to fund the front line, to grow the front line as a state like Queensland grows.

In response to the the Labor government's mini-budget on Monday, the state opposition said it would stabilise and then look to reduce the state's debt if elected on October 31.

Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington has promised to do this without increasing or introducing new taxes during their first four years in power and without privatising any state assets.

They have also ruled out any forced redundancies within the public service.

"How we can stabilise debt is we can get government expenses under control, we can make sure that we get rid of the waste on IT projects, ridiculous things like wasting money on the renaming of Lady Cilento Children’s Hospital," Ms Frecklington said.

Shadow Treasurer Tim Mander said an LNP government would cut down on unnecessary spending.

"We will outline that very clearly before the election, how we will fund every promise that we make," he said.

"Without trying we can name $1 billion in waste, whether it is $500 million through IT blowouts and there are countless other examples as well.

"We will state very clearly where those reductions will happen, there will be no impact on frontline services and there will be no forced redundancies from the public service."


https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/queensland/queensland-s-public-service-wage-bill-surges-by-500-million-20200907-p55t3e.html

Neferti wrote:

Canberra is Labor Land, always has been. I moved here in 1981 and when talking to a new friend about the coming Election (1983?) I mentioned that I usually vote Liberal and she said, "gosh, the Liberals only get about 4% of the vote in Canberra". This was BEFORE Self Government (1988) and it hasn't changed much.

The public service is full of Marxists.

Having a large public service is a trade mark of communism.

Switzer prediction for ACT election.

For the ACT, I am saying a Labor-Greens Coalition government resulting from this state of parties, Labor and Liberal 12 seats each with the balance of power being held by the sole Greens member in the new Legislative Assembly, Shane Rattenbury. 

That would represent a gain by the Liberal Party of one seat from the Greens, who had two members of the outgoing Legislative Assembly.

https://switzer.com.au/the-experts/malcolm-mackerras/wholl-win-the-act-and-kiwi-elections-on-october-17-and-then-queensland-and-the-us/

Canberra is Labor Land, always has been. I moved here in 1981 and when talking to a new friend about the coming Election (1983?) I mentioned that I usually vote Liberal and she said, "gosh, the Liberals only get about 4% of the vote in Canberra". This was BEFORE Self Government (1988) and it hasn't changed much.

It's the Greeny controlled Labor party versus the Libs.


October's ACT election set to make history
The Canberra Times AUGUST 21 2020 - 12:00AM


 The Barr government needs to recognise that long term incumbency is not always an electoral advantage. Picture: Sitthixay Ditthavong.


When Canberrans go to the polls on October 17 they will be making history on at least one, and possibly two, counts. This week's decision to extend the public health emergency until at least November means it will be the first time ever that territorians have voted under such circumstances.

The other potentially historic development is it seems possible ACT voters are going to return a Labor-led government for the sixth time since 2001, if early polling is to be believed. If that does happen, by the end of the new term in 2024 Labor will have been in government for almost a quarter of a century.

While the Canberra Liberals have frequently struggled to make inroads, their task appears even more challenging this time round; but is it? Yes, the Barr government has the advantage of incumbency at a time of national crisis, and it has generally received good marks for its handling of both the summer bushfire crisis and the more recent pandemic. That incumbency cuts both ways, however. There is community dissatisfaction with a government that many believe has already been in power far too long. This is in line with a clearly defined trend that has become clearer and clearer since 2012, when support for the ALP vote dropped below 40 per cent for the first time since Jon Stanhope took office with a 14.1 per cent swing, and 41.7 per cent of the vote, in October 2001. Labor's vote peaked at 46.8 per cent in 2004 and has been trending downwards ever since.

The rise of the Greens, the big factor driving the fall in Labor's numbers, reflects a growing commitment by a significant proportion of the electorate to more progressive views on social, economic, and environmental questions. It had already resulted in the formation of a Labor-Greens alliance by 2008. The Liberal vote has actually increased noticeably from 31.6 per cent in 2001, to a peak of 38.9 per cent in 2012, and 36.7 per cent in 2016.


Polling commissioned by progressive think tank The Australia Institute and conducted on the night of July 20 suggests that while this trend is likely to continue, it may not be enough to get Alistair Coe and his team across the line for the first time in almost two decades. A breakdown of the results indicated 37.5 per cent of respondents would vote Labor, 38.4 per cent would vote Liberal, and the Greens would receive a statistically significant 14 per cent of first preference votes. About 9.5 per cent of the respondents said they would likely vote for a minor party candidate or an independent.

So what does this all mean? One obvious message is that the Barr government cannot afford to take incumbency for granted; even with the benefit of the Greens alliance. While it would still be difficult for the Liberals to win government in the foreseeable future on these trends, the reality is Labor is becoming ever more beholden to its electoral ally. Future Labor-Greens coalition governments will have to reflect this when it comes to policy making on key issues of the day.

This may, in time, further alienate the more conservative elements within the ALP support base and actually strengthen the Liberal party's position down the track.

If the Canberra Liberals were to properly acknowledge this is a small 'l' liberal community which welcomes diversity and believes we can show the way on social and moral issues, it could be a serious force to be reckoned with.

A first step might be to remove the enduring commitment to the Monarchy, and the Commonwealth, from the home page of their website. This was, after all, the jurisdiction that came out most strongly in favour of the republic in the 1999 referendum.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6888525/a-territory-election-set-to-make-history/

We do elections differently in the ACT. Here's why
ACT Politics John Warhurst AUGUST 27 2020 - 4:30AM


 Confused about who to cast your ballot for in the ACT election? You're not the only one. Picture: Shutterstock


Election season is upon us, with the Northern Territory elections on Saturday returning the Labor government. ACT is next.

Elections offer many opportunities for governments and oppositions, for political parties, for candidates, for voters, for issues and for community lobby groups.

The ACT electoral system offers a special variant of these opportunities quite different from all other jurisdictions except Tasmania. The Hare-Clark system of proportional representation divides the ACT into five multi-member electorates with five members each, rather than the usual single-member electorates used for the federal House of Representatives and most state lower houses of parliament.

The ACT system limits, but does not eliminate, the power of the major parties to effectively install party candidates into parliament through safe single-member seats. Instead, the major parties can only preselect five candidates in each electorate, from which two or three will generally be elected. Sometimes only five eligible potential candidates come forward from a party anyway, so the power of the parties over candidate selection is lessened even more.

In theory, the five candidates from each major party in each electorate have an equal chance of being elected. This depends on the central administration of each party supporting each candidate equally during the campaign. But that does not happen, of course. Sitting MPs have an inbuilt advantage as they are better known, better resourced and have full-time jobs as MPs.

The party administration also quite naturally gives preference in their advertising to the party leaders, who generally have a higher profile and are already better known in the community. It is not a level playing field. New candidates for each party have it tougher than incumbent candidates. As a consequence, the number of fresh faces after each election, apart from those filling vacancies left by retirements or winning a seat from another party, is often limited to one or two.

Candidates seeking to overturn incumbents from their own party face a problem. The parties like to present a united front to the electorate, based on a common set of policies. They recognise what individual candidates can do to build the image of the party within their electorate, but they certainly do not want internal deviations from their major policies.

What are individual candidates left with to run their own campaigns? Apart from tinkering around the edges or raising questions of priorities, candidates are left to build their own profiles based on their personalities, professional experience and community ties. Their ability to stress their independent and distinct persona is constrained. Unlike Tasmania, the tight ACT geography, with small electorates, also limits the ability of candidates to campaign on where they come from within the electorate.

They cannot directly campaign against their fellow party candidates but only against their opponents from other parties or independents. This is despite the fact that their best chance of being elected might be to win a position already held by their own party, especially if the party already holds three of the five seats in that electorate.

This is where voters and lobby groups enter the picture. Theoretically, a big advantage of the Hare-Clark system of proportional representation over single-member electorate systems is that voters and lobby groups have a choice not just between the major parties but within major party candidates.

Faced with multiple candidates from the one party, most voters will have no idea about any of them other than what they know about the party brand. The distinction will come mostly from name recognition, which will flow from their pre-existing profile supplemented by media coverage, advertising, doorknocking and community gatherings.

Candidates who want to distinguish themselves from their party colleagues can fall back on their general characteristics. One obvious one is the promotion of gender diversity in the Legislative Assembly. Others might include other forms of diversity, including ethnic or faith background and disability.

Another option is to present themselves, or be presented, as the candidate supported by a special lobby group. Here there are many possibilities. The ACT contains a variety of lobby groups related to issues. A short list would include trade unions, business groups (including developers and retailers), community progress associations and suburban action groups, conservationists, public and private education, churches and faith groups, protectors of Lake Burley Griffin and defenders of nature reserves.

Many of these lobby groups will prefer one side of major party politics over the other, but they may also like to shape each side towards their own approach to society. For instance, they may back the Liberals but would like them to be less socially conservative and more liberal; they may back Labor or the Greens but prefer them to be less socially progressive and more old-school.

For lobbies to link with individual major party candidates, both they and the candidates will need to be brave and push the boundaries. Opportunities also bring dangers for them, because once the link is known there will be backlash from those who have other agendas. Splits within the major parties may emerge, to the detriment of the common cause.

Within the Hare-Clark system, the ACT election contains two distinct elements. The first, business as usual in any election, is the contest between Labor, the Liberals and the Greens to form either a Labor, Labor-Green or a Liberal government. Independents and other parties, although currently unrepresented, are also trying to enter the Assembly.

The second element, often overlooked but of special interest in the ACT because of the Hare-Clark system, is the question of who represents the main parties. This system offers a wider choice than usual for voters and lobby groups, though these opportunities are difficult to grasp.

John Warhurst is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6895749/we-do-elections-differently-in-the-act-heres-why/

This will be a huge hit with the pollies at Parliament house!!



ACT election 2020: Liberals promise city-wide network of dedicated cycling paths by 2030
ACT Politics Dan Jervis-Bardy SEPTEMBER 15 2020 - 12:01AM 



 Some winter weather at Molonglo Reach. Picture: Karleen Minney

A city-wide network of dedicated off-road cycling paths would be constructed in the next decade under the Canberra Liberals' latest election promise.

In a second consecutive day of transport policy announcements, the Liberals will also pledge $5 million to build bike storage spaces and change rooms at transport interchanges to encourage Canberrans to cycle on part of their commute.

Alistair Coe's opposition will pledge to build a network of dedicated "road-free" cycling paths which connects Canberra's town centres and employment hubs by 2030.

The proposed network would run for more than 100 kilometres, the spokesperson said. It was not clear how many kilometres of new paths would need to be laid.

Barr only got in by the skin of his teeth last Election and needed the Greenie bloke, whatshisname, to form Government.  Perhaps the poofy looking Liberal bloke might get another chance this time. I really don't care, one way or the other.

They had better not start knocking on my door or they will get short shift!

I was planning on not voting/getting my name marked off and getting the $20 fine but decided to apply for a Postal Vote instead. I reckon I can muck that up easily enough.

Bloody ACT Liberals knocking on my door!

Missus answered and chatted away,

I said who that?  she replied a nice lady from the liberal party!

I said did you tell her to F off?

"No she was very nice!"

I said why didnt you ask her why they have that poofy looking bloke as a leader, obvious shirt lifter!

I was told to shut up!

Bloody women have no sense of humour!

ACT passes new political advertising laws to ensure voters are not 'deceived on the way to the ballot box'

Laws banning false political advertising in the ACT, sparked by campaigns such as the 'Death Tax' and 'Mediscare', passed in the Legislative Assembly yesterday, but they will not be in place in time for the upcoming territory election.
In a rare show of collegiality yesterday, the ACT's politicians unanimously voted in favour of introducing laws that would make it harder for them to lie to the public.
From July 2021, an individual could be fined up to $8,000 and a corporation up to $40,500, for false political advertising.
But the new laws will not be in place in time for the territory election, now just seven weeks away.
Under the new legislation, people will also be able to complain about political material to the ACT Electoral Commission, which will have powers to investigate and ask for the removal of the advertisement.
Two advertising campaigns run by the major parties in recent federal elections — now known as the 'Death Tax' and 'Mediscare' campaigns — were responsible for the prominence of this issue in the ACT.
In each of those campaigns, the federal Coalition and federal Labor parties ran ads in the ACT across multiple mediums, warning that "Labor will tax you to death" and that "Mr Turnbull plans to privatise Medicare", respectively.
Those contentious campaigns brought the issue to prominence locally, as did a push by judges, professors and politicians coordinated by the Australia Institute.
Undersigning a letter to the ACT Legislative Assembly, they wrote of the need to establish "truth in political advertising" laws.
"Political advertisements that are deceptive and misleading interfere with the public's ability to make informed decisions," the letter read.
In the Institute's own surveys, it found 90 per cent of people across all parties wanted truth in political advertising laws.

You may not know his name, but he will decide what is true

Under the amendments passed yesterday, ACT Electoral Commissioner Damian Cantwell is given the power to order an ad not to be disseminated, or to be retracted, if he deems it false.
Mr Cantwell will not be the sole arbiter — if there is disagreement, the matter can be referred to the courts.
But the intention is for any lie to be stamped out quickly and before it does too much damage.
How Mr Cantwell will actually be empowered to decide what is an "inaccurate or misleading" statement is less clear — and, although the Labor, Liberal and Greens parties were fast to get behind the amendments, none of them know how it will work yet.
Both major parties said if they won government, they would need to sit down with the commissioner.
Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay also expressed concern in the chamber over the legislation's "workability" with the constitution.
But proponents say the legislation adds another level of accountability to politics.
Executive Director of the Australia Institute, Ben Oquist called the laws "preventative action".
"If our elections are full on untruths and disinformation, effectively voters are deceived on the way to the ballot box," he said.
"In the age of fake news, disinformation, it's important political parties and candidates abide by the truth."
So will the legislation have an effect on the deluge of 'fake news' that has become common in Australian and international political content online?

An offence for fake ads, but what about 'fake news'?

The legislation passed yesterday will only apply to authorised political material — that is, paid-for ads or promotional material made by a politician or political entity.
Greens MLA Caroline Le Couteur, who introduced the amendments, also explained that the legislation only applied to purported statements of fact that were demonstrably false.
"It only relates to statements of fact that are inaccurate and misleading to a material extent, for example, if a candidate claimed that their opponent wanted to introduce a specific policy or tax when there was no evidence that their opponent had ever indicated that," Ms Le Couteur said.
That means an individual's post on social media, or an opinion piece published in a newspaper would not be subject to the new laws.
Publishers also cannot be held responsible for hosting false advertising — only a person or political entity who disseminates the information.
There is also a defence if the offender could not reasonably have known that the statement was inaccurate or misleading.
So under those constraints, would Mediscare or the Death Tax have breached the law?
The answer, unfortunately, is only 'maybe' — because no one is quite sure how the process will look yet.

Workable laws, but effectiveness is up for debate

Truth in political advertising laws are not without precedent — the ACT's amendments were modelled off legislation that has operated in South Australia since 1985.
Since then, the laws have been used — the SA Commissioner requested 17 retractions or withdrawals during the 2014 and 2018 elections.
But how useful those laws have been is debatable.
A 2019 University College of London study examining the SA laws ultimately recommended against similar laws in the UK, determining "the benefits it can hope to bring are limited".
"In order not to impinge upon free speech, such interventions can be applied only where the inaccuracy of information is unambiguous. But most of the misleading spinning that characterises political campaign discourse is much subtler," the study found.
The SA Electoral Commission itself called for its powers to be revoked in 2014, fearing its role as arbiter could compromise its independence.
But while it may not transform political debate, Ms Le Couteur said it at least sets boundaries.
"Unfortunately in Australia there is no shortage of examples of false or misleading electoral advertising," she said.
"While not perfect, the South Australian system has worked well there for decades."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-28/act-bans-false-political-advertising-new-laws/12604096?nw=0

Neferti wrote:

I don't think I will bother voting this time.  The fine is 20 bucks and I can afford that.

Just turn up and get your name crossed off then put
a diagonal line through the form and put it in the box.

I don't think I will bother voting this time.  The fine is 20 bucks and I can afford that.

Neferti wrote:

Andrew Barr (Chief Minister) got married too.

God help us - we're all gunna die.  :t9409:

Andrew Barr (Chief Minister) got married too.



 

Neferti wrote:

Considering that the current ACT "Chief Minister" is gay and we have a rainbow roundabout and rainbow buses, what would you expect? Canberra is Labor Country and always has been (with the help of the Greens!).
   

A poo jabber?  :t9409:

Considering that the current ACT "Chief Minister" is gay and we have a rainbow roundabout and rainbow buses, what would you expect? Canberra is Labor Country and always has been (with the help of the Greens!).
 

Quote :

Australian Capital Territory general election, 2020 will begin on

Monday,28 September

and ends on

Saturday,17 October

I can hardly wait.

I forgot to add this ....   Looks like we will be overrun with "stories" for the next little while.

ACT Labor candidate apologises for hammer and sickle poster that upset Ukrainian community

A Labor candidate for the ACT election has apologised for standing in front of a small communist poster, and said she was unaware the picture was behind her.
Maddy Northam, who is standing for the seat of Kurrajong, posted a photo of her campaign team on Facebook last week.
The photo showed a poster of the hammer and sickle — an emblem strongly associated with the former Soviet Union — on the wall behind her, provoking uproar in parts of the community.
The Canberra Liberals said Labor's association with the symbol was outrageous and glorified "human torment and suffering", while the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Associations (AFUA) said "you can equate the hammer and sickle to the swastika".
Ms Northam told ABC Radio Canberra this morning she had received feedback from some Canberrans about how the symbol made them feel.
She said the poster had since been removed from the Community and Public Sector Union's office wall, and she thanked those who had discussed it with her.
"I stood in front of it without realising," she said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-20/act-labor-candidate-apologises-for-hammer-and-sickle-poster/12577214?WT.ac=statenews_act&nw=0