Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'George Brandis.'

Tag Archives: George Brandis.

The 25% solution and religion of science

It is entirely unsurprising that The Abbott Government will run a tight financial ship, that is what they promised to do when in opposition and clearly its what they are doing now  in government. I for one think that if the new way of dealing with parliamentary travel expenses has a great deal of merit:


Ignore the Fairfax crowing, and instead look to the brilliance of the +25% penalty for an incorrect expenses claim
click for source.

Imposing a hefty and proportionate penalty for incorrect expenses claim should make all MPs think twice about making dodgy claims for travel expenses. This seems like a rather simple and elegant solution to the frankly rather small problem that has so enraged the minions of the left over the last few weeks. Well done Mr Abbott ūüėČ

Which brings me to the victims of the Abbott Axe, those poor dears in the Labor bloated public service who will now find themselves out of a job:

click for source

click for source

Its clearly sad for the “scientists” who will find themselves down at Centerlink but I can’t help wondering if we as a nation will even notice their absence from the public payroll. frankly I think that just because what they do comes under the “science” descriptor should not mean that we as taxpayers¬† can not expect some real¬† bang for our bucks. Am I the only one who thinks that “science’ has become like a secular religion? And scientists¬† its anointed priests? Like another religion its devotees think that questioning the¬† holy is blasphemy and that those who do so are agents of the dark lord.¬† I personally respect those who are learned in any field but I am just arrogant enough to question that which so many think to be unquestionable.¬† Sadly mine is a heterodox position when it comes to “science” all that I can do is thank the blessed¬† Saints (not of Kilda) that they no longer burn heretics…

Laters Comrades


Salivating luvvies

Luvvies of the left are probably pre-emptively foaming at the mouth already about this:

Before the election, Senator Brandis had promised to amend Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act so speech that is found to be offensive and insulting is no longer defined as racial vilification. He said yesterday he would be engaging in consultations about whether the amendment should go further and wind back other potential grounds for liability.

The changes would be in the first bill he presented to parliament, but because of the consultations it might not be introduced until early in the new year. He predicted the changes to the Racial Discrimination Act meant the government would be accused of condoning racist behaviour. He rejected that and said it was one of the initiatives aimed at supporting freedom of speech. “You cannot have a situation in a liberal democracy in which the expression of an opinion is rendered unlawful because somebody else . . . finds it offensive or insulting,” he said.

The decision to examine more extensive changes to Section 18C comes after several commentators, including Brisbane academic James Allan, had argued that the threat to free speech from the Bolt case meant the entire provision should be repealed.
– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/business/attorney-general-george-brandiss-first-task-repeal-bolt-laws-in-name-of-free-speech/story-e6frg97x-1226755431421#sthash.yARBakmd.dpuf

We Grown-Ups are, on the other hand, quite relaxed and comfortable that our rights to offer even unpopular opinions are going to be protected from vexatious “shut up” litigation. Without the right to offer unpopular opinions our whole society is diminished and I for one will be happy to see the whole of 18C revoked.

Laters Comrades


The follies of an over blown town council

Could there ever be a topic that gives as freely as the push for same sex marriage?¬† It certainly is a cause that arouses great passion form its advocates many of whom try very hard to berate, bully and intimidate their interlocutors when they can not convince them that marriage is only about “love”. If the lesson of¬† human history tells us anything it is that marriage is about many things but prime amongst them is the formalising¬† of a pair bond for the purpose of propagating the species.

As someone who does not endorse changes to the marriage act I have been subject to the abuse I mention. As I have previously argued I don’t think that “marriage” is really¬† desired by same sex couples, rather it is social acceptance of their sexuality something that to a large extent they already have in this country. None the less they seek further affirmation in changing the definition of marriage to include their partnerships. It is a project that will fail even though they do seem to have a reasonable level of support among the young people who are led by their romantic¬† loins when considering such things. My own teenage daughter thinks that my position on same sex marriage is “terrible” and “wrong” none the less I see no reason for me to change my position.¬† which brings me to the recent passing of a bill in the ACT “parliament”¬† to create same sex marriage in that jurisdiction. In the first instance I think its entirely relevant to remind readers how small and insignificant the ACT is at a national level. in many ways the ACT assembly is little more than a glorified Town Council it has sway over an area substantially smaller than any of the major cities of this country¬† and a population that is easily exceeded by many of our provincial towns. So to envision it being on par with the other states or even the Northern territory is entirely wrong headed its a minor town council with delusions of grandeur, which trades upon its responsibility to host the national parliament to inflate its importance.¬† in reality it should focus on the same matters as other town councils, namely roads refuse and rates instead we get cavorts like the same sex marriage nonsense. neatly summed up by Paul Kelly in the OZ:

Only a year ago a same-sex marriage bill was defeated in the House of Representatives 98-42. That is not a close vote. Since then Labor, the main same-sex marriage party, has lost a swag of seats and the Coalition, the main traditional marriage party, has gained seats. The September 2010 debate saw the Coalition vote as a bloc against same-sex marriage. Even if Coalition MPs had voted on conscience the bill would have been defeated by a wide margin. This remains the situation.

Why is this? The explanation, contrary to much same-sex propaganda, is that support for its cause is far more equivocal than it admits and, for many people, there is resistance to the nature of the noisy and often intimidatory same-sex campaign. Telling people who are not persuaded to your position that they are prejudiced or bigots does not, ultimately, assist your cause.

Attorney-General George Brandis announced on October 10 that the commonwealth would challenge the validity of the ACT laws. He had advice from the acting Solicitor-General they were invalid. This was no surprise.

The founding fathers enshrined marriage in the Constitution as one of the legislative powers of the national parliament. Moreover, under section 109 a federal law prevails over a state law “to the extent of the inconsistency” between them. The national parliament ignited the marriage provision in 1961 when the attorney-general, Garfield Barwick, promoted the federal marriage law. Until then, states and territories had regulated marriage.

Barwick’s intent was to honour the purpose of the founding fathers and create a national, consistent and uniform law for marriage in Australia. He specified a free vote for MPs. The issue was not treated as a party matter. His design was embraced by ALP deputy leader Gough Whitlam.

The Abbott government has a firm position: the Barwick design. Brandis stands on the shoulders of Barwick and Whitlam. Brandis has signalled the depth of his own views by saying “it has been understood for more than half a century that there is a single commonwealth law governing marriage”.

Indeed, there has been almost no suggestion since 1961 that states retain a residual power in legislating marriage. Lawyers will dispute the matter. But for many people it is hard to imagine a greater inconsistency between federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the state-territory push for same-sex marriage.

In his recent Eureka Street posting, Frank Brennan calls the ACT law “a dog’s breakfast” and shows that it has conflicting definitions of marriage. He warns of the risks in the tactics of the same-sex lobby and says any changes to marriage law should come only by free vote in the national parliament.

States and territories know any marriage laws they pass must be tested in the High Court. It is imperative, given lives are being affected, that test come as fast as possible. Brandis rang the ACT Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher, told her he intended to challenge her law and suggested the ACT not operate its law until the High Court resolved the issue. ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell later told Brandis there would be no delay.

The situation is clear: the ACT government is responsible for each and every consequence if this law fails. It is inconceivable that Whitlam, a Labor icon and human rights champion, would have tolerated this ACT indulgence designed to undermine national marriage laws that, if upheld, would permit states to freelance on marriage (think a populist Queensland premier merrily legislating against a federal same-sex marriage law).

If the High Court eventually upholds the Brandis position in relation to territory and state law, the onus will shift back to where it should belong, the national parliament. At this point Labor should insist that Abbott operate by the Barwick rules and give MPs freedom from party positions on the vote. This is the best means of advancing debate on marriage laws. Yet there is a danger that Labor may commit a huge tactical blunder on this front.

– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/same-sex-lobby-in-slippery-territory/story-e6frg74x-1226749264326#sthash.fBSTG3sX.dpuf

In the end I expect that homosexuality  will continue to become far more socially acceptable than it already is. It is certainly something that I look forward to because I steadfastly believe that we should all be able to openly  love and openly live with the partners of our choice regardless of their gender. The great irony is that at its heart the ACT bill creates a form of civil union for homosexual couples and when I an others have previously advocated civil unions as an instrument to meet the needs of gay couples the usual suspects have gone into a form of apoplexy that is most undignified and dare I say it, counter-productive to their cause because they then alienate those of us who do want to see our Gay brethren living happy lives even if we hold a more traditional view of what a marriage is  and should remain.

Cheers Comrades


Justice Rares hands down judgement countersigned by AG Nicola Roxon in the Peter Slipper James Ashby matter

Well here is an opinion of the Ashby/Slipper matter that is somewhat different to the one offered by Ray in the previous post at my Sandpit The author makes the same argument that I was suggesting in my comment to that post. Namely that the summary judgement is politically motivated and it is likely to be over turned upon appeal.
Cheers comrades


Kangaroo Court of Australia

Justice Steven Rares has handed down a summary judgement accusing James Ashby of abuse of process, his application being politically motivated and using the proceedings to defame Federal MP Peter Slipper. This is hypocritical of Justice Rares to the extreme.

Rares judgement is clearly politically motivated and he abuses his position as a judge to defame numerous people who were not party to the proceedings thereby denying them natural justice.

What Justice Rares says about Ashby and others (Click here to read Rares’s judgement)

I have reached the firm conclusion that Mr Ashby’s predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper and not to vindicate any legal claim he may have for which the right to bring proceedings exists

I am satisfied that these proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court. The originating application was used by Mr Ashby for the…

View original post 1,647 more words

Self Sustaining at Rio +20

Yes Robert another entirely pointless and very expensive talkfest at Rio which of course brings this song to mind:

Robert Kyriakides's Weblog

Rather as I expected the Rio +20 summit on sustainable development has closed without advancing the practice of sustainable development by one jot, one title or one iota. The forests will shrink as they are plundered in developing countries, the seas will become deserts as they are shorn of life and filled with what billions of humans no longer need, and the greed of every interest group attending the summit set the scene: talk was cheap, the begging bowl was held out and commitment to anything was somewhere else. The only sustainable thing that has emerged from this Rio+ 20 summit is that there will be another summit in Rio again. That at least is self sustaining.

View original post

Be careful what you wish for, because there are times when you get it and the result is not what you expected.

Barnaby Joyce in Perth shortly after being dumped as opposition finance spokesman. Picture: AAP

The departure of Nick Minchen from the lime light has given Tony Abbott the perfect opportunity to reshuffle his front bench and as Much as I like Barnaby Joyce as a wild card politician even I have to admit that finance spokesman
My Late father in law was an accountant and while I appreciate the importance of understanding the numbers It is probably right that after months of pressure over a few less that cautious statements that Barnaby should be moved to a different portfolio. The Government probably thinks that his is a scalp that makes up for Garrett’s that now hangs from Tony Abbott’s belt, well Barnaby may have been intemperate with his words but at least there are no Aussie families who are grieving the loss of their house of or a family member because of it.

Calling a press conference in Sydney yesterday afternoon, the Opposition Leader moved quickly to end the speculation, fuelled over the past two days by both the government and his own colleagues.

Mr Abbott said Senator Joyce had done a first-class job and had “really helped to popularise the notion of debt and deficit. I think that the Labor Party has given him an undeserved attack.”

Describing Senator Joyce’s new role as “equally important”, Mr Abbott said the position would be “a better fit for Barnaby as we hone our political attack going into the next election”.

The new role will allow Senator Joyce to reprise his attack on the government’s emissions trading scheme, particularly in regional areas.

Mr Abbott also flagged a possible return to the front bench for former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull, but not until after the next election, citing the fact the government’s emissions trading legislation was still before the Senate and that Mr Turnbull was committed to supporting it. Senator Minchin’s position as opposition Senate leader will be filled by the current deputy, Tasmanian Eric Abetz. Queensland senator and moderate George Brandis was last night understood to have the support of Mr Abbott and Senator Abetz to become deputy.

Mr Robb, a Howard government minister, had been on the front bench without portfolio after withdrawing late last year to seek treatment for depression.

Mr Robb last night said he welcomed “the opportunity to resume portfolio responsibilities”. He said his new role would complement his responsibilities as chairman of the Coalition policy development committee.

Mr Abbott’s move yesterday came after speculation about Senator Joyce’s position was fanned by government and Coalition MPs urging a change to the finance portfolio. Queensland Liberal senator Ian Macdonald, speaking on the ABC’s Radio National, said attacks on Senator Joyce were diverting attention from the Coalition’s economic credentials.

I think that the adage that we should consider here when we listen to the inevitable gloating from Brother Number One’s minions is “be careful what you wish for” because there are times when you get it and the result is not what you expected. Personally I hope that this line up change makes for a stronger and more cohesive opposition and improves the chances that Brother Number One will be looking for new digs soon …

Cheers Comrades

Amusingly¬† after writing this post¬† I checked out what Dennis Shanahan has to say on this and I was pleasantly surprised that he takes a similar line to my own. ¬† ūüôā

Teaching your children about when to “go to the next level”

Gustaf klimt "the Kiss"

I am like most fathers not at all keen upon the idea that any child would take up sex before he or she has formed and enduring pair bond with someone who will love and respect them . This is not because I see chastity as a commodity to be traded or sold it is because I believe that choosing your “significant other” is more than just surrendering to the whiles of lust.
I make jokes about “a very large shotgun” when the subject of my daughter and her (potential) future boyfriends comes up and until she reaches her majority I know that I have a responsibility to protect her and to try to give her the sort of direction that will allow her to be happy and fulfilled as a human being. However I am sadly bemused by the way that the Femnazi mindset , of the Julia Gillard flavour, thinks that such concerns and worries (from any father) is old fashioned.

Mr Abbott said in a magazine interview he believed virginity was a gift that should not be given away too lightly.

But Ms Gillard said his views were old-fashioned and would confirm the worst fears of Australian women.

Senator Brandis hit back yesterday, describing Ms Gillard as one-dimensional.

“I think Julia Gillard who .¬†.¬†. has chosen not to be a parent .¬†.¬†. shows that she just doesn’t understand the way parents think about their children when they reach a particular age,” Senator Brandis told the ABC in Brisbane.

There is nothing “old fashioned ” about wanting the best for your children or from wanting them to avoid the sort of foolishness and life mistakes that you yourself might have made. As a parent you are obliged¬† to mentor your children about sex and sexuality. I saw this very topic elucidated upon a rather nice DVD last night. A character called Josh (who was 15) was concerned that his girl friend wanted them to have sex and he was worried about taking their relationship “to the next level” his father explained that he would prefer that they did not have sex but gave him a condom as a contingency in the event that Josh and his paramour could not wait. That struck me as a most sensible approach to the matter. As a father all that you can do is to make the argument and then it is really up to your soon to be fully independent offspring to make their own decisions. What irks me about so called progressives like Gillard is that they think that a parent should not even make the argument, or try to persuade their children that having indiscriminate sex has significant downsides. Frankly George Brandis has more than just a grain of truth in his argument that as a woman who is childless by choice just can not understand the issue in any meaningful way.

Cheers Comrades

Labor’s anti-Semites break cover

  Israeli Drag queen K-Long participates at the annual Gay Pride Parade in Tel Aviv,Israel. AP Photo

Israeli Drag queen K-Long participates at the annual Gay Pride Parade in Tel Aviv,Israel. AP Photo*

Its always sadly amused me that when it comes to dialogue with Israel all that the far left want to hear is the announcement of that nations dissolution so it is no surprise that when our deputy PM Julia Gillard announces that she is leading a delegation to Israel that the anti-Semites  Zionists Israelis in the party break cover.

SEVERAL Labor MPs have expressed concerns about Julia Gillard’s upcoming trip to Israel, where the Deputy Prime Minister will lead a delegation to hold a dialogue with Israeli leaders.

The MP for Fowler, Julia Irwin, an executive member of the Australian Parliamentary Friends of Palestine group, yesterday criticised the trip as an unnecessary “public relations exercise” for Israel. “When leaders and academics are distancing themselves from Israel following its attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, Australian politicians are taking part in this public relations exercise,” Ms Irwin said.

The delegation also includes the Labor MPs Michael Danby and Mark Dreyfus and the Liberal MPs Peter Costello, Christopher Pyne and George Brandis.

Ah well it is probably better that they are in the open rather than pretending that they are fair minded individuals who don’t want to see every Jew driven into the sea …

Cheers Comrades


*I do wonder how the minions of the far-left reconcile their support for the Palestinians, who are predominately members of  the faith that wants to see a capital sanction for gay sex, and their support for the gay agenda.
%d bloggers like this: