Without even knowing what Abbott is going to do we have 1 potential new senator saying. Quote "Palmer United Senate hopeful warns Abbott not to expect her support"
Further "Ms Lambie says if she is elected, Tony Abbott should not expect her support, including on the scrapping of the carbon tax.

"From what I've seen the Liberal Party, it's a very big boys' club and there's no room for boys clubs in politics," she said."

Without hearing anything she is potentially rejecting legislation because of her bias against Abbott. Stuff the people who elected her she will do what she wants.

She was elected on the policy of the Palmer party but says "despite the PUP policy to repeal the carbon tax, she wants it kept."

Already she has shown she is a liar, by rejecting a policy that may have helped her get elected.

Any money says this policy rejection or failure to consider legislation on its merits was not relayed to any voters before the election.

If Ms Lambie, with less than seven percent of the primary vote, can be elected to the Senate and enjoy a full vote there, we are not hearing the "will of the people".

In WA, it is entirely possible that Wayne Dropulich from the Australian Sports Party might win with 0.22% of the primary vote. To even contemplate that as a possibility tells us, surely, that the system is broken.

Labour go into all the council elections with umpteen candidates on single issues who preference each other, then they get in. When it was Labour & the Greens no problem but now others are on the game it is a problem.
I think a referendum is needed offering current, no preference or two preferences for our voting system.
Oh yes and moaning about politicians saying one thing and doing another, well the solution is waiting till the next election.

The though our author wants to bar a Senator for holding an opinion is disturbing.
No truly!
We are a democratic country and under the system in place all Senators have been elected or will be, but not one can be forced to think only as some wish.
Yes the Senate is a matter for concern.
But how many under stand why?
Elected for 6 year term, only half the Senate must be reelected at each federal election.
Newly elected Senators who won this time enter that place next mid year, at the time one half leaves.
Senates are for states rights.
In the time of our constitution states did not like each other.
Even taxed goods coming from other states.
Had different wishes even different train track widths, so interstate trade suffered.
Some states did not want to become part of the Federation!
So given the history and the reason the Senate is what it is we stand at the top of a very tall cliff.
Do we understand a senator seems to have been selected on 1900 primary votes?
Then by what seems shonky deals [at a cost] got enough preferences to over take the bigger partys and get a seat?
Yes we have a problem, but lets not bury democracy at the first sign someone will not vote as we want.
Tell me, how bad is Queensland for not having an upper house.
And tell me, are we willing to keep a senate that chokes policy,s supported by the most to keep the few happy?

" Proportional representation voting, as used in the Senate, is designed to secure the election of several candidates in each state (twelve in the case of a double dissolution, six in the case of a regular half-Senate election) each of whom has obtained a number of votes equal to or exceeding a required quota (or proportion of votes) necessary for election. The quota is obtained by dividing the total number of formal votes by one more than the number of candidates to be elected, and adding one to the result. Thus, if the total of formal votes in a state at an election for six senators is 700 000, the quota is 100 001. That is, a candidate will need to win at least 100 001 votes to be elected. "

"In introducing the legislation in 1948 the Attorney-General of the time, Dr H.V. Evatt, said that ‘the fairest system and the one most likely to enhance the status of the Senate is that of proportional representation.’ (Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 16 April 1948, p. 965)."

The system seems to have suited the major parties for a long while... or are they just slow on the uptake to need 65 years to see that something is broken?

I think it fair to say it is no more broken than it has ever been.

It could be worse and maybe it is just as well the Senate can't pass a senatus consultum... though I am prepared to be magistratus extraordinarius.

(I don't really want the job, but just like the idea of being attended by 24 lictors.)

Michael Kroger made a good point about optional preferential voting (vote for as many as you want to without having to number others)and more information on the ballot identifying where preferences will go.

The AEC puts up a list of preferences for each party but I wonder how many people check it before voting.

Wm Trevor – The Senate system although described as proportional is not proportional. Senate representation does not take on board State and Territory population and the current preferential will further distort the result.

At best it could be made more proportional within each State and Territory with a mix of directly elected seats and list seats. Preferences should only be transferred to parties or individuals that have reached a certain threshold, with that threshold increasing with each distribution round.

The preferential system distorting the Senate also distorts the House of Non-Representatives. We have the Coles and Woolworths of politics with a minority of primary votes getting majority power and claiming mandates. A shift of 4% the equivalent of six seats is called and results in a landslide. Most importantly it leaves approximately 20%, a fifth of Australians underrepresented or not represented at all.

My preference would be to dispense with the Senate and for that matter State Government totally. We can only receive those for whom we vote when Australia evolves to a genuine proportional voting system like Germany and our more advanced Kiwi cousins.

We now have another minority government, but this time with majority control. That is not democratic!

Belly - Like usual with some of your posts they defy logic with regard to the original post.

She entered the political race as a member of the Palmer Party she would have had to know what that party's policies were, if she told them and the people she was not going to follow those policies they could have picked another candidate. (that is deception.)

She hid her contempt of Abbott and the liberals till after the voters had cast there vote knowing it would have effected the way a lot would have voted, CONTRARY to what you say "bar a Senator for holding an opinion" she was deliberately DECEPTIVE.

AT no stage did I say she had no right to an OPINION I am pointing out her deception, before she even gets in she is shown to be a untrustworthy person.

BELLY I would like to remind you of something you said previously "I come here for intellectual stimulation, not the very opposite."

Belly - It also has to be noted YOU are the only person so far who has read the post and come up with I am trying to stop free opinions by people.

Pericles - The system is absolutely broken when someone can get elected with only a 0.22% of the people supporting them.

I think this is a case of "times change", WmTrevor.

>>The system seems to have suited the major parties for a long while... or are they just slow on the uptake to need 65 years to see that something is broken? I think it fair to say it is no more broken than it has ever been.<<

Back then, elections were taken relatively seriously. Certainly, they were not considered a vehicle with which to scam money from the public purse by gaming the mathematics involved in becoming "elected". Nor, I would dare suggest, seen as a perfect platform for the mega-rich to parade their narcissism.

Both developments have caused the list of candidates to swell over time, to the point where the public hasn't the faintest chance of evaluating the impact on the outcome of their individual vote. This is now the province of "tacticians" driving sophisticated computer software.

I suspect that it never occurred to those worthy folk who framed the legislation that it would be rorted and manipulated in such a fashion, so they didn't think to include any safeguards.

And a working description of a mechanism that is being used outside its operational spec, and as a consequence produces unintended consequences, is, I suggest, "broken".

We're in furious agreement, Pericles... I was only drawing attention to the fact that the process for Senate elections is unchanged over enough years to warrant the moniker 'traditional' and that it seemed to represent no issue to the major parties (and the DLP).

That it now doesn't suit the 'Laborals', and they consequently describe it as broken gives me no cause for concern - as they deserve to reap what they sowed.

That it increasingly doesn't suit or represent the electors of a state does concern me and needs must be addressed.

I just do not trust the major parties to do so.

Philip S sorry my fault, I continue to forget you lack any intellectual ability's.
Will stay away, means, writing slowly, its your sand box .

Unfortunately some bloke from the LDP, a Mr David Lyonhjelm, looks like getting elected to the senate from NSW. Mr Lyonhjelm said, I quote; "Looks like I'm going to be the senator for the donkeys", a fruit cake voted in by donkeys. Listening to this bloke I formed the opinion he is from the Loony Dumbo Party or some such organisation.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/detours-ahead-as-minor-parties-claim-senate-balance-20130908-2te36.html

Sometimes the voters get it right, they tipped the bucket on Ms Fish Shop, Pauline Hanson and the so called Stop The Greens Party. My only disappointment with the whole election was Cate Faehrmann did not win a senate spot.
Must be of great concern to the ALP to see Adam Bandt win the seat of Melbourne with a swing of over 7% while their candidate suffered a 10% loss, Liberals got nothing. Shows that a good progressive Green member like Adam, when given the opportunity, will win popular support from the electorate. This is why Conservative Labor fear The Greens. Some will say, Paul what about the national swing against the Greens, not of concern, I think long term and how we progress over time. As for the overall result, nothing more than one bunch of conservatives cannibalising the other bunch of conservatives, ho hum

Belly - Okay your reply really shows your ignorance.

To quote your original comment "The though our author wants to bar a Senator for holding an opinion is disturbing.
No truly!"

Please indicate what part of my post led you to make this comment?

To quote from your 2nd comment "I continue to forget you lack any intellectual ability's" Sarcasm 8is the lowest for of wit, draw your own conclusion from that statement.

To further quote you "Will stay away," YOU keep saying words to that effect but you fail to be able to follow through, very weak willed.

To quote you from before "I come here for intellectual stimulation, not the very opposite." PLEASE be so kind as to what parts of your comments on this thread come under the heading of "intellectual stimulation."

I see no articles that say Jacqui Lambie would not support the repeal of the Carbon Tax. Do you have a reference or link ?

Here you go Arjay

"My thoughts on the carbon tax is that there still needs to be a carbon tax, but it just needs to be a lot lower than it is."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-09/palmer-united-tasmanian-hopeful-labels-liberals-27a-boys-club/4945574

It probably didn't get reported on RT.com, so it's not surprising you missed it.

Paul1405, David Lyonhjelm (LDP) is not a fruit cake.
His comment is a reference to the "donkey vote" (they were listed first).
It's just a joke!

(I don't know why the Electoral Commission allowed the registration of the name Liberal Democrats)

Pauline Hanson or Shooters/Fishers would have got a seat in NSW if Palmer United (supposed nationalists) had preferenced them before the Coalition.
I wonder how many PUP voters thought their preferences would go to other alternative nationalist parties *first*?

Considering how high the official quota is, it's ridiculous how many people are being elected with so low a vote.

It's all because of these preference deals, which wouldn't even be necessary if people could number more than one box *above* the line, thereby distributing their vote in their own order and not being transferred to any party they don't choose to number.

Even if they vote below the line (a cumbersome task), they must still number *every* box, meaning their vote could wind up electing someone they despise.

There needs to be reform, but it's mainly revising how the forms are filled out that would solve the problem.

Ms Lambie comes across (in one TV interview at least) as something of a 'rogue element', or at best a 'free spirit', and thus should really have only been standing as an 'independent'.
It appears possible that she may have taken unscrupulous advantage of standing under the PUP umbrella, so as to vastly improve her chances of winning a senate spot. (And it would appear that Clive and his 'machine' may well not have done their homework properly in their selection process in this instance. A poor show, even if they were running against the clock to gain sufficient 'contenders' to make a good showing.)
Politics is, or should be, a serious business, and 'transgressions', such as this may well turn out to be, ought be the subject of appropriate censure.
A stain on PUP legitimacy? Possibly. Time will tell.

(I think it is also relevant here to see comments on the 'How do we fix the Senate' thread - for, on current outcomes, this part of the ballot system appears to have some very large gaping 'holes' in it.)

Shockadelic, did you listen to the link I posted of Leyonhjlm being interviewed by Neil Mitchell from 3AW? Tax is the LDP's big bogie, proposes a tax free threshold of $40,000 then a flat 20% income tax, when asked how much it would cost, the bloke didn't have an answer, well the answer was "A lot, I don't remember, I'm 61 years old" 61 and senile if you can't answer that question about your major policy. On gun control the blokes a "Rambo". to be fair there is some stuff he said I could agree with, but he comes across as generally lacking political reality.
Listing to Big Clive on the ABC, it seems to me politics and parliament is just another play thing for Clive, like his dinosaur park and titanic, something he will get tied of and discard when he feels like it. He reminds me of the bloke some years ago who formed The Mickey Mouse Party, with a single policy of "free cheese for everybody." it got him votes. Clive is bit of a "free cheese man" as well, populism and cold cash (Big Clive's cash that is) plucked him a few votes from the big two and even from The Greens. Like a bad smell he'll stick around for a while but eventually blow away, when the wind changes.

Paul, thanks for the laugh.

Fancy a green labelling another party as fruit cakes. That has to be the best yet.

Saltpetre - I believe she went with PUP because she did not have the money for a campaign so she went with Palmer.

Not a good reason, because it shows her integrity is already for sale.

Yes, and we all know how "integrity" is such a big factor in federal politics (not).

These days, it's more like a schoolyard brawl.

Lol!

Banjo, don't forget I have read many of your posts. Are you a 'light fruit cake' or a 'dark fruit cake'. Mr L from the DLP OR DDT party or where ever he sprung from tends to be the type of fruit cake that is choc full of nuts. unlike us Greens who are more the organic fruit cakes, you know organic fruits, untouched by the DDT party.
"Paul, thanks for the laugh." Don't mention it, hard to get an old conserve to laugh at the best of times, so I'll count that as a plus.

David Lyonhjelm (LDP) will be a fine Senator and he's a very smart bloke; check out his part in the political demise of John Howard.

He even espouses the radical idea that Australians should not only be allowed to defend themselves against unlawful life threatening attack but that they should be allowed the means of so doing.

"He even espouses the radical idea that Australians should not only be allowed to defend themselves against unlawful life threatening attack but that they should be allowed the means of so doing."
Wow, it will be the wild west in Dodge City with Davo calling the "shots". just what we need. A question; From stats, if you own a gun which of the following people are you most likely to shoot?

(a) Yourself.
(b) Your partner or family member.
(c) A crazed desperado trying to kill you
(d) J.F.K

For those who answered c, collect your AK47 on the way out. For those who answered d, sorry someone has beaten you to it. For those who answered a or b go to the top of the class, but you don't get a gun, its far to dangerous in your hands.

Paul,
Your last post reinforces what I said about greens calling others fruitcakes. Pot/kettle LOL.

Paul,

Did I mention guns?

In Australia one is not allowed to possess any thing for the purpose of self defence.

Don't you believe in the right to defend one's self, or one's loved ones?

Is Mise, no you did not mention guns, but Dave from the LDP has lots to say on the subject.
"Don't you believe in the right to defend one's self, or one's loved ones?" Please explain your preferred method of self defense, if its not guns, knives, or some other offensive weapon, what is it? Stats show that people are very poor at self defense with a deadly weapon in hand. If you want to know where uncontrolled gun laws lead, take one look at the USA. Dave wants that for Australia, and I shouldn't call him a fruit cake.

Paul1405,

Are those things you imagine that you are capable of doing if you could qualify for a firearms licence?

Better not let you buy fuel for your mower. God knows what you might be capable of doing with that.

Paul,

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
And, firearms homicide in Oz is a tiny portion of total homicides, and of those the majority are by unlicensed criminals using illegal firearms. (Firearms suicide is also exceedingly rare in Oz.)

The US is not in any way indicative of Oz, for we at least have appropriate and effective licensing of firearms owners, and our laws for misuse of firearms are very severe. (Zimmerman would probably have copped a life sentence in Oz. The guy was/is obviously a menace).
And firearms accidents are also rare in Oz, as firearms owners are amongst the most responsible citizens in our community, not by chance, but by design.

Our firearms laws are tough, and they seem to be working well, and no new member of parliament, or parliamentary party, is likely to achieve any significant relaxation of those laws, no matter how much they might bellow or cry foul.

Should we be able to defend ourselves or family/friends/others from mortal threat? I believe so - per the use of reasonable force.
Could such force include the use of a firearm? I believe so, in appropriately threatening circumstances.

The Greens need to stop being paranoid about guns and gun ownership - as long as relevant laws remain effective.
(I think the Greens should focus more on deficiencies in mental health care, and health and aged care generally, for these are in far greater need of attention and improvement.)

In responsible hands, firearm use for vermin control is far more humane than the use of 1080. (And you can take that from someone who knows.)
As for hunting, I feel some more comprehensive training and relevant license qualification would not go astray - whether such hunting may be using a firearm, bow, or any other means.

Folks,
We had a national gun buy back and a number of gun amnesties in the wake of Port Arther.
Did you know that not one single criminal handed in their guns. Not a single one did.
So really what was the point of it.
Probably so the 'good' citizens wouldn't shoot their 'bad' politicians.
It seem that I am allowed to stab my enemies to death or bash them dead with a baseball bat but not shoot them.
The police have guns. The security guards have guns. The army have guns even the national park rangers have guns but not the citizen.
If these people have guns to protect themselves then why can't the citizens have guns to protect themselves.
Is it that the government doesn't trust its citizens?
Surely they are not telling us that all those people with legal guns are 'good, honest and true" over and above us ordinary citizens.
Wake up people the government doesn't want you to have a gun because you might be a threat to their government.
Does anybody really believe that all these "emergency" laws they are putting in place for the G20 meeting will ever be repealed.

Paul,

Why don't you answer the question that I asked?

"Don't you believe in the right to defend one's self, or one's loved ones?"

Then I'll answer your questions.

The reason we don't have a huge US style problem with guns in Australia is because of tough gun laws, and Howard to his credit took decisive action on guns. Now this Rambo Dave from the LDP wants to undo all that and arm society.
"Don't you believe in the right to defend one's self, or one's loved ones?" To answer you question Is Mise. As a 97 year old, deaf and blind mute I intend to fight to the bitter end when attacked by a gang of gun wheedling Hell's Angles, I prefer the walking stick for self defense, now what's yours . We have a police force to protect society, we don't need a private armed posse of vigilantes roaming the streets, protecting society from wrong doers.
"Wake up people the government doesn't want you to have a gun because you might be a threat to their government." chrisgaff1000 are you advocating gun laws based on the Syrian model?

Just answer the question, Paul.

It's not hard.

"Don't you believe in the right to defend one's self, or one's loved ones?"

>>Did I mention guns?

In Australia one is not allowed to possess any thing for the purpose of self defence.<<

Really? This is the first I've heard about this. When did they ban cricket bats? Is it only in some states? It's just that this year's cricket season is going to be pretty hard if we all have to bat with those foam noodle things people have in their swimming pools.

Oh well. Even if they do ban sporting goods they can't effectively ban stout sticks: stout sticks grow on trees. Just go for a walk in the bush and select yourself a suitably stout stick. Voila, you now have your very own defensive weapon. Was that so hard?

Cheers,

Tony

"In Australia one is not allowed to possess any thing for the purpose of self defence."

Tony Lavis you forgot to mention rapier wit...

Not everyone on OLO, of course, is equally well defended.

Rapier wit or no, one is not allowed to possess anything for the purpose of self defence; the operative words are 'self defence', one may have a cricket bat or almost anythlng else in one's possession but the purpose is crucial.
One may use one's walking stick to defend but one must not have it for that purpose.

>>one is not allowed to possess anything for the purpose of self defence; the operative words are 'self defence', one may have a cricket bat or almost anythlng else in one's possession<<

So what are you getting worked up about? We've established that you're allowed to own a cricket bat and that you're allowed to defend yourself with it*. Are the semantics really that important?

*Conditions apply.

Cheers,

Tony

"Tony Lavis you forgot to mention rapier wit..."

Well I kinda like "old soggy towel wit".

(Can't give quite a nasty flick if operated properly....)

That would be "Can give..."

(obviously, Poirot does not have the knack:)

Tony,

The semantics are most important, they are the difference between being charged with possessing an offensive weapon and not being so charged.

For example, if a person uses a walking stick against an attacker and when asked by the police why he/she had the stick; the answer that it was carried to assist when stepping across gutters is perfectly reasonable, but if the person answers that it was carried for defence then charges will/can follow.

>>For example, if a person uses a walking stick against an attacker and when asked by the police why he/she had the stick; the answer that it was carried to assist when stepping across gutters is perfectly reasonable, but if the person answers that it was carried for defence then charges will/can follow.<<

An obvious answer presents itself here: don't tell the police you were carrying a walking stick for self defence. Not only will they charge you, they will think you are weird and snigger about you in the police station tearoom. What sort of paranoiac roams the streets clutching a walking stick (a pretty lousy defensive weapon BTW) in case they get attacked? Presumably the same ones that fret about being picked up by the police for possession of an offensive walking stick.

People like that don't need to be armed, they need to go and have a chat to their doctor about their excessive anxiety. With the right help they might achieve greater peace of mind and quality of life.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,

"An obvious .... clutching a walking stick (a pretty lousy defensive weapon BTW) in case they get attacked? Presumably ...."

The walking stick is a very formidable weapon and in trained hands a lethal one and not,as you say,"(a pretty lousy defensive weapon BTW)".

I have trained in the Indian Police (H.G.Lang) method of stick-fighting but not in the strictly European methods.
See http://lacannevigny.wordpress.com/pierre-vigny/the-stick-fighting-method-of-pierre-vigny/

British Guards Officers in mufti carried the tightly rolled umbrella as a defence, a thrust to the throat of an attacker with the metal foot can be lethal, as in a thrust with a bayonet.

Modern Umbrellas:

Quote from: http://real-self-defense.com/unbreakable-umbrella/
"The Unbreakable® Umbrella protects against rain and everything else…. Whacks just as strong as a steel pipe but it weighs only between 1 lb. 2.8 oz./535 g and 1 lb. 13 oz./822 g (depending on the model).

Legal to carry everywhere
Never raises suspicions
Does not make you look silly (no strange looks if carried by an able-bodied person)".

Stick around and learn.

Paul,

"....I intend to fight to the bitter end when attacked by a gang of gun wheedling Hell's Angles, I prefer the walking stick for self defense....".

Good choice of weapon and if they're 'wheadling' then you don't have much to fear!!

Gentlemen,
I trained in an Aussie govt force I suppose you could call it that and self defense with a high degree of physical disaster for the assailant came at the end of a tightly rolled copy of the Daily Telegraph thrust into the larynx first and the across the side of the head against the temple region. You completely disable the assailant if not kill him.
The second method were were taught was to always carry a simple Bic Biro pen. A quick thrust to the eye area (usually the nose and cheek structure will guide the point) will do the trick. You will either blind the assailant or poke a hole in his brain. If that does,t stop him then ram the Biro into his ear and through to the brain.
There are weapons everywhere the problem with people they are usually to scarred to react to the presented threat.

Gentlemen,

Enough of this gung-ho cr@p, this is starting to sound like a typical squabble between the 'micros'.

Peace, brothers, the sky's not falling in yet.

Is Mise, you must be fairly new to the forum and a young pup, as it is considered bad forum etiquette to point out ones typos and spelling mistakes. It tends to label one as smug and harboring a sense of superiority. Yes you are correct the word is spelt 'wielding' and not 'wheadling',unfortunately you do not have the ability to reproduce my misspelling correctly I spelt it,'wheedling'.
I am more interested in your opinions, for what they are worth, than your spelling and grammar.

Then let us get back on track "This is the type of person we do not need in the senate."

May I submit Cate Faehrmann as one that we do not need and, indeed, one that we are fortunate not to have got.

Lee Rhiannon, a Federal Senator and a thin skinned Watermelon, i.e. less Green and more red than most Greens, we do need in the Senate as this puts her in a position to do the most harm to her party.

Paul,

"Is Mise, you must be fairly new to the forum and a young pup, as it is considered bad forum etiquette to point out ones typos and spelling mistakes. It tends to label one as smug and harboring a sense of superiority. Yes you are correct the word is spelt 'wielding' and not 'wheadling',unfortunately you do not have the ability to reproduce my misspelling correctly I spelt it,'wheedling'.
I am more interested in your opinions, for what they are worth, than your spelling and grammar."

Actually I joined years ago and far from being a 'young pup' I'm in my 80th year.
You didn't misspell the word and I did reproduce your spelling in the quote, however I used an alternative and somewhat archaic spelling myself.

"....It tends to label one as smug and harboring a sense of superiority...." You could be right there!

"May I submit Cate Faehrmann as one that we do not need and, indeed, one that we are fortunate not to have got." Your opinion Is Mise, possible if you had met and spoken with Cate, as I have on many occasions, you may have a different opinion. As you come across as an arch conservative and Cate is very much a progressive you would be unlikely to agree with her on most issues, I suspect.
"Lee Rhiannon, a Federal Senator and a thin skinned Watermelon, i.e. less Green and more red than most Greens, we do need in the Senate as this puts her in a position to do the most harm to her party." Again I do not agree, I find Lee both knowledgeable and articulate, what I said for Cate goes for Lee as well. Your Lee Rhiannon opinion runs very much in line with the views published in Murdocks fish wrapper The Daily Telegraph, are you an avid reader of Piers Akerman? Nice to see you spell the names, Faehrmann and Rhiannon correctly, most of their detractors can't.
My biggest and only disappointment with the whole election was Cate's failure to win a senate seat in NSW.

>>May I submit Cate Faehrmann as one that we do not need and, indeed, one that we are fortunate not to have got.<<

You may but you are wrong: Cate Faehrmann would make an excellent senator.

As for the people we don't need in the senate: South Australian Senator Bob Day and Victorian Senator John Madigan are two people we could really do without - they are members of Family First and the DLP respectively. We already have enough conservative senators to outnumber the left-wing ones and we really don't need a couple loony extremists from the ratbag right. They tarnish the respectability of the entire House.

We could do without Glenn Lazarus too. I'm sure he's a nice guy with his heart in the right place and from what I've seen of PUP policies they aren't too objectionable. But his claim to fame is that he used to play rugby and rugby players are generally not regarded as the sharpest pencils in the box. In a country where we have doctors and scientists and engineers and lots of really clever people who we could elect to the Senate, why oh why did we have to elect Glenn Lazarus?

Cheers,

Tony

Cate Faehrmann was one of the three Greens in the NSW Parliament who engaged in spreading lies about and engaging in character assination against Brian Doyle, then CEO of the Game Council of NSW.

Brian Doyle had to seek redress by means of a Citizen's Right of Reply under the Privileges Committee of the Parliament.

Here: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/f0c434305450a948ca257a620083137e/$FILE/Report%2062%20Boyle.pdf

None of the three Greens named made any public statement, as far as can be ascertained.

Whilst " 1.5 The Committee draws attention to standing order 203(3)(b) which requires that, in considering a submission seeking a citizen’s right of reply, the Committee must not consider or judge the truth of any statements made in the House or in the submission."

That is left to the perception of the reader and my perception is that all three lied.

We don't need such people in Parliament, either they lied or were grossly incompetent.

"That is left to the perception of the reader and my perception is that all three lied." Do you also believe Mr Boyle is in no way "political"

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/game-council-to-be-abolished-20130704-2pdte.html

Yes, and no one has offered any proof that he is otherwise, whereas there is plenty of proof that the three Greens told outright lies or, if they were telling the truth, as they saw it, that they are dangerously incompetent.

Parliamentarians who don't check their facts, before putting their mouth into gear, should not be in Parliament.

"Mr Buckingham stated that:
1. ‘On the day of the announcement the people of Orange saw Brian Boyle go up Mount Canobolas, which was shrouded in thick, pea soup fog – you could not see 50 metres ahead – and say, “Isn't it great that I will be able to shoot up here? I can let off a highpowered rifle through a thicket of bush, in the fog, with no idea who else is in the park.”
Inevitably, someone will end up being shot.'"

The Mount had cloud over it but it was not shrouded in fog. The area where the interview with the television crew was was clear – as seen in the excerpts on the ABC program that night.
I never at any time made the statement attributed to me by Mr Buckingham.

"2. ‘I live in Orange and this is also my experience of the Game Council. It is a little fiefdom for Brian Boyle and his Shooters and Fishers Party mates. There is a $1 million kickback for these guys…’"

Mr Buckingham is implying corrupt activity by myself in receiving or being part of a $1 million ‘kickback’.
-
Someone is telling lies and it's not Boyle; he doesn't have Parliamentary Privilege' behind which to hide.

It is understandable that the NSW Greens (and many ordinary citizens) would be concerned about the opening up of national parks to shooters - no matter how responsible and well trained those shooters might be; let alone under the fundamentally minimal-training and minimal supervision approach of the NSW Game Council (which has demonstrated itself to be little more than a 'boys club' primarily interested in having exclusive access to the hunting of deer, and in maintaining financial means to establish and run 'game farms').
In my estimation, the vermin-control argument put forward by the Game Council (via the NSW Shooters and Fishers Party) for access to State Forests, Crown Land and National Parks is mostly a smokescreen to enable access to the deer contained therein - though there will be many responsible environmentally-conscious amateur hunter members who do indeed hold such altruistic interests.

The Shooters and Fishers Party appeals in large part to a base of sport, recreation and hunting shooters for its very existence in the NSW Parliament, and the NSW Game Council was its 'jewel in the crown'.
Hence, by association, the Game Council is, or was, in a most fundamental way, political. For Brian Doyle to deny such association is/was a discombobulation of incomprehensible proportion.
TBC>

Cont'd>
From an ABC report, in part referring to statements by (NSW) Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson, contained in the following link:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2013-07-04%2Fgame-council-disbanded-but-volunteer-hunting-to-go-ahead%2F4800098&ei=3u8zUsWpJ6mZiQfj-IG4Bw&usg=AFQjCNH5rn2ZLqORq1DUNjLG37v-_CSpLQ&bvm=bv.52164340,d.aGc

>>>"The overall direct economic impact of the pest animals has been conservatively estimated at $740 million annually," Ms Hodgkinson said.

"Pest animals threaten 40 per cent of fragile biodiversity in NSW. There are 388 threatened species at risk, including 154 plants, 186 animals, 17 endangered populations and 31 endangered ecological communities.

"It is impossible to place a value on this cost to the environment."

A trial of the controversial plan to allow volunteer hunters will begin in 12 parks in October.

NSW Environment Minister Robyn Parker says the trial will be regulated and managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, and there will be strict controls and supervision.

"Only those volunteers who have the equivalent qualifications, experience and training as national parks staff will be able to participate," Ms Parker said.<<<

The Game Council has indeed been 'political', by virtue of its association with the Shooters and Fishers Party in the NSW parliament - which has claimed the Game Council as its 'baby'.

Genuine altruism (or guile) aside, the Game Council has not lived up to minimal expectations, and the NSW Greens and NSW Government had every right to query its continued operation and relevant funding.

Vermin control is a problem, but could not, and would not, be adequately addressed under Game Council management.
(However, licensing and operating provisos by NSW Environment Minister Parker are likely to preclude most amateurs from any participation in the 'new' arrangements. This would please some; but to the detriment of vermin control and native species conservation - unless effective 'management' arrangements can be worked out.)

Brian Boyle was denying that he was political and that, as alleged by his attackers, he had political ambitions.
That he was working with members of a political party does not mean that he was political no more than the National Parks working with the Greens does.

The NSW Greens members may have gotten a bit 'carried away' in their opposition to the proposed opening of national parks to 'amateur' hunters (under 'management' by the Game Council), and it would appear that they did misrepresent Game Council CEO, Brian Doyle, in part of their presentation, but at least some of their underlying concerns appear to have been vindicated by the subsequent disbanding of the Game Council.

However, I don't totally share the espoused views of these NSW Greens members (particularly as vermin control remains a significant concern), and would have preferred if more adequate and 'professional' arrangements could have been made with the Game Council, and via its relationship with the National Parks Service and other relevant government departments (Primary Industry, Environment).
The disbanding of the Game Council has missed out on an opportunity to implement reforms which could satisfy both the environmental interests and the interests of shooters to 'assist' in vermin control.
As it is, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.

Left to National Parks (and Forestry Services), there is little hope that effective vermin control on public land could be achieved without either a large increase in relevant NPWS staffing, or by large expenditure employing professional hunters.
Room for a compromise (under appropriate 'conditions')? I certainly hope so.
(Bring on 'the Green Army'?)

Has this 'exercise' vindicated, or condemned, the participation of 'micros' (or minority interest Parties/Groups) in our parliamentary democratic system?
Yes or no, now, that is the question.
(I think they have a place, subject to them having earned a place honestly.)

An aside: It appears many of we OLO-ers might be categorized as 'the ancients' (or, more tactfully, as 'elders')? I wonder whether we have many/any generation X or Y participants?

The Greens and Shoebridge, in particular, have been going on about amateur hunters but just what is an 'amateur hunter'? If the NP Rangers are professionals then heaven help us and the native wildlife.

Mise: >what is an 'amateur hunter'?<

Well, they're the ones who don't get paid.
But, they are a mixed bag, including experienced, responsible hunters (excellent marksmen and stalkers), through to 'new chums'. It is only through appropriate training, assessing and duly-earned accreditation that some may be appropriately qualified to undertake game-hunting or vermin control on public lands (or any form of hunting, IMHO).
All necessarily hold a relevant firearms licence (issued by a State government authority), but this alone is not an accreditation of skill/capability, and is where additional hunting training by an accredited shooting/hunting organisation comes in. And, in this respect (of a lack of appropriate training and assessment) the Game Council rather let the side down (IMHO).

The Game Council issued 'R' licences, as a prerequisite for the hunting of 'game' (deer, ducks) on private land (with landholder approval), and for access to hunting of game or vermin on public land (under strict conditions). But, acquisition of an 'R' licence was really fairly easy - and shouldn't have been, given the attendant responsibilities. (Game Council management of public land 'permit' provisions also appears to have been a little 'loose'.)

The interests of 'native wildlife' (flora and fauna) requires the removal of competing 'exotic' species, and there ought be 'accredited' persons authorised and managed to undertake the removal of vermin. (One should not expect someone intent on deer to take opportunity to shoot a fox, feral-dog, cat, goat or pig. It would be counter-intuitive.)

Vermin control can include baiting/poisoning (rather inhumane), trapping (more humane, though still distressing for the 'captive'), and humane, swift, one-shot kill. I know which I prefer, when undertaken with 'professional' skill.
However, only a combination of control measures may ever be really effective - until biological control methods may be devised.
Shooting can and does have a legitimate role, when performed skillfully and responsibly. Its obviation from management of public environments will have a cost, for farmers, for native species, for 'humane' control, and potentially for the public purse.

Precisely, and the Greens use of 'amateur' was intentionally derogatory, misleading and well off the mark.

I would go so far as to say that the skill levels of many amateur hunters is superior to that of most professionals, bearing in mind that NP employees are usually regarded as being professional.

Hunting can completely eradicate species of feral animals, that has been well proven.

Is Mise, nothing to say on the SMH article? Here is the gist of it for you;
"Amateur hunting in NSW forests will be suspended until at least October following the damning findings of a review into the Game Council of NSW.
As a result of the review, by retired public servant Steve Dunn, the Game Council of NSW will be abolished and responsibility for licensing of amateur hunters transferred to the Department of Primary Industries, the state government announced on Thursday."
damning findings, abolished the Liberal State government.
Goodbye Boyle.
We are most fortunate in NSW to have outstanding Greens members in the LC, David Shoebridge, John Kaye, Jan Barham, Jeremy Buckingham who have now been joined by a very dear friend of mine Mehreen Faruqi. Along with Jamie Parker, the member for Balmain, we have a competent and hard working team. With the disorganised rabble which is the NSW Labor Party these Greens have become the effective opposition to the people bashing O'Farrell government. A good example is the work done in exposing the likes of the Game Council and its Mr Boyle, good to see O'Farrell act, would he have done so without the hard work of The Greens, I doubt it

Paul,

The SMH article has absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of the three Greens who slandered Brian Boyle.

Boyle took the unusual step of seeking a Citizen's Right of Reply, that document exposes the three Greens concerned as liars who hid under Parliamentary Privilege.

Perhaps another quote?

"Mr Shoebridge stated that:

1. ‘We should be very clear about this. Mr Boyle engages repeatedly in the political dialogue that goes on in this State about the expansion of hunting. He regularly comments, for example, on the political debate about having 12-year-old kids unsupervised out in State forests stabbing pigs to death. He regularly commentates, in fact has attended political meetings –
… – that my party has organised in western Sydney. He attended and addressed the meeting. He engages in political debate. He attends the meetings in order to engage in political debate. And he engages regularly in political debate across the State. He is a
political figure, and he is going to be basically a tsar, in charge of some $5 million budget, standing in the shoes – ’

Mr Shoebridge is referring to a meeting at Padstow Senior Citizens Centre in Bankstown on 6 July 2011. I did not attend the meeting – it was attended by Mr John Mumford, Chairman of the Game
Council and Messers Douglas Shupe and Stephen Larsson, both of whomare appointed Councillors on the Game Council of NSW.

My diary notes and calendar will confirm I was in Orange and was
involved in meetings that day. [unquote]

Either Shoebridge is lying or was seriously misinformed and didn't bother to check the facts before attacking under Privilege.

Not attributes that one would want in a Member of Parliament, in the Senate, the Legislative Council or anywhere else.

Is Mise, can you not countenance the possibility that Mr Boyle my be misleading with his "diary notes and calendar". Personally knowing David Shoebridge, I have no reason to believe him to be anything less than honorable and truthful in this or any other matter.
I do believe the independent inquiry by Steve Dunn into the Game Council of NSW and his adverse finding are relevant to Mr Boyle and his claims of not being "political" the inquire found otherwise.
Mr Dunn’s report notes that the Game Council of which Mr Boyle is head, was established in 2002 because of the ‘‘influence and power’’ of the Shooter and Fishers Party. He says this power has resulted in the creation of an organisation lacking in accountability.
Fortunate the O'Farrell government has seen fit to lance Boyle from the public purse

Did Boyle get the sack?

Reference?

Is Mise, you are doing a great job of trying to defend the indefensible. The Dunn review found the Game Council has its fingers deep in the political pie, with the slices getting bigger thanks to the influence and power of the Shooters and Fishers Party in the NSW Legislative Council. Is it possible Mr Boyle as the CEO of the Game Council may by implication been seen as also having fingers deep in the political pie,
I said Boyle was lanced, his organisation will no longer be spending public money, interpret that as you will, could it mean sacked.

A one time candidate of the Shooters and Fishers Party says he's always had concerns about the way the Game Council has been run.
Jim Pirie is from Mudgee in New South Wales and has over 60 years of hunting experience under his belt, he was also a one-time candidate of the Shooters and Fishers Party.
These days he's the owner of a gun shop in town and he's also the Treasurer of the Cudgegong Valley Hunters Club.
He spoke with the ABC's Angela Owens frankly about his concerns over opening National Parks up to hunters and the growing power base of the Game Council.
"Unfortunately the architects of all this are very egotistical, arrogant men and they won't take advice from anybody," he said.
"It's either their way or the highway."
"(Someone) stood up at a hunting organisation meeting one day and said there was no nepotism, no cronyism in the Game Council, well that was a joke.
"They appointed the people that they wanted and this at the end of the day was to the determent of the organisation."

So Paul, like a good Green and Shoebridge admirer you told a fib. You said that Brian Boyle, a public servant of 26+ years service, had got the sack and now you offer no proof.

Boyle's diary etc., were submitted to the Privileges Committee and the lies that he complained about were in Hansard, not some fish-wrapper broadsheet.

Quote:
Appendix 1
Reply to comments by the Hon Jeremy
Buckingham MLC, the Hon Cate
Faehrmann MLC and Mr David
Shoebridge MLC in the Legislative
Council on 20 June 2012.

The three Greens mentioned lied and what is more, lied in Parliament; and thus fit the criteria for this thread.

Is Mise, I am enjoying our discussion on this subject, but unfortunately I feel you are flogging a dead horse. You base your argument on the notation that as Mr Boyle fronted the Parliamentary Privileges Committee and presented his "diary" to dispute the claims of several honorable members, it must be so. You are accepting that in some way Mr Boyle's diary is conclusive evidence, could it be that Mr Boyle's diary is a concoction? Boyle fails to offer any corroborative evidence what so ever, in other words any "buddies" who could back him up. As I personally know the honorable members in question I have no reason to doubt their truthfulness.
I do not dispute Mr Boyle is a public servant, but as the head of the Game Council and in light of the adverse findings of the Dunn Report I accept that Mr Boyle had overstepped his authority and acted in a political way, which is unacceptable. The O'Farrell government has acted appropriately in dumping Boyle and his Game Council.

Paul,

Are you asking us to accept that the Privileges Committee did not check the evidence presented by Brian Boyle?
Are you privy to the hearing and the procedures used?
The fact that he mentions his diary does not mean that he did not bring forward other and supportive evidence.
If he were lying then it would be a simple matter to prove it.

I'm sure that the ABC could provide a tape/disc/film that shews conditions on the mountain when:

"Mr Buckingham stated that:
1. ‘On the day of the announcement the people of Orange saw Brian Boyle go up Mount Canobolas, which was shrouded in thick, pea soup fog – you could not see 50 metres ahead – and say, “Isn't it great that I will be able to shoot up here? I can let off a highpowered rifle through a thicket of bush, in the fog, with no idea who else is in the park.”
Inevitably, someone will end up being shot.’

The Mount had cloud over it but it was not shrouded in fog. The area where the interview with the television crew was was clear – as seen in the excerpts on the ABC program that night.
I never at any time made the statement attributed to me by Mr Buckingham."

Now that is clear enough and it should be quite easy to prove Boyle wrong and that he is the liar and not the Greens.

Still waiting for a reference to Brian Boyle's dismissal.

Is Mise, from your post;
The Committee draws attention to standing
order 203(3)(b) which requires that, in
considering a submission seeking a citizen’s right
of reply, the Committee must not consider
or judge the truth of any statements made
in the House or in the submission.

The Committee recommends:
Recommendation 1
That a response by Mr Brian Boyle, Chief Executive Officer, Game Council of New South Wales, in the terms specified at Appendix 1, as agreed to by Mr Boyle and the Committee, be incorporated in Hansard

You seem to believe the Privileges Committee is some kind of court, it is not. It does not determine guilt or innocence, truthfulness or otherwise. Please read your above post, read the recommendation.
Boyle didn't like what was said about him, he made a reply, it was put in Hansard, end of story. I judge Mr Boyle on the Dunn Report and not his statements to the Privileges Committee

Yes, I posted that so that there would be no misconception that the Committee was making a judgement, clearly they do not and I do not see them as any kind of court.

Where does the Dunn report have anything to say on Boyle's evidence to the Committee?
The Committee's findings clearly shew that the Green MLCs lied if Boyle's statements to the Committee are true, if Boyle lied then he has slandered the Green MPs and some action should have been taken, it is a serious matter to lie to the Privileges Committee.

Yet we have the Green MLCs who have been attacking this man, even alleging criminal intent:

Quote: "2. ‘I live in Orange and this is also my experience of the Game Council. It is a little fiefdom for Brian Boyle and his Shooters and Fishers Party mates. There is a $1 million kickback for these guys…’

Mr Buckingham is implying corrupt activity by myself in receiving or being part of a $1 million ‘kickback’.

Fairly clear, is it not an allegation of criminal activity or intent and yet the Green MLCs miss this glorious opportunity to hammer Boyle into the ground.
Altruism or cowardice?

Is Mise I hasten once more to point out that the Privileges Committee of Parliament is not a court, not even a kangaroo court, even though it was stacked with Tories who would be ever willing to lynch good Greens parliamentarians at any opportunity. So your reference to "Boyle's evidence to the Committee" is erroneous, Boyle gave no evidence but rather made a series of statements in reply to matters concerning him raised in the House by several members of The Greens. As a citizen, Boyle had every right to do so.
Far more serious is the findings of the Dunn Report, something you have failed to comment on.

http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/docs/report-DunnReview.pdf

I have read the report and its recommendations. I found it scathing in its findings into the Game Council headed by Mr Boyle The O'Farrell government had no other option other than to sack the Game Council.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-05/nrn-game-council-gone/4800282

Is Mise, in stead of calling for Greens to be removed from parliament as you did; "We don't need such people (Greens) in Parliament" I would think we should thank the honorable Greens members for the outstanding work they have done in relation to hunting in national parks and in many other areas of concern for the people of NSW.

Paul,

If Boyle was not required to submitt evidence then why the reference to his diary?
However he has publically stated that the Greens are liars and furthermore he did this to a Committee of the State Parliament of NSW.

Are the Green MPs that he has appeared to slander not going to take him to task?

Where is the reference that verifies that he was sacked?

"Fortunate the O'Farrell government has seen fit to lance Boyle from the public purse"
"Boyle was lanced, his organisation will no longer be spending public money, interpret that as you will, could it mean sacked.
Is Mise, Above is what I said about Mr Boyle, I do not retract from that, I asked of you "could it mean sacked."
Lanced does not mean sacked, well not in my dictionary, as I applied it to Mr Boyle, in his capacity as CEO of the Game Council, that organisation was once a spender of public money etc, it no longer performs those functions on behalf of the NSW taxpayers, so in those terms one could used the word "sacked". By implication as head of the Game Council Mr Boyle is no longer performing duties for the taxpayers of NSW in relation to the previous functions of the Game Council. So what is he?

The intimation was that he was sacked, dismissed.
Removed from the public purse would indicate that he was no longer being paid, i.e. he was no longer a public servant.

Wriggle how you like but intimating that he was dismissed was not true, but then that's the Greens' way.

In my dictionary 'lanced' means a removal of pus from an infection known as a boil.
See:http://www.thesurvivaldoctor.com/2012/02/28/how-to-lance-a-boil/

Is Mise, thanks for your discourse on this subject. As for Mr Boyle, I do not know what he may do with his times these days. Is he on the public service unattached list? Is he sitting in his Game Council office sharpening pencils? Possibly he is off in the wilds of Africa hunting the last of the White Rhino's, I do not know. However one thing is for sure and certain Mr Boyle and his Game Council is no longer calling the "shots" in relation to hunting in NSW national parks and that can only be a good thing for the people of of this state. Thanks Barry.
Is Mise I hope to catch you on another thread, where I'm sure we'll clash on some other issue or three, as a progressive and a conservative often do.

Thankfully we no longer have Bob Brown in the Senate but in his time he told a lie or two that were par for the course for Greens but not what one should expect from a Senator,

One of the best was his claim "that there are 300,000 'hand-machine-guns' in Australia, many of which are carried around or hidden in car 'glove boxes".

If he really knew this for a fact and had any information to back up such a ludicrous claim then he should have informed the police, however there was no upsurge in convictions for possessing 'hand machine guns' (whatever that means) so it appears that he must have been 'mistaken'