Turnbull is not my government, he is a useless liberal 'wet' and as close as any conservative can come to being labor.

The real disapointment in my opinion is Abbott, for not showing some balls and standing up to these fools who are handing the primeinistership to Bill Shorten on a plate, although I do suspect Albo will be there sooner rather than later, which may then spark a reaction from Abbott. We can only hope.

It's sad to think that while I myslef, along with my parents brought children into such a wonderful place, my children no longer have the same oportunities, much of which can be blamed on our judicial system.

There was some woman on the Morning Show the other morning waffling on about why some very suspect people were given parole. I've no idea who she was as it was on the telly at the dentists so missed the lead up.

She said that if the crim had been good in jail then parole was a given, never mind that he'd still 5 years to go of a 20 year sentence for the killing of his mother or whoever. I was pretty stunned at her reasons as ..ok I guess you can muck up in jail but seriously there's not much to do but eat, sleep and read is there? I understand there are gyms but the freedom isn't really there to rob banks or beat up old ladies in the street so the options to muck up surely are pretty limited!

The other thing that stuns me in the first place is if you're young when you murder or rob..say 20..and you cop a 20yr sentence you are still only 40 when you get out. The person you killed is still dead..forever!

What judicial system. The only justice for murder is the hangman's noose. For all other brutal crimes, { the jewelry shop sudanese gang thieves down Melbourne spring to mind, they're so violent!} should be a minimum of 20 years and no parole ever.

@ rehctub....Abbott's hands are tied, he's not even on the front bench, so I'm not sure what you expect him to do? he has no power the poor sod. He took the Libs to a massive 30 seat majority and was backstabbed by the pathetic snake Turnbull and his cronies..Turnbull made the Libs a laughing stock and continues to do so, he lost the Libs huge lead and has been a useless piece of crap ever since.

Sadly, I think Labor will win the next elections and the Libs only have themselves to blame. The thought of Shorten being the PM makes me reach for the vomit bucket.
I'm going Pauline as I did last elections..and I'm a long time Lib voter. She's not my ideal choice but she's closer than the other muppets

I have to agree moonshine. In an ideal world I would not chose to vote for Hanson, but this is the only world we have.

Nothing would make me vote Labor with their ridiculous green lite policies, & I will never again vote Liberal while they continue to have people like Turnbull even in the ministry, let alone as PM. While their membership is so contaminated with ratbags, that they can elect a slime like Turnbull leader, I have very little confidence in the lot of them.

We therefore have little choice than Hansen, who may at least keep the left out, if not gain government.

It would be poetic justice for the current Liberal to have to court Pauline for votes to stay in power. That at least would stop their worst stupidity, such as the low emissions target.

Hi there JAYB...

'...Why is the law fraternity exempt from prosecution for their bad decisions...' you ask? The simple answer, you can't prosecute someone for being stupid or ignorant or making 'bad decisions'. The only way a member of the judiciary could be brought to book, would be for some criminal act arising out of his duty or roll eg, perverting the course of justice.

The Judiciary generally remains aloof, completely separated from government. Although the Attorney General and Minister for Justice (both politicians), can and do advise 'judicial members', of any amendments to, or variations of, government policy in matters of law, though not jurisprudence. However, when it comes to adjudicating on any matter, whether in civil or criminal jurisdiction, the Judicial member hearing the matter, is completely independent of any interference from either government or any individual politicians in toto.

If either the Crown or Defence are unhappy with either; (i)the actual proceedings itself eg rulings given, voire dire's etc; (ii) interpretation of various sections of law; Or in the case of a Trial; (iii)Instructions given to juries, from the Bench; or (iv) severity of sentence; then either side have access to a mechanism of appeal. This is one method, albeit a somewhat roundabout procedure, of correcting 'bad' decisions, by 'BOTH' sides, made by the 'Legal' fraternity.

JAYB this is but a very rudimentary appraisal of the Australian Legal process.

Thank you OSW, but what I was eluding to was the granting of Bail or Parole to the Accused/Convicted. Ignoring Legal People (Police/Prosecutor) who begged the Judge for the Accused/Convicted to be held. The Accused/Convicted then go on to carry out more Crimes.

I, for one, feel that the Judge should be held accountable for their decision & should/could be sued in a Civil Action. Especially in the case of murder.

I know the Legal Fraternity would find the Judge "Not Guilty" as a matter of course, but that's beside the point. (Corruption in High Places) They look after their own.