Abbott abandons Tasmania?

35 Seats is not the answer!

Greens renew push to increase size of State Parliament to 35 seats

image

INCREASING the number of seats in parliament is the most appropriate way to deliver a strong, majority government, says Greens MP Kim Booth.

Mr Booth renewed the party’s call to restore the parliament to 35 seats as debate about the future of the Labor- Green arrangement continued to rage yesterday.

“Most people want to see a return to the 35-seat House just to increase the diversity of opinion and intellectual capacity in the House,” he said.

“It’s not necessarily the only way to get a majority government, but it’s the only way to get a functioning parliament.” Asked whether the Greens would again enter a formal partnership with Labor after the next election, if the opportunity arose, Mr Booth was adamant no such deal had been made.

“It’s actually a misnomer,” he said.

“There was no formalised partnership.

I’ve not agreed to anything with Labor, nor has Tim Morris and neither has Paul O’Halloran.

“The only agreement was for Nick McKim and Cassy O’Connor to be ministers to enable their ministry.” Asked who would replace two Greens ministers if speculation the Premier would strip them of their portfolios proved to be accurate, Mr Booth said: “That’s a question only Lara Giddings can answer, but I’m not sure who she intends to bring in as ministers instead – Brenton Best or Graeme Sturges? I mean you’ve got to be joking.” Greens leader Nick McKim said Tasmanians were “bored” by debate about party deals.

“We believe that Tasmania is a better place when people work together and that’s what we remain committed to,” he said.

Liberal leader Will Hodgman again ruled out working with Greens.

“It leads to compromised government, it leads to decisions that have been made about political self-interest – that’s what’s happening with Labor and the Greens now,” he said.

Deputy Premier Bryan Green yesterday hosed down talk of a leadership challenge in the Labor Party.

Sourced from The Mercury

So if the Greens seriously believe that this is the answer then they need to look at the reason why the lower house numbers were reduced.

In 1998 it was reduced to five, resulting in the current 25 member parliament. The reduction has been criticised by minor parties, particularly the Greens, as an attempt to reduce their influence…  Source from Wikipedia

Tasmania simply can’t afford to increase parliament because it will only benefit the politician not the people!

Posted from WordPress for Android

Return to Van Dieman's Land?

ASYLUM seeker advocate Julian Burnside QC says Tasmania should be declared a haven for asylum seekers in a move that would save the nation billions of dollars and boost the state’s economy.

image

Mr Burnside outlined his proposal of a “Tasmanian solution” to Australia’s offshore asylum seeker processing crisis during a public lecture in Hobart.

Social welfare groups such as the Tasmanian Council of Social Service say Mr Burnside’s “bold and sweeping plan” has serious merit and should be considered by the incoming Abbott Government.

Premier Lara Giddings said she would not be supportive of a series of permanent prison-like detention centres being set up around the state.

“We have been welcoming of the Pontville detainees but we need to be cautious about going down a pathway too far,” Ms Giddings said from Asia yesterday.

Mr Burnside said the Pontville experience had shown Tasmanians were open to having asylum seekers in the community.

He said Tasmania was a logical place for the proposal to be trialled with its island status and historical link to being a place of detention.

“But I am not talking about these people being banged up in detention centres but allowed to live and spend in the community,” he said.

“These new detainees would spend in the community and provide a population boost to struggling rural towns.”

Mr Burnside proposed the Tasmanian Government be offered a $1 billion sweetener to embrace the idea.

“If we did this, and even if every asylum seeker was on Centrelink benefits, Australia would still be saving $2 billion a year,” Mr Burnside said.

“That is a huge amount of money and the solution would be a huge benefit to Tasmania.”

Mr Burnside said he would float the idea with the new Federal Government.

“I cannot believe the Australian people are comfortable with the nation spending $4 billion a year to damage people when we could spend half that and help not only the individual asylum seekers but the state of Tasmania and rural communities crying out for a population boost,” he said.

TasCOSS chief executive Tony Reidy said the incoming Prime Minister should look seriously at the proposal.

“Tasmania is ideally situated to take this on,” Mr Reidy said yesterday.

“Asylum seekers are typically coming from desperate situations and coming here while their applications are being assessed would be like arriving in paradise.

“This is a humane way of dealing with Australia’s asylum seeker problem and it would provide a significant boost to Tasmania, especially if regional and rural settlements were accompanied by the provision of social security benefits and significant resourcing to the Tasmania Government to quadruple its affordable housing efforts.

“We need instant action to keep Tasmania’s builders, shopkeepers and other small businesses gainfully employed and this bold idea could be just the thing.”

Sourced from The Mercury

This has to be one of the most crazy ideas that has been suggested in recent times as a band aid fix to a global problem. Tasmania’s European settlement was established as a penal settlement to rid England’s so called thieves, murderers etc, but that was ceased in 1853 now Julian Burnside wants to essentially return the state to an island detention centre. So does that make the current Australian citizens (Tasmania’s current population) in “detention” making us a 2nd class to those who live in the other states/territories? Clearly should this plan even get off the ground I can see a lot of people who will be forced out of their homes because they won’t want to be in a state of detention!

Posted from WordPress for Android

Return to Van Dieman’s Land?

ASYLUM seeker advocate Julian Burnside QC says Tasmania should be declared a haven for asylum seekers in a move that would save the nation billions of dollars and boost the state’s economy.

image

Mr Burnside outlined his proposal of a “Tasmanian solution” to Australia’s offshore asylum seeker processing crisis during a public lecture in Hobart.

Social welfare groups such as the Tasmanian Council of Social Service say Mr Burnside’s “bold and sweeping plan” has serious merit and should be considered by the incoming Abbott Government.

Premier Lara Giddings said she would not be supportive of a series of permanent prison-like detention centres being set up around the state.

“We have been welcoming of the Pontville detainees but we need to be cautious about going down a pathway too far,” Ms Giddings said from Asia yesterday.

Mr Burnside said the Pontville experience had shown Tasmanians were open to having asylum seekers in the community.

He said Tasmania was a logical place for the proposal to be trialled with its island status and historical link to being a place of detention.

“But I am not talking about these people being banged up in detention centres but allowed to live and spend in the community,” he said.

“These new detainees would spend in the community and provide a population boost to struggling rural towns.”

Mr Burnside proposed the Tasmanian Government be offered a $1 billion sweetener to embrace the idea.

“If we did this, and even if every asylum seeker was on Centrelink benefits, Australia would still be saving $2 billion a year,” Mr Burnside said.

“That is a huge amount of money and the solution would be a huge benefit to Tasmania.”

Mr Burnside said he would float the idea with the new Federal Government.

“I cannot believe the Australian people are comfortable with the nation spending $4 billion a year to damage people when we could spend half that and help not only the individual asylum seekers but the state of Tasmania and rural communities crying out for a population boost,” he said.

TasCOSS chief executive Tony Reidy said the incoming Prime Minister should look seriously at the proposal.

“Tasmania is ideally situated to take this on,” Mr Reidy said yesterday.

“Asylum seekers are typically coming from desperate situations and coming here while their applications are being assessed would be like arriving in paradise.

“This is a humane way of dealing with Australia’s asylum seeker problem and it would provide a significant boost to Tasmania, especially if regional and rural settlements were accompanied by the provision of social security benefits and significant resourcing to the Tasmania Government to quadruple its affordable housing efforts.

“We need instant action to keep Tasmania’s builders, shopkeepers and other small businesses gainfully employed and this bold idea could be just the thing.”

Sourced from The Mercury

This has to be one of the most crazy ideas that has been suggested in recent times as a band aid fix to a global problem. Tasmania’s European settlement was established as a penal settlement to rid England’s so called thieves, murderers etc, but that was ceased in 1853 now Julian Burnside wants to essentially return the state to an island detention centre. So does that make the current Australian citizens (Tasmania’s current population) in “detention” making us a 2nd class to those who live in the other states/territories? Clearly should this plan even get off the ground I can see a lot of people who will be forced out of their homes because they won’t want to be in a state of detention!

Posted from WordPress for Android

The Expected Result (No Surprises)

image

FORMER Gunns Ltd boss John Gay has avoided a jail term and been fined $50,000 for insider trading.

Justice David Porter handed down the penalty today in the Supreme Court in Launceston, with Gay later describing the past four years as “among the hardest” of his life.

Gay, 70, of Clarence St, Launceston, pleaded guilty earlier this month to one count of insider trading.

He sold 3.4 million Gunns shares from December 2 to 10, 2009, while possessing information from an October management report that he ought to have known would affect the stock price.

Gunns shares dropped from the average price he achieved of 90 cents to 68.5 cents in February 2010.

Justice David Porter said Gay’s offence was less serious than many cases of inside trading.

This was because Gay had made a decision to sell before he received the price-sensitive information and the decision to sell was health related.

The judge said Gay also spoke to the company secretary Wayne Chapman before the sale and was told there was a window of opportunity under the company’s trading policy.

Justice Porter said Gay ought have known, rather than did know, the information was price sensitive.

In passing sentence, he told the court Gay was of good character and the former CEO’s ill health was relevant.

As a result of his conviction, Gay is disqualified from managing corporations.

He did not comment after leaving the court but later issued a statement saying he was looking forward to spending more time with his family and focusing on his health now court proceedings had ended.

He said the past four years had been among the hardest of his life.

“I’m looking forward to enjoying time with my wife, children and grandchildren, working on my farm and focusing on my health,” Mr Gay said in a statement.

“My family and I would like to sincerely thank so many people who have offered their support and friendship during this time.

“I hope all people respect my privacy as I work though treatment for my ongoing battle with cancer.”

Sourced from The Mercury

The direct actions of John Gay have essentially cost a lot of people their livelihood as the timber company Gunns collapsed as a direct result of his actions. The law in this case has failed the former workers and contractors by allowing John to walk free with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, considering the outright personal profit made by selling his shares. It would be good to see a class action taken against John Gay by the former workers of Gunns for loss of lifestyle (or similar) but I can’t see this happening. 

Posted from WordPress for Android