.bmp)
SAY NO TO RACISM
Ms. Penny Wong,
Minister for Finance,
senator.wong@aph.gov.au
Dear Minister,
We refer to the report below for your information.
You are to be congratulated for calling a spade a spade when you said: Racial abuse was not unusual in Australia.
Although the White Australia policy was completely dismantled in theory but in practice, it remains the same and Labor is more racial than the former racist Howard government because it increased the English Test from 4.5 to 5.0 to day.
Racism destroys the quality of life.
Would you like to comment, please?
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 06-Oct-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Wong Defeats Race-Sex Prejudice as Australia Minister Set to Erase Deficit
Australia’s finance minister may need to reprise the toughness she showed in overcoming racial abuse and gaining control of a university political club to succeed in her new role.
Penny Wong is now charged with meeting Australia’s goal of becoming the first major developed nation to return its government budget to surplus. At stake: sustaining investor confidence in a country that avoided a recession during the global crisis and now seeks to end its deficits by fiscal 2013. Wong’s main mission is holding the line on cabinet colleagues’ budget requests to maintain a 2 percent cap on spending growth.
“She will have no problems saying no” to funding requests, said George Karzis, whom Wong ousted in 1989 as head of the Labor Club at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, and now works at law firm Norman Waterhouse in Adelaide. He said the two had embarked on a “campaign of enthusiastic recruitment” of new members to help gain control of the club, with Wong emerging the victor.
Australia’s economic growth, accompanied by the lowest debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio among advanced economies, has helped make its dollar the second-best performing major currency this year, climbing about 8 percent against its U.S. counterpart.
The economy, which is now in its 20th year of expansion, surged 1.2 percent last quarter, the fastest pace since 2007 as growth spread from the mining industry to households.
Smaller Deficit
Wong started her job last month with one advantage: The deficit has so far turned out to be smaller than the government had anticipated. The shortfall was A$54.8 billion ($53.2 billion) in the fiscal year that ended June 30, compared with a forecast in May this year of A$57.1 billion.
“The key is to ensure we get the budget back into surplus and ensure the strict spending rules,” Wong, 41, said in a telephone interview on Sept. 28. “We have to deliver fiscal consolidation and that will require enormous discipline.”
Wong was born in Kota Kinabalu in Sabah, Malaysia, to a Cantonese father and an Australian mother. Her parents met at the University of Adelaide when her father traveled to South Australia on a scholarship in the 1960s and returned to Malaysia together. When they separated, Wong moved to Australia at age eight with her mother and brother.
Wong’s brother died 10 days after her election to parliament in 2001. In her maiden speech the following year, she made reference to his passing, saying, “Your life and death ensure that I shall never forget what it is like for those who are truly marginalized.”
Migrant Difficulties
Wong alluded in her speech to the difficulties migrants faced when she arrived 25 years earlier.
“It was a hard time to leave a familiar place and come to somewhere where you and your family were seen as so different,” she told lawmakers. “Racial abuse was not unusual. It used to lead me to wonder, ‘How long do you have to be here and how much do you have to love this country before you are accepted?’”
Australia’s discriminatory immigration program, known as the White Australia policy, was completely dismantled in 1973. As late as 1988, John Howard, who went on to become Australia’s second-longest serving prime minister, called for reduced Asian immigration for the sake of “social cohesion.”
Wong wasn’t deterred. She won a scholarship to Scotch College in Adelaide, where Prime Minister Julia Gillard also hails from, and later became a captain of the school, the most prestigious position for a student. Di Hill, deputy principal at the time, recalls that some other students viewed the young Wong as “different” and she got “some teasing” as a result.
‘Intellectually Smart’
“Penny always said what she thought, in a way she probably wouldn’t now as a politician,” said Hill, whose husband, Robert, was a cabinet minister under Howard and who says she encouraged Wong to enter school politics, a process that ended with her being elected president of the student representative council by a record majority. “Sometimes that could aggravate people. She’s incredibly clever. Intellectually smart.”
Wong planned to become a doctor after graduation, winning a spot in medical school before deferring to go overseas. She returned to the University of Adelaide a year later and studied arts and law.
“I did a gap year and did some work in hospitals in Brazil and decided medicine wasn’t for me,” she said in the interview. “Not liking the sight of blood was one of many reasons.”
Wong worked part-time as an organizer for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union through the concluding stages of her law degree, while still managing to graduate with honors.
Legal Officer
She was a barrister and solicitor at an Adelaide firm for three years and then spent three years as a legal officer at the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union in South Australia before being selected as a Labor candidate for the Senate.
Wong served as the party’s spokeswoman during Labor’s 2007 election campaign and became Australia’s first ethnic Asian cabinet minister when then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appointed her to the climate-change portfolio after he led the party into government.
As climate-change minister, she drafted legislation proposing that Australia, the world’s biggest coal exporter and driest inhabited continent, reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the next decade by between 5 percent and 15 percent from 2000 levels. The Senate defeated the bill in December after a revolt in the opposition Liberal party led to a leadership change, and it turned against the plan.
Shrug Off Failure
While the defeat helped to bring down Rudd, Wong was able to shrug off the failure and continue her political ascent, partly because of the perception that Rudd’s poor judgment contributed to the bill’s collapse, said Haydon Manning, an associate professor in the Department of Politics and Public Policy at Flinders University in Adelaide.
“I’ve always thought she’s been harshly judged, given it was a very complex piece of legislation,” Manning said in an interview. “Rudd should have helped her sell it; instead, he left her to face the pressure.”
Wong’s promotion to finance minister in Gillard’s government now places her among the country’s top officials. The post is akin to the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget in the U.S., with Treasurer Wayne Swan occupying the equivalent of Treasury secretary.
Her ascendance is a rarity: Australia has a dearth of Asian-born representatives, even as the group’s share of the population climbed to 8.5 percent of country’s 22 million people in 2009 from 5.3 percent in 1999, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics data.
Public Servant
A member of the Uniting Church, Wong is also Australia’s first openly lesbian Cabinet member. She lives in Adelaide with her partner of three years, Sophie Allouache, a public servant who, like Wong, went to Scotch College. Allouache attended both of Wong’s swearing-in ceremonies.
Wong will have to display “a reckless degree of toughness” in her new role, Nick Minchin, finance minister from 2001 to 2007 in Howard’s government, said in a Sept. 29 interview.
As finance minister, “you have to be able to stand up to your colleagues and say no and be able to make the case,” said Minchin, who oversaw the sale of the final 35 percent stake in Melbourne-based Telstra Corp., Australia’s largest telephone company and is also from South Australia. “In a minority government like this, there are going to be enormous demands for what can only be described as pork barreling: inappropriate and irresponsible spending.”
‘Real Risks’
There are “real risks and she has a tough job ahead of her,” he added.
Wong replaced former Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner, who quit politics to work at Lazard Ltd., an investment bank. Tanner was credited with helping lead Australia’s response to the credit crisis, pressing to get stimulus into the economy quickly.
“Tanner was very well respected in the market,” said Stephen Halmarick, who helps manage about $135 billion as head of investment markets research at Colonial First State Global Asset Management in Sydney. While Wong’s appointment came as a surprise to some investors, “she is obviously someone who is very smart and can master her brief and will bring a new dimension to the role.”
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
A smiling PM leads Labor government in name only
Ms Julia Gillard,
Prime Minister of Australia
info@pm.gov.au
Dear Prime Minister,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you shortly,
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 09-Sept-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
A smiling PM leads Labor government in name only
September 8, 2010 - The Age
THE uncomfortable irony surely has not been lost on the Gillard government: the Labor Party, which is so weakened that large segments of its own electoral base are simply marching away, holds on to office only because four men who have never been part of the ALP have decided to give it a bare parliamentary majority.
Labor's own supporters across Australia couldn't do it. Not even the hundreds of thousands of disaffected Labor people who now back the Greens could help the ALP over the line through their preferences. In the end, two ex-Nationals in Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, the ex-Liberal and ex-Green Andrew Wilkie, and the Marxist-turned-Green Adam Bandt have allowed the Gillard government to live again.
This is the foundation on which Australia's new national government is built. As Oakeshott said yesterday afternoon, the concept of a mandate is not operational in this parliamentary term. The voters made the judgment on August 21; the ongoing vote count between Labor and the Coalition is as close to 50-50 as you can get. Neither of the major parties could attract an endorsement from a majority of voters.
So the political system must now, in many important respects, rebuild itself. It will not be a wholesale rebirth. The viciousness, the personal attacks, the cheap shots, the hyperbole, the resentments, the glossing over of mistakes and uncomfortable facts - none of this will vanish. It will remain. Indeed, it's likely that the intensity of the 17 days between election day and yesterday's declaration of a result in Labor's favour will bring about even more heat in the contest between Labor and the Coalition.........
First cracks appear
Tom Arup, Katharine Murphy and Michelle Grattan
With NICK O'MALLEY - September 9, 2010 - Age
THE first cracks have appeared in the Gillard government's alliance with the crossbench MPs, with the Greens signalling they may side with the Coalition on some issues, and a country independent clashing with Treasurer Wayne Swan over the mining tax.
Less than 24 hours after Julia Gillard secured the last pledges of support needed to form government, Bob Brown raised the potentially destabilising prospect of the Greens working with the Coalition on legislation to boost mental health spending and to alter Labor's paid parental leave plan.
Senator Brown, whose party will have the balance of power in the Senate from July, also put the politically emotive issue of death duties on the agenda, suggesting next year's tax summit should consider the issue.
The spectre of a more assertive and powerful Greens came as the Prime Minister waited on Rob Oakeshott, one of two country independents propping up her government, to decide whether he will join her cabinet as a minister for regional Australia. He is seeking advice on whether the convention of cabinet solidarity can be changed so he could vote against a government bill outside his area.
As the difficulties became apparent, the opposition went on the attack. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said: ''If a newly married couple are arguing on day one, it doesn't augur too well for the rest of the marriage.''
Shadow attorney-general George Brandis said the government ''has as much legitimacy as the Pakistani cricket team''.
Amid the drama, Ms Gillard was preparing to reshape her ministry, which is now likely to include Kevin Rudd - whom she deposed earlier this year - as foreign minister. Mr Rudd's return to cabinet, which Ms Gillard has consistently promised, will further complicate her management challenge.
Senator Brown said the reality of the hung parliament was that the opposition could propose and pass legislation with the support of the Greens and independents, even if the government objected. ''This is part of the new paradigm,'' he said.
He nominated mental health and biosecurity as areas where the opposition and Greens shared similar policies.
Asked whether the Coalition and Greens could also combine to extend Labor's paid parental leave program, Senator Brown said the issue could be discussed with the government and opposition. ''There's good potential there for bipartite agreement for improving that legislation.''
Constitutional experts told The Age it was legally possible for the opposition to drive a legislative agenda, including bills that would require budget spending.
George Williams, of the University of New South Wales, said Tony Abbott's private member's bill to strike out Queensland's wild rivers laws was an example of legislation that, if passed, could be implemented without the support of the government.
The ability of the opposition to legislate will be enhanced by proposed rules allowing more private member's bills to be debated and voted on in the House of Representatives.
The opposition would need the support of WA National Tony Crook plus three independent or Greens MPs to pass legislation in the lower house.
Until July 1 next year the Coalition will only need the support of independent Nick Xenophon and Family First's Steve Fielding to pass bills in the Senate. After that it would need the support of the Greens.
Senator Xenophon said he was open to legislation from all sources, saying it should be judged on the quality of the idea, not its political shade.
The tax summit, part of the deal between Labor and two of the country independents, has given renewed impetus to criticism of the mining tax.
Yesterday morning Mr Swan signalled the mining tax would not be discussed at the summit, but later he said it might be. He said he was ''relaxed'' about this.
The switch came after Mr Oakeshott insisted the tax would be on the summit agenda, and Mr Windsor expressed surprise that Mr Swan thought otherwise.
After speaking with Mr Swan, Mr Windsor said the misunderstanding had been cleared up.
Opponents of the mining tax want to use the summit as a platform to reopen the debate.
Meanwhile, Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group said the business community did not want a hung parliament. ''We have a group of interests here that aren't necessarily always headed in the same direction,'' she said. But she said a more difficult reform process might actually improve any changes made.
She hoped the country independents would be a counterweight to the ''ambitious'' and less business-friendly ideas of the Greens.
Prime Minister of Australia
info@pm.gov.au
Dear Prime Minister,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you shortly,
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 09-Sept-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
A smiling PM leads Labor government in name only
September 8, 2010 - The Age
THE uncomfortable irony surely has not been lost on the Gillard government: the Labor Party, which is so weakened that large segments of its own electoral base are simply marching away, holds on to office only because four men who have never been part of the ALP have decided to give it a bare parliamentary majority.
Labor's own supporters across Australia couldn't do it. Not even the hundreds of thousands of disaffected Labor people who now back the Greens could help the ALP over the line through their preferences. In the end, two ex-Nationals in Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, the ex-Liberal and ex-Green Andrew Wilkie, and the Marxist-turned-Green Adam Bandt have allowed the Gillard government to live again.
This is the foundation on which Australia's new national government is built. As Oakeshott said yesterday afternoon, the concept of a mandate is not operational in this parliamentary term. The voters made the judgment on August 21; the ongoing vote count between Labor and the Coalition is as close to 50-50 as you can get. Neither of the major parties could attract an endorsement from a majority of voters.
So the political system must now, in many important respects, rebuild itself. It will not be a wholesale rebirth. The viciousness, the personal attacks, the cheap shots, the hyperbole, the resentments, the glossing over of mistakes and uncomfortable facts - none of this will vanish. It will remain. Indeed, it's likely that the intensity of the 17 days between election day and yesterday's declaration of a result in Labor's favour will bring about even more heat in the contest between Labor and the Coalition.........
First cracks appear
Tom Arup, Katharine Murphy and Michelle Grattan
With NICK O'MALLEY - September 9, 2010 - Age
THE first cracks have appeared in the Gillard government's alliance with the crossbench MPs, with the Greens signalling they may side with the Coalition on some issues, and a country independent clashing with Treasurer Wayne Swan over the mining tax.
Less than 24 hours after Julia Gillard secured the last pledges of support needed to form government, Bob Brown raised the potentially destabilising prospect of the Greens working with the Coalition on legislation to boost mental health spending and to alter Labor's paid parental leave plan.
Senator Brown, whose party will have the balance of power in the Senate from July, also put the politically emotive issue of death duties on the agenda, suggesting next year's tax summit should consider the issue.
The spectre of a more assertive and powerful Greens came as the Prime Minister waited on Rob Oakeshott, one of two country independents propping up her government, to decide whether he will join her cabinet as a minister for regional Australia. He is seeking advice on whether the convention of cabinet solidarity can be changed so he could vote against a government bill outside his area.
As the difficulties became apparent, the opposition went on the attack. Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey said: ''If a newly married couple are arguing on day one, it doesn't augur too well for the rest of the marriage.''
Shadow attorney-general George Brandis said the government ''has as much legitimacy as the Pakistani cricket team''.
Amid the drama, Ms Gillard was preparing to reshape her ministry, which is now likely to include Kevin Rudd - whom she deposed earlier this year - as foreign minister. Mr Rudd's return to cabinet, which Ms Gillard has consistently promised, will further complicate her management challenge.
Senator Brown said the reality of the hung parliament was that the opposition could propose and pass legislation with the support of the Greens and independents, even if the government objected. ''This is part of the new paradigm,'' he said.
He nominated mental health and biosecurity as areas where the opposition and Greens shared similar policies.
Asked whether the Coalition and Greens could also combine to extend Labor's paid parental leave program, Senator Brown said the issue could be discussed with the government and opposition. ''There's good potential there for bipartite agreement for improving that legislation.''
Constitutional experts told The Age it was legally possible for the opposition to drive a legislative agenda, including bills that would require budget spending.
George Williams, of the University of New South Wales, said Tony Abbott's private member's bill to strike out Queensland's wild rivers laws was an example of legislation that, if passed, could be implemented without the support of the government.
The ability of the opposition to legislate will be enhanced by proposed rules allowing more private member's bills to be debated and voted on in the House of Representatives.
The opposition would need the support of WA National Tony Crook plus three independent or Greens MPs to pass legislation in the lower house.
Until July 1 next year the Coalition will only need the support of independent Nick Xenophon and Family First's Steve Fielding to pass bills in the Senate. After that it would need the support of the Greens.
Senator Xenophon said he was open to legislation from all sources, saying it should be judged on the quality of the idea, not its political shade.
The tax summit, part of the deal between Labor and two of the country independents, has given renewed impetus to criticism of the mining tax.
Yesterday morning Mr Swan signalled the mining tax would not be discussed at the summit, but later he said it might be. He said he was ''relaxed'' about this.
The switch came after Mr Oakeshott insisted the tax would be on the summit agenda, and Mr Windsor expressed surprise that Mr Swan thought otherwise.
After speaking with Mr Swan, Mr Windsor said the misunderstanding had been cleared up.
Opponents of the mining tax want to use the summit as a platform to reopen the debate.
Meanwhile, Heather Ridout of the Australian Industry Group said the business community did not want a hung parliament. ''We have a group of interests here that aren't necessarily always headed in the same direction,'' she said. But she said a more difficult reform process might actually improve any changes made.
She hoped the country independents would be a counterweight to the ''ambitious'' and less business-friendly ideas of the Greens.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Australia better be ready
Manager,
Perth Channel 9
ninenews@perthtv9.net.au
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Australia better be ready.
"I've just seen the 60 min. program last Sunday night (5, Sept. 2010 at 7.30p.m. on your station and the way it was presented is definitely quite provocative, especially for all those westerners who do not understand the derivatives of China's history and culture. The title itself is very provocative and this should be pointed out to the media - this reflects some negative view about China. Most of the Australian media had been irresponsible and very unethical in their reports on China in the past and even so today. What has China done to Australia or the world for that matter except helping it's economic?
The so-called exercise as reported claimed to be a joint one with participations from most of the Eastern countries, but no mention about which are these countries. I do not believe that Taiwan, Indonesia, S-E countries like Thailand, Malaysia and even Japan and Singapore are the participating countries.
If it is just a naval exercise, why broadcast it as a "Australia better be ready"? This is very unethical and irresponsible of Channel 9. Knowing more about the derivatives of China's history and culture (me being part of that and also a by-product of Western derivatives) where China has never been in its history initiated any proactive aggression against any country in the world, then why accuse it of being a potential 'threat' to Australia and the world?
The fact that China has increased its military strength is more believable to be based upon "defence" rather than 'offence' because of its history of having been a victim of some of the worse onslaught of aggressions from the West - eight Power Allied Forces on September 7, 1901. The 8 countries were Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Austria and Italy, and Japan again in the immediate past (the Rape of Nanking as examples).
The Rape of Nanking - Japanese Holocaust
Another vital point to look at is - what if China were to conduct such a similar exercise in the Pacific ocean, how would Australia and the US governments react to that? Understanding the derivatives of the Western culture, I am 100% sure that the US and Australia will put up a very strong protest and may even threaten reprisal actions against China.
We must stand up for any potential act of provocation of aggression of any country if we were to 'fight' for Peace in the World. If China were to conduct such an exercise and broadcast it as 'Preparing War against US or Australia or the World' I will definitely be the first to protest!
This is to adopt a universal and holistic position."
We look forward to hearing from you shortly.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 07-Sept-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Perth Channel 9
ninenews@perthtv9.net.au
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Australia better be ready.
"I've just seen the 60 min. program last Sunday night (5, Sept. 2010 at 7.30p.m. on your station and the way it was presented is definitely quite provocative, especially for all those westerners who do not understand the derivatives of China's history and culture. The title itself is very provocative and this should be pointed out to the media - this reflects some negative view about China. Most of the Australian media had been irresponsible and very unethical in their reports on China in the past and even so today. What has China done to Australia or the world for that matter except helping it's economic?
The so-called exercise as reported claimed to be a joint one with participations from most of the Eastern countries, but no mention about which are these countries. I do not believe that Taiwan, Indonesia, S-E countries like Thailand, Malaysia and even Japan and Singapore are the participating countries.
If it is just a naval exercise, why broadcast it as a "Australia better be ready"? This is very unethical and irresponsible of Channel 9. Knowing more about the derivatives of China's history and culture (me being part of that and also a by-product of Western derivatives) where China has never been in its history initiated any proactive aggression against any country in the world, then why accuse it of being a potential 'threat' to Australia and the world?
The fact that China has increased its military strength is more believable to be based upon "defence" rather than 'offence' because of its history of having been a victim of some of the worse onslaught of aggressions from the West - eight Power Allied Forces on September 7, 1901. The 8 countries were Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Austria and Italy, and Japan again in the immediate past (the Rape of Nanking as examples).
The Rape of Nanking - Japanese Holocaust
Another vital point to look at is - what if China were to conduct such a similar exercise in the Pacific ocean, how would Australia and the US governments react to that? Understanding the derivatives of the Western culture, I am 100% sure that the US and Australia will put up a very strong protest and may even threaten reprisal actions against China.
We must stand up for any potential act of provocation of aggression of any country if we were to 'fight' for Peace in the World. If China were to conduct such an exercise and broadcast it as 'Preparing War against US or Australia or the World' I will definitely be the first to protest!
This is to adopt a universal and holistic position."
We look forward to hearing from you shortly.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 07-Sept-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Friday, September 3, 2010
Troops withdrawal from Iraq
Dear President Obama,
You are to be congratulated for bringing those 100,000 US troops home where they belong. Former President Bush should not invade a sovereign country - with the hope of getting more oil for America and he failed badly.
As the Commander-in-Chief, we do not believe that you will make the same mistake.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie
----- Original Message -----
From: Barack Obama
To: Eddie Hwang
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:34 AM
Subject: Iraq
Dear Eddie --
Tonight marks the end of the American combat mission in Iraq.
As a candidate for this office, I pledged to end this war responsibly. And, as President, that is what I am doing.
Since I became Commander-in-Chief, we've brought home nearly 100,000 U.S. troops. We've closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of our bases.
As Operation Iraqi Freedom ends, our commitment to a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq continues. Under Operation New Dawn, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain to advise and assist Iraqi forces, protect our civilians on the ground, and pursue targeted counterterrorism efforts.
By the end of next year, consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, these men and women, too, will come home.
Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest -- it is in our own. Our nation has paid a huge price to put Iraq's future in the hands of its people. We have sent our men and women in uniform to make enormous sacrifices. We have spent vast resources abroad in the face of several years of recession at home.
We have met our responsibility through the courage and resolve of our women and men in uniform.
In seven years, they confronted a mission as challenging and as complex as any our military has ever been asked to face.
Nearly 1.5 million Americans put their lives on the line. Many returned for multiple tours of duty, far from their loved ones who bore a heroic burden of their own. And most painfully, more than 4,400 Americans have given their lives, fighting for people they never knew, for values that have defined our people for more than two centuries.
What their country asked of them was not small. And what they sacrificed was not easy.
For that, each and every American owes them our heartfelt thanks.
Our promise to them -- to each woman or man who has donned our colors -- is that our country will serve them as faithfully as they have served us. We have already made the largest increase in funding for veterans in decades. So long as I am President, I will do whatever it takes to fulfill that sacred trust.
Tonight, we mark a milestone in our nation's history. Even at a time of great uncertainty for so many Americans, this day and our brave troops remind us that our future is in our own hands and that our best days lie ahead.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
You are to be congratulated for bringing those 100,000 US troops home where they belong. Former President Bush should not invade a sovereign country - with the hope of getting more oil for America and he failed badly.
As the Commander-in-Chief, we do not believe that you will make the same mistake.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie
----- Original Message -----
From: Barack Obama
To: Eddie Hwang
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:34 AM
Subject: Iraq
Dear Eddie --
Tonight marks the end of the American combat mission in Iraq.
As a candidate for this office, I pledged to end this war responsibly. And, as President, that is what I am doing.
Since I became Commander-in-Chief, we've brought home nearly 100,000 U.S. troops. We've closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of our bases.
As Operation Iraqi Freedom ends, our commitment to a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq continues. Under Operation New Dawn, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain to advise and assist Iraqi forces, protect our civilians on the ground, and pursue targeted counterterrorism efforts.
By the end of next year, consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, these men and women, too, will come home.
Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest -- it is in our own. Our nation has paid a huge price to put Iraq's future in the hands of its people. We have sent our men and women in uniform to make enormous sacrifices. We have spent vast resources abroad in the face of several years of recession at home.
We have met our responsibility through the courage and resolve of our women and men in uniform.
In seven years, they confronted a mission as challenging and as complex as any our military has ever been asked to face.
Nearly 1.5 million Americans put their lives on the line. Many returned for multiple tours of duty, far from their loved ones who bore a heroic burden of their own. And most painfully, more than 4,400 Americans have given their lives, fighting for people they never knew, for values that have defined our people for more than two centuries.
What their country asked of them was not small. And what they sacrificed was not easy.
For that, each and every American owes them our heartfelt thanks.
Our promise to them -- to each woman or man who has donned our colors -- is that our country will serve them as faithfully as they have served us. We have already made the largest increase in funding for veterans in decades. So long as I am President, I will do whatever it takes to fulfill that sacred trust.
Tonight, we mark a milestone in our nation's history. Even at a time of great uncertainty for so many Americans, this day and our brave troops remind us that our future is in our own hands and that our best days lie ahead.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Hung parliament let the people decide
Mr. Stephen Gageler,
Australia - Solicitor General
stephen.gageler@ag.gov.au
Dear Mr. Gageler,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 28-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Governor-General Quentin Bryce should resign now
Peter Faris - The Australian - August 27, 2010 12:00AM
THE federal election has produced a hung parliament where any government will be in a minority.
This has produced the possibility that the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, may have to exercise her constitutional powers.
In my view, she gives the appearance of being biased in favour of Labor.
This issue of bias cannot be resolved and consequently she must resign now.
An independent administrator would then be appointed by arrangement between Julia Gillard (as leader of the caretaker government) and Tony Abbott (as Leader of the Opposition). At that point we would then have the independent umpire that the nation is entitled to.
A failure by Bryce to completely remove herself will make her personal position an issue in the resolution of which party is to govern. The issues are difficult enough without adding that.
The law in relation to bias is well settled. In Webb and Hay (1994), Justice Deane said in the High Court: “The area covered by the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias encompasses at least four distinct, though sometimes overlapping, main categories of case.
“The first is disqualification by interest, that is to say, cases where some direct or indirect interest in the proceedings, whether pecuniary or otherwise, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudice, partiality or prejudgment.
“The second is disqualification by conduct, including published statements.
“The third category is disqualification by association. It will often overlap the first and consist of cases where the apprehension of prejudgment or other bias results from some direct or indirect relationship, experience or contact with a person or persons interested in, or otherwise involved in, the proceedings.
“The fourth is disqualification by extraneous information. It will commonly overlap the third.”
Deane added, in a footnote, as an example of disqualification by association, “a case where a dependent spouse or child has a direct pecuniary interest in the proceedings”.
The following facts seem to be beyond argument.
A Labor member of federal parliament, William Richard “Bill” Shorten, is married to the daughter of Bryce. Shorten is Parliamentary Secretary for Disability and Children's Services in the Gillard caretaker government.
On November 29, 2007, immediately after that year's election, Shorten was appointed to that parliamentary post. On September 5, 2008, Bryce was sworn in as Governor-General. Shorten married her daughter, Chloe Bryce, on November 14, 2009. Their child, Clementine, was born about December 23, 2009.
The following allegations have been made.
First, that Shorten was one of the faceless men behind the sacking of Kevin Rudd in favour of Gillard.
Second, that Shorten is favourite to topple Gillard and to become prime minister in her place.
A combination of these facts and allegations show that it is of the utmost personal importance to Shorten that Labor retain power as a result of this election.
Similarly, if Bryce is to play a role in the decision making process, then it is critical to Shorten (and no doubt his wife Chloe) that Bryce either decides in favour of Labor or makes the decision that suits Labor best (for example, a new election, if that is what they want).
It is impossible to predict what will occur in the final resolution of the election issues. It is entirely possible that Gillard will advise Bryce to make a particular decision tomorrow.
Alternatively, Australia could limp along for several months with an unstable minority government until Bryce is called upon to make a decision.
Let me make two things clear.
First, I cannot predict if there will be a decision by the Governor-General on some issue. But the present circumstances of a hung parliament make it highly likely.
Second, and most important, I cannot prove that Bryce is biased in favour of Labor because of her close family connections. I do not say that she is.
But what I do say, and I say very strongly, is that there is a perception of bias.
Bryce is subject to the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias. Her daughter's husband has an enormous interest in the outcome of the election: a favourable decision by Bryce may enable Shorten to become prime minister.
Surely his wife and her daughter, Chloe, shares that interest.
Bryce must resign now to avoid her personal issue precipitating a constitutional crisis similar to 1975. Bryce is fatally compromised: regardless of whatever decision she makes, half the country will be dissatisfied. Any decision she makes in favour of Labor, however correct or innocent that decision may be, will leave half the citizens of Australia believing that she made the decision for personal and family reasons. That is perceived bias.
Bryce must stand down now - she cannot wait for the crisis to envelop her and us.
None of this is very surprising. The duty of Governor-General to be an impartial adjudicator in electoral crises is the most important part of the job.
When she accepted the position, on September 5, 2008, it is difficult to know if she knew Shorten was having an affair with her daughter but given that the marriage occurred 14 months later, it is probable that she did.
In any event, with an upcoming election in 2010, her position as Governor-General, when her son-in-law was a leading Labor politician and powerbroker, was always going to be precarious.
If there had been a convincing outright result to the election, these issues may not have arisen.
Australia is entitled to a Governor-General who is independent and above politics. We are also entitled to a Governor-General who does not have the appearance of bias.
It is the constitutional duty of Bryce to remove herself immediately. Otherwise there will be a real constitutional crisis.
Peter Faris QC is a Melbourne barrister.
Solution to political crisis is simple: let the people decide
Tony Koch - The Australian - August 25, 2010 12:00AM
THE advice from one of the country's most respected legal practitioners to the Governor-General is simple: "Let the people decide."
In settling the current political crisis, Quentin Bryce could use elements of the controversial precedent set by then governor-general John Kerr in 1975 when he sacked the Whitlam government, Bill Pincus QC, a former president of the Australian Law Council, suggested yesterday.
The important element that would bring about stable government is that another election should be called soon, Mr Pincus said.
"Sir John Kerr, who sacked the federal Labor government in 1975, was much criticised by the Labor side which had appointed him.
"Whether he did it as cleverly as he might have done is arguable, but he achieved the result that the government, which could not guarantee supply because of Senate obstruction, ceased.
"He installed Malcolm Fraser as prime minister and instructed him that an election had to be held as soon as possible, and so the people of Australia settled the issue.
"A situation with some similarities arose in Queensland in 1987, when the governor and former chief justice Sir Walter Campbell put an end to the political career of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen -- who incidentally had appointed him to the vice-regal position.
"Does anybody really believe that both Sir John Kerr and Sir Walter Campbell would not have had a lot of sleepless nights over those decisions?
"But they did their duty as they saw fit, and the political impasse was addressed."
Mr Pincus, a retired Federal Court judge who also served for nine years on Queensland's Court of Appeal, said it was nonsense to suggest Dr Bryce could not make necessary decisions because of a possible conflict of interest brought about through her daughter being married to Labor frontbencher Bill Shorten.
He said Ms Bryce had "a discretion unfettered by any law" to act to solve any impasse she saw inhibiting stable government.
"In doing what has to be done, the Governor-General will get little guidance from the law," Mr Pincus stated. "The problems are typically practical ones, involving common sense and fairness rather than legal rules . . . A defect of our Constitution, some think, is that it leaves the governor-general role undefined in most respects but gives the office-holder sweeping powers."
Mr Pincus said that in deciding who should govern, the Governor-General was not obliged to take notice of promises made by the independents .
"A government which is dependent on the whims of a few no doubt well-meaning independent MPs would be a very weak one," he said.
Australia - Solicitor General
stephen.gageler@ag.gov.au
Dear Mr. Gageler,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 28-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Governor-General Quentin Bryce should resign now
Peter Faris - The Australian - August 27, 2010 12:00AM
THE federal election has produced a hung parliament where any government will be in a minority.
This has produced the possibility that the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, may have to exercise her constitutional powers.
In my view, she gives the appearance of being biased in favour of Labor.
This issue of bias cannot be resolved and consequently she must resign now.
An independent administrator would then be appointed by arrangement between Julia Gillard (as leader of the caretaker government) and Tony Abbott (as Leader of the Opposition). At that point we would then have the independent umpire that the nation is entitled to.
A failure by Bryce to completely remove herself will make her personal position an issue in the resolution of which party is to govern. The issues are difficult enough without adding that.
The law in relation to bias is well settled. In Webb and Hay (1994), Justice Deane said in the High Court: “The area covered by the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias encompasses at least four distinct, though sometimes overlapping, main categories of case.
“The first is disqualification by interest, that is to say, cases where some direct or indirect interest in the proceedings, whether pecuniary or otherwise, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudice, partiality or prejudgment.
“The second is disqualification by conduct, including published statements.
“The third category is disqualification by association. It will often overlap the first and consist of cases where the apprehension of prejudgment or other bias results from some direct or indirect relationship, experience or contact with a person or persons interested in, or otherwise involved in, the proceedings.
“The fourth is disqualification by extraneous information. It will commonly overlap the third.”
Deane added, in a footnote, as an example of disqualification by association, “a case where a dependent spouse or child has a direct pecuniary interest in the proceedings”.
The following facts seem to be beyond argument.
A Labor member of federal parliament, William Richard “Bill” Shorten, is married to the daughter of Bryce. Shorten is Parliamentary Secretary for Disability and Children's Services in the Gillard caretaker government.
On November 29, 2007, immediately after that year's election, Shorten was appointed to that parliamentary post. On September 5, 2008, Bryce was sworn in as Governor-General. Shorten married her daughter, Chloe Bryce, on November 14, 2009. Their child, Clementine, was born about December 23, 2009.
The following allegations have been made.
First, that Shorten was one of the faceless men behind the sacking of Kevin Rudd in favour of Gillard.
Second, that Shorten is favourite to topple Gillard and to become prime minister in her place.
A combination of these facts and allegations show that it is of the utmost personal importance to Shorten that Labor retain power as a result of this election.
Similarly, if Bryce is to play a role in the decision making process, then it is critical to Shorten (and no doubt his wife Chloe) that Bryce either decides in favour of Labor or makes the decision that suits Labor best (for example, a new election, if that is what they want).
It is impossible to predict what will occur in the final resolution of the election issues. It is entirely possible that Gillard will advise Bryce to make a particular decision tomorrow.
Alternatively, Australia could limp along for several months with an unstable minority government until Bryce is called upon to make a decision.
Let me make two things clear.
First, I cannot predict if there will be a decision by the Governor-General on some issue. But the present circumstances of a hung parliament make it highly likely.
Second, and most important, I cannot prove that Bryce is biased in favour of Labor because of her close family connections. I do not say that she is.
But what I do say, and I say very strongly, is that there is a perception of bias.
Bryce is subject to the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias. Her daughter's husband has an enormous interest in the outcome of the election: a favourable decision by Bryce may enable Shorten to become prime minister.
Surely his wife and her daughter, Chloe, shares that interest.
Bryce must resign now to avoid her personal issue precipitating a constitutional crisis similar to 1975. Bryce is fatally compromised: regardless of whatever decision she makes, half the country will be dissatisfied. Any decision she makes in favour of Labor, however correct or innocent that decision may be, will leave half the citizens of Australia believing that she made the decision for personal and family reasons. That is perceived bias.
Bryce must stand down now - she cannot wait for the crisis to envelop her and us.
None of this is very surprising. The duty of Governor-General to be an impartial adjudicator in electoral crises is the most important part of the job.
When she accepted the position, on September 5, 2008, it is difficult to know if she knew Shorten was having an affair with her daughter but given that the marriage occurred 14 months later, it is probable that she did.
In any event, with an upcoming election in 2010, her position as Governor-General, when her son-in-law was a leading Labor politician and powerbroker, was always going to be precarious.
If there had been a convincing outright result to the election, these issues may not have arisen.
Australia is entitled to a Governor-General who is independent and above politics. We are also entitled to a Governor-General who does not have the appearance of bias.
It is the constitutional duty of Bryce to remove herself immediately. Otherwise there will be a real constitutional crisis.
Peter Faris QC is a Melbourne barrister.
Solution to political crisis is simple: let the people decide
Tony Koch - The Australian - August 25, 2010 12:00AM
THE advice from one of the country's most respected legal practitioners to the Governor-General is simple: "Let the people decide."
In settling the current political crisis, Quentin Bryce could use elements of the controversial precedent set by then governor-general John Kerr in 1975 when he sacked the Whitlam government, Bill Pincus QC, a former president of the Australian Law Council, suggested yesterday.
The important element that would bring about stable government is that another election should be called soon, Mr Pincus said.
"Sir John Kerr, who sacked the federal Labor government in 1975, was much criticised by the Labor side which had appointed him.
"Whether he did it as cleverly as he might have done is arguable, but he achieved the result that the government, which could not guarantee supply because of Senate obstruction, ceased.
"He installed Malcolm Fraser as prime minister and instructed him that an election had to be held as soon as possible, and so the people of Australia settled the issue.
"A situation with some similarities arose in Queensland in 1987, when the governor and former chief justice Sir Walter Campbell put an end to the political career of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen -- who incidentally had appointed him to the vice-regal position.
"Does anybody really believe that both Sir John Kerr and Sir Walter Campbell would not have had a lot of sleepless nights over those decisions?
"But they did their duty as they saw fit, and the political impasse was addressed."
Mr Pincus, a retired Federal Court judge who also served for nine years on Queensland's Court of Appeal, said it was nonsense to suggest Dr Bryce could not make necessary decisions because of a possible conflict of interest brought about through her daughter being married to Labor frontbencher Bill Shorten.
He said Ms Bryce had "a discretion unfettered by any law" to act to solve any impasse she saw inhibiting stable government.
"In doing what has to be done, the Governor-General will get little guidance from the law," Mr Pincus stated. "The problems are typically practical ones, involving common sense and fairness rather than legal rules . . . A defect of our Constitution, some think, is that it leaves the governor-general role undefined in most respects but gives the office-holder sweeping powers."
Mr Pincus said that in deciding who should govern, the Governor-General was not obliged to take notice of promises made by the independents .
"A government which is dependent on the whims of a few no doubt well-meaning independent MPs would be a very weak one," he said.
Hunt parliament - let the people decide
Mr. Stephen Gageler,
Australia - Solicitor General
stephen.gageler@ag.gov.au
Dear Mr. Gageler,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 28-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Governor-General Quentin Bryce should resign now
Peter Faris - The Australian - August 27, 2010 12:00AM
THE federal election has produced a hung parliament where any government will be in a minority.
This has produced the possibility that the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, may have to exercise her constitutional powers.
In my view, she gives the appearance of being biased in favour of Labor.
This issue of bias cannot be resolved and consequently she must resign now.
An independent administrator would then be appointed by arrangement between Julia Gillard (as leader of the caretaker government) and Tony Abbott (as Leader of the Opposition). At that point we would then have the independent umpire that the nation is entitled to.
A failure by Bryce to completely remove herself will make her personal position an issue in the resolution of which party is to govern. The issues are difficult enough without adding that.
The law in relation to bias is well settled. In Webb and Hay (1994), Justice Deane said in the High Court: “The area covered by the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias encompasses at least four distinct, though sometimes overlapping, main categories of case.
“The first is disqualification by interest, that is to say, cases where some direct or indirect interest in the proceedings, whether pecuniary or otherwise, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudice, partiality or prejudgment.
“The second is disqualification by conduct, including published statements.
“The third category is disqualification by association. It will often overlap the first and consist of cases where the apprehension of prejudgment or other bias results from some direct or indirect relationship, experience or contact with a person or persons interested in, or otherwise involved in, the proceedings.
“The fourth is disqualification by extraneous information. It will commonly overlap the third.”
Deane added, in a footnote, as an example of disqualification by association, “a case where a dependent spouse or child has a direct pecuniary interest in the proceedings”.
The following facts seem to be beyond argument.
A Labor member of federal parliament, William Richard “Bill” Shorten, is married to the daughter of Bryce. Shorten is Parliamentary Secretary for Disability and Children's Services in the Gillard caretaker government.
On November 29, 2007, immediately after that year's election, Shorten was appointed to that parliamentary post. On September 5, 2008, Bryce was sworn in as Governor-General. Shorten married her daughter, Chloe Bryce, on November 14, 2009. Their child, Clementine, was born about December 23, 2009.
The following allegations have been made.
First, that Shorten was one of the faceless men behind the sacking of Kevin Rudd in favour of Gillard.
Second, that Shorten is favourite to topple Gillard and to become prime minister in her place.
A combination of these facts and allegations show that it is of the utmost personal importance to Shorten that Labor retain power as a result of this election.
Similarly, if Bryce is to play a role in the decision making process, then it is critical to Shorten (and no doubt his wife Chloe) that Bryce either decides in favour of Labor or makes the decision that suits Labor best (for example, a new election, if that is what they want).
It is impossible to predict what will occur in the final resolution of the election issues. It is entirely possible that Gillard will advise Bryce to make a particular decision tomorrow.
Alternatively, Australia could limp along for several months with an unstable minority government until Bryce is called upon to make a decision.
Let me make two things clear.
First, I cannot predict if there will be a decision by the Governor-General on some issue. But the present circumstances of a hung parliament make it highly likely.
Second, and most important, I cannot prove that Bryce is biased in favour of Labor because of her close family connections. I do not say that she is.
But what I do say, and I say very strongly, is that there is a perception of bias.
Bryce is subject to the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias. Her daughter's husband has an enormous interest in the outcome of the election: a favourable decision by Bryce may enable Shorten to become prime minister.
Surely his wife and her daughter, Chloe, shares that interest.
Bryce must resign now to avoid her personal issue precipitating a constitutional crisis similar to 1975. Bryce is fatally compromised: regardless of whatever decision she makes, half the country will be dissatisfied. Any decision she makes in favour of Labor, however correct or innocent that decision may be, will leave half the citizens of Australia believing that she made the decision for personal and family reasons. That is perceived bias.
Bryce must stand down now - she cannot wait for the crisis to envelop her and us.
None of this is very surprising. The duty of Governor-General to be an impartial adjudicator in electoral crises is the most important part of the job.
When she accepted the position, on September 5, 2008, it is difficult to know if she knew Shorten was having an affair with her daughter but given that the marriage occurred 14 months later, it is probable that she did.
In any event, with an upcoming election in 2010, her position as Governor-General, when her son-in-law was a leading Labor politician and powerbroker, was always going to be precarious.
If there had been a convincing outright result to the election, these issues may not have arisen.
Australia is entitled to a Governor-General who is independent and above politics. We are also entitled to a Governor-General who does not have the appearance of bias.
It is the constitutional duty of Bryce to remove herself immediately. Otherwise there will be a real constitutional crisis.
Peter Faris QC is a Melbourne barrister.
Solution to political crisis is simple: let the people decide
Tony Koch - The Australian - August 25, 2010 12:00AM
THE advice from one of the country's most respected legal practitioners to the Governor-General is simple: "Let the people decide."
In settling the current political crisis, Quentin Bryce could use elements of the controversial precedent set by then governor-general John Kerr in 1975 when he sacked the Whitlam government, Bill Pincus QC, a former president of the Australian Law Council, suggested yesterday.
The important element that would bring about stable government is that another election should be called soon, Mr Pincus said.
"Sir John Kerr, who sacked the federal Labor government in 1975, was much criticised by the Labor side which had appointed him.
"Whether he did it as cleverly as he might have done is arguable, but he achieved the result that the government, which could not guarantee supply because of Senate obstruction, ceased.
"He installed Malcolm Fraser as prime minister and instructed him that an election had to be held as soon as possible, and so the people of Australia settled the issue.
"A situation with some similarities arose in Queensland in 1987, when the governor and former chief justice Sir Walter Campbell put an end to the political career of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen -- who incidentally had appointed him to the vice-regal position.
"Does anybody really believe that both Sir John Kerr and Sir Walter Campbell would not have had a lot of sleepless nights over those decisions?
"But they did their duty as they saw fit, and the political impasse was addressed."
Mr Pincus, a retired Federal Court judge who also served for nine years on Queensland's Court of Appeal, said it was nonsense to suggest Dr Bryce could not make necessary decisions because of a possible conflict of interest brought about through her daughter being married to Labor frontbencher Bill Shorten.
He said Ms Bryce had "a discretion unfettered by any law" to act to solve any impasse she saw inhibiting stable government.
"In doing what has to be done, the Governor-General will get little guidance from the law," Mr Pincus stated. "The problems are typically practical ones, involving common sense and fairness rather than legal rules . . . A defect of our Constitution, some think, is that it leaves the governor-general role undefined in most respects but gives the office-holder sweeping powers."
Mr Pincus said that in deciding who should govern, the Governor-General was not obliged to take notice of promises made by the independents .
"A government which is dependent on the whims of a few no doubt well-meaning independent MPs would be a very weak one," he said.
Australia - Solicitor General
stephen.gageler@ag.gov.au
Dear Mr. Gageler,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
Would you like to comment, please?
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours truly,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 28-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Governor-General Quentin Bryce should resign now
Peter Faris - The Australian - August 27, 2010 12:00AM
THE federal election has produced a hung parliament where any government will be in a minority.
This has produced the possibility that the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, may have to exercise her constitutional powers.
In my view, she gives the appearance of being biased in favour of Labor.
This issue of bias cannot be resolved and consequently she must resign now.
An independent administrator would then be appointed by arrangement between Julia Gillard (as leader of the caretaker government) and Tony Abbott (as Leader of the Opposition). At that point we would then have the independent umpire that the nation is entitled to.
A failure by Bryce to completely remove herself will make her personal position an issue in the resolution of which party is to govern. The issues are difficult enough without adding that.
The law in relation to bias is well settled. In Webb and Hay (1994), Justice Deane said in the High Court: “The area covered by the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias encompasses at least four distinct, though sometimes overlapping, main categories of case.
“The first is disqualification by interest, that is to say, cases where some direct or indirect interest in the proceedings, whether pecuniary or otherwise, gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of prejudice, partiality or prejudgment.
“The second is disqualification by conduct, including published statements.
“The third category is disqualification by association. It will often overlap the first and consist of cases where the apprehension of prejudgment or other bias results from some direct or indirect relationship, experience or contact with a person or persons interested in, or otherwise involved in, the proceedings.
“The fourth is disqualification by extraneous information. It will commonly overlap the third.”
Deane added, in a footnote, as an example of disqualification by association, “a case where a dependent spouse or child has a direct pecuniary interest in the proceedings”.
The following facts seem to be beyond argument.
A Labor member of federal parliament, William Richard “Bill” Shorten, is married to the daughter of Bryce. Shorten is Parliamentary Secretary for Disability and Children's Services in the Gillard caretaker government.
On November 29, 2007, immediately after that year's election, Shorten was appointed to that parliamentary post. On September 5, 2008, Bryce was sworn in as Governor-General. Shorten married her daughter, Chloe Bryce, on November 14, 2009. Their child, Clementine, was born about December 23, 2009.
The following allegations have been made.
First, that Shorten was one of the faceless men behind the sacking of Kevin Rudd in favour of Gillard.
Second, that Shorten is favourite to topple Gillard and to become prime minister in her place.
A combination of these facts and allegations show that it is of the utmost personal importance to Shorten that Labor retain power as a result of this election.
Similarly, if Bryce is to play a role in the decision making process, then it is critical to Shorten (and no doubt his wife Chloe) that Bryce either decides in favour of Labor or makes the decision that suits Labor best (for example, a new election, if that is what they want).
It is impossible to predict what will occur in the final resolution of the election issues. It is entirely possible that Gillard will advise Bryce to make a particular decision tomorrow.
Alternatively, Australia could limp along for several months with an unstable minority government until Bryce is called upon to make a decision.
Let me make two things clear.
First, I cannot predict if there will be a decision by the Governor-General on some issue. But the present circumstances of a hung parliament make it highly likely.
Second, and most important, I cannot prove that Bryce is biased in favour of Labor because of her close family connections. I do not say that she is.
But what I do say, and I say very strongly, is that there is a perception of bias.
Bryce is subject to the doctrine of disqualification by reason of the appearance of bias. Her daughter's husband has an enormous interest in the outcome of the election: a favourable decision by Bryce may enable Shorten to become prime minister.
Surely his wife and her daughter, Chloe, shares that interest.
Bryce must resign now to avoid her personal issue precipitating a constitutional crisis similar to 1975. Bryce is fatally compromised: regardless of whatever decision she makes, half the country will be dissatisfied. Any decision she makes in favour of Labor, however correct or innocent that decision may be, will leave half the citizens of Australia believing that she made the decision for personal and family reasons. That is perceived bias.
Bryce must stand down now - she cannot wait for the crisis to envelop her and us.
None of this is very surprising. The duty of Governor-General to be an impartial adjudicator in electoral crises is the most important part of the job.
When she accepted the position, on September 5, 2008, it is difficult to know if she knew Shorten was having an affair with her daughter but given that the marriage occurred 14 months later, it is probable that she did.
In any event, with an upcoming election in 2010, her position as Governor-General, when her son-in-law was a leading Labor politician and powerbroker, was always going to be precarious.
If there had been a convincing outright result to the election, these issues may not have arisen.
Australia is entitled to a Governor-General who is independent and above politics. We are also entitled to a Governor-General who does not have the appearance of bias.
It is the constitutional duty of Bryce to remove herself immediately. Otherwise there will be a real constitutional crisis.
Peter Faris QC is a Melbourne barrister.
Solution to political crisis is simple: let the people decide
Tony Koch - The Australian - August 25, 2010 12:00AM
THE advice from one of the country's most respected legal practitioners to the Governor-General is simple: "Let the people decide."
In settling the current political crisis, Quentin Bryce could use elements of the controversial precedent set by then governor-general John Kerr in 1975 when he sacked the Whitlam government, Bill Pincus QC, a former president of the Australian Law Council, suggested yesterday.
The important element that would bring about stable government is that another election should be called soon, Mr Pincus said.
"Sir John Kerr, who sacked the federal Labor government in 1975, was much criticised by the Labor side which had appointed him.
"Whether he did it as cleverly as he might have done is arguable, but he achieved the result that the government, which could not guarantee supply because of Senate obstruction, ceased.
"He installed Malcolm Fraser as prime minister and instructed him that an election had to be held as soon as possible, and so the people of Australia settled the issue.
"A situation with some similarities arose in Queensland in 1987, when the governor and former chief justice Sir Walter Campbell put an end to the political career of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen -- who incidentally had appointed him to the vice-regal position.
"Does anybody really believe that both Sir John Kerr and Sir Walter Campbell would not have had a lot of sleepless nights over those decisions?
"But they did their duty as they saw fit, and the political impasse was addressed."
Mr Pincus, a retired Federal Court judge who also served for nine years on Queensland's Court of Appeal, said it was nonsense to suggest Dr Bryce could not make necessary decisions because of a possible conflict of interest brought about through her daughter being married to Labor frontbencher Bill Shorten.
He said Ms Bryce had "a discretion unfettered by any law" to act to solve any impasse she saw inhibiting stable government.
"In doing what has to be done, the Governor-General will get little guidance from the law," Mr Pincus stated. "The problems are typically practical ones, involving common sense and fairness rather than legal rules . . . A defect of our Constitution, some think, is that it leaves the governor-general role undefined in most respects but gives the office-holder sweeping powers."
Mr Pincus said that in deciding who should govern, the Governor-General was not obliged to take notice of promises made by the independents .
"A government which is dependent on the whims of a few no doubt well-meaning independent MPs would be a very weak one," he said.
Friday, August 20, 2010
We need to stand up for multiculturalism
SAY NO TO RACISM
Mr. Pino Migliorino,
FECCA - Chairman
admin@fecca.org.au
Dear Mr. Migliorino,
You are to be congratulated for standing up for multiculturalism and it is so sad that both political parties have been using "anti-multiculturalism" to win votes!
How low can they go in Australia?!!
The media is not doing much better during this campaign.
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 20-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
We need to stand up for multiculturalism
August 20, 2010 - 6:54AM
The portrayal in this election of diversity as a villain that threatens the comfortable lives of Australians urgently needs some political will to defend multiculturalism.
This campaign has been hijacked by appeals to the odd marginal vote and pits vulnerable groups against each other, a remnant of the old habits of colonisation.
When the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia consulted its membership to gauge reactions to these elections, many bemoaned the "divide and conquer" principle of the rhetoric.
Politicians have appealed to the lowest common denominator of fear among migrants by portraying new arrivals as people who stay in hotels, are provided housing, jump metaphorical queues and take away the jobs of the other vulnerable migrant communities.
Australia's last multicultural policy expired in 2006. The Rudd government appointed the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council to advise the government on multicultural issues with a view to fostering better social cohesion. The council produced The People of Australia report in April, but since then there has been mostly silence about its recommendations from all sides.
In this campaign, migrants have been approached to affirm the anti-diversity stands of political parties. In some sort of diabolical logic, this seems to legitimise xenophobia. One quote from a migrant Ola Abdelmaguid in the council's People of Australia says it all: ". . . the media makes a lot of myths. They often select the most extreme person. And people believe what they hear and see."
Multiculturalism is a global phenomenon, perhaps this is why it is not popular in the current election debates, which have been focused (in the words of the Nobel prize winning Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore) within the "narrow, domestic walls" of Australian politics.
If anyone bothers to go to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, which is where one should logically go for information about such matters, it will clarify some of the numbers being bandied about regarding population.
The fact of the matter is that two-thirds of our migration intake in recent years are temporary migrants including students and highly skilled 457 workers. The latter form part of the global labour market and are influenced by factors beyond Australia's control. This information is available to the public. So how come we persist in holding 4000 odd vulnerable people fleeing life threatening situations responsible for the future of Australia's living standards, resources, infrastructure and border security? What is the real intention of this unrealistic premise?
Australian policy has been in retreat from multiculturalism for some time now. The divide and conquer strategy of the elections might deliver a short term win for politicians but in the long term it turns communities against each other and will undo any good that governments have tried to do in building social cohesion. The challenge for Australia is to learn from some of our Asian neighbours and conceptualise population and diversity as assets rather than as threats.
For some time we modelled multiculturalism to the world, we need to find the confidence to do this again.
Pino Migliorino is chairman of the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia.
Mr. Pino Migliorino,
FECCA - Chairman
admin@fecca.org.au
Dear Mr. Migliorino,
You are to be congratulated for standing up for multiculturalism and it is so sad that both political parties have been using "anti-multiculturalism" to win votes!
How low can they go in Australia?!!
The media is not doing much better during this campaign.
Yours sincerely,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Uploaded)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Uploaded)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 20-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
We need to stand up for multiculturalism
August 20, 2010 - 6:54AM
The portrayal in this election of diversity as a villain that threatens the comfortable lives of Australians urgently needs some political will to defend multiculturalism.
This campaign has been hijacked by appeals to the odd marginal vote and pits vulnerable groups against each other, a remnant of the old habits of colonisation.
When the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia consulted its membership to gauge reactions to these elections, many bemoaned the "divide and conquer" principle of the rhetoric.
Politicians have appealed to the lowest common denominator of fear among migrants by portraying new arrivals as people who stay in hotels, are provided housing, jump metaphorical queues and take away the jobs of the other vulnerable migrant communities.
Australia's last multicultural policy expired in 2006. The Rudd government appointed the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council to advise the government on multicultural issues with a view to fostering better social cohesion. The council produced The People of Australia report in April, but since then there has been mostly silence about its recommendations from all sides.
In this campaign, migrants have been approached to affirm the anti-diversity stands of political parties. In some sort of diabolical logic, this seems to legitimise xenophobia. One quote from a migrant Ola Abdelmaguid in the council's People of Australia says it all: ". . . the media makes a lot of myths. They often select the most extreme person. And people believe what they hear and see."
Multiculturalism is a global phenomenon, perhaps this is why it is not popular in the current election debates, which have been focused (in the words of the Nobel prize winning Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore) within the "narrow, domestic walls" of Australian politics.
If anyone bothers to go to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, which is where one should logically go for information about such matters, it will clarify some of the numbers being bandied about regarding population.
The fact of the matter is that two-thirds of our migration intake in recent years are temporary migrants including students and highly skilled 457 workers. The latter form part of the global labour market and are influenced by factors beyond Australia's control. This information is available to the public. So how come we persist in holding 4000 odd vulnerable people fleeing life threatening situations responsible for the future of Australia's living standards, resources, infrastructure and border security? What is the real intention of this unrealistic premise?
Australian policy has been in retreat from multiculturalism for some time now. The divide and conquer strategy of the elections might deliver a short term win for politicians but in the long term it turns communities against each other and will undo any good that governments have tried to do in building social cohesion. The challenge for Australia is to learn from some of our Asian neighbours and conceptualise population and diversity as assets rather than as threats.
For some time we modelled multiculturalism to the world, we need to find the confidence to do this again.
Pino Migliorino is chairman of the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)