.bmp)
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
Friday, September 3, 2010
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.
Monday, August 2, 2010
A 3rd World War looming?
Mr. Ban Ki-moon
UN Secretary General,
BanKimoon@un.org
Dear Secretary General,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
We urge the United Nation to investigate whether the US in conducting "military exercise" in the Far East is instigating "instability and unnecessary provocation" of no International benefits to all Man kind.
A 3rd world war must be prevented at all costs!
We look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Updated)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Updated)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 02-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Mr. Barack Obama,
President of America
info@barackobama.com
Dear President Obama,
Remembered you asked us for support before your election and we have supported you because we did not like former George Bush's warmongering activities.
One does not have to be a brain surgeon to see through America's pathetic excuse to conduct military exercises in the Yellow Sea. The Americans used
the Gulf of Tonkin incidence as an excuse to get involved in the Vietnam War. Looks like history is repeating itself and the Americans still have not learn those lessons from the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq invasion and the invasion of Afghanistan. America is no better than Iraq under Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait some years ago.
It is so obvious to the whole world that the sinking of the Cheonam is a fabrication of South Korea and the US to implicate North Korea (see first video clip). The planned military exercise is none other than an exercise to intimidate North Korea and to send a provocative message to China. Why is the US sending over whelming military forces to exercise at the Yellow Sea which is an area close to the Chinese territory? Would America accept a similar situation if the Chinese and Russian navies conduct military exercises in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of California or Florida?
Mr President, your country is in a economic crisis. Do you think it would be better off concentrating your energies getting your country out of the economic doldrums and leave China alone as this country has been a role model to many peaceful nations in forging world peace and harmony? It seems that nearly every American president that comes into office has to be involved in a war or wars of some sort in order to prove to be macho and in control. This strange American psyche is a blot to your nation and as such, America has lost the respect of people in many countries.
As a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, the world looks upon you as a leader in forging peace. We hope that you will go for total disarmament of nuclear weapons including those nations that are nuclear armed at present. If America and any other country have nuclear weapons, they have no right to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons as well. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
You are to be congratulated for getting the Senate to pass the Wall Street Reform Bill and no doubt you will sign it at your earliest opportunity.
Eddie Hwang
27-Jul-2010.
UN Secretary General,
BanKimoon@un.org
Dear Secretary General,
We refer to the reports below for your information.
We urge the United Nation to investigate whether the US in conducting "military exercise" in the Far East is instigating "instability and unnecessary provocation" of no International benefits to all Man kind.
A 3rd world war must be prevented at all costs!
We look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours respectfully,
Eddie Hwang
President
Unity Party WA
unitypartywa@westnet.com.au
www.unitywa.org
http://twitter.com/unitypartywa (Updated)
http://unitypartywa.blogspot.com/ (Updated)
Phone/Fax: 61893681884
Date: 02-Aug-2010.
Environmental friendly-save the trees-use Email
Can you afford to give Bigpond a try?
Mr. Barack Obama,
President of America
info@barackobama.com
Dear President Obama,
Remembered you asked us for support before your election and we have supported you because we did not like former George Bush's warmongering activities.
One does not have to be a brain surgeon to see through America's pathetic excuse to conduct military exercises in the Yellow Sea. The Americans used
the Gulf of Tonkin incidence as an excuse to get involved in the Vietnam War. Looks like history is repeating itself and the Americans still have not learn those lessons from the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq invasion and the invasion of Afghanistan. America is no better than Iraq under Saddam Hussein who invaded Kuwait some years ago.
It is so obvious to the whole world that the sinking of the Cheonam is a fabrication of South Korea and the US to implicate North Korea (see first video clip). The planned military exercise is none other than an exercise to intimidate North Korea and to send a provocative message to China. Why is the US sending over whelming military forces to exercise at the Yellow Sea which is an area close to the Chinese territory? Would America accept a similar situation if the Chinese and Russian navies conduct military exercises in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of California or Florida?
Mr President, your country is in a economic crisis. Do you think it would be better off concentrating your energies getting your country out of the economic doldrums and leave China alone as this country has been a role model to many peaceful nations in forging world peace and harmony? It seems that nearly every American president that comes into office has to be involved in a war or wars of some sort in order to prove to be macho and in control. This strange American psyche is a blot to your nation and as such, America has lost the respect of people in many countries.
As a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, the world looks upon you as a leader in forging peace. We hope that you will go for total disarmament of nuclear weapons including those nations that are nuclear armed at present. If America and any other country have nuclear weapons, they have no right to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear weapons as well. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
You are to be congratulated for getting the Senate to pass the Wall Street Reform Bill and no doubt you will sign it at your earliest opportunity.
Eddie Hwang
27-Jul-2010.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Gillard's smartest move: becoming another Hanson
Gillard's smartest move: becoming another Hanson
John Pasquarelli - The Australian - July 20, 2010 12:00AM HOW many more solutions will there be as Liberal and Labor stand toe to toe over the constant stream of boats illegally entering our waters?
Long ago, we should have seriously reviewed our membership of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, as changing times have swept the original motives for its creation aside.
Australia benefitted hugely from the many post WWII migrants and refugees who came here, rapidly assimilated and locked arms with the rest of us.
Before he was garrotted by Labor thuggees, Kevin Rudd came out in favour of a "Big Australia", but that set the alarm bells clanging with mainstream Australia, as it coincided with his disastrous policy on people smuggling that resulted in boats arriving almost every day, as well as a continuous stream of media reports detailing the ethnicity of criminal offenders despite the PC brigade, including some senior police, trying to censor such material.............
In 1996 when Pauline Hanson called for "all Australians to be treated equally" and for ATSIC to be abolished, most politicians and the media vilified her in the most venomous way for her attack on the Aboriginal industry, but when Noel Pearson made similar comments 10 years later, he was warmly embraced.
Remember Hanson on how she had the right to invite who she wanted into her home and the famous "we are in danger of being swamped by Asians" statement?
Labor's polling has obviously shown that ordinary Australians are mightily concerned about these issues more than ever and in a breathtaking act of gross hypocrisy, Julia Gillard has dumped Rudd's Big Australia, as well as veering away from his asylum-seeker policy.
So much for Rudd saying that he would never move to the right on such matters and expecting Gillard to heel to his command.
Gillard's brazen echoing of Hanson has her encouraging mainstream Australia by exhorting it to debate issues such as border security and the boatpeople without fear of being labelled racist and intimidated by the agents of political correctness.
Calling for openness in public debate to be a mark of her prime ministership as long as people spoke with goodwill and were not critical of other's race or culture tells me that after all her clever and too-smart plagiarism of Hanson, Gillard fails to understand that it is cultural incompatibility that is the root of all the problems connected with refugees and migrants, the element that hinders us bringing in, in her words, "the right type of migrant".
It was suggested to Tony Abbott months ago that he should embrace the mainstream by encouraging people to debate all those issues connected to multiculturalism and immigration via dedicated postal and email addresses, but nothing happened and now Gillard has gazumped him.
Neither Gillard nor Abbott have an effective solution to the people smugglers as the successful way would be far too hard for most politicians to handle.
Our laws must change and people smugglers and their clients would be warned that they face arrest on criminal charges and serious time in prison: no visas, no "Hotel Australia". All boats would be destroyed and big bounties for bringing people smugglers into Australian jurisdiction would be advertised.........
She is now standing in front of the cameras like an automaton delivering her spin words "sustainable" and "moving forward" but her cynical intent to morph into Hanson may prove to be one of her best moves.
John Pasquarelli is a former adviser to Pauline Hanson.
John Pasquarelli - The Australian - July 20, 2010 12:00AM HOW many more solutions will there be as Liberal and Labor stand toe to toe over the constant stream of boats illegally entering our waters?
Long ago, we should have seriously reviewed our membership of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, as changing times have swept the original motives for its creation aside.
Australia benefitted hugely from the many post WWII migrants and refugees who came here, rapidly assimilated and locked arms with the rest of us.
Before he was garrotted by Labor thuggees, Kevin Rudd came out in favour of a "Big Australia", but that set the alarm bells clanging with mainstream Australia, as it coincided with his disastrous policy on people smuggling that resulted in boats arriving almost every day, as well as a continuous stream of media reports detailing the ethnicity of criminal offenders despite the PC brigade, including some senior police, trying to censor such material.............
In 1996 when Pauline Hanson called for "all Australians to be treated equally" and for ATSIC to be abolished, most politicians and the media vilified her in the most venomous way for her attack on the Aboriginal industry, but when Noel Pearson made similar comments 10 years later, he was warmly embraced.
Remember Hanson on how she had the right to invite who she wanted into her home and the famous "we are in danger of being swamped by Asians" statement?
Labor's polling has obviously shown that ordinary Australians are mightily concerned about these issues more than ever and in a breathtaking act of gross hypocrisy, Julia Gillard has dumped Rudd's Big Australia, as well as veering away from his asylum-seeker policy.
So much for Rudd saying that he would never move to the right on such matters and expecting Gillard to heel to his command.
Gillard's brazen echoing of Hanson has her encouraging mainstream Australia by exhorting it to debate issues such as border security and the boatpeople without fear of being labelled racist and intimidated by the agents of political correctness.
Calling for openness in public debate to be a mark of her prime ministership as long as people spoke with goodwill and were not critical of other's race or culture tells me that after all her clever and too-smart plagiarism of Hanson, Gillard fails to understand that it is cultural incompatibility that is the root of all the problems connected with refugees and migrants, the element that hinders us bringing in, in her words, "the right type of migrant".
It was suggested to Tony Abbott months ago that he should embrace the mainstream by encouraging people to debate all those issues connected to multiculturalism and immigration via dedicated postal and email addresses, but nothing happened and now Gillard has gazumped him.
Neither Gillard nor Abbott have an effective solution to the people smugglers as the successful way would be far too hard for most politicians to handle.
Our laws must change and people smugglers and their clients would be warned that they face arrest on criminal charges and serious time in prison: no visas, no "Hotel Australia". All boats would be destroyed and big bounties for bringing people smugglers into Australian jurisdiction would be advertised.........
She is now standing in front of the cameras like an automaton delivering her spin words "sustainable" and "moving forward" but her cynical intent to morph into Hanson may prove to be one of her best moves.
John Pasquarelli is a former adviser to Pauline Hanson.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Unmarried Gillard wedded to a nation that upholds injustice
Unmarried Gillard wedded to a notion that upholds injustice
SAMANTHA STEVENSON - July 17, 2010
When Julia Gillard became Prime Minister, many of us were triumphant at this ultimate smashing of the glass ceiling in Australian politics. Some chose to see it as a progressive step forward for those of the marginalised red-haired population, who now had an Australian celebrity to celebrate with more serious credentials than Nicole Kidman or Cameron Ling from the Geelong Cats.
One person declared ''Gillard is doing it for all the unmarried, barren atheists'', and that she clearly understood ''the church and the state should butt out of people's private relationships''.
Amid this optimism that Gillard's difference to her prime ministerial predecessors apparently represented, Australian gays dared to hope the refreshing lack of religious affinity at the highest level would mark a new approach to gay marriage rights that differed to the social conservatism of the Howard and Rudd years. It was wrong.
Gillard took time out from her mining tax deal-brokering to declare it was still the government's view, as well as her personal one, that gay marriage should not be legalised in Australia. She told Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O on morning radio that: ''We believe the Marriage Act is appropriate in its current form, that is, recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman.''
Yet treating marriage as some grand prize of heterosexuality reinforces the ultimate dichotomy between a man and a woman. While extending the right to marry to gay couples would be a progressive step forward for the homosexual community, it would also smash another cultural norm - the gender inequality of marriage. Even in today's most liberated households, women predominantly take on the bulk of domestic and child-rearing duties, even if they work in some capacity outside the home.
Some may choose to do so. But while fighting over whose turn it is to clean the toilet after mutually busy days at the office may seem mundane compared to fighting (as our mothers did) for the right to work outside the home in the first place, for many married women choices remain dangerously limited.
Bettina Arndt recently chose to deride Gillard's de facto status, claiming as Australia's most significant female role model, Gillard was doing it all wrong. Apparently the idea of Julia and Tim ''playing house'' in The Lodge without a marriage certificate set a bad example for us women, as de facto relationships limit our choices whereas marriage strengthened them.
Yet under Gillard, same-sex relationships will remain de facto by default, and they, obviously, cannot be characterised by a lack of choice for one partner based on gender difference. There is more at play than the absence of wedding rings...........
SAMANTHA STEVENSON - July 17, 2010
When Julia Gillard became Prime Minister, many of us were triumphant at this ultimate smashing of the glass ceiling in Australian politics. Some chose to see it as a progressive step forward for those of the marginalised red-haired population, who now had an Australian celebrity to celebrate with more serious credentials than Nicole Kidman or Cameron Ling from the Geelong Cats.
One person declared ''Gillard is doing it for all the unmarried, barren atheists'', and that she clearly understood ''the church and the state should butt out of people's private relationships''.
Amid this optimism that Gillard's difference to her prime ministerial predecessors apparently represented, Australian gays dared to hope the refreshing lack of religious affinity at the highest level would mark a new approach to gay marriage rights that differed to the social conservatism of the Howard and Rudd years. It was wrong.
Gillard took time out from her mining tax deal-brokering to declare it was still the government's view, as well as her personal one, that gay marriage should not be legalised in Australia. She told Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O on morning radio that: ''We believe the Marriage Act is appropriate in its current form, that is, recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman.''
Yet treating marriage as some grand prize of heterosexuality reinforces the ultimate dichotomy between a man and a woman. While extending the right to marry to gay couples would be a progressive step forward for the homosexual community, it would also smash another cultural norm - the gender inequality of marriage. Even in today's most liberated households, women predominantly take on the bulk of domestic and child-rearing duties, even if they work in some capacity outside the home.
Some may choose to do so. But while fighting over whose turn it is to clean the toilet after mutually busy days at the office may seem mundane compared to fighting (as our mothers did) for the right to work outside the home in the first place, for many married women choices remain dangerously limited.
Bettina Arndt recently chose to deride Gillard's de facto status, claiming as Australia's most significant female role model, Gillard was doing it all wrong. Apparently the idea of Julia and Tim ''playing house'' in The Lodge without a marriage certificate set a bad example for us women, as de facto relationships limit our choices whereas marriage strengthened them.
Yet under Gillard, same-sex relationships will remain de facto by default, and they, obviously, cannot be characterised by a lack of choice for one partner based on gender difference. There is more at play than the absence of wedding rings...........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)