GG Bryce and ethics re- son in law ALP Bill Shorten

[mellie]

Keatings speech, June 7 1995 http://australianpolitics.com/executive ... eech.shtml

Howards response, June 8 1995 http://australianpolitics.com/issues/re ... eech.shtml

Once you have read and understood both, weigh up the pro's and con's for yourself.

Clearly, Keating lost the debate or else he himself would have taken the opportunity to take us to a referendum himself when he was PM before he completely lost the publics confidence and trust before spiraling us into the recession he said we had to have.

Had Keating (ALP) won the debate then, it would have been him clarifying this by way of referendum in the lead-up to the 1996 election, not a Liberal government who extended voters the opportunity to decide this for themselves after having weighed it up.

Labor don't believe in public consultation, believe plebs should only decide who they want to make their decisions for them, and only be involved in the end-stage political decision making process, ie, "Should the book have a soft cover or a hard cover?"
A or B

Whereas liberal believes each and every Australian should have a say as to the shaping of their nation, each step of the way, as much as is humanly practicable, (Have more of a say as to name, plot, chapters, direction and conclusion of the book, not just decide on the cover) ...particularly when it involves the types of decisions which stand to effect us all.

If these decisions effect us all, then we should all have a say, given a sense of power over our own autonomy is paramount for a true democracy.

If a government has to regress to pre-electoral trickery, in order to get major policy/legislation through, by-passing the public preferring to hand their vote over to those they know will vote in favor of their policy, (Ie a carbon-tax) , our independents, politicians, corps, big industry, then you have to ask yourself why in a maturing democracy have they cut-out the middle Australian and gone straight to the block?

[mellie]

Now getting back to the ethics of a GG's son-in-law writhing for the top ALP job, (Mr President) can she demonstrate how the decisions she makes, or is yet to make as GG, wont impact on her personally, (negatively or positively) on a familial or personal level should she do the honorable thing and sack this government?

What are the ethics surrounding a GG swearing in her own son-in-law as Australia's first president?

Had a Liberal government been in power, would have a GG Bryce extended their party, leader-in-waiting, the same leniency/protection had her son-in-law not been shaping the Liberal party the way he is the ALP?


GG Bryce has already dismissed independent ethics committees concerns regarding her intra-familial governance.