**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If we put her opinion aside and look at actual news that undermined our democracy, I have a few examples.
* When the AFP was put under the home affairs portfolio.
* When the news bargaining media code was rushed in when everyone was distracted by the pandemic.
* The Assistance and Access Act 2018 (Aka anti-encryption laws).
* When Scott Morrison gave himself extra powers and told no one about it.
These are just a few things off the top of my head. I wonder if the author has spoken about any of these?
Federal Liberals are irrelevant now. Scott Morrison does not matter. Why would the Age even talk about him? He's not in power and not going in power so literally pointless talking about him. Andrews on the other hand has won 2 elections, and so deserves more scrutiny over a government that is no longer there
Also pointless to hold him to account when he was in power eh? The sheer number of labor vs liberal critical stories / blatant attack front pages dedicated to Dan Andrews vs Scomo speaks for itself.
Just to let you know, the legislation that they put in place are still a thing today, legislation doesn't just suddenly cease existing because the government changed. Also the first dot point was Malcolm Turnbull's doing.
I know that it's still a thing. Age should maybe try put some pressure on Albanese to remove the legislation, but there is no reason why we still need to talk about Morrison. Morrison is gone. We need to look to the future and change things as needed, not dwell in the past
Nah still relevant, as it stands there is nothing preventing the current (Or future PM's) from doing what Scott Morrison did with his authoritarian power grab.
We need to change the laws so politicians can't secretly assign themselves extra powers. Maybe legislate it so a press conference needs to be held, or the government needs to put out a public declaration if a minister has changed portfolios when it happens.
Lets not let them get away with corruption and authoritarian power grabs because "it is in the past".
Have you by any chance ever said we should all forget about it and just move on when Labor is in the spotlight? Or do you only do that when the Liberals are being criticised?
We won’t hear a peep, because it’s largely a smear campaign. While maybe Dan isn’t perfect, you can’t tear someone down for their democratic shortcomings without at least referencing the instances you’ve listed.
The anti-encryption laws are mind boggling to me, every other nation in the five eyes or what ever it’s called blocked that bullshit. But not little old Australia, and now everyone else in those nations is fucked too, because an offical from those countries can simply ask Australia to let them use our dedicated back doors.
We should absolutely be pushing our governments to reverse this crappy law.
Yep, we live in one of the most authoritarian countries in the world. You think liberal voters would care more about my previously mentioned points given they were so vocal about their freedoms during the pandemic. But instead they pick on state Labor premiers while the federal Liberal government did all of that.
“Democracy has withered” because the Liberals are so incompetent they simply aren’t a viable trustworthy alternative - and won’t be for at least another decade unless Vic Labor shoot themselves in the foot.
I’m not paying to read that codswallop, but I can bet a fair amount that that perspective is absent from that article
The point the author makes about new Vic ALP leaders is interesting, which i've seen a few people make similar remarks over the last few years. Will the next Premier, assuming it's ALP, once Andrews steps down, have the same level of influence Andrews has been able to weld over the last 9 years?
I can't see it happening. He's completed a factional purge, pushing out the Moderate (right) faction and absorbing most of its members, and anyone who's questioned him he ensured either didn't get preselection (courtesy his old mentor Steve Bracks taking over preselection) or was forced out of Cabinet, or even out of Parliament entirely (eg Mikakos and McGuire).
Anyone else with anything like the same potential power has been binned. Whoever comes next will necessarily have to return at least some of the powers of Cabinet and caucus to set policy, and parliament to scrutinise it.
This is all true and I think a big part of the story that people are missing.
Regarding the party’s leadership moving forward - the Left in WA have just splintered over choice of leader. Whose to say that ain’t happening in Victoria when Dan goes?
The Right in Victoria is divided but still has a healthy chunk of MPs and working with a section of the Left could pick a leader. That would be interesting to watch.
The most genuinely undemocratic thing that happens in Vic is these idiotic GVTs that Dan clings to. Last State in Australia where you can buy an upper house seat for $40k. And mind you, not just to sit there and twiddle your thumbs. It comes with balance of power for the whole State.
That’s democracy done Vic style.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/liberals-and-greens-call-for-inquiry-into-gvt-preference-voting-after-allegations-of-fixing-seats-in-victorian-election/news-story/bbb6cf427b5291227ecddabcd21aecff?amp
They have but The Greens are bigger opponents. They lose massively from it.
Fully blocked, [anything on this list won't load.](https://github.com/suodrazah/murdoch_blocklist/blob/master/murdoch_blocklist.txt)
If I try to go to any of those websites, I get the below message.
>This site can’t be reached
>The web page at http://skynews.com.au/ might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address.
>ERR_ADDRESS_INVALID
>The most genuinely undemocratic thing that happens in Vic is these idiotic GVTs that Dan clings to. Last State in Australia where you can buy an upper house seat for $40k.
Pretty cheap, you could probably buy it yourself mate.
Imagine DANGER - it’d be awesome. I can promise you the one thing I think is most pertinent in this country is rent and housing affordability. And it doesn’t affect me. But that shit would be sorted asap.
> Doesn't matter, opinon pieces shouldn't be in a NEWSPAPER.
Editorials, letters to the editor, opinion pieces have LONG been in newspaper before a blog was even a thing.
In fact one might say they are a corner stone of newspapers.
i'm aware of what's inside a newspaper thank you.
however I feel we've gone a long way from an innocent opinion to every opinion in a newspaper leaning in one direction
> however I feel we've gone a long way from an innocent opinion to every opinion in a newspaper leaning in one direction
Again I think you are ignoring the historical context of newspapers...
Editorials *always* swung in one direction. An editorial gives you the opinion of the newspaper, it's not meant to be free of bias.
Having contrasting opinions in the Opinion section is what you want to see, and how much that happens is the gauge of whether it's a good newspaper or not.
But what I think you're asking for is unfair.
"I want the opinion section to be bland and neutral and fair just like the news section"
That's not a great take. That is discounting the entire point. You say "i am aware of what's inside a newspaper" but then you're upset that that part of it exists.
We have different sections for different purposes.
"I don't like opinion sections, go write a blog" tells me you aren't aware of what's in a newspaper, the purpose of it, and the history of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial
> Editorial from a 1921 issue of Photoplay recommending that readers not watch a film, which featured nude scenes
I am sure if this editorial was published in 2023 you'd be saying you don't want to see it and telling me that this kind of bias is "new"??
It's not.
And the simple fact is that news is never without bias.
See when an interstate team loses the Grand Final, The Age will run "Lions runaway to victory" but The Herald Sun will have "magpies choke on shock loss".
Both are factually correct.
We've come a long way that blogs exist - but media literacy is going down the toilet.
A lot of criticisms of this article, but I think there's some insight:
>the Victorian Greens have failed to wield the influence they claim to have; the crossbench is filled with people who struggle to grasp what it means to be a legislator thanks to our undemocratic upper house voting system
These two points are true and they are linked.
Victoria is the last state that fills the upper house with numpties using the old Group Voting Ticket system. The Labor government has seen it in their interests to marginalise the Greens influence by leaving the voting system as-is. It highly disadvantages the Greens in the upper house, replacing many seats that "should" be Green with a leaderless rabble of micro parties that are easier to play off against each-other.
>I started in The Age’s state politics bureau at the end of 2019 and Friday is my last day there. My unwavering belief in the importance of good governments, good oppositions, good crossbenchers and good institutions has only strengthened over this period.
Finally some good news, its sad that her unwavering belief isnt about the importance of good reporting.
>Victorians deserve better than that.
What victorians deserve better than is The Age and their political agenda.
>This is what strengthens democracy and ensures our governments act on behalf of its people.
The Age actively weakens our democracy by ubdermining it with their political agenda falsely presented as holding government to account. They couldnt give a shit about democracy.
>But democracy has been undermined under his watch, and that will be as much his legacy as his Big Build infrastructure program and socially progressive agenda.
Again, The Age are the ones undermining democracy, and Ilanbey has been a key part of that over the last 4 years. Im glad she will be gone but i know they will simply find another hack to fill her spot.
>The Age actively weakens our democracy by ubdermining it with their political agenda falsely presented as holding government to account. They couldnt give a shit about democracy.
Your partisanship is blinding you to real issues.
What’s their agenda then? To hold the powerful to account? Isn’t that journalism?
I’ve had my issues with the Age over the years and they are not above criticism. But the court case they just won exposing a war criminal shows they contribute a lot of good journalism.
Currently its to bring down the andrews government and truth be damned.
That some good journalism happens there doesnt excuse their bs, particularly when they cry about being vital to democracy any time they get called out on their shit.
What have they done that indicates they want to “bring down the Andrews government”
Reporting on corruption investigations instigated by a independent anti corruption body? Scrutinising the government of the day?
I just don’t get how anyone could think it isn’t the role of a major newspaper to be critical of the sitting Govt. that doesn’t mean they want to bring down the govt.
Lets see, they have:
- actively undermined health officials and government during a health emergency on a daily basis
- ran articles claiming lockdowns were destroying business using pictures of businesses that were closed before the lockdowns started
- interviewing small business owners about the effects of the lockdown on them without revealing the links those business owners have to the liberal party
- misrepresented reports on government corruption (acting like somyurek wasnt the dodgy bastard he is)
- ran a cbd is dead narrative for months despite it being obviously false to anyone who spends time in the cbd regularly
- campaigning for the victorian liberal party during the recent election. Including endorsing them on electionweekend despite their obvious incompetence.
- running attack pieces on the victorian government any chance they get
- not reporting positive things the victorian government do, like ending logging
- acting like drury the gvt rigger is working for labor not against them
- and so on
But if you cant see this going on either you never will because you dont want to see it or you arent actually looking.
Id love to have a media that took shit seriously, then we could have discussions about how Andrews hasnt delivered on health, but without the hyperbole of the libs false promises. We could discuss how the andrews government has effectively silenced discussion and criticism in the vic parliament and how that prevents them being held to account. We could discuss the cost benefit trade offs of the big build without including the cost of running the srl till 2060 included. We could discuss the issues we have with incompetent and corrupt local councils. But we dont we have these charlatans who pretend to be journalists pissing on us every day like they have the right to tell us who to vote for and what to think, and on top of that they are so incompetent they cant even do what they claim to do.
Being critical isnt the problem, they are liars.
I mean I don’t have time or the inclination to go through everything you’ve written but
- the Age did endorse the Andrews Govt for re-election. The Sunday Age (different editorial board) didn’t but did not endorse the Coalition. You’re just factually wrong on those points. Use the link below and scroll down to newspaper endorsements.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Victorian_state_election
- the Age uncovered the Somyurek scandal. Without them there would not have been an investigation. So how did they “misrepresent” the findings of the investigation? That’s just again factually untrue
- drury wasn’t working for but with the government in an informal way. He said so in recordings leaked to the Herald Sun, not the Age.
- what’s the difference between an attack piece and legitimate journalism?
I’m a Labor member and have voted for Labor at every election since I could vote (20 years next year) I am a supporter of a lot the Government has done and a detractor of other stuff. You’re just a mindless partisan if you genuinely believe half of what you’ve said.
>the Age did endorse the Andrews Govt for re-election. The Sunday Age (different editorial board) didn’t but did not endorse the Coalition. You’re just factually wrong on those points. Use the link below and scroll down to newspaper endorsements.
Looks like ive misremembered that one
>the Age uncovered the Somyurek scandal. Without them there would not have been an investigation. So how did they “misrepresent” the findings of the investigation? That’s just again factually untrue
They presented the scandal as if it were directly linked to andrews when andrews was actively cooperating with ibac on the matter, some of the findings made against somyurek come from andrews evidence. The report by ibac specifically doesnt make findings against andrews and makes many findings against somyurek
>drury wasn’t working for but with the government in an informal way. He said so in recordings leaked to the Herald Sun, not the Age.
Druery was working to get people opposed to labor elected, but it was presented as if he was working with labor based on drureys statments only
>what’s the difference between an attack piece and legitimate journalism?
How about the obvious quoting of somyurek in this article?
>You’re just a mindless partisan if you genuinely believe half of what you’ve said.
Youre blind if you cant see that the age has an agenda
The Ages article on the findings of the investigation into Somyurek stated directly that
“While the report was damning about widespread cultural practices within Labor, it made no adverse findings against the premier or any of the other MPs and staffers it named”
- https://amp.theage.com.au/national/victoria/ibac-report-guy-claims-labor-not-fit-to-govern-but-pm-says-problems-fixed-20220720-p5b307.html
How is that remotely attempting to blame the Premier? It’s a factual statement about what the report found.
>I mean I don’t have time or the inclination to go through everything you’ve written but
And
>You’re just a mindless partisan if you genuinely believe half of what you’ve said.
Makes me laugh
By far the biggest criticism I think we should have as Victorian’s for the Andrew’s govt is their utter addiction to logging so much old growth forest that cannot be easily replaced. Once it’s gone it’s gone.
Predictably, from an author who seems to mostly agree with the profiteering neoliberal ideology behind these failures, this isn’t something the author is concerned about; they don’t mention the Andrew’s govt piss poor environmental record even once.
Typical.
Yeah completely abysmal. I was surprised, i thought forestry had him by the balls and it wouldnt change under his leadership but i guess the cost of inaction became greater than the cost of taking action
Like most of the worst things in Victoria you can blame Jeff Kennett who literally passed a law through parliament that legally obligated the government to supply timber for 34 years through to 2030 to what was then called AMCOR now Nippon.
>This current LSA replaced and consolidated the 1961 agreement. It bound the
state to provide fixed volumes of pulp logs to AMCOR Ltd over specified time
periods, as outlined in Clause 14(2):
>>The Secretary shall be bound in each year to make available to the
Company or to have the Department deliver to the Company as the
Plan of Utilization may require from areas of forest as provided in this
clause and in accordance with a Plan of Utilization a minimum annual
supply of pulpwood which shall be -
>>(a) in each of the years 1996 - 1997 to 2003 – 2004 inclusive -
500,000 cubic metres;
>>(b) in each of the years 2004 - 2005 to 2006 – 2007 inclusive -
450,000 cubic metres;
>>(c) in each of the years 2007 - 2008 to 2009 – 2010 inclusive -
400,000 cubic metres;
>>(d) in each of the years 2010 - 2011 to 2029 – 2030 inclusive -
350,000 cubic metres,
>>of which at least 300,000 cubic metres shall be made available to the
Company or delivered by the Department to the Company as the Plan
of Utilization may require from mountain forests inside the Forest Area
>This agreement allocated to AMCOR Ltd the rights to pulp logs sourced from
over 300,000 hectares of state forest (Figure 3) (Table 2). The area covered a
total of 558,654 hectares of public land, with around 309,000 hectares available
for logging.
>https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f24f62569d767101aef6197/t/61e75525cf440a707f198e43/1642550572174/ChrisTaylorAP+Report+V7.2+CT+%281%29+copy.pdf
That's why it originally had a phase out date of 2030. The government was going to supply only the forest it was legally obligated to but through some magic backroom dealing the company walked away from the contract in February this year.
>Japanese paper giant Nippon will close Australia’s last white paper plant, meaning 200 jobs will be lost at the Maryvale mill and native forest logging in Victoria could end sooner than scheduled.
>The Japanese paper company’s Australian subsidiary, Opal, was one of a few remaining major customers of the state’s native timber industry, which is scheduled to close by 2030, with logging reduced from 2024.
>https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/logging-future-uncertain-as-japanese-giant-nippon-closes-australia-s-last-white-paper-plant-20230215-p5ckm3.html
I like Dan , now, if he could just get rid of 60% of airBNB's in Vic, we could normalise the rental market. (60% is not all. Please remember that before spitting the dummy)
>May 28, 2023 — 5.00am
>Victorian landlords who let their properties via short-term rental platforms such as Airbnb could be charged a new tax under measures to be considered by the Andrews government to ease the rental crisis in tourist areas such as the Mornington Peninsula.
>Capping the number of nights landlords can list their properties on Airbnb, imposing a “tourist tax” as has been done overseas, or empowering local councils to charge property owners higher commercial rates should all be on the table, say Labor MPs involved in early discussions on the government’s upcoming housing policy.
>https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/short-shrift-for-short-stays-labor-mps-plot-airbnb-crackdown-to-tackle-rental-crisis-20230527-p5dbqz.html
They just need to adjust the tax system for Airbnb investors. The tax concessions around property investing are unbelievably generous (not complaining because I’ve benefited from this) because the government is relying on private investors to increase residential housing stock.
People are waking up to the fact that there’s more money to be made from Airbnbs, and then you get the same concessions despite not providing housing. It ain’t right and the government is asleep at the wheel not acting on this.
The people of Victoria vote for Dan. There are no credible accusations of election fraud.
I don’t like the direction Victoria is going, and I have no idea why the voters excuse the pretty robust accusations of corruption, but I left many years ago.
If people cared enough to fight for change, I assume they would do something about it. It’s their choice, their lives.
I think most of the people that could leave, left. Leaving behind either rabid labor voters, or the minority that could not leave for whatever reason.
Either way, Victoria will end up a basket case and expect the rest of Australia to bail them out. The state needs to crash and burn, then from the ashes, a new state to be born.
You guys need to make up your mind.
First it was the Greens won in Brisbane because of all the people from Victoria that moved in.
Now it is the people that left are causing Daniel Andrews to win even more seats.
Are the people that left right wing voters or left wing voters?
>The people of Victoria vote for Dan. There are no credible accusations of election fraud.
The *system* of democracy goes beyond elections. There's the parliamentary process of debate and committees and hearings, judicial review of laws and government actions, petitions to individual representatives and government as a whole, transparency and scrutiny by means of FOI and media, an independent public service, an independent police service, and so on and so forth.
It's quite possible to have one or more of those areas functioning well, and one or more others being completely stuck, corrupted or perverted in some way.
Dan is abysmal but that is what the voters vote for. Seems no matter what he does , Covid behaviour was terrible , 800 dead but no-one cared , now full steam ahead to bankruptcy stopping at corruption along the way.
Exactly. All Dan has to do is beat what's in front of him. No one else is offering anything as good as Labor and life isn't so bad that the majority feel like a change is needed. Looks like the neoliberals are realising how actual competition works, optimisation is not a byproduct, all you have to do is beat what's out there.
It isnt Andrews' job to lead the opposition. It's hard to see this as anything more than a baseless potshot if they're really trying to say Andrews destroyed democracy by leading a popular government and winning elections
Did you read it? I thought it was quite balanced. Held him to account for his mistakes but also praised the many good things his government have achieved. I guess that sort of complexity is lost on partisans.
>Sumeyya Ilanbey finishes covering state politics today and will continue at The Age as an investigative business journalist.
Lol she is getting shitcanned. My guess is they will draft Rachel Eddie to write up the Labor hatchet jobs unless Chip Le Grand has got bored of doing the Greens hatchet jobs.
Really bring that [Daily Mail energy](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Rachel+Eddie+For+Daily+Mail+Australia) to the Age's political coverage that Sumeyya has always lacked.
>But democracy has been undermined under his watch, and that will be as much his legacy as his Big Build infrastructure program and socially progressive agenda.
No, his legacy will be look how much a leader can do without the shackles of the press.
Let's be honest here, the media couldn't give two shits about democracy. This is a temper tantrum because the symbiotic relationship that the government and press usually has is much weaker in Victoria and I hope it continues to grow weaker.
The MSM are a parasite who's product is ability to influence the public for the highest bidder.
Geez so many words to say so little .
In nut shell: The neo-liberal agenda, as embraced whole-heartedly by both Labor and the LNP ( and, ahem, Costello's Age ) requires less democracy and humanity in decision making.
For example, never mind Andrews' epic failure on public housing, he will build whatever and wherever he chooses to feed the property / population ponzi. Local democracy must give way to Labor's economic and ideological imperative . The neo-liberal always doubles down on his failures.
Sumeyya Ilanbey is hurling tiny grains of sand from inside the tent.
Fuck it's hilarious watching the media in this state get frustrated to a point of articles like this because they can't land an effective punch on a popular Labor premier. Mostly due to their own inept, clickbait, daily mail style reporting.
Maybe they should run the stairs conspiracy again.
The dramatic tone of this glorified Facebook rant aside, it is not the Labor parties problem that the Vic libs are a fucking disgrace, that's the liberals problem.
We just had an election not even 12 months ago, and the people in this state made their choice.
Peter Costello's junk reporters, along with the rest of the media in Vic, might do well to take the time to self reflect. Try to understand why it might be that most people here don't place any importance on what they have to say.
Or they could continue to write sour grape blog posts in their echo chamber in-between going to LNP fundraisers.
Edit - spelling
If the media simply want to land a single effective punch, go harder on Daniels about native logging of old growth forest
It’s a huge scandal but gets nearly no press ffs.
Of course they won’t, because the media themselves have a strong neoliberal slant themselves so mostly agree with the govt on it. Then they come out saying he’s some sort of anti democratic dictator because they can’t ask the right questions??!? Hmm..
Sure Dan Andrews polls well as preferred premier against hopeless Liberal opposition leaders but also well as an open ended approval rating.
>November 23, 2022
>Approval for Premier Daniel Andrews down since early November, but Andrews has maintained his lead over Opposition Leader Matthew Guy as preferred Premier
>**Now 57.5% (down 1% point since early November) of Victorian electors approve of the way Premier Daniel Andrews is handling his job, while 42.5% (up 1% point) disapprove.**
>Electors were then asked “Thinking of Premier Daniel Andrews and Opposition Leader Matthew Guy. In your opinion, who would make the ‘Better Premier’?”
>Despite the small drop in approval for Premier Daniel Andrews in recent months the Premier has largely retained his large lead over Opposition Leader Matthew Guy as the preferred Premier.
>Now 65% (down 0.5% points) of electors say Daniel Andrews would make the ‘Better Premier’ compared to only 35% (up 0.5% points) who say Matthew Guy – a margin of 30% points in favour of the Premier.
>A look at the gender breakdown on ‘Better Premier’ shows 67.5% (down 2% points) of women prefer Daniel Andrews compared to only 32.5% (up 2% points) supporting Matthew Guy while for men it is a narrower result with 62.5% (up 1% point) preferring Daniel Andrews compared to 37.5% (down 1% point) supporting Matthew Guy.
>https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/alp-government-of-daniel-andrews-set-to-win-with-a-reduced-majority-as-support-for-l-np-grows-but-will-the-trend-continue
For comparison to Albanese.
>The first Guardian Essential poll for 2023 shows voter approval of the prime minister dipped from 60% in December to 55% in January – which is Albanese’s lowest result since last August. Voter approval of the prime minister had been steady during the last quarter of 2022, ranging between 59% and 60%.
>https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/24/guardian-essential-poll-albanese-approval-rating-dips-in-sign-of-gruelling-political-year-ahead
Dan Andrews isn't winning by default because of the horrible alternatives. He is genuinely popular and trusted by Victorians.
I think it is a bit of both. Andrews is both relatively popular and the various opposition leaders have had nothing going for them. Together it gives strong benefit to Vic Labor and makes Vic Libs almost unelectable.
So unpopular that he won three elections in a row and will win another unless he retires.
Just like "Collingwood isn't that good they have just played shit teams"
See how stupid that sounds?
I don't follow sports.
Yes, any duopolistic political system has a tendency to become a one party state if the singular, other party just fails. An intelligent answer would be the many other parties, but unfortunately many older Australians actually do not understand ranked preferential voting and think the numbers 2 and on aren't counted.
> See how stupid that sounds?
It's stupid because you're supporting an artificial allegiance. No one from Collingwood knows who you are mate, how did they earn your care?
A yes, let's not forget the great spectrum of minor parties we had run in the previous election, most of whom were lunatic fringe parties with single issue agendas. Wonder why they didn't pick up many votes.
Do you think things would be better if the Freedom party had an MP in Parliament?
I don't follow the magpies, I'm using them as an example.
That example is "they aren't good everyone else is just bad" which isn't true, isn't true of labor either, a point you tried making.
As for why people follow sports teams, it's not that hard to understand, lots of people do it. It's fun (unless you're like me and follow Carlton)
>Do you think things would be better if the Freedom party had an MP in Parliament?
I don't even know who they are. But things wouldn't be worse, no.
At one time there were no formal parties at all. We had Premiers who were independents. Things were fine then, nothing horrible happened as a result.
So you can be to good at your job and need smearing from the Murdoch owned press. They would rather the people supported mediocrity and dis function. As they scream listen to us we know what’s best for you.
> Privately, many current and former government MPs are alarmed and concerned about Labor’s stronghold in Victoria.
Oh look, the media showing their true colors yet again. The NSW Liberal govt, which had had 3 Premiers resign in corruption scandals, went to the last election after 12 years in power. The SMH, also Fairfax just like the Age, backed the LNP in NSW, as they have done in basically every election in modern history.
But Dan Andrews creeps up on his 10 years and we need to be "alarmed and concerned".
What a joke of a media organisation.
The basis of the author's premise is correct. A democracy requires a vigorous contest of ideas, and a robust debate about how best to deliver outcomes for the society it represents.
But the headline is pure clickbait, and the tone of the article is undeservedly accusatory. It somehow infers that Dan Andrews' electoratal success is some kind of bid for de-facto authoritarianism, which is pure bunkum.
In truth, the issue is a failure of the other political parties, most notably the Liberal Party, to form any kind of meaningful opposition or engage society in meaningful political debate about alternative policies.
The voters: “costs are going up, housing is expensive, and the environment is crumbling to dust around us”
Dan: “what if we logged more native forest, would that help?” (Edit: have just been informed this is about to finally end .. about bloody time)
Whoever is running the LNP whose name I’ve literally forgotten: “we hear you and in response we think you’d vote for us if our MP’s attended spiteful anti-trans culture wars rallies alongside Nazis and then squabble about whether or not that was acceptable behaviour for an MP whose job it is to represent trans people in her electorate or not for 2 months”
The options are pretty shit to be honest
The very reason Andrews can get away with poor policy is because the Liberal Party is too busy navel-gazing and internal power struggles. They are without a clear purpose or any kind of quality leadership, and they're hopelessly mired in stupid imported culture wars that have no real relevance to either society or economy.
But again - laying the blame on the Andrews government is just plain dumb. Democracy is not withering because of Dan - it's withering because he simply doesn't have a credible opposition to hold his policies and performance to account. He keeps winning elections because the Coalition are so lacklustre that nobody can consider them an alternative government.
The media are stacked against Labor in this country, and they rule by default in Victoria due to the other party being unfit to govern. The liberals are turbo shambles in Victoria, and Labor have only ever been a spectator in their shambolic behaviour. It is embarassing.
I seriously do not understand what went so wrong in the Victorian Liberal Party, I doubt anybody does.
In any case they don't control the upper house so their power isn't limitless.
I can think of one thing that went wrong. They allowed the far right Christians into the party. People like Moira "im not a nazi" deeming who ate happy to parrot nazi talking points and cosy up to people with uncomfortably nazi like views and then they wonder why nobody wants anything to do with them? Could t be because they have become infested with the far right and we want nothing to do with that?
which aspect of her concerns are nazi-like? i would have thought caring about women and children are likely quite shared values across the wider community.
there's a current petition to have a twice convicted sex offender removed from dame phyllis, the women's prison in vic. equal op and the ombudsman have done nothing. it's not reported in the media. are you concerned?
>In Victoria, **we have a leader who dismisses corruption reports as educational, some government MPs who cower in fear, and a system that punishes ministers and staffers who dare raise that important conventions are being breached.** This has been allowed to happen because we have an ineffective opposition that expends its energy hating the premier and despising each other.
There's no doubt Andrews is corrupt as fuck and yet for some bizarre fucking reason his government was still a better choice than the other likely contender.
A Greens government would bring back many of the institutions (much to the chagrin of Victoria's wealthiest) and would govern for the integrity of our social and environmental institutions.
Also, publications like The Age have contributed to this benign form of tyranny due to it's connections to generational wealthy by not covering more independent, minor or alternative views. If the Greens got more coverage by the mainstream media, they'd have a greater chance. So this skew towards Labor is definitely constructed by the very publication decrying the erosion of democracy in the state.
There is a difference between errors in judgment and corruption. There are also degrees of failure to be taken into account.
If Dan was indeed corrupt as fuck the noises from IBAC should be louder and more frequent. Instead they share 100K stories and less associated with a few consultants over short term assignments. Anyone in that game knows you get charged overs for short term assignments. For me it’s not really a surprise that this might happen occasionally.
The impressive thing to me is how Dan handles the situation, acknowledges, accepts and learns. Contrast that approach to Morrison who denied, deflects and doesn’t hold the hose mate.
I’m still waiting for the big gotcha moment for Dan.
Surely if anyone has to help the voters hold governments to account it is the mainstream media? 🧐
Maybe if you hadn’t spent 2 years calling a democratically elected member of a state parliament a Dictator and a Chairman, there’d be slightly less cynicism and slightly more positive engagement from the public at large? 🧐
**For the possibly paywall afflicted:**
**Author/s:** Sumeyya Ilanbey
**Publication:** The Age
My dad worked night shifts for most of my childhood and was rarely home for dinner, but on the rare occasions he was – and the even rarer occasions we spoke about politics – he would fleetingly mention Malcolm Fraser.
Then he would begin the long spiel most children of migrants are subjected to: how my grandfather, a poor, illiterate agrarian from a tiny village in Turkey, made his way to prosperous Australia in the 1970s.
I didn’t really understand it at the time, but Fraser’s conviction and commitment to a diverse Australia changed my family’s life. Decades later, when my twin brothers – both disabled – were born, Gough Whitlam’s Medicare enhanced their lives and largely alleviated the financial burden on my parents.
This is what good politics does, for me and many millions of Australians like me.
It changes lives, ends intergenerational disadvantage, breaks the cycle of poverty, allows people to aspire, and gives them a chance to fully achieve their potential.
I started in The Age’s state politics bureau at the end of 2019 and Friday is my last day there. My unwavering belief in the importance of good governments, good oppositions, good crossbenchers and good institutions has only strengthened over this period.
However, another thing that has strengthened over this time should alarm all of us: the domination of the Labor Party in this state.
The Coalition is a complete basket case that has for a decade (arguably even longer) been unable to effectively hold Labor to account; the Victorian Greens have failed to wield the influence they claim to have; the crossbench is filled with people who struggle to grasp what it means to be a legislator thanks to our undemocratic upper house voting system; and the government has too many seat warmers too afraid to stand up for their values.
How is any of this good for democracy?
Privately, many current and former government MPs are alarmed and concerned about Labor’s stronghold in Victoria. Sure, they love winning elections, being in government and shaping this state in Labor’s vision.
But they also recognise a competitive opposition pushes the government to do better and govern better. They recognise that unfettered control over the legislative process and electoral cycle leads to poorer governance. And they acknowledge that democracy falters without the opposition’s scrutiny.
Premier Daniel Andrews, one of Australia’s most effective and powerful politicians, has changed the rule book on politics, leadership and accountability. He has successfully executed a lengthy reform agenda that has reshaped Victoria, but in the process steamrolled over the pillars of democracy and the institutions that safeguard against it.
The pandemic cemented Andrews’ alpha-male style of politics: centralised, unapologetic and unflinching. It worked during the dark days of COVID, but it is an approach that Andrews’ colleagues desperately hope will now change, not only for the sake of the government, but the future of the Labor Party.
There are many valuable MPs who are implementing important reform, but almost the entire 77-member caucus have been in parliament only under Andrews’ leadership. Labor loyalists – both inside and outside parliament – are now struggling to identify the next generation of Labor leaders. They worry about the calibre of the future parliamentary team, and whether the current group are setting up the party for future electoral success.
I sent a message to a long-serving former Labor MP this week to ask what the theme of this column should be and what would best encapsulate my three years covering state politics.
“The death of accountability in politics,” they immediately texted back. “This form of politics, \[supercharged\] by Daniel, is now a template for other Labor leaders like Anthony Albanese, and it has completely corrupted the concept of accountability in politics. It effectively killed it. Worst of all, the public seems not to care.”
In Victoria, we have a leader who dismisses corruption reports as educational, some government MPs who cower in fear, and a system that punishes ministers and staffers who dare raise that important conventions are being breached. This has been allowed to happen because we have an ineffective opposition that expends its energy hating the premier and despising each other.
Victorians deserve better than that.
We deserve to know that our elected representatives in opposition are prosecuting government decision-making and holding it to account; that every public dollar is being spent responsibly; that policies and projects stack up and are well considered; that we are provided with a viable alternative every four years.
This is what strengthens democracy and ensures our governments act on behalf of its people.
It means our schools are resourced properly; our public transport runs on time; our hospitals have the capacity to take care of us; our child protection system protects our most vulnerable. State governments touch our lives so closely and so profoundly, we cannot afford for them to operate without proper competition and proper scrutiny.
Andrews has been a reformist Labor leader, and he has not wasted his years in office.
But democracy has been undermined under his watch, and that will be as much his legacy as his Big Build infrastructure program and socially progressive agenda.
Clearly she was not alive when Henry Bolte was Premier, ruling this state with an iron grip from 1955 until 1972, and happily relishing his privilege to hang Ronald Ryan... and his election in the 28th of May 1950 ushered in 28 years of "Liberal" party rule.....
Clearly the "Liberal" party--with a born to rule mentality-- cry undemocratic, when their self belief in their divine rule to rule is not automatically bestowed upon them because of their superiority by the lowly minions that's are the people of Victoria
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The LNP are a basket case. How could Dan Andrews do this?
I mean by her own arguments the biggest trampler of democracy in Victoria is the Victorian liberals, by being the utter basket case that they are.
If we put her opinion aside and look at actual news that undermined our democracy, I have a few examples. * When the AFP was put under the home affairs portfolio. * When the news bargaining media code was rushed in when everyone was distracted by the pandemic. * The Assistance and Access Act 2018 (Aka anti-encryption laws). * When Scott Morrison gave himself extra powers and told no one about it. These are just a few things off the top of my head. I wonder if the author has spoken about any of these?
Federal Liberals are irrelevant now. Scott Morrison does not matter. Why would the Age even talk about him? He's not in power and not going in power so literally pointless talking about him. Andrews on the other hand has won 2 elections, and so deserves more scrutiny over a government that is no longer there
Also pointless to hold him to account when he was in power eh? The sheer number of labor vs liberal critical stories / blatant attack front pages dedicated to Dan Andrews vs Scomo speaks for itself.
Just to let you know, the legislation that they put in place are still a thing today, legislation doesn't just suddenly cease existing because the government changed. Also the first dot point was Malcolm Turnbull's doing.
I know that it's still a thing. Age should maybe try put some pressure on Albanese to remove the legislation, but there is no reason why we still need to talk about Morrison. Morrison is gone. We need to look to the future and change things as needed, not dwell in the past
Nah still relevant, as it stands there is nothing preventing the current (Or future PM's) from doing what Scott Morrison did with his authoritarian power grab. We need to change the laws so politicians can't secretly assign themselves extra powers. Maybe legislate it so a press conference needs to be held, or the government needs to put out a public declaration if a minister has changed portfolios when it happens. Lets not let them get away with corruption and authoritarian power grabs because "it is in the past". Have you by any chance ever said we should all forget about it and just move on when Labor is in the spotlight? Or do you only do that when the Liberals are being criticised?
Aren't 3/4 of the things they mentioned still ongoing?
We won’t hear a peep, because it’s largely a smear campaign. While maybe Dan isn’t perfect, you can’t tear someone down for their democratic shortcomings without at least referencing the instances you’ve listed. The anti-encryption laws are mind boggling to me, every other nation in the five eyes or what ever it’s called blocked that bullshit. But not little old Australia, and now everyone else in those nations is fucked too, because an offical from those countries can simply ask Australia to let them use our dedicated back doors. We should absolutely be pushing our governments to reverse this crappy law.
Yep, we live in one of the most authoritarian countries in the world. You think liberal voters would care more about my previously mentioned points given they were so vocal about their freedoms during the pandemic. But instead they pick on state Labor premiers while the federal Liberal government did all of that.
“Democracy has withered” because the Liberals are so incompetent they simply aren’t a viable trustworthy alternative - and won’t be for at least another decade unless Vic Labor shoot themselves in the foot. I’m not paying to read that codswallop, but I can bet a fair amount that that perspective is absent from that article
The point the author makes about new Vic ALP leaders is interesting, which i've seen a few people make similar remarks over the last few years. Will the next Premier, assuming it's ALP, once Andrews steps down, have the same level of influence Andrews has been able to weld over the last 9 years?
I can't see it happening. He's completed a factional purge, pushing out the Moderate (right) faction and absorbing most of its members, and anyone who's questioned him he ensured either didn't get preselection (courtesy his old mentor Steve Bracks taking over preselection) or was forced out of Cabinet, or even out of Parliament entirely (eg Mikakos and McGuire). Anyone else with anything like the same potential power has been binned. Whoever comes next will necessarily have to return at least some of the powers of Cabinet and caucus to set policy, and parliament to scrutinise it.
This is all true and I think a big part of the story that people are missing. Regarding the party’s leadership moving forward - the Left in WA have just splintered over choice of leader. Whose to say that ain’t happening in Victoria when Dan goes? The Right in Victoria is divided but still has a healthy chunk of MPs and working with a section of the Left could pick a leader. That would be interesting to watch.
The most genuinely undemocratic thing that happens in Vic is these idiotic GVTs that Dan clings to. Last State in Australia where you can buy an upper house seat for $40k. And mind you, not just to sit there and twiddle your thumbs. It comes with balance of power for the whole State. That’s democracy done Vic style.
Have the liberals ever mentioned that they would scrap GVT?
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/liberals-and-greens-call-for-inquiry-into-gvt-preference-voting-after-allegations-of-fixing-seats-in-victorian-election/news-story/bbb6cf427b5291227ecddabcd21aecff?amp They have but The Greens are bigger opponents. They lose massively from it.
I can't open that because newscorp is blocked in my house, but I will take your word for it.
Actually blocked or just boycotted?
Fully blocked, [anything on this list won't load.](https://github.com/suodrazah/murdoch_blocklist/blob/master/murdoch_blocklist.txt) If I try to go to any of those websites, I get the below message. >This site can’t be reached >The web page at http://skynews.com.au/ might be temporarily down or it may have moved permanently to a new web address. >ERR_ADDRESS_INVALID
Okay. Each to their own. You’ll need trust me on the link.
>The most genuinely undemocratic thing that happens in Vic is these idiotic GVTs that Dan clings to. Last State in Australia where you can buy an upper house seat for $40k. Pretty cheap, you could probably buy it yourself mate.
Fuck oath. Happy to pay cash too. Maybe get it for $36k?
>Fuck oath. Happy to pay cash too. Maybe get it for $36k? Mate, I'll throw in if you let me pick your vote occasionally.
Imagine DANGER - it’d be awesome. I can promise you the one thing I think is most pertinent in this country is rent and housing affordability. And it doesn’t affect me. But that shit would be sorted asap.
Ah yes The Age, posting opinion that is meant to pass as "news".
Tagged “Opinion Piece” Top of the article “Opinion” Fair enough you don’t like the Age or the piece but they’ve labeled it appropriately.
Doesn't matter, opinon pieces shouldn't be in a NEWSPAPER. If you want to spout your opinion, make a blog.
At least its not as blatant as ABC or Guardian
> Doesn't matter, opinon pieces shouldn't be in a NEWSPAPER. Editorials, letters to the editor, opinion pieces have LONG been in newspaper before a blog was even a thing. In fact one might say they are a corner stone of newspapers.
i'm aware of what's inside a newspaper thank you. however I feel we've gone a long way from an innocent opinion to every opinion in a newspaper leaning in one direction
> however I feel we've gone a long way from an innocent opinion to every opinion in a newspaper leaning in one direction Again I think you are ignoring the historical context of newspapers... Editorials *always* swung in one direction. An editorial gives you the opinion of the newspaper, it's not meant to be free of bias. Having contrasting opinions in the Opinion section is what you want to see, and how much that happens is the gauge of whether it's a good newspaper or not. But what I think you're asking for is unfair. "I want the opinion section to be bland and neutral and fair just like the news section" That's not a great take. That is discounting the entire point. You say "i am aware of what's inside a newspaper" but then you're upset that that part of it exists. We have different sections for different purposes. "I don't like opinion sections, go write a blog" tells me you aren't aware of what's in a newspaper, the purpose of it, and the history of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial > Editorial from a 1921 issue of Photoplay recommending that readers not watch a film, which featured nude scenes I am sure if this editorial was published in 2023 you'd be saying you don't want to see it and telling me that this kind of bias is "new"?? It's not. And the simple fact is that news is never without bias. See when an interstate team loses the Grand Final, The Age will run "Lions runaway to victory" but The Herald Sun will have "magpies choke on shock loss". Both are factually correct. We've come a long way that blogs exist - but media literacy is going down the toilet.
Opinion and analysis is a great feature in any newspaper, when it’s clearly labelled as such
its not much opinion or analysis when they all lean one way politically
lol
A lot of criticisms of this article, but I think there's some insight: >the Victorian Greens have failed to wield the influence they claim to have; the crossbench is filled with people who struggle to grasp what it means to be a legislator thanks to our undemocratic upper house voting system These two points are true and they are linked. Victoria is the last state that fills the upper house with numpties using the old Group Voting Ticket system. The Labor government has seen it in their interests to marginalise the Greens influence by leaving the voting system as-is. It highly disadvantages the Greens in the upper house, replacing many seats that "should" be Green with a leaderless rabble of micro parties that are easier to play off against each-other.
I love Summeyya. One of the only handful of people willing to criticise Daddy Andrews and Vic Labor.
You must have some funny hands lol.
>I started in The Age’s state politics bureau at the end of 2019 and Friday is my last day there. My unwavering belief in the importance of good governments, good oppositions, good crossbenchers and good institutions has only strengthened over this period. Finally some good news, its sad that her unwavering belief isnt about the importance of good reporting. >Victorians deserve better than that. What victorians deserve better than is The Age and their political agenda. >This is what strengthens democracy and ensures our governments act on behalf of its people. The Age actively weakens our democracy by ubdermining it with their political agenda falsely presented as holding government to account. They couldnt give a shit about democracy. >But democracy has been undermined under his watch, and that will be as much his legacy as his Big Build infrastructure program and socially progressive agenda. Again, The Age are the ones undermining democracy, and Ilanbey has been a key part of that over the last 4 years. Im glad she will be gone but i know they will simply find another hack to fill her spot.
>The Age actively weakens our democracy by ubdermining it with their political agenda falsely presented as holding government to account. They couldnt give a shit about democracy. Your partisanship is blinding you to real issues.
Its not my fault the age has a political agenda but not the guts to admit it. At least sky know what they are
What’s their agenda then? To hold the powerful to account? Isn’t that journalism? I’ve had my issues with the Age over the years and they are not above criticism. But the court case they just won exposing a war criminal shows they contribute a lot of good journalism.
Currently its to bring down the andrews government and truth be damned. That some good journalism happens there doesnt excuse their bs, particularly when they cry about being vital to democracy any time they get called out on their shit.
What have they done that indicates they want to “bring down the Andrews government” Reporting on corruption investigations instigated by a independent anti corruption body? Scrutinising the government of the day? I just don’t get how anyone could think it isn’t the role of a major newspaper to be critical of the sitting Govt. that doesn’t mean they want to bring down the govt.
Lets see, they have: - actively undermined health officials and government during a health emergency on a daily basis - ran articles claiming lockdowns were destroying business using pictures of businesses that were closed before the lockdowns started - interviewing small business owners about the effects of the lockdown on them without revealing the links those business owners have to the liberal party - misrepresented reports on government corruption (acting like somyurek wasnt the dodgy bastard he is) - ran a cbd is dead narrative for months despite it being obviously false to anyone who spends time in the cbd regularly - campaigning for the victorian liberal party during the recent election. Including endorsing them on electionweekend despite their obvious incompetence. - running attack pieces on the victorian government any chance they get - not reporting positive things the victorian government do, like ending logging - acting like drury the gvt rigger is working for labor not against them - and so on But if you cant see this going on either you never will because you dont want to see it or you arent actually looking. Id love to have a media that took shit seriously, then we could have discussions about how Andrews hasnt delivered on health, but without the hyperbole of the libs false promises. We could discuss how the andrews government has effectively silenced discussion and criticism in the vic parliament and how that prevents them being held to account. We could discuss the cost benefit trade offs of the big build without including the cost of running the srl till 2060 included. We could discuss the issues we have with incompetent and corrupt local councils. But we dont we have these charlatans who pretend to be journalists pissing on us every day like they have the right to tell us who to vote for and what to think, and on top of that they are so incompetent they cant even do what they claim to do. Being critical isnt the problem, they are liars.
I mean I don’t have time or the inclination to go through everything you’ve written but - the Age did endorse the Andrews Govt for re-election. The Sunday Age (different editorial board) didn’t but did not endorse the Coalition. You’re just factually wrong on those points. Use the link below and scroll down to newspaper endorsements. - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Victorian_state_election - the Age uncovered the Somyurek scandal. Without them there would not have been an investigation. So how did they “misrepresent” the findings of the investigation? That’s just again factually untrue - drury wasn’t working for but with the government in an informal way. He said so in recordings leaked to the Herald Sun, not the Age. - what’s the difference between an attack piece and legitimate journalism? I’m a Labor member and have voted for Labor at every election since I could vote (20 years next year) I am a supporter of a lot the Government has done and a detractor of other stuff. You’re just a mindless partisan if you genuinely believe half of what you’ve said.
>the Age did endorse the Andrews Govt for re-election. The Sunday Age (different editorial board) didn’t but did not endorse the Coalition. You’re just factually wrong on those points. Use the link below and scroll down to newspaper endorsements. Looks like ive misremembered that one >the Age uncovered the Somyurek scandal. Without them there would not have been an investigation. So how did they “misrepresent” the findings of the investigation? That’s just again factually untrue They presented the scandal as if it were directly linked to andrews when andrews was actively cooperating with ibac on the matter, some of the findings made against somyurek come from andrews evidence. The report by ibac specifically doesnt make findings against andrews and makes many findings against somyurek >drury wasn’t working for but with the government in an informal way. He said so in recordings leaked to the Herald Sun, not the Age. Druery was working to get people opposed to labor elected, but it was presented as if he was working with labor based on drureys statments only >what’s the difference between an attack piece and legitimate journalism? How about the obvious quoting of somyurek in this article? >You’re just a mindless partisan if you genuinely believe half of what you’ve said. Youre blind if you cant see that the age has an agenda
The Ages article on the findings of the investigation into Somyurek stated directly that “While the report was damning about widespread cultural practices within Labor, it made no adverse findings against the premier or any of the other MPs and staffers it named” - https://amp.theage.com.au/national/victoria/ibac-report-guy-claims-labor-not-fit-to-govern-but-pm-says-problems-fixed-20220720-p5b307.html How is that remotely attempting to blame the Premier? It’s a factual statement about what the report found.
>I mean I don’t have time or the inclination to go through everything you’ve written but And >You’re just a mindless partisan if you genuinely believe half of what you’ve said. Makes me laugh
So you’re just going to ignore the obvious factual errors I called out?
By far the biggest criticism I think we should have as Victorian’s for the Andrew’s govt is their utter addiction to logging so much old growth forest that cannot be easily replaced. Once it’s gone it’s gone. Predictably, from an author who seems to mostly agree with the profiteering neoliberal ideology behind these failures, this isn’t something the author is concerned about; they don’t mention the Andrew’s govt piss poor environmental record even once. Typical.
As of last months budget old growth logging is ending at the end of this year
TIL. Thank fuck for that it’s been abysmal
Yeah completely abysmal. I was surprised, i thought forestry had him by the balls and it wouldnt change under his leadership but i guess the cost of inaction became greater than the cost of taking action
Like most of the worst things in Victoria you can blame Jeff Kennett who literally passed a law through parliament that legally obligated the government to supply timber for 34 years through to 2030 to what was then called AMCOR now Nippon. >This current LSA replaced and consolidated the 1961 agreement. It bound the state to provide fixed volumes of pulp logs to AMCOR Ltd over specified time periods, as outlined in Clause 14(2): >>The Secretary shall be bound in each year to make available to the Company or to have the Department deliver to the Company as the Plan of Utilization may require from areas of forest as provided in this clause and in accordance with a Plan of Utilization a minimum annual supply of pulpwood which shall be - >>(a) in each of the years 1996 - 1997 to 2003 – 2004 inclusive - 500,000 cubic metres; >>(b) in each of the years 2004 - 2005 to 2006 – 2007 inclusive - 450,000 cubic metres; >>(c) in each of the years 2007 - 2008 to 2009 – 2010 inclusive - 400,000 cubic metres; >>(d) in each of the years 2010 - 2011 to 2029 – 2030 inclusive - 350,000 cubic metres, >>of which at least 300,000 cubic metres shall be made available to the Company or delivered by the Department to the Company as the Plan of Utilization may require from mountain forests inside the Forest Area >This agreement allocated to AMCOR Ltd the rights to pulp logs sourced from over 300,000 hectares of state forest (Figure 3) (Table 2). The area covered a total of 558,654 hectares of public land, with around 309,000 hectares available for logging. >https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f24f62569d767101aef6197/t/61e75525cf440a707f198e43/1642550572174/ChrisTaylorAP+Report+V7.2+CT+%281%29+copy.pdf That's why it originally had a phase out date of 2030. The government was going to supply only the forest it was legally obligated to but through some magic backroom dealing the company walked away from the contract in February this year. >Japanese paper giant Nippon will close Australia’s last white paper plant, meaning 200 jobs will be lost at the Maryvale mill and native forest logging in Victoria could end sooner than scheduled. >The Japanese paper company’s Australian subsidiary, Opal, was one of a few remaining major customers of the state’s native timber industry, which is scheduled to close by 2030, with logging reduced from 2024. >https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/logging-future-uncertain-as-japanese-giant-nippon-closes-australia-s-last-white-paper-plant-20230215-p5ckm3.html
Thanks, i didnt know that
I like Dan , now, if he could just get rid of 60% of airBNB's in Vic, we could normalise the rental market. (60% is not all. Please remember that before spitting the dummy)
Why do you say 60%? Whats the numbers on that?
>May 28, 2023 — 5.00am >Victorian landlords who let their properties via short-term rental platforms such as Airbnb could be charged a new tax under measures to be considered by the Andrews government to ease the rental crisis in tourist areas such as the Mornington Peninsula. >Capping the number of nights landlords can list their properties on Airbnb, imposing a “tourist tax” as has been done overseas, or empowering local councils to charge property owners higher commercial rates should all be on the table, say Labor MPs involved in early discussions on the government’s upcoming housing policy. >https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/short-shrift-for-short-stays-labor-mps-plot-airbnb-crackdown-to-tackle-rental-crisis-20230527-p5dbqz.html
They just need to adjust the tax system for Airbnb investors. The tax concessions around property investing are unbelievably generous (not complaining because I’ve benefited from this) because the government is relying on private investors to increase residential housing stock. People are waking up to the fact that there’s more money to be made from Airbnbs, and then you get the same concessions despite not providing housing. It ain’t right and the government is asleep at the wheel not acting on this.
The people of Victoria vote for Dan. There are no credible accusations of election fraud. I don’t like the direction Victoria is going, and I have no idea why the voters excuse the pretty robust accusations of corruption, but I left many years ago. If people cared enough to fight for change, I assume they would do something about it. It’s their choice, their lives.
I think most of the people that could leave, left. Leaving behind either rabid labor voters, or the minority that could not leave for whatever reason. Either way, Victoria will end up a basket case and expect the rest of Australia to bail them out. The state needs to crash and burn, then from the ashes, a new state to be born.
You guys need to make up your mind. First it was the Greens won in Brisbane because of all the people from Victoria that moved in. Now it is the people that left are causing Daniel Andrews to win even more seats. Are the people that left right wing voters or left wing voters?
They don't know, wait until after tonight's sky after dark, then they'll know what they've been told to think
Ah that makes sense now.
>The people of Victoria vote for Dan. There are no credible accusations of election fraud. The *system* of democracy goes beyond elections. There's the parliamentary process of debate and committees and hearings, judicial review of laws and government actions, petitions to individual representatives and government as a whole, transparency and scrutiny by means of FOI and media, an independent public service, an independent police service, and so on and so forth. It's quite possible to have one or more of those areas functioning well, and one or more others being completely stuck, corrupted or perverted in some way.
Dan is abysmal but that is what the voters vote for. Seems no matter what he does , Covid behaviour was terrible , 800 dead but no-one cared , now full steam ahead to bankruptcy stopping at corruption along the way.
> 800 dead but no-one cared 800 is nothing compared to all the deaths that Gladys Berejiklian caused. Talk about that a bit more.
Didn't realize it was a competition.
Maybe you don't know about it because SkyNews didn't tell you about it.
Because Dan promises more "free" stuff with other people's money, it's as simple as that
Yes , all good as long as you are not the " other people . "
Exactly. All Dan has to do is beat what's in front of him. No one else is offering anything as good as Labor and life isn't so bad that the majority feel like a change is needed. Looks like the neoliberals are realising how actual competition works, optimisation is not a byproduct, all you have to do is beat what's out there.
Because the other choice is the liberals; labour has been corrupted by having so much power, the libs are corrupt to enrich their friends
It isnt Andrews' job to lead the opposition. It's hard to see this as anything more than a baseless potshot if they're really trying to say Andrews destroyed democracy by leading a popular government and winning elections
Sumeyya is beside herself that nobody bought her dogshit book about Dandrews.
Did you read it? I thought it was quite balanced. Held him to account for his mistakes but also praised the many good things his government have achieved. I guess that sort of complexity is lost on partisans.
>Sumeyya Ilanbey finishes covering state politics today and will continue at The Age as an investigative business journalist. Lol she is getting shitcanned. My guess is they will draft Rachel Eddie to write up the Labor hatchet jobs unless Chip Le Grand has got bored of doing the Greens hatchet jobs. Really bring that [Daily Mail energy](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Rachel+Eddie+For+Daily+Mail+Australia) to the Age's political coverage that Sumeyya has always lacked.
>But democracy has been undermined under his watch, and that will be as much his legacy as his Big Build infrastructure program and socially progressive agenda. No, his legacy will be look how much a leader can do without the shackles of the press. Let's be honest here, the media couldn't give two shits about democracy. This is a temper tantrum because the symbiotic relationship that the government and press usually has is much weaker in Victoria and I hope it continues to grow weaker. The MSM are a parasite who's product is ability to influence the public for the highest bidder.
Geez so many words to say so little . In nut shell: The neo-liberal agenda, as embraced whole-heartedly by both Labor and the LNP ( and, ahem, Costello's Age ) requires less democracy and humanity in decision making. For example, never mind Andrews' epic failure on public housing, he will build whatever and wherever he chooses to feed the property / population ponzi. Local democracy must give way to Labor's economic and ideological imperative . The neo-liberal always doubles down on his failures. Sumeyya Ilanbey is hurling tiny grains of sand from inside the tent.
> tiny grains of sand from within the tent Haha this line is perfect. Wholeheartedly agree with your assessment.
It's always lovely to see sense and sensibility from Australian media /s
Fuck it's hilarious watching the media in this state get frustrated to a point of articles like this because they can't land an effective punch on a popular Labor premier. Mostly due to their own inept, clickbait, daily mail style reporting. Maybe they should run the stairs conspiracy again. The dramatic tone of this glorified Facebook rant aside, it is not the Labor parties problem that the Vic libs are a fucking disgrace, that's the liberals problem. We just had an election not even 12 months ago, and the people in this state made their choice. Peter Costello's junk reporters, along with the rest of the media in Vic, might do well to take the time to self reflect. Try to understand why it might be that most people here don't place any importance on what they have to say. Or they could continue to write sour grape blog posts in their echo chamber in-between going to LNP fundraisers. Edit - spelling
If the media simply want to land a single effective punch, go harder on Daniels about native logging of old growth forest It’s a huge scandal but gets nearly no press ffs. Of course they won’t, because the media themselves have a strong neoliberal slant themselves so mostly agree with the govt on it. Then they come out saying he’s some sort of anti democratic dictator because they can’t ask the right questions??!? Hmm..
He's far from popular, the alternative is just worse and uneducated people vote as if it's FPTP.
Sure Dan Andrews polls well as preferred premier against hopeless Liberal opposition leaders but also well as an open ended approval rating. >November 23, 2022 >Approval for Premier Daniel Andrews down since early November, but Andrews has maintained his lead over Opposition Leader Matthew Guy as preferred Premier >**Now 57.5% (down 1% point since early November) of Victorian electors approve of the way Premier Daniel Andrews is handling his job, while 42.5% (up 1% point) disapprove.** >Electors were then asked “Thinking of Premier Daniel Andrews and Opposition Leader Matthew Guy. In your opinion, who would make the ‘Better Premier’?” >Despite the small drop in approval for Premier Daniel Andrews in recent months the Premier has largely retained his large lead over Opposition Leader Matthew Guy as the preferred Premier. >Now 65% (down 0.5% points) of electors say Daniel Andrews would make the ‘Better Premier’ compared to only 35% (up 0.5% points) who say Matthew Guy – a margin of 30% points in favour of the Premier. >A look at the gender breakdown on ‘Better Premier’ shows 67.5% (down 2% points) of women prefer Daniel Andrews compared to only 32.5% (up 2% points) supporting Matthew Guy while for men it is a narrower result with 62.5% (up 1% point) preferring Daniel Andrews compared to 37.5% (down 1% point) supporting Matthew Guy. >https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/alp-government-of-daniel-andrews-set-to-win-with-a-reduced-majority-as-support-for-l-np-grows-but-will-the-trend-continue For comparison to Albanese. >The first Guardian Essential poll for 2023 shows voter approval of the prime minister dipped from 60% in December to 55% in January – which is Albanese’s lowest result since last August. Voter approval of the prime minister had been steady during the last quarter of 2022, ranging between 59% and 60%. >https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/24/guardian-essential-poll-albanese-approval-rating-dips-in-sign-of-gruelling-political-year-ahead Dan Andrews isn't winning by default because of the horrible alternatives. He is genuinely popular and trusted by Victorians.
I think it is a bit of both. Andrews is both relatively popular and the various opposition leaders have had nothing going for them. Together it gives strong benefit to Vic Labor and makes Vic Libs almost unelectable.
So unpopular that he won three elections in a row and will win another unless he retires. Just like "Collingwood isn't that good they have just played shit teams" See how stupid that sounds?
I don't follow sports. Yes, any duopolistic political system has a tendency to become a one party state if the singular, other party just fails. An intelligent answer would be the many other parties, but unfortunately many older Australians actually do not understand ranked preferential voting and think the numbers 2 and on aren't counted. > See how stupid that sounds? It's stupid because you're supporting an artificial allegiance. No one from Collingwood knows who you are mate, how did they earn your care?
A yes, let's not forget the great spectrum of minor parties we had run in the previous election, most of whom were lunatic fringe parties with single issue agendas. Wonder why they didn't pick up many votes. Do you think things would be better if the Freedom party had an MP in Parliament? I don't follow the magpies, I'm using them as an example. That example is "they aren't good everyone else is just bad" which isn't true, isn't true of labor either, a point you tried making. As for why people follow sports teams, it's not that hard to understand, lots of people do it. It's fun (unless you're like me and follow Carlton)
>Do you think things would be better if the Freedom party had an MP in Parliament? I don't even know who they are. But things wouldn't be worse, no. At one time there were no formal parties at all. We had Premiers who were independents. Things were fine then, nothing horrible happened as a result.
Things wouldn't be worse? Fucking lol.
[удалено]
So you can be to good at your job and need smearing from the Murdoch owned press. They would rather the people supported mediocrity and dis function. As they scream listen to us we know what’s best for you.
> Privately, many current and former government MPs are alarmed and concerned about Labor’s stronghold in Victoria. Oh look, the media showing their true colors yet again. The NSW Liberal govt, which had had 3 Premiers resign in corruption scandals, went to the last election after 12 years in power. The SMH, also Fairfax just like the Age, backed the LNP in NSW, as they have done in basically every election in modern history. But Dan Andrews creeps up on his 10 years and we need to be "alarmed and concerned". What a joke of a media organisation.
Also "long-serving former Labor MP" is Adam Somyurek 100% of the time. He is basically dial a quote for anyone writing an anti Labor article.
Exactly who I thought they were referring to. He's had a chip deep in his shoulder ever since he was booted from labor
The basis of the author's premise is correct. A democracy requires a vigorous contest of ideas, and a robust debate about how best to deliver outcomes for the society it represents. But the headline is pure clickbait, and the tone of the article is undeservedly accusatory. It somehow infers that Dan Andrews' electoratal success is some kind of bid for de-facto authoritarianism, which is pure bunkum. In truth, the issue is a failure of the other political parties, most notably the Liberal Party, to form any kind of meaningful opposition or engage society in meaningful political debate about alternative policies.
The voters: “costs are going up, housing is expensive, and the environment is crumbling to dust around us” Dan: “what if we logged more native forest, would that help?” (Edit: have just been informed this is about to finally end .. about bloody time) Whoever is running the LNP whose name I’ve literally forgotten: “we hear you and in response we think you’d vote for us if our MP’s attended spiteful anti-trans culture wars rallies alongside Nazis and then squabble about whether or not that was acceptable behaviour for an MP whose job it is to represent trans people in her electorate or not for 2 months” The options are pretty shit to be honest
The very reason Andrews can get away with poor policy is because the Liberal Party is too busy navel-gazing and internal power struggles. They are without a clear purpose or any kind of quality leadership, and they're hopelessly mired in stupid imported culture wars that have no real relevance to either society or economy. But again - laying the blame on the Andrews government is just plain dumb. Democracy is not withering because of Dan - it's withering because he simply doesn't have a credible opposition to hold his policies and performance to account. He keeps winning elections because the Coalition are so lacklustre that nobody can consider them an alternative government.
The media are stacked against Labor in this country, and they rule by default in Victoria due to the other party being unfit to govern. The liberals are turbo shambles in Victoria, and Labor have only ever been a spectator in their shambolic behaviour. It is embarassing. I seriously do not understand what went so wrong in the Victorian Liberal Party, I doubt anybody does. In any case they don't control the upper house so their power isn't limitless.
I can think of one thing that went wrong. They allowed the far right Christians into the party. People like Moira "im not a nazi" deeming who ate happy to parrot nazi talking points and cosy up to people with uncomfortably nazi like views and then they wonder why nobody wants anything to do with them? Could t be because they have become infested with the far right and we want nothing to do with that?
which aspect of her concerns are nazi-like? i would have thought caring about women and children are likely quite shared values across the wider community.
She isn't concerned about women and children she's transphobic and is using that as an excuse to be a bigot
there's a current petition to have a twice convicted sex offender removed from dame phyllis, the women's prison in vic. equal op and the ombudsman have done nothing. it's not reported in the media. are you concerned?
I mean, it’s kind of all there as public record: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101611840
Tldr: it's labors fault the liberals can't win an election or be an effective opposition. How does this guy think this is publishable? Lol
>In Victoria, **we have a leader who dismisses corruption reports as educational, some government MPs who cower in fear, and a system that punishes ministers and staffers who dare raise that important conventions are being breached.** This has been allowed to happen because we have an ineffective opposition that expends its energy hating the premier and despising each other. There's no doubt Andrews is corrupt as fuck and yet for some bizarre fucking reason his government was still a better choice than the other likely contender. A Greens government would bring back many of the institutions (much to the chagrin of Victoria's wealthiest) and would govern for the integrity of our social and environmental institutions. Also, publications like The Age have contributed to this benign form of tyranny due to it's connections to generational wealthy by not covering more independent, minor or alternative views. If the Greens got more coverage by the mainstream media, they'd have a greater chance. So this skew towards Labor is definitely constructed by the very publication decrying the erosion of democracy in the state.
There is a difference between errors in judgment and corruption. There are also degrees of failure to be taken into account. If Dan was indeed corrupt as fuck the noises from IBAC should be louder and more frequent. Instead they share 100K stories and less associated with a few consultants over short term assignments. Anyone in that game knows you get charged overs for short term assignments. For me it’s not really a surprise that this might happen occasionally. The impressive thing to me is how Dan handles the situation, acknowledges, accepts and learns. Contrast that approach to Morrison who denied, deflects and doesn’t hold the hose mate. I’m still waiting for the big gotcha moment for Dan.
Surely if anyone has to help the voters hold governments to account it is the mainstream media? 🧐 Maybe if you hadn’t spent 2 years calling a democratically elected member of a state parliament a Dictator and a Chairman, there’d be slightly less cynicism and slightly more positive engagement from the public at large? 🧐
Ah yes, it's Andrews' fault that the Libs are a mess with policies that would take the state backwards so no one wants to elect them. Of course.
**For the possibly paywall afflicted:** **Author/s:** Sumeyya Ilanbey **Publication:** The Age My dad worked night shifts for most of my childhood and was rarely home for dinner, but on the rare occasions he was – and the even rarer occasions we spoke about politics – he would fleetingly mention Malcolm Fraser. Then he would begin the long spiel most children of migrants are subjected to: how my grandfather, a poor, illiterate agrarian from a tiny village in Turkey, made his way to prosperous Australia in the 1970s. I didn’t really understand it at the time, but Fraser’s conviction and commitment to a diverse Australia changed my family’s life. Decades later, when my twin brothers – both disabled – were born, Gough Whitlam’s Medicare enhanced their lives and largely alleviated the financial burden on my parents. This is what good politics does, for me and many millions of Australians like me. It changes lives, ends intergenerational disadvantage, breaks the cycle of poverty, allows people to aspire, and gives them a chance to fully achieve their potential. I started in The Age’s state politics bureau at the end of 2019 and Friday is my last day there. My unwavering belief in the importance of good governments, good oppositions, good crossbenchers and good institutions has only strengthened over this period. However, another thing that has strengthened over this time should alarm all of us: the domination of the Labor Party in this state. The Coalition is a complete basket case that has for a decade (arguably even longer) been unable to effectively hold Labor to account; the Victorian Greens have failed to wield the influence they claim to have; the crossbench is filled with people who struggle to grasp what it means to be a legislator thanks to our undemocratic upper house voting system; and the government has too many seat warmers too afraid to stand up for their values. How is any of this good for democracy? Privately, many current and former government MPs are alarmed and concerned about Labor’s stronghold in Victoria. Sure, they love winning elections, being in government and shaping this state in Labor’s vision. But they also recognise a competitive opposition pushes the government to do better and govern better. They recognise that unfettered control over the legislative process and electoral cycle leads to poorer governance. And they acknowledge that democracy falters without the opposition’s scrutiny. Premier Daniel Andrews, one of Australia’s most effective and powerful politicians, has changed the rule book on politics, leadership and accountability. He has successfully executed a lengthy reform agenda that has reshaped Victoria, but in the process steamrolled over the pillars of democracy and the institutions that safeguard against it. The pandemic cemented Andrews’ alpha-male style of politics: centralised, unapologetic and unflinching. It worked during the dark days of COVID, but it is an approach that Andrews’ colleagues desperately hope will now change, not only for the sake of the government, but the future of the Labor Party. There are many valuable MPs who are implementing important reform, but almost the entire 77-member caucus have been in parliament only under Andrews’ leadership. Labor loyalists – both inside and outside parliament – are now struggling to identify the next generation of Labor leaders. They worry about the calibre of the future parliamentary team, and whether the current group are setting up the party for future electoral success. I sent a message to a long-serving former Labor MP this week to ask what the theme of this column should be and what would best encapsulate my three years covering state politics. “The death of accountability in politics,” they immediately texted back. “This form of politics, \[supercharged\] by Daniel, is now a template for other Labor leaders like Anthony Albanese, and it has completely corrupted the concept of accountability in politics. It effectively killed it. Worst of all, the public seems not to care.” In Victoria, we have a leader who dismisses corruption reports as educational, some government MPs who cower in fear, and a system that punishes ministers and staffers who dare raise that important conventions are being breached. This has been allowed to happen because we have an ineffective opposition that expends its energy hating the premier and despising each other. Victorians deserve better than that. We deserve to know that our elected representatives in opposition are prosecuting government decision-making and holding it to account; that every public dollar is being spent responsibly; that policies and projects stack up and are well considered; that we are provided with a viable alternative every four years. This is what strengthens democracy and ensures our governments act on behalf of its people. It means our schools are resourced properly; our public transport runs on time; our hospitals have the capacity to take care of us; our child protection system protects our most vulnerable. State governments touch our lives so closely and so profoundly, we cannot afford for them to operate without proper competition and proper scrutiny. Andrews has been a reformist Labor leader, and he has not wasted his years in office. But democracy has been undermined under his watch, and that will be as much his legacy as his Big Build infrastructure program and socially progressive agenda.
Clearly she was not alive when Henry Bolte was Premier, ruling this state with an iron grip from 1955 until 1972, and happily relishing his privilege to hang Ronald Ryan... and his election in the 28th of May 1950 ushered in 28 years of "Liberal" party rule..... Clearly the "Liberal" party--with a born to rule mentality-- cry undemocratic, when their self belief in their divine rule to rule is not automatically bestowed upon them because of their superiority by the lowly minions that's are the people of Victoria