1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Labor flirts with first broken promise

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Guest, Nov 28, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Surprise surprise. It didn't take them long to break to first election promise. No doubt the first of many.

    Rudd the new lying rodent.

    LABOR'S proposed Department of Homeland Security, which would incorporate national security and border protection agencies, will be abandoned, say senior figures in the incoming Rudd government.

    The decision, expected to be confirmed as early as this week when the prime minister-elect, Kevin Rudd, announces his front bench, represents Labor's first broken election promise.

    However, the concept pre-dates Mr Rudd's leadership and Labor cancelled its national-security policy launch during the campaign.

    It is understood that Mr Rudd has been told by senior bureaucrats during discussions this week about his transition to government that the creation of a department of homeland security would be hugely disruptive with negligible benefit.

    Security chiefs and bureaucrats have been dreading the prospect of moving to a new mega-department, especially as a similar bureaucracy in the US has been beset by big problems.

    "It's not going to happen," said one Labor frontbencher, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    Another Labor source said: "I suppose you could put it in the non-core promise category. No one thinks it's a particularly good idea."

    The proposed department would have brought together ASIO, the federal police, the Coastguard, as well as elements of Customs, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Attorney-General's department and the Department of Transport.

    "It's a proposal that needs to be looked at very carefully," said Hugh White, head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University.

    "The experience in the US has been so negative and it's not clear that it would do much to improve the co-ordination of Australia's agencies. There's a number of things to be done but setting up a department of homeland security may not be one of them."

    One option being considered is to have a smaller co-ordinating authority for national security to bolster co-operation between the arms of government charged with addressing the terrorism threat, including intelligence agencies, police and Customs.

    Mr Rudd told the National Press Club last week that he was anxious to have minimal disruption to the bureaucracy if he took power.

    But asked later that day by the Herald whether that meant he no longer favoured a homeland security department, Mr Rudd gave a carefully worded response that gave the impression he would implement the long-standing policy without committing to it.

    "The need underpinning our proposal for a department of homeland security is to ensure that the silos are talking to each other," he said.

    The problem is how to negotiate the sensitive politics of the about-face. But with the Coalition in disarray, Labor insiders said now was as good a time as any.

    Mr Rudd's spokesman yesterday declined to endorse the introduction of the department or comment on whether it was being dumped.

    Mr Rudd's new Office of National Security - headed by a national security adviser - could also take over the co-ordinating role.

    Candidates being mooted for the powerful new position of national security adviser include the Lowy Institute director, Alan Gyngell, a former senior defence official, Alan Behm, and the US ambassador, Dennis Richardson.
     
  2. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    If you've followed the history of Homeland Security in the USA then this is one promise we definetely want to see broken.
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Then it is just as well that Labor lied about setting it up then.
     
  4. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,370
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,463 / 74
    Not a surprise at all since they dropped it during the campaign.

    Of all promises this is one that I am glad has been dropped, need we go back and look at the numerous broken promises of monobrow
     
  5. clontaago

    clontaago Well-Known Member

    6,406
    91
    Ratings:
    +143 / 1
    It was a pre Rudd concept as stated. Sour grapes Tookey.
     
  6. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    clutching at straws.
     
  7. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    13,234
    186
    Ratings:
    +212 / 5
    Tookey, do you want me to post the 20 or 30 articles all bemoaning what a toad Howard has been and how he left the Coalition bereft of anything? His selfishness has stuffed them for quite a while and he should have gone about 5 years ago.
     
  8. nodd

    nodd Well-Known Member

    1,115
    90
    hiding from the kids
    Ratings:
    +105 / 5
    How can "Rudd" break a promise "He" didn't make?

    Getting desperate Tookey!
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    No arguement there. Even his own party told him to go. I heard that he wanted to retire but his wife made him stay on.

    He could have gone out on top and been remembered as one of the best prime ministers. Instead he will be remembered for his last game _ Just like Langlands.

    If you took Howard and workchoices out then the Libs would still be in power.
     
  10. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    They had the choice .........
     
  11. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,370
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,463 / 74
    exactly, If you took that out. We can apply that to every government from the past, take out a few things blah blah blah
     
  12. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Not really. Whitlam was an absolute idiot, Hawke was killed off by his own party and keating was a dead****.
     
  13. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Oh and Malcolm Fraser was one of the worst as well.
     
  14. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    13,234
    186
    Ratings:
    +212 / 5
    I don't disagree with much of the above except that it was time for a new Government. Give us five or six years and then we may well see another shift. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!" is an accurate maxim!!!
     

Share This Page