 |
| Red and blue numbers respectively indicate booths with two-party majorities for Labor and Liberal. Click for larger image. Map boundaries courtesy of Ben Raue at The Tally Room. |
A traditionally marginal seat that has strengthened considerably for Labor over the past decade, Kingston covers the outer southern coastal suburbs of Adelaide, from Hallett Cove through Port Noarlunga to Sellicks Beach, and extends inland at its northern end to Happy Valley and Morphett Vale. When created with the expansion of parliament in 1949 it was based further north around Glenelg and Brighton, its then southernmost suburb of Hallett Cove being the only area still in the electorate today. Glenelg was hived off to since-abolished Hawker in 1984, and Brighton was absorbed by Boothby in the rearrangement caused by Hawker’s abolition in 1993.
Kingston had a notional Labor margin of 6.8% upon its creation, but the landslide that ejected the Chifley government from office saw the defeat of their candidate Thomas Sheehy, who had been the member for Boothby since 1943. Pat Galvin won the seat for Labor in 1951, and retained it on variable margins until 1966. It was then caught up in the statewide convulsions of 1966 and 1969, which produced double-digit swings first to Liberal and then to Labor in both Kingston specifically and South Australia as a whole. The Liberals thus held the seat for one term before it returned emphatically to Labor with Richard Gun’s victory in 1969. Kingston subsequently changed hands with the next three changes of government, being held during the Fraser years by Grant Chapman (later to return as a Senator in 1987), during the Hawke years by Gordon Bilney, and for the first term of the Howard government by Susan Jeanes. However, Jeanes did not emerge from the 1996 victory with enough fat on her margin to withstand the GST backlash of 1998, when Labor’s David Cox prevailed by 763 votes on the back of a 2.5% swing.
David Cox held the seat for Labor for two terms in opposition before suffering defeat in 2004 by a margin of 119 votes, having been handicapped by the electorate’s acquisition of the McLaren Vale area in the redistribution caused by the reduction in South Australia’s representation from 12 seats to 11. There followed a swing to the Liberals of 1.4%, which was precisely what Liberal candidate Kym Richardson required to win the seat. However, Richardson’s narrow win gave him no buffer to protect himself against the move to Labor at the 2007 election, although the 4.5% swing was below the South Australian average.
The seat has since been held for Labor by Amanda Rishworth, who achieved the best result of any Labor member at the 2010 election in picking up a 9.5% swing. She was assisted in some degree when Kym Richardson’s comeback bid was scuttled after it emerged he was the subject of a police investigation into allegations he had impersonated a police officer as he sought to have a hotel manager withdraw an allegation of assault against his son. Police did not proceed with a charge of impersonating a police officer as the statute of limitations had expired, and he was eventually acquitted on a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. Going into the 2013 election she received a 0.9% boost when the redistribution caused McLaren Vale to be moved back into Mayo, a consequence of the electorate’s population growth. The subsequent swing against her was 4.9%, well in line with a statewide result of 5.5% and leaving her with a secure margin of 9.7%.
Prior to entering parliament, Rishworth was a psychologist and an organiser for the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, which dominates the state party’s Right faction. She won promotion in March 2013 to parliamentary secretary for sustainability and disabilities, and was reassigned to the health portfolio following the September 2013 election defeat.
briefly
Thanks.
Well done.
Keep us posted on any response please.
Wow So much for having to have a VPN
@WIRED: This little-known iOS feature allows you to send & receive messages even when you don’t have a data connection http://t.co/Y17uUzrma4
I am really torn with the whole Bolt’s Law thing. On one hand I was kind of happy to see him become a convicted criminal but on the other hand I really do think he, and others, have the right to be bigots and freely express their opinions (and have them challenged in turn). This would include Holocaust denial and just run-of-the-mill offensive racist name-calling. Threats, libel and intimidation are entirely different kettles of fish of course.
I am particularly concerned about the possibility that particular categories of religious commentary will become illegal. If I was to offend a Muslim by saying that his prophet is by modern standards a creepy pedophile is that something we would all like to see being prosecutable? I would hope not.
So far the justifications I’ve seen expressed against the government’s changes to the law haven’t been all that convincing. I thought in Bolt’s case the article was stupid and offensive, but do I think it needed to fall under the gambit of criminal law? No.
guytaur
Been meaning to say I really liked your idea of a program called Outsiders.
It’s a great idea.
Just for starters, we here on PB had a discussion last September just after Abbott named his cabinet. Where most of it concentrated on the lack of women, there was also a discussion about Sinodinos NOT making it into cabinet.
And, the general consensus, about the reason for his omission from Cabinet was that it would be easier to jettison him if the ICAC discoveries were detrimental.
It was so painful to read Mark Kenny, as an Insider, claim the other day that Abbott was “shrewd” for not giving him a Cabinet position.
Pfft. We all knew why, and we’re definitely not Insiders. There was nothing shrewd about it; Abbott was covering his arse regarding Sinodinos’ less than competent directorship/chairmanship of a corrupt company. End of.
Today’s Insiders was pretty sickening, only because the self-proclaimed ‘insiders’ keep referring to us, the general public, as almost the great-unwashed.
It’s so ridiculous when they keep relying on polling to tell us the opinion of those supposedly not keeping tabs on what is going on in federal, if not, state politics.
Given the current climate, I doubt though the ABC would go with it. I suggest starting a youtube channel called Outsiders.
Possibly the more erudite among us, like BB and Fran Barlow, briefly, etc, and perhaps someone like Andrew Elder, could contribute on a weekly filmed basis, to rip-apart the crap that’s presented to us by so many journalists.
Social media fightback!
absolutetwaddle –
It’s civil law not criminal law.
As for the rest of your post, 18D already provides exemptions for anything that might conceivably fall under “good faith discussions”.
Bolt fell foul of this because he didn’t even try to make sure what he was saying was fair comment.
[ If I was to offend a Muslim by saying that his prophet is by modern standards a creepy pedophile is that something we would all like to see being prosecutable? ]
I dont think it is. I also dont thint that Bolt is now a “criminal”. What he did was unlawful, not criminal. 18C HAS to be read in conjunction with 18D.
[ Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. ]
But of course Brandis, Bolt et al dont want people to look closely at 18D because it makes their waffle about 18C sound like hysterical balderdash.
[On one hand I was kind of happy to see him become a convicted criminal …]
Breaching 18C is not a criminal offence.
ASIO Suckhole Pilbersek demonstrating that the two party system is failing. More power to minor parties.
TP
That comment re Plibersek was not warranted
absolutetwaddle
As far as I’m concerned the first shock jock to have been prosecuted under the RDA should have been Alan Jones and his disgraceful contribution, if not incitement to violence, regarding the Cronulla Riot.
Unfortunately, Keysar Trad only sued him under the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal. If it had been under the RDA, then maybe Bolt would have pulled his considerable head in.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-02/tribunal-rules-alan-jones-incited-hatred/4292052
Kezza, as others have pointed out, s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act doesnt provide for “prosecutions”.
[Thomas. Paine.
Posted Sunday, March 30, 2014 at 5:38 pm | PERMALINK
ASIO Suckhole Pilbersek demonstrating that the two party system is failing. More power to minor parties]
Strange comment. I know you have a problem with women, but hey.
Still, I was unable to go to the Melbourne Anne Summers talk with Julia Gillard. I know, I know, such heresy mentioning Gillard’s name to you.
However, my son and his mate went in my place. My son was next-in-line to ask a question, when it was all over red rover.
His question though was along the lines of national security. He wanted to know just what it is that we’re not being told in the name of “national security” and why we can’t be told, and is it all so secret.
And why we aren’t considered adult enough to understand.
As a male, he had no problem with a female PM. But as a young man, he had a big problem with secrecy.
[Marrickville Mauler
Posted Sunday, March 30, 2014 at 5:50 pm | PERMALINK
Kezza, as others have pointed out, s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act doesnt provide for “prosecutions”.]
Sorry, not being a lawyer I’ve obviously used the wrong terminology.
Therefore, what should I say about being brought to justice under 18C?
bludgers far and wide, thanks for your comments on my letter to Tim Wilson. If he sends a reply, I will certainly post it here.
I would encourage everyone to write to him. He goes out of his way to attract comments – who are we to hold back?
🙂
http://www.timwilson.com.au
Breaching? The lawyer prosecuted the case for a breach of 18C?
And Bolt was found guilty of breaching 18C?
Yes?
The RDA does not cover private conversations, anyone can say what they like, it is the making public that can fall foul of the civil law.
If Bolt had told his mates his views on Pale Aboriginals, no problem, when he gets published in News Ltd – big problem. This is as it should be.
And the civil penalty is forever being being branded as a breacher of 18C, and commonly branded as a racist?
And it is not defamatory to say a person who has breached 18C is a racist?
17 March 2014: http://delimiter.com.au/2014/03/17/pandoras-box-inquiry-opens-surveillance-floodgates/
[… the Greens successfully teamed up with Labor in December to establish a formal inquiry into Internet surveillance practices by government agencies in Australia, through a review that will take place into the controversial Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.
The Greens have taken a strong stance against the need for unfettered surveillance of Australians by law enforcement agencies, with Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam (who is currently campaigning to save his Senate seat in Western Australia) stating that review of the TIA Act was “well overdue” due to its outdated nature.
What we’re seeing here is the war for Internet privacy being definitely lost, right in front of our faces. Let us not forget that both sides of politics — Labor and the Coalition — have a strong track record of attempting to give Australia’s law enforcement authorities whatever they want in this area. Data retention, Internet filtering, universal telecommunications surveillance — it’s all been discussed before and is coming up again in this context.
The tiny submissions made by digital rights groups such as the EFA and the Pirate Party Australia, in comparison to these huge law enforcement documents, look like twigs blowing in the wind of a giant hurricane. And in the face of bi-partisan major party support, the Greens’ efforts here will also look quite miniscule. If you’re interested in digital rights and privacy in Australia at all, I encourage you to share information about what’s happening here. It may well be our last chance to escape a society based on universal law enforcement access to all telecommunications.]
[ruawake
Posted Sunday, March 30, 2014 at 6:03 pm | PERMALINK
The RDA does not cover private conversations, anyone can say what they like, it is the making public that can fall foul of the civil law.
If Bolt had told his mates his views on Pale Aboriginals, no problem, when he gets published in News Ltd – big problem. This is as it should be.]
I agree. And he should suffer the same indignity. You can’t go round making up shit about people to bolster your argument. That’s where he fell down, spectacularly.
If there was an RDA about climate change, he find himself in hot water there, too. He likes to fabricate statistics, and stories, to suit his own agenda.
He was absolutely incandescent about Rabbit Proof Fence, forgetting poetic licence in telling a story, let alone filming it.
The strange thing about Bolt is that he considers himself to be an outsider. Always has.
That he never planned his life. It just fell into place.
Was that because he the child of Dutch migrants in SA? That he didn’t fit in? That his father often taught in outback schools? Where young Andrew’s only friends were black?
This seems to be the story of his younger life.
His very thin skin seems to point to being bullied as a youngster because of his background. But, that’s just me making excuses for his appalling behaviour.
He’s a first generation Aussie, yet claims he’s indigenous. What a mixed-up bastard.
To me, okay I accept he didn’t plan his life, he’s just an opportunistic shock jock. Making money, providing for his family, seems to be a throwback to the generation of folk who lived through the depression, where you have to turn off every light switch in case you won’t have enough money for food.
But, given all that, I don’t feel in the least sorry for a bloke who was able to utilise his European roots when it suited, and has still been unable to enjoy an egalitarian lifestyle in Australia without sinking the boots into those less fortunate than he, yet who are Australia’s first people.
Nor his unforgiving and unrelenting attack on new migrants to this country.
In January 2014 Scott Ludlam received Electronic Frontiers Australia’s inaugural lifetime achievement award for services to digital rights.
https://www.efa.org.au/2014/01/10/efa-awards-senator/
[(“Law enforcement and intelligence agencies need a warrant to enter our homes. It should be the same to access our telecommunications data,” Mr Ludlam said.
“Australian law enforcement agencies were granted access to the personal information of about Australians 293,501 times throughout the 2011-12 year, without obtaining a warrant or having any judicial oversight.
“It quite clearly is an attempt by these agencies to capture, in real time, all digital communications by all people, whether you are a suspect in a criminal investigation or not.”)]
Cathy Wilcox
All you wanted to know about Andrew Bolt, and where he came from, and how his contradictory, yet inflammatory, views were formed:
ANDREW BOLT – THE OUTSIDER
[Whether he likes it or not, Bolt is a political insider. How else to describe one of the nation’s most influential political columnists?
But what makes Bolt unique is his indifference to the opinion of his fellow insiders. He is comfortable with being an outlier.
He does not pitch to the political elite, but to the common man. This is the space where he wants to be. He writes like an outsider because he feels like an outsider.
And the outsiders read him in their hundreds of thousands. He is, after all, their man on the inside.>/i>]
https://ipa.org.au/publications/1854/the-outsider/pg/8
Funnily enough, the Bolt expose is an IPA publication.
Bolt, although he considers himself an outsider, has been given a lot of help throughout his life. Has been pretty much desultory in his decisions. Does he resent it?
I report, you decide.
[ And it is not defamatory to say a person who has breached 18C is a racist? ]
Well, i think you could say they WERE racist, at the time they breached the RDA and were convicted of it.
Just because someone WAS racist, doesn’t mean they ARE racist now, particularly if they readily complied with any orders arising from their breach of the RDA. They may well argue they have learned a lesson.
I suspect Bolta has not, but that is just my opinion.
Why were the first people to console Andrew Bolt after Bromberg’s decision Paul Howes and Tony Abbott.
Why was he so sought after, to be clutched to the bosom of both the loony left and the loony right.
Was his “opinon” up for grabs? To be sold to the highest bidder?
Why did he decide on the loony right?
It opened doors to the Melbourne Club? An outsider, by declaration, being feted by the big be-knighted end of town?
And, he fell for it.
And Paul Howes, an outsider by any measure, wanted the same acceptance?
Jeez, psychology, where are you.
[ Jeez, psychology, where are you. ]
In this case probably sitting in the corner having a quiet sob over the current state of our body politic. 🙁
Abbott & Abetz would love to follow the US Republicans along this path (using the excuse of voting irregularities):
[New G.O.P. Bid to Limit Voting in Swing States
CINCINNATI — Pivotal swing states under Republican control are embracing significant new electoral restrictions on registering and voting that go beyond the voter identification requirements that have caused fierce partisan brawls.
The bills, laws and administrative rules — some of them tried before — shake up fundamental components of state election systems, including the days and times polls are open and the locations where people vote.
Republicans in Ohio and Wisconsin this winter pushed through measures limiting the time polls are open, in particular cutting into weekend voting favored by low-income voters and blacks, who sometimes caravan from churches to polls on the Sunday before election.
Democrats in North Carolina are scrambling to fight back against the nation’s most restrictive voting laws, passed by Republicans there last year. The measures, taken together, sharply reduce the number of early voting days and establish rules that make it more difficult for people to register to vote, cast provisional ballots or, in a few cases, vote absentee.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/us/new-gop-bid-to-limit-voting-in-swing-states.html?hp&_r=0
imacca
[I suspect Bolta has not, but that is just my opinion.]
I don’t suspect at all. Bolta, by any measure, has not accepted the decision.
Therefore, hence, and not withstanding, I can say he WAS a racist, at the time. By his inability to accept the decision means he wants to be considered a racist. I mean, it’s in his remit to accept or not. Or is that going too far?
Or else he would have appealed the decision.
citizen@276
Americans just don’t do democracy well, do they?
This is just absolutely appalling banana republic stuff. A bit like Queensland. 😛
[ This is just absolutely appalling banana republic stuff. A bit like Queensland. ]
A long time ago now I drove around Texas, US for several weeks and it felt just like Queensland. The more isolated areas in particular.
Here’s a tip about preserving your lawn during drought – or lack of rain.
My lawn is the only lawn in the street not to suffer the lack of rain this summer/autumn period. It’s green, everyone else’s is brown, patchy, and needing to be re-sown. And they’re all using sprinklers as I speak.
The trick? I don’t use a grass catcher; and I don’t cut it too close. At least 3 inches, so as not to expose the underlying soil.
I mow the law in on itself. That means, I mow the lawn in a way that places the clippings on what I’ve already mown. Mother nature’s way to protect grass.
That was a trick taught to me by a farmer. No, not by my father, but by my next-door-neighbour Dutchman.
You’re welcome.
[Americans just don’t do democracy well, do they?
]
As a democracy they are probably no better and no worse than other countries. What we are now seeing is a concerted effort by a section of one side of politics (and their wealthy backers) to pervert the system for their own advantage. They do all this under cover of stopping “voting irregularities” or “voter fraud”.
The Coalition in Australia has long been vocal about “voter fraud” as a pretext for doing the same sorts of things as reported in the New York Times. Howard’s early closure of the electoral roll is one example.
Dennis Atkins slams Bishop on Insiders this morning for those who may have missed it.
https://twitter.com/StanSteam2/status/450181213836148738/photo/1
[ Americans just don’t do democracy well, do they? ]
I remember a doco i saw once about the boundaries of “districts” and how they are drawn. Basically, our equivalent is seats.
None of this “community of interest stuff” and an independent body to do the job. Partisan party hacks drawing really weird shaped areas based on where they think their support is. So, system heavily biased to the incumbent. Very strange.
As far as being able to call someone a racist … defamation law still has all its teeth (and there are only a few free speechers who will even talk about limiting defamation law, even though it is clearly the biggest impediment to free speech in this country).
Calling someone a racist clearly has a negative impact on the target’s reputation so you could clearly be defaming the target.
Truth is a defence, but given that what a “racist” is is debatable, as is whether falling foul of 18C actually makes you a racist or a bigot or whatever … you had better have deep pockets to pay for some very expensive representation.
Why do you think Langton and the ABC were tip-toeing around Bolt over the oblique comments Langton made on Q&A?
citizen
[The Coalition in Australia has long been vocal about “voter fraud” as a pretext for doing the same sorts of things as reported in the New York Times. Howard’s early closure of the electoral roll is one example.]
Yep. Wanting to close off the vote to everyone entitled to vote is anti-democratic. Tantamount be buggered.
The only thing I want to ask is Dick Morris related to Graeme Morris?
Jackol
So, if you’ve been found to breach the RDA, then what are you but a racist.
How else is amateur supposed to interpret the decision?
It makes no sense to be found in breach of the Act, if you can’t then describe the person so found as a racist.
Especially in the face of no apology.
[mikehilliard
Posted Sunday, March 30, 2014 at 7:16 pm | PERMALINK
Dennis Atkins slams Bishop on Insiders this morning for those who may have missed it.]
https://twitter.com/StanSteam2/status/450181213836148738/photo/1
Dennis Atkins also said that, as a journo, he had no problem abiding by the laws of “freedom of speech” as long as his articles were ‘fair, reasonable and factual.’
Andrew Bolt’s didn’t abide by the laws of freedom of speech. That’s why he was convicted under 18C.
About time he woke up to himself.
citizen@281
In my non-lawyerly opinion:
The two things you describe are simply not equivalent. The act doesn’t talk about racist individuals per se, so courts are not going to pass judgment on the person, they will be passing judgment on the identified behaviour.
Extrapolating from behaviour that is in contravention of the act to a one word description of the person is not valid, and wouldn’t stand up in subsequent defamation action.
Again I’d point out how Langton and the ABC scurried for cover at the smallest hint that Bolt thought he had been called a racist by Langton (even though she didn’t actually call him a racist).
Langton was talking about the opinion pieces of Bolt that had been the subject of the only 18C action ever taken, and even then neither Langton (nor the ABC by proxy) were willing to stand behind an indirect implication of racism levelled against Bolt.
citizen@281
Their system of running elections is just hopeless.
You can’t run honest elections with partisan officials.
There, got it right this time! 😆
Retrograde legislation
We could dump all the racism laws and go back to the old ways. Knights and dames and other citizens can slap the offenders face with a glove and choose suitable weapons at dawn.
bemused
I found it interesting that Anonymous said they prevented are-run of the 2004 votes for Ohio, I think, being they said it was fraudulent.
Apparently in that election, the computer system shut-down for a few minutes, and the Ohio votes came back in an altered fashion.
So, in 2012, Anonymous monitored the situation, and prevented the alteration of votes.
If that was true, then Karl Rove, who was spluttering and stuttering on Fox News, and refusing to accept the vote, in 2012, because he was expecting altered voting to come through, then I don’t want electronic voting any where near our system.
I’d rather pen and paper, no matter how slow the getting of a result.
Bolt showed what a weak man he really is with his response to the comments.
Citizen re USA boundaries ___________
The Republicans won a large majority in the HofReps in recent US elections due to this gerrymander
The Dems have controlle3d the Senate
In the last HofRps vote the Dems outpolled the Repubs by several millions but failed to win the House
This is because the seats are drawn by the incumbent state Gov or legislature and the REPUBS have had a majority of smaller rural states in the west and south
nothing to do with democray….BUT STILL THE YANKS WILL SAY THEY ARE THE “LEADERS OF THE FREE WORLD”
sheer bullshit( at which they are experts)
kezza2@293
We have an independent AEC running things, not a multitude of partisan officials operating to different rules all over the country.
An electronic voting system could be designed with proper safeguards built into it.
The US vote was corrupted in 2000 in Florida and in 2004 in Illinois (I think). Robert Kennedy Jr had an excellent article in Rolling stone about that.
And I guess those, and Ohio, are only the ones we know about. There is loads of scope for much more to have happened.
[Puff, the Magic Dragon.
Posted Sunday, March 30, 2014 at 7:48 pm | PERMALINK
We could dump all the racism laws and go back to the old ways]
Like fastening Andrew Bolt in the pillory/stocks?
Rotten tomatoes at three paces?
[Knights and dames and other citizens can slap the offenders face with a glove and choose suitable weapons at dawn.]
Surely that would be the turf of the serfs. The realm of mesdames and milords would be too overcome by the vapours to indulge at dawn.
Racism would be subject to such meaninglessness, but if one’s honour was at stake. Herein lies the difference.
Pow-wow. With blanks.
Christ, aren’t we beholden to the stupidity of the English/Euro thrones. What a load of hogwash.
You just have to see the transformation of that dickhead from Tassie to be somethingorother in the kingdom of the Danes.
What a bloody joke.
Given the govt seems intent on taking the country back to a bygone era, I wonder if overturning no-fault divorce laws is anywhere on its horizon.
[confessions
Posted Sunday, March 30, 2014 at 8:11 pm | PERMALINK
Given the govt seems intent on taking the country back to a bygone era, I wonder if overturning no-fault divorce laws is anywhere on its horizon.]
I believe I read that no-fault divorce is somewhere about to be smashed as being part of Abbott’s brief. As is abortion.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if he confesses that he tried to convince the now-deceased Kathy Donnelly to have an abortion, even though he was opposed to it. The most hypocritical bastards I’ve ever come across are those who prescribe treatment for others that they would never condone for themselves.
I wonder how much Kathy Donnelly’s diary is going for?
AS for virginity before marriage, the hypocrite pretended his daughters were not leaving home before marriage, except they have, and he’s not being held to account for that either.
What a stupid father. As if he could tell his daughters what to do, but he pretended to the populace that he could. Was that another ‘hope’, just like he tries to get out of everything? And the pathetic Insiders go along with wishes?
Why don’t they tell us how incompetent he is, not just on a personal level, but on a professional level, as well.
He tells us every day what a dickhead he is, yet the fourth estate covers up, every time.
Why?
They didn’t do this for Julia Gillard. In fact, they took great delight in making sure we knew every little faux pas she made as PM. Why is not the same sword drawn for Abbott?
fess,
[I wonder if overturning no-fault divorce laws is anywhere on its horizon. ]
Abbott mentioned that. Someone will have the link.