1,721,024 research outputs found
Bill Shorten's budget reply
No full textIn his official Budget reply address last night, Bill Shorten laid out Labor\u27s plan to get the country moving in the wake of the mining boom. It\u27s an agenda with an emphasis on education and clean energy.
The Opposition leader rejected the Government\u27s Budget blueprint of investing in small-to-medium businesses and giving tax cuts to middle Australia
Winners and losers (Inside Story)
No full textBill Shorten discusses Labor factions, parliamentary career paths, and winners and losers in this interview with Peter Mares recorded in 2006. Interview originally appeared on the Inside Story website, 14 October 2013
Investigation of the causes of mass fish kills in the Menindee Region NSW over the summer of 2018–2019
Get PDFOn 15 December 2018 tens of thousands of dead fish were reported along a 30 km stretch of the Darling River near the town of Menindee in New South Wales. High numbers of dead fish were seen in the vicinity of the Old Menindee Weir and Menindee Pump Station. A second, larger fish kill event involving hundreds of thousands of fish was reported on 6 January 2019 on the same stretch of river. A third event followed on 28 January, killing millions of fish. Members of the panel witnessed the beginnings of a fourth event on 4 February 2019. Many different sectors of Australian society, and of the Menindee region itself, are distressed knowing that fish have been dying en masse, and are concerned about the implications for the health of the river. In addition, these fish are of high cultural significance to Indigenous communities in the region, including those holding Native Title rights. In response to the first two kills, the Academy was requested by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Bill Shorten MP to provide advice on the immediate causes, as well as exacerbating circumstances from water diversions, agricultural runoff or climate change, and to provide recommendations.Australian Academy of Science, Expert Panel: Craig Moritz, Linda Blackall, Jenny Davis, Tim Flannery, Lee Godden, Lesley Head, Sue Jackson, Richard Kingsford, Sarah Wheeler, John William
Winners and losers
No full textTalking to Inside Story contributing editor Peter Mares not long before he became the Labor candidate for Maribyrnong in 2006, Bill Shorten responds to questions about Labor factions, parliamentary career paths, tax reform, asylum seekers, and winners and losers in the Australian economy. This podcast interview was first broadcast on ABC Radio National's The National Interest on 22 February 2006.</p
FactCheck: will 700,000 workers be ‘ripped off’ by penalty rate cuts, as Bill Shorten said?
No full textMarriage Amendment (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
Get PDFLabor leader Bill Shorten introduced a marriage equality bill to Federal Parliament this week and in his address to the House of Representatives, asked that members \u27embrace a definition of marriage that respects, values and includes every Australian.\u27
__
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT (MARRIAGE EQUALITY) BILL 2015
BILL SHORTEN SPEECH TO PARLIAMENT, MONDAY, 1 JUNE 2015
I move that the bill be read a second time.
The laws of our nation should give us hope.
Our laws should tell our children what we believe.
Our laws should tell strangers who Australians are.
Our laws should be a mirror…reflecting our great and generous country and our free, inclusive society.
And our Parliament should be a place where we make things happen rather than sit back and let them happen.
On marriage equality, for too long we in this Parliament have been following, not leading.
It is within our power to change this.
This Parliament can change a law that no longer describes modern Australia…and pass a law of which we can all be proud.
Let us delay no more.
Let us embrace a definition of marriage that respects, values and includes every Australian.
Let us declare, in the house of the Australian people – it is time.
The right time to make marriage equality, a reality.
This is a moment bigger than politics.
This moment does not distract the nation – it complements our hopes for the future.
I know all members of Parliament will engage in a respectful and considered debate, and I hope will be able to exercise a free vote.
I pay tribute to the Member for Sydney, for offering her place on this bill to a member of the Government.
Tanya, thank you.
Your actions, the advocacy of Senator Penny Wong and the goodwill of many across the Parliament, prove that bipartisanship is not the problem here.
What matters is the outcome, not who owns it.
Madam Speaker
For decades, the march to equality has been led by remarkable Australians from every part of our country and all walks of life.
Governments from both sides of politics have delivered real progress too.
The Fraser Government passed Whitlam law, decriminalising homosexuality in Commonwealth territories, following Don Dunstan’s lead in South Australia.
Paul Keating lifted the ban on Australians who identified as gay serving in our military.
The Rudd and Gillard governments removed discrimination against same-sex couples from more than 80 laws.
In Victoria, the Napthine Government expunged the records of people who were charged under long-repealed homosexuality offences.
Changing the Marriage Act is the next, overdue step in the path to true equality.
Madam Speaker
I’m a twin – it’s a special thing, growing up, an inseparable bond.
But for other twins where one twin is gay and the other is not, the Marriage Act is the only Australian law that separates siblings.
It’s a double standard which divides families, and our country.
It’s not fair and it’s not who we are.
And it should change.
Currently, marriage is defined as:
‘the union of a man and a woman”
Those eight words maintain a fiction that any other relationship is somehow inferior.
Our legislation proposes a new definition:
‘the union of two people’
And it allows celebrants the choice of referring to ‘partners’, as well as husband and wife.
To some, this may seem a small gesture.
In truth, this means so much, to so many.
To all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians, we offer change that says: your relationship is equal under the law.
To the parents, children, friends and families of same-sex partners, just as the people you love are equal and valuable in your eyes, their relationship should be equal and valuable in the eyes of our law.
To same-sex couples, we offer the right to celebrate your love with the public measure of devotion: marriage.
When someone has found not just another person they can live with, but a person they can’t live without, then they should have the same right to the true qualities of a bond that runs deeper than any law.
The same joy and sacrifice.
The same care and compassion.
The same rights and responsibilities.
And we say to all young gay people.
We are proud of you, for who you are. You belong.
We say to you, you have a right to the same hopes, dreams and opportunities as every other Australian including the right to marry the person you love.
In removing discrimination from our country’s laws, we strive to eliminate prejudice from our people’s lives.
Let’s be honest.
Casual, unthinking discrimination and deliberate, malicious homophobia alike, are still far too common in our conversations.
In our schoolyards, our workplaces and our sporting clubs…and even, occasionally, our Parliament too.
This affects community, neighbourliness, harmony and mental health in our cities and especially our regions and the bush where physical remoteness can aggravate a sense of isolation.
We know two out of five young Australians who are gay have thought about self-harm or suicide.
Two out of every five.
We know a young Australian who identifies as gay is six times more likely to consider taking their own life, compared to their sibling, classmate, colleague or teammate.
Six times.
When I was finishing school in the 1980s, youth suicide was still a taboo topic.
I can remember hearing of the passing of young men, and no-one spoke of how they died.
I can close my eyes and see their faces, forever young.
And I wonder now, if for some, the stigma and the struggle of imagining a future, lonely, isolated, treated differently was too much to bear.
Marriage equality says to young people who identify as gay, you are never alone. You belong.
This is an act of fairness for all ages.
On the weekend, I spoke with Sandra Yates, from Devonport in Tassie.
Like hundreds of other Australian couples, she and her partner Lee Bransden have been forced to travel to New Zealand to marry.
Sandra and Lee had hoped to marry at home surrounded by friends and family but Lee is terminally ill, and has been told she only has weeks to live.
Their community raised money to fund their trip and fulfil their dream.
They are thrilled to be married…and sad it couldn’t happen here, in the country they love.
Lee’s voice should be heard in this place:
“Please, help switch on the light for same-sex couples and take us out of the darkness.”
Lee, Sandra, you, your friends and families should not have to wait one day longer for recognition.
And this legislation will ensure that same-sex marriages, recognised in another country, are recognised here.
A law that forces our citizens to travel overseas, or to the grounds of another nation’s embassy, to have their relationships recognised is a law not worth keeping.
I have not made a habit of speaking publicly about my faith, and I do not seek to preach to others today.
I do believe in God and I do believe in marriage equality.
For me, there is nothing contradictory about extending love, compassion, charity and respect beyond heterosexual Australia.
I understand, that for many people of different faiths, this is a complex question, I respect this.
It is why I support a free vote.
And why this legislation makes it clear that no minister of religion can be compelled, or is obliged, to conduct a particular marriage…including one where two people are of the same sex.
AlI ask in return that this respect be mutual.
Just as churches, mosques, temples and synagogues of all faiths and traditions will be free to choose if they consecrate same sex marriages.
Let the same respect allow Australians to freely choose who they marry, without vilification or judgment.
So often in our history, Australia has led the world in social and economic progress.
The right to vote, pensions, the eight-hour day.
Our healthcare and superannuation systems are among the best in the world.
But on marriage equality, we have fallen behind.
Like so many Australians, two Sunday mornings ago, when I first heard the result of the Irish referendum I thought: if the Irish can do it, why can’t we?
How can Ireland, New Zealand, 37 US States, England, Scotland, South Africa and Canada and Brazil, Iceland and Uruguay be ahead of us?
Twenty countries have already recognised the merit of marriage equality.
I am confident Australia will.
I don’t want us to wait, any longer.
We cannot assume this change is inevitable.
We cannot imagine it will just happen.
We, the 44th Parliament, we have to step up, to rise to the moment.
Today, is neither the beginning, nor the end, of the journey to marriage equality.
But I hope…with goodwill on all sides, with co-operation, with respect for one another this can be a historic step forward.
Given a free vote, I believe this Parliament is ready for a definition of marriage which reflects the modern, inclusive and egalitarian Australia we love.
We are ready to be as generous and kind-hearted as the Australians who trust us.
Millions of Australians have waited long enough for this act of justice and inclusion.
The opportunity of a generation is before us now.
The moment is here.
Let this law reflect the nation we want to see in the mirror: generous, smart, modern, diverse, honest and, above all, equal.
Let’s switch on the light.
Let’s make 2015, the year when Australia embraces marriage equality.
Let’s make it happen, together.
It’s time
‘Tackling inequality’: Australian Labor Party ideology and discourse under Bill Shorten
No full textPublished online: 11 May 2022While it is often claimed that the Australian Labor Party was ‘bolder’ under Bill Shorten than under both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, the party’s discourse and ideology of this period has not yet been comprehensively examined. Framed in the 2019 election as ‘shifty’, Shorten is arguably best remembered for his lack of popularity; yet this obscures the degree of ideological transformation he oversaw. In this article, I analyse key speeches and policy documents to transcend superficial impressions and examine Shorten Labor’s revised discursive framings and ideological positions. While not without ideological contradiction, notably regarding Labor’s own neoliberal economic reform legacy, I find Shorten’s leadership represented a significant progressive reorientation of ALP ideology and discourse on both economic and social issues, particularly compared to Gillard. Specifically, Shorten Labor articulated a socially progressive and inclusive social democratic politics that was once-again prepared to critique markets and their role in producing inequality.Nick Falcinell
Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten speeches: Macrostructure analysis and politeness strategy
No full textABSTRACT
This study observes macrostructure and politeness strategy in Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten speeches in the case of Indonesia – Australia spying issue. Macrostructure is the global theme from the discourse that can be analyzed through critical discourse analysis, while, politeness strategy is the strategy to communicate with others politely. Macrostructure analysis is used to find out the global theme of the discourse and the ideology from the speakers. Politeness strategy is used to find out politeness strategy used by famous people. Moreover, in this study, politeness strategy is used to strengthen the findings about ideology from each speaker.
This study used Teun van Dijk’s theory of critical discourse analysis and Brown & Levinson theory of politeness strategy. This study used qualitative descriptive method which the data are in the form of utterances, not in the form of number. The total data from the objects are thirteen data. After collecting the data, the researcher presented and analyzed based on van Dijk’s theory of critical discourse analysis and Brown & Levinson’s theory of politeness strategy.
The results of this research are from macrostructure analysis is found (1) the main theme of the speeches; Australia does not want to apologize to Indonesia, (2) the ideology of each speaker; Tony Abbott’s ideology is arrogance and Bill Shorten’s ideology is be optimistic, and (3) politeness strategy used by the speakers are negative politeness. Moreover, the findings from politeness strategy support the findings of ideology in macrostructure analysis.
It is suggested for further research to conduct study about critical discourse analysis by using van Dijk’s theory or other theories. Moreover, it is also possible to relate the study of critical discourse analysis with other aspects, such as politeness strategy and apologize strategy in order to strengthen the findings of critical discourse analysis. .
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini mengamati makrostruktur dan strategi kesopanan dalam pidato Tony Abbott dan Bill Shorten dalam kasus penyadapan oleh Australia pada Indonesia. Makrostruktur adalah tema global dari wacana yang dapat dianalisis melalui analisis wacana kritis. Strategi kesantunan adalah strategi untuk berkomunikasi dengan orang lain dengan sopan. Analisis makrostruktur digunakan untuk mengetahui tema global wacana dan ideologi dari pembicara. Strategi kesantunan digunakan untuk mengetahui strategi kesopanan yang digunakan oleh pembicara dalam menyampaikan pidatonya. Selain itu, dalam penelitian ini, strategi kesopanan digunakan untuk memperkuat temuan tentang ideologi dari masing- masing pembicara.
Penelitian ini menggunakan teori Teun van Dijk dari analisis wacana kritis dan Brown & Levinson teori strategi kesopanan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif dimana data dalam bentuk ucapan, tidak dalam bentuk angka. Total data dari objek adalah tiga belas data. Setelah dikumpulkan, data disajikan dan dianalisis berdasarkan teori dari van Dijk mengenai analisis wacana kritis dan teori dari Brown & Levinson mengenai strategi kesopanan.
Hasil penelitian ini adalah bahwa (1) dari analisis makrostruktur ditemukan tema utama dari pidato yang Australia tidak ingin meminta maaf kepada Indonesia, (2) ditemukan ideologi dari Tony Abbott adalah arogansi dan ideology dari Bill Shorten adalah optimis, dan (3) dari strategi kesopanan ditemukan bahwa setiap pembicara sering digunakan kesantunan negatif dalam mengekspresikan ucapan mereka. Selain itu, temuan dari strategi kesantunan juga mendukung temuan ideologi dalam analisis makrostruktur.
Disarankan untuk penelitian lebih lanjut untuk melakukan studi tentang analisis wacana kritis dengan menggunakan teori van Dijk atau teori lain. Selain itu, juga memungkinkan untuk menghubungan studi analisis wacana kritis dengan aspek- aspek lain, seperti strategi kesopanan dan strategi memohon maaf untuk memperkuat temuan dari analisis wacana kritis
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
