Australian Labor Party caucus

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Name: Andrew Lawson
Age: 36
Party: Labor
Mini Bio: Born in Sydney to a Liberal family, he was educated in public schools and studied law and political science at the University of Sydney. He did not take the usual path of student politics and worked in corporate law for major international firm before making a decision at 26 to leave law, move to Canberra and go to work for a strategic communication firm, specialising in politics. It was through friends that he joined the ALP.

He was expected to make a move into ACT politics, but when a leading candidate for the seat of Fraser declined to run in 2007, he ended up winning a close ballot. And won the seat with a 2% swing and held it in 2010 with only a small 1% against him.

He currently serves as Parliamentary Secretary for Trade and Economic Development - due to his background in an affluent area of Sydney and his lack of connection to the union movement, he is a figure of suspicion for many in the party. He also uses the Parliament House gym and often trains with a couple of Liberal MPs... leading to issues of loyalty, but he performs well on TV and is a popular guest on shows like Q&A.

Address: Turner, ACT
Electorate: Fraser, ACT
Place of Birth: Sydney, NSW
Occupation: Lawyer, political strategist
Property Owned: Apartment
Religion: Agnostic
Sexuality: Believed to be straight, but lots of gay rumours too, single
Addictions: Workaholic and trends to drink too much at social events
Medical Conditions: None, but prone to migraines.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You might still get your chance to drag the ALP back to the 50s!!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Party Name (please preference votes)
[1] Australian Labor Party
[2] Progressive Reform Party
[3] Social Democratic Party
[ ] Write-in:

How should frontbenchers (ministers/shadow ministers) be appointed? (please cross next to preference)
[ x ] Appointed by Party Leader
[   ] Elected by the caucus to each individual ministry


In the factions... considering the factional stuff is driven by the social policy slightly more than the economics, I'd probably be part of the left faction, despite not having especially socialist views.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Andrew Lawson will not be seeking a leadership role

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Willow Wong

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

[ 3 ] Keven Jahanshahi
[ 1 ] Colin Elliott
[ 2 ] Dave Astuzia

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I won't be supporting a republic, but I will not try to stop you if the caucus wants it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I won't participate in dragging this party and this country back to the 1950s.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes. I would appreciate your support in contacting me as to which ministerial positions you desire. I have a few already in my head, but not for everyone.

I'm going to leave it up to you.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm open for more free-votes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Great work... I'll be doing some economic work in the next day or two.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'll be outlining economic policy tomorrow

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Economic Policy

- The priority of the government is the transition to the post-mining boom reality. We will encourage greater economic diversification and while we are committed to returning our Budget to surplus, we will not announce arbitrary deadlines.  We will not risk services and this approach is considered welcome and sensible by all credit-rating agencies.

- We will make the resources rent tax work. We will institute maximum deductibility against liability to a maximum of 50% of total taxation liability. This will also extend to jurisdictions claiming deductions. The Act as it currently is, provides too many loopholes that are being exploited to a massive degree. We are committed to good-faith negotiations but if re-elected we will amend the Act to make it work better for all Australians.

- We need to take stock of the support payments made, almost automatically to people, regardless of income. If these are indeed 'support' payments, then why are they made to people without any need for support. It is the height of fiscal prudence to ensure that support is direct to those who actually need it.