|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Umm corporate boycotts impinge on free speech and are therefore bad. quote:Coalition MPs and industry groups are using a review of competition laws to push for a ban on campaigns against companies on the grounds that they are selling products that damage the environment, for example by using old-growth timber or overfished seafood.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
quote:Loughnane said the Liberals were also “deeply concerned” about the fact that more than 18,000 people voted multiple times in the last election, and he proposed that photographic ID should be required by those wishing to vote. If we're talking federal politics, 18,0000 is .08% of our population and .12% of our enrolled voters. So I'm not sure how "voter fraud" is that much of a problem. Requiring photo ID to vote, however, will prevent a lot of people from voting--coincidentally, people who are more likely to vote left. I think that could have a few constitutional problems along the way as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 09:43
|
|
|
Mithranderp posted:If we're talking federal politics, 18,0000 is .08% of our population and .12% of our enrolled voters. So I'm not sure how "voter fraud" is that much of a problem. Requiring photo ID to vote, however, will prevent a lot of people from voting--coincidentally, people who are more likely to vote left. I think that could have a few constitutional problems along the way as well. Yeah but they're just copying wholesale from the United States voting disenfranchisement ideas so they haven't given this any more thought beyond "yes this will get rid of them pesky dirty masses".
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 09:45
|
|
|
Lid posted:Yeah but they're just copying wholesale from the United States voting disenfranchisement ideas so they haven't given this any more thought beyond "yes this will get rid of them pesky dirty masses". I remember a High Court case (Roach v Electoral Commissioner) where the Howard government tried to prevent all prisoners from voting (as opposed to those prisoners with a term of 3+ years which had been the existing legislation) basically because short-term imprisonment wasn't a substantial enough reason to prevent someone from voting. I think there's a pretty strong argument that preventing someone (who either can't afford or doesn't want photo ID) from voting on the basis that .12% of electors vote multiple times would not be a substantial enough reason. Not sure what the Constitutional position is like in America re: a "right" to vote, but I'm guessing it's much easier for them to disenfranchise whole groups of people there than it is here. The Before Times fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Union got back to me, From investigation, Umart has been playing hot potato with Superfunds with my Super starting at Spectrum Super then being transferred to a variety of different Super providers before landing at Australian Super. All this was happening without my permission. Does anyone know why a business would just open up a trail of accounts in my name and never tell me anything? They probably get some form of kickbacks from funds for opening accounts for their employees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
The only change optional preferential will make is that a whole bunch of Labor senate seats will go very, very Green. Do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 10:16
|
|
|
It'll almost definitely stop libertarian morons getting in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
Mithranderp posted:Not sure what the Constitutional position is like in America re: a "right" to vote, but I'm guessing it's much easier for them to disenfranchise whole groups of people there than it is here. My guess would be it's an implied term under representative and responsible government, like freedom of speech. Nothing to back that up though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
Smegmatron posted:The only change optional preferential will make is that a whole bunch of Labor senate seats will go very, very Green. It will also mean I don't need to spend weeks researching micro parties and take a phone app into the booth with me to vote properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:My guess would be it's an implied term under representative and responsible government, like freedom of speech. Nothing to back that up though. Our right to vote, along with pretty much all of our Constitutional "rights", is implied. Even then, it's not really that each individual has an unassailable "right" to vote, it's more that (basically) we cannot be prevented from voting for a reason that's not substantial enough. Splode posted:It will also mean I don't need to spend weeks researching micro parties and take a phone app into the booth with me to vote properly. On the other hand, the preferential mess in the last election made me a more informed voter. For example, how would I otherwise know that the Motoring Enthusiast Party believes in the unimpeded recreational use of the environment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Mithranderp posted:How would I otherwise know that the Motoring Enthusiast Party believes in the unimpeded recreational use of the environment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
Compulsory ID to vote is a voting tax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
Meanwhile from the minors/independentsquote:But Sen Madigan on Monday said the efforts were "absolutely duplicitous", saying the major parties were happy with the system "when it suits them, but want to change it when someone else figures it out". So DLP is mad, Xenophon is "eh". LibDems are probably just going to call for the abolishment of mandatory voting as an infringement of liberty and will be roundly ignored. EvilElmo posted:Compulsory ID to vote is a voting tax. scoff.gif
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
Anything that could pose a potential obstacle to voting should be viewed with the utmost concern. Look at the American attempt(s) to deprive blacks of their ability to vote by requiring Voter ID to 'combat' non-existing voter fraud, knowing that they are the ethnic group most likely to be inconvenienced by lack of suitable ID. Hell, the girlfriend's democratic rights just got pissed on by the Italian government. She is an Italian citizen, tried to vote in the EU election but they wouldn't let her register. She was on the rolls as an external (i.e. outside Italy) voter in Australia, but for some reason she got taken off them a year ago. She can't enrol to vote here because the Italians require proof of registered residency in Italy to enrol, which NOBODY gives in their leases (if they even give you a contract to sign, which is incredibly uncommon for <4 year leases. We have an actual signed and registered contract, which is very uncommon, but even still it's only a domicilio -- not admissable as residency). And to re-enrol as an external voter she would need to fly back to Australia and go to the Italian consulate there and prove her Australian 'residency'. So even though she's an Italian citizen with a proper passport and living here and working here full time, and she should legally be allowed to vote in the EU elections, she cannot. So be very loving wary of scumbags trying to restrict democratic access in order to combat some non-existent threat. Sulla Faex fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
Splode posted:It will also mean I don't need to spend weeks researching micro parties and take a phone app into the booth with me to vote properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
Optional above the line preferential voting is a good idea, restricting preference flows to only be from parties with enough votes is not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 11:45
|
|
|
So I guess with expiring preferences the vote count required for a quota reduces proportionately with each vote that expires?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:So I guess with expiring preferences the vote count required for a quota reduces proportionately with each vote that expires? That's one way of doing it, the other is to just use a highest remainder method. If by the end, you have 0.3, 0.42 and 0.85 of a quota for three parties to fill two seats, the 0.85 and the 0.42 get it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 12:23
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
It really is the loving Bush years all over againquote:Tony Abbott uses Sydney Institute speech to signal tax cuts in next five years
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
All hail the  curve.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
Turnbull is so disingenious, saying that we went from surplus to deficit under Labor. You know, just like every other developed nation in the world, as a point of policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Noted Ponzi scheme drafter and best treasurer in the world Wayne Swan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:07
|
|
Yeah I tell you what's better than tax hikes, this is what's better: *mining boom ends, country has no money anymore*
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
Nibbles141 posted:They probably get some form of kickbacks from funds for opening accounts for their employees. So what, a trail of accounts just for some sort of small return?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
Smegmatron posted:The only change optional preferential will make is that a whole bunch of Labor senate seats will go very, very Green.  Greens are all over that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
So we are in a budget emergency, we wont have a surplus until 3018 at the earliest and yet we are going to slash our revenue base even more. gently caress OFF YOU loving BRAINDEAD PIECE OF loving poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
Reminder that our deficit was on track to be over in a couple of years , assuming we kept the carbon tarrif and mining tax. All those people who voted for libs for lower tax need to get loving stabbed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
 e: 
adamantium|wang fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
ON ELECTION night, I said Australia was open for business – and every day since we’ve been working to implement our Economic Action Strategy. In promising to deliver a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia, we promised to get the Budget back under control because you can’t fix the economy unless you fix the Budget. There’s far more that’s right about our country than wrong; and there’s far more grounds for optimism about our future than worry. But we have to get the economic fundamentals right. The Rudd-Gillard government made vast open-ended commitments on schools and hospitals to take effect beyond the forward estimates period. They didn’t just booby-trap the Budget; they created a Ponzi scheme of unsustainable spending because they thought that new taxes, more spending and bigger bureaucracies were the answer to every problem. This Budget will not change everything with one stroke. It won’t offer a spurious guarantee of a surplus by a particular date. This Budget will by no means be the only instalment in the long-term restructuring needed to restore our economic health. But it will bring us close to surplus and on track to a strong surplus within a decade. This was the commitment we made, pre-election and this Budget keeps faith with our election commitments. Prior to the election, we committed to abolish the School Kids Bonus that had nothing to do with education and the Income Support Bonus because these payments were a cash splash with borrowed money. There are other one-off payments that should never have been introduced and are unaffordable at this time. Prior to the election, we said we’d maintain school funding over the then-forward estimates but explicitly refused to commit to Labor’s changes beyond that. The best way to improve schools is to give local communities more say, because parents and principals will be better than bureaucrats at getting the best possible value from taxpayer dollars. Prior to the election, we said that we wouldn’t cut overall health funding but that we’d find ways of making health spending more efficient. Part of that will be more price signals in the system with a strong safety net because “free” services to patients are certainly not free to taxpayers. Prior to the election, we said we wouldn’t cut the age pension. I want to assure vulnerable people that the age pension won’t be less tomorrow than it is today and that people turning 65 tomorrow are certainly not going to have to wait five years to retire. I’m confident that pensioners will be better off because they’ll lose the carbon tax but keep the carbon tax compensation. Still, with four out of five seniors on the pension, the number of workers per retiree dropping from five to three by 2050, and more than 1000 people becoming eligible for the age pension every single week, long-term reform is essential and unavoidable. To keep our commitments, there will be no changes to the pension during this term of Parliament but there should be changes to indexation arrangements and eligibility thresholds in three years’ time. There are other social security benefits where indexation arrangements and eligibility thresholds should be adjusted now so that our social safety net is more sustainable for the long-term. I know most families are doing it tough, including many families with above-average incomes but heavy commitments. Not for a second would I label families as “rich” just because they are earning $100,000 a year. A teacher married to a part-time shop assistant with children to feed, clothe and educate is certainly not rich, especially paying a capital city mortgage. But the best way to help families on $100,000 a year is long-term tax relief and more business and job opportunities, not social security handouts. The changes in this Budget will make personal tax cuts much more likely in four or five years’ time. This will not be a Budget for the rich or the poor; it will be a Budget for the country. It will be a nation-building Budget, even though it cuts spending, because you can’t build a nation by spending money you don’t have in ways that don’t build up your economic strength. Everything about this Budget is calculated to boost the long-term strength of the economy; spending less on consumption so that we can spend more on capital, including human capital in the areas at which we excel. Business programs will involve less bureaucracy and be more about backing businesses’ own judgment. Training programs will focus less on trainer priorities and more on employer needs. Universities’ funding will shift but they will have much more freedom to innovate and to build on Australia’s strength as a magnet for students, teachers and researchers from around the world. School leavers will be earning or learning – not becoming accustomed to unemployment. Starting in this Budget, for older people, people with disabilities and women with young children, our aim is to maximise everyone’s ability to participate in the economy; it’s about driving change, but even more about empowering choice. And, of course, in a modern economy, that means more freedom to move around our cities rather than spending hours in some of the world’s longest parking lots. This Budget will fund our biggest-ever national roads program and make it easier for the states to fund the metro roads and rail that commuters need. I said earlier Budgets reveal the character of governments; they also show the mettle of countries. This Budget is about shifting our focus from entitlement to enterprise; from welfare to work; from hand-out to hand-up; from our own short-term anxieties to our nation’s long-term opportunities. For the Government, of course there are political risks in this Budget. But without a clear economic plan, our standard of living will decline; with the plan this Budget embodies, Australia can continue to be a beacon of prosperity, freedom and hope to the wider world. I don’t expect the Government to be more popular the day after the Budget but hope that we might have earned people’s respect for saying what we mean and doing what we say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
You know the whole "government declares unperson on business" would be funny if they weren't also trying to make any form of protest/boycott illegal. So, an icecream company quietly protesting the dumping of millions of tonnes of crap right next to the reef could impact Queensland tourist dollars? Well, that could affecting someone's profits and is therefore illegal. But actually doing the dumping and potentially killing huge swathes of the reef is perfectly fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:10
|
|
It's going to be loving awesome being an adult and telling my kids all about the cool things we used to have 'back in the day' like Medicare et al. 
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:15
|
|
quote:FATHER: You know Junior, back in my day we didn't used to have to eat the babies born with blacklung.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Lid posted:Prior to the election, we said that we wouldn’t cut overall health funding but that we’d find ways of making health spending more efficient. Part of that will be more price signals in the system with a strong safety net because “free” services to patients are certainly not free to taxpayers. Because patients are not taxpayers 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Goddamn gently caress Tony Abbott that slimy motherfucker can go eat a bag of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
I cooked lunch for Wayne Swan last month and I loved it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:41
|
|
tomkash posted:I cooked lunch for Wayne Swan last month and I loved it. Was he a courteous guest or did he leave a typical labor mess
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:Was he a courteous guest or did he leave a typical labor mess Clean plate, no waste here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Under OPV you should get a seat result distribution that's closer to proportion of first preferences. Particularly because the micro preference shuffle will evaporate because they can't hand out on election day so for the most part they'd just exhaust. Eyeballing the 2013 Senate results, that looks like it would give the Libs Ricky Muir's seat in Vic and Labor and Xenophon an extra seat each in SA at the expense of FF and the Greens. Everywhere else seems to stay the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
I'm going to have to enter politics because I'm sure I can do a better job than Christopher Pyne, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morisson, and the no name ALP leader. loving faceless man. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
BCR posted:I'm going to have to enter politics because I'm sure I can do a better job than Christopher Pyne, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morisson, and the no name ALP leader. I'd vote for you BCR, if you ever come to sydney I'll buy you a drink or two. Really appreciate your work and union advice. Signed my new contract at my new job two weeks ago!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:02
|
|