|
IronicBeetCriminal posted:I don't think it's really a case of more for less as they aren't forcing anyone to use them nor are they reducing services elsewhere. Mail will still be delivered as per normal. This is about cost efficiencies in parcel deliveries, well missed deliveries really. They are actively trying to reduce the amount of days of mail delivery. I did read an article recently about Auspost opening all stores on Saturdays, yet my local store has recently stopped doing business on Saturdays - so unless you're home before 17:00 on a weekday you already require a parcel locker. They're definitely convenient and an efficient way to deliver parcels, but it also appears to be part of a bigger plan which ultimately increases the cost to the end user. deathofmusic fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Jun 18, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
Ymmv but my post office opens at 6am for parcel collections only to cater for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
""If you're Muslim and you want a mosque, go back to the Middle East. This is Australia," one member of the public said. The protest group asked what councillors were doing to protect the city from terrorism and accused the council of failing to consult the community. "Bendigo people own Bendigo, it's their town, they have the right to say mosque or no mosque," one person said. "We're not racists." " Lol bendigo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
IronicBeetCriminal posted:I wasn't aware of this so thought I'd share it because some of you might not be aware of it either. So when someone who is disabled is "paid" $1.85/hr, is the government paying the difference or is it just totally designed for loving people over?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:So when someone who is disabled is "paid" $1.85/hr, is the government paying the difference or is it just totally designed for loving people over? No. The pay depends on the capability of the supported (disabled) employee, modeled around the amount of supervision and assistance from full time (full pay) staff they require. The BSWAT is supposed to measure those capabilities in order to fairly set the pay, yet it appears the actual function of the BSWAT is to reduce the pay across the board by asking irrelevant and confusing questions. -edit- VV Yes they will still receive the disability support pension unless they transition into independent full-pay work. deathofmusic fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:So when someone who is disabled is "paid" $1.85/hr, is the government paying the difference or is it just totally designed for loving people over? I think they're still on a disability support payment until their income meets a certain level - the work is part of the mutual obligation. In theory the assessment is to allow people who can do part of a job to be paid according to what they can do. In practice, as in this case, it's for loving people over. The sections of the assessment are supposed to be weighted according to the proportion of the work they apply to, so that someone mowing lawns isn't awarded or docked pay for items that apply to office work. It looks like in these cases, the adjustment wasn't performed when it favoured the worker. http://www.crsaustralia.gov.au/bswt_faq.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2014/06/un-criticises-australia%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98strange%E2%80%99-obsession-boatsquote:Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) Chief Executive Officer Paul Power said the public criticism of Australia in such an important annual global forum on refugee issues was a clear indication of how much Australia’s international reputation has declined as a result of harsh responses to public seeking asylum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-19/high-court-delivers-verdict-on-school-chaplaincy-program/5534546quote:Commonwealth finding of school chaplaincy program struck down in High Court
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Lol bendigo. Pretty disgusting, these dingbats never participate in anything unless its shock horror muslims. But noone really gives a gently caress because: quote:Objections to the mosque planning application now number 432, in a regional city of more than 80,000. IIRC, the last census showed a strong growth in Islam and a corresponding crash in Christianity here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Vladimir Poutine posted:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-19/high-court-delivers-verdict-on-school-chaplaincy-program/5534546 Prima facae this looks great but it's not quite a hit out of the park - all it does is force the federal government to work with the states to provide the funding, if indeed they continue with it. Still, there's one thing the current federal government doesn't want to do, and that's work with the states.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Shouldn't the states be competing with each other to see who can provide the most offensive pastoral care?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:Prima facae this looks great but it's not quite a hit out of the park - all it does is force the federal government to work with the states to provide the funding, if indeed they continue with it. The real kicker is still yet to arrive - the question is what relief is going to be granted. But this is actually great news. Sure, they might move some of the regime over to the tied grants scheme, but we'll wait and see.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
The really exciting thing about this is that the legislation purportedly authorising the school chaplains funding also purports to authorise funding for hundreds of other schemes. This case provides precedent for challenging those other funding regimes as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Those On My Left posted:The really exciting thing about this is that the legislation purportedly authorising the school chaplains funding also purports to authorise funding for hundreds of other schemes. This case provides precedent for challenging those other funding regimes as well.  poo poo is going to hit the fan"This legislation was rammed through the parliament. There was very little scrutiny of the legislation. And what had happened beforehand was the poor public servants in Canberra are up all night effectively told to bring out your dead – find all the programs that you fund through executive power that have no legislation supporting them and give us a list of them."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:""If you're Christian and you want a Church, go back to Europe. This is Australia," one member of the public said. Dreamtime locales only thanks. EDIT: Found out the name of the traditional owners of Bendigo. hooman fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Unfortunately the High Court case appears only to be in regards to the manner school chaplaincy programs are funded rather than any issue to do with the exclusive funding of religious programs in state schools.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:""If you're Muslim and you want a mosque, go back to the Middle East. This is Australia," one member of the public said. Or you could just go next door to Indonesia, since it's the biggest Muslim majority country in the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
I'm sure they would be equally supportive of a move to Indonesia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:The protest group asked what councillors were doing to protect the city from terrorism and accused the council of failing to consult the community. Bendigo was actually at the top of Al Qaeda's list, but they had to settle for NYC when they heard that the one dude with that totally sweet Monaro would be out of town on Sept 11, halving the town's economic value. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:Unfortunately the High Court case appears only to be in regards to the manner school chaplaincy programs are funded rather than any issue to do with the exclusive funding of religious programs in state schools. That was dealt with in the last case, and basically the Court held that our constitution doesn't provide for that sort of separation of church and state. The only separation it provides is this: quote:The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. Paying a company to provide chaplains for state schools doesn't establish a religion, doesn't "impose religious observance", doesn't prohibit the free exercise of religion, and doesn't constitute a religious test for a public office (because these chaplains don't hold a public office). Yes yes, I know, it looks like you could argue that it constitutes the imposition of a religious observance, but that argument has been made and lost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
I wonder how long until they're back? No doubt Labor will support anything the Libs propose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Palmersaurus posted:Or you could just go next door to Indonesia, since it's the biggest Muslim majority country in the world. There are more Christians in Indonesia than there are Australians of any Faith. Why don't they move there too? EDIT: Stop the prayers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
My only problem with living near mosques is that the call to prayer (depending on how loud they're allowed to be) can be a really annoying alarm clock if you're not used to it/if you're not a morning person. On the other hand, many of the guys that do the call to prayer make it incredibly beautiful to listen to. When I lived in Borneo, I was in hearing range of two different mosques, which was really cool to listen to of an evening. edit: it's almost as if they fail to understand that Christianity is also a Middle-Eastern religion. JFC can't people just be nice for once?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
No worse than living next to a church and those loving BELLS though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Mithranderp posted:My only problem with living near mosques is that the call to prayer (depending on how loud they're allowed to be) can be a really annoying alarm clock if you're not used to it/if you're not a morning person. On the other hand, many of the guys that do the call to prayer make it incredibly beautiful to listen to. When I lived in Borneo, I was in hearing range of two different mosques, which was really cool to listen to of an evening. I think you'll find that Jesus was a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
deathofmusic posted:No. The pay depends on the capability of the supported (disabled) employee, modeled around the amount of supervision and assistance from full time (full pay) staff they require. The BSWAT is supposed to measure those capabilities in order to fairly set the pay, yet it appears the actual function of the BSWAT is to reduce the pay across the board by asking irrelevant and confusing questions. I wrote an essay quite recently on the Nojin decision and the continuing use of the BSWAT. Essentially the major issue of the BSWAT, and what it was found in the federal court, is that it discriminates to those with a mental disability greatly because it's broken into two halves - a skills test, as in what an individual can actually do, and a competencies test, as in what they are capable of doing. The test greatly skewed results on mental disability deductions on this competency ability test, which may not reflect the work output. Furthermore to increase pay it did not matter how good your work output was, even it was good enough to deserve a raise, as you needed to also increase the result in the competencies test which for intellectual disabled people was a near impossible onus. On the other extreme it was found that payments for someone with a physical disability vs intellectual could have their pay increased even if their work was worse but they received a higher competency rating. It was thrown out as discriminatory under section 15 of the Disability Discrimination Act, but it is still used and continues to be used (hence Bandt's comments). http://www.ahrcblog.com/2013/10/10/summary-of-nojin-decision/ if you'd like to read the details on the case and some quotes from the judgment if you don't want to read through the whole austlii decision. It should be noted this judgement was also an appeal that had previously found the test not discriminatory by a single justice at the Federal Court and then the full court sent a scathing reprimand back at him for his narrow reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Auspol July: Noise complaints about religious buildings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:Thanks Beet, I hadn't heard of that either. Sharing it around. I would be very interested in hearing from those proposing this legislation to understand what the gently caress they think they were thinking and if it is even possible to justify such a decision. Essentially the court said that the BSWAT test was unfair its impossible to get full marks and therefore indirectly discriminatory. Hmmm I need to sue the government over the HSC 4 Unit Maths. Basterds! This is the ALP answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq6Shh5fSDU Hmm turns out they did have reasons. Bottom line is that the ALP will support the bill in the House and will form a Senate inquiry into its effects. The ALP argument for supporting it seems to be that it was a recommendation from the care-taker period in 2013, it's essentially one part goes down and another scheme to provide a top up to wages under BSWAT goes up. Human Rights Commission says the BSWAT test should be exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act for  Also apparently the act under consideration will ensure that payments will not go down??? Which is what Rishworth seems to have said at 5:05. This all distinctly scores above zero on my bullshitometer I don't know why (other than it was all very convoluted and didn't come to the point of definitively saying no child left behind or some such), but it just does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Lid posted:Joe Hockey has become delusional. Questions for Joe Hockey include: How can you declare a budget emergency but not a climate emergency?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Lid posted:I wrote an essay quite recently on the Nojin decision and the continuing use of the BSWAT. Essentially the major issue of the BSWAT, and what it was found in the federal court, is that it discriminates to those with a mental disability greatly because it's broken into two halves - a skills test, as in what an individual can actually do, and a competencies test, as in what they are capable of doing. The test greatly skewed results on mental disability deductions on this competency ability test, which may not reflect the work output. Thanks for this write-up and the link, very useful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Essentially the court said that the BSWAT test was unfair its impossible to get full marks and therefore indirectly discriminatory. Hmmm I need to sue the government over the HSC 4 Unit Maths. Basterds! But if the 4u paper was actually full of questions on PHD level maths then you'd have a perfectly reasonable complaint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Lid posted:http://www.ahrcblog.com/2013/10/10/summary-of-nojin-decision/ if you'd like to read the details on the case and some quotes from the judgment if you don't want to read through the whole austlii decision. It should be noted this judgement was also an appeal that had previously found the test not discriminatory by a single justice at the Federal Court and then the full court sent a scathing reprimand back at him for his narrow reasoning. Thanks for this. Could you possibly shed some light on what the alternative approved wage assessment tools are, and how they compare to BSWAT?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/school-chaplains-struck-down-high-court
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
You Am I posted:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/school-chaplains-struck-down-high-court If I understand correctly, this doesn't mean that the Commonwealth can't fund school chaplains at all; they just can't DIRECTLY fund it. They can still make funding agreements with the States themselves, correct?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Mithranderp posted:If I understand correctly, this doesn't mean that the Commonwealth can't fund school chaplains at all; they just can't DIRECTLY fund it. They can still make funding agreements with the States themselves, correct? Basically the way it worked before was that the executive simply made a funding agreement with the chaplaincy provider. That, of course, happens outside the scrutiny of parliament, and the executive could do whatever it liked (e.g. how Abbott excluded secular chaplains [whatever the gently caress they are]). Now, that can't be done any more. The Commonwealth will have to do this through a section 96 grant - which is a grant of financial assistance to a State. What they can do is grant the money on the condition that the state uses it to pay chaplains. Thing is, section 96 grants are made by the parliament, and not the executive, so the parliament should be able to scrutinise the terms of the grant. Moreover, a state can refuse it. Does anyone know how section 96 grants are actually made in practice? Are they made in legislation? How does the parliament actually deal with them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Hmmm I need to sue the government over the HSC 4 Unit Maths. Basterds! It all makes sense now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Those On My Left posted:Basically the way it worked before was that the executive simply made a funding agreement with the chaplaincy provider. That, of course, happens outside the scrutiny of parliament, and the executive could do whatever it liked (e.g. how Abbott excluded secular chaplains [whatever the gently caress they are]). I only know about them in terms of agricultural assistance, but basically the federal government pass a bill that grants the states money for a certain purpose. That purpose is, however, open to interpretation. The Rural Adjustment Scheme is an example of this, where the Commonwealth gave money to the states for the purposes of increasing efficiency in the agricultural sector, and the states then used it to ensure inefficient farmers could stay in business. Legislation relating to this is typically (always?) called States Grants (something) Act XXXX http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Search/states%20grants
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Legislation relating to this is typically (always?) called States Grants (something) Act XXXX Is that right, though? There's no Act in there later than 1980 something. There's nothing in there from the last 15 years. Or do those Acts create ongoing schemes? Okay, this is really loving weird. Look at the Appropriation Acts. The Explanatory Memorandum for last year's #2 Bill includes this: quote:Clauses 7 and 18 delegate Parliament’s power under section 96 of the Constitution to impose terms and conditions on payments of financial assistance to the States to the responsible Ministers listed in Schedule 1 of the Bill. Schedule 1 also lists the Ministers who may determine the amounts and timing of those payments. There is a process in clause 12 for dealing with State, ACT, NT and local government items that are not fully expensed or spent during the year. These payments are usually made pursuant to eligibility rules and conditions established by the Government or Parliament. Specifically, the Finance Minister manages payments to State, ACT, NT and local governments through the issuing of drawing rights in accordance with sections 26 and 27 of the FMA Act. Drawing rights control who may spend money from appropriations, and allow for conditions and limits to be set by the Finance Minister (or the Finance Minister’s delegate) in relation to those activities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Those On My Left posted:Is that right, though? There's no Act in there later than 1980 something. There's nothing in there from the last 15 years. Or do those Acts create ongoing schemes? Yeah, I think you're right and they've abandoned that convention. That's what I get for only looking at old legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
I look directly in the eyes of the loose alliance of Greens, gays and atheists who have mounted this continuous campaign against chaplaincy: you are clearly out of touch,
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 05:37
|
|
