Ragingsheep posted:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/crown-prosecutor-margaret-cunneen-and-tow-truck-driver-ben-de-jonk-phone-recordings-revealed-20160224-gn2rkx.html

Hope she goes down and the ICAC becomes vindicated.

quote:

The 10 most misunderstood road rules that drive motorists around the bend February 24, 2016 - 3:33PM Julie Power

Do you break these road rules?
From mobile phones to roundabouts, these are the top 10 road rules drivers misunderstand, according to Transport for NSW.

NSW road fatalities for the 12 months to February 22 are up 16 per cent to 349 - with 48 more deaths than in the previous corresponding year.

On Wednesday morning, two more people died in a crash in Belmore and another was left in critical condition. The executive director of NSW's Centre for Road Safety, Bernard Carlon, said it was "very tragic" that at least 10 people had died on the roads in the past eight days, with speed a factor in most of the crashes. To reduce deaths and injuries, the government is increasing fines, changing rules and increasing awareness of new, changed and existing road rules that all drivers should know. Here's a list of the rules that leave most drivers flummoxed:

1. Roundabouts: Going straight and indicating

About 40 per cent of serious crashes occur at intersections and Australian research has found roundabouts reduce the incidence and severity of crashes. An American study supported by Australian data found roundabouts reduce the severity of crashes by 38 per cent, reduce injuries by 76 per cent and cut fatal and incapacitating injuries by 90 per cent. "Rather than having a head-on collision, roundabouts deflect [vehicles]," Mr Carlon said. The rules of roundabouts were very important, but they did tend to confuse people. Drivers on the roundabout have right of way, for example. According to NSW Road Transport, drivers are required to give way to those already on the roundabout and indicate to show that they are turning left, from the left lane if there is one, or right. When making a U-turn, drivers must approach in the right lane and signal right until they exit.

The only time a driver is not required to signal is when he or she is entering the roundabout on approach with the intention of going straight ahead. If practical, drivers should indicate when they leave the roundabout, even at "12 o'clock" on the roundabout. Although roundabouts reduce injuries and deaths, Americans and Brits have often opposed their introduction. In one famous Simpson's episode, the cartoon family circles an English roundabout for hours. In frustration, Homer decides to cut across the traffic - without indicating - saying, "I am doing what Americans do best, acting unilaterally." Some of the confusion dates back to the rules relating to early roundabouts, such as the one around the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, where drivers entering the roundabout had right of way.

2. Giving way to pedestrians when turning

Fourteen pedestrians have been killed on NSW roads in 2016, Mr Carlon said. About 20 per cent of these were killed when they had been out drinking and on the roads between midnight and 6am. "They are very vulnerable," he said. But he called on pedestrians to take more care too when they crossed roads. "We are seeing people [crossing in the middle of a city block] or coming out from behind vehicles." It sounds obvious but motorists are required to give way to pedestrians when they are turning left or right. This applies on every intersection, including those with and without lights. But the rule doesn't apply to roundabouts. "Stop, look, listen and think before stepping out onto the road and don't get distracted by your mobile phone," Mr Carlon said. To reduce pedestrian deaths and injuries, the government has expanded 40km/h zones throughout the city.

quote:

Incoming committee chair Andrew Nikolic should be disqualified over 'extreme' views, Labor says By political reporter Tom Iggulden Updated 46 minutes ago

Labor is accusing the incoming chair of a powerful committee of Federal Parliament of "extreme right wing" views that should disqualify him from the job.

Key points:

Understood that Liberal backbencher Andrew Nikolic to be installed as chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee
He has frequently called for tougher counter terrorism laws, and is regarded as close political ally to Tony Abbott
Mark Dreyfus is accusing Malcolm Turnbull of "pandering" to Mr Abbott's supporters
Bipartisanship on national security could be shattered if the Government proceeds with plans to install Liberal backbencher Andrew Nikolic to chair the Joint Intelligence Committee, Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus told AM.

"Bipartisanship is put at risk by Mr Nikolic, who has made his political career out of being a highly partisan, highly aggressive battler for extreme right wing views," he said. The ABC understands Mr Nikolic has been anointed as the committee's new chair and that it will meet this morning to formalise the appointment. Mr Nikolic served for 31 years in the Army before entering Parliament, including as an officer in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is also regarded as a close political ally of former prime minister Tony Abbott.

Mr Dreyfus is accusing Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of "pandering" to Mr Abbott's supporters to help salve the wounds of last year's leadership change. "What we'll be seeing is in fact turning a national security matter into a plaything of internal political machinations," Mr Dreyfus said.

quote:

Media ownership law reform generally welcomed by the sector By Thuy Ong Posted yesterday at 12:15pm

Media companies have generally welcomed the Turnbull Government's sweeping changes to Australia's ownership laws, which would scrap rules that restrict broadcasting and allow more freedom in cross-platform ownership. Overnight, the Cabinet approved Communications Minister Mitch Fifield's plan, which would allow media companies to own radio and TV stations, as well as newspapers in a single media market, effectively abolishing the "two out of three rule". It will also scrap the "reach rule" which prohibits any one media company from broadcasting to more than 75 per cent of the population. In a statement sent to the ABC, a Fairfax spokesman said the company "welcomes Cabinet's decision to remove outdated restrictions in the present legislation". The Ten Network told the ABC the reforms are an important first step in reforming "outdated laws and freeing up Australian media companies to compete on a level playing field, with overseas based content". "The rules are now actively hurting our efforts to compete for viewers and for advertising revenue with overseas-based technology companies that are exempt from local media regulation," argued Ten Network chief executive officer Paul Anderson in a statement sent to the ABC.

News Corp disappointed, diversity an issue

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, however, said it is disappointed the changes do not reform anti-siphoning laws regarding pay TV. Current anti-siphoning laws in Australia stop pay television broadcasters from buying the rights to events the Government believes should be made available free to the public, before free-to-air channels have the opportunity to purchase the rights. A majority of those protected are sporting events. In a statement emailed to the ABC, News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller said the company is disappointed. "The fact that broader media reform issues such as the anti-siphoning regime are not part of the proposal makes it difficult to accept this as genuine media reform," he said.

Elsewhere, industry experts have flagged diversity in the Australian media landscape may become an issue with the reforms.

"I would say that the Minister will have to look at a lot of protection, you wouldn't want local flavour news, everything that goes on just to disappear into the big city," media buyer and entrepreneur Harold Mitchell told Melbourne's ABC 774 local radio. Mr Mitchell said, despite the reforms, the biggest change to the sector has been the arrival of digital. "It took maybe nearly 50 years to get 30 per cent of all the advertising dollars taken away from newspapers," he observed. "I can tell you within 16 years digital advertising is now about to take 40 per cent of all advertising and that's the great big change that puts aside everything else."

quote:

Former treasurer Peter Costello appointed new Channel 9 chairman Updated about an hour ago

Former federal treasurer Peter Costello has been named as the new chairman of Channel 9, replacing David Haslingsden who will step down on March 1.

"I am delighted to take over the role of chairman," Mr Costello said in a statement. This is an exciting time of change in the media sector and NEC [Nine Entertainment Co] is now strongly positioned to take advantage of these developments." He also praised the contributions made by Mr Haslingsden. "I pay tribute to David for the leadership he has given the company since 2013," he said. "His experience and understanding of the industry, and commitment to NEC have been invaluable throughout this period. "The company is in an extremely strong financial position."

Mr Costello, who was treasurer under former prime minister John Howard, will continue as chair of the Board of Guardians of the Future fund. The appointment comes after the free-to-air and digital television company NEC reported a fall in its half-year profit. In the six months to the end of December, the company had made $80 million after tax. That was down from its profit of $88.8 million during the same period the year before. Mr Haslingden said he was leaving the company in good health. "The company has achieved a lot in that short time: going public, consolidating into a five-cap city network, renewing key cricket and NRL franchises, disposing of Nine Live, launching Stan and 9Now and transitioning to a balanced share register of leading Australian and International funds managers," he said in a statement. "The time is right for me to move on from NEC, leaving the company with a new chief executive and a best-in-sector balance sheet; a modern content business ideally placed to embark upon the challenges of the next phase of sector evolution.” Channel 9 also announced the appointment of Elizabeth Gaines as a non-executive independent director, also from March 1. Ms Gaines is a non-executive director of Fortescue Metals Group and Next DC, and a commissioner of Tourism Western Australia.

Cartoon posted:

Speaking of road rules:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/the-10-most-misunderstood-road-rules-that-drive-motorists-around-the-bend-20160223-gn1ue4.html

HookShot posted:

We have pedestrian crossing lights here, but I've never seen them anywhere else in the province, and the lights don't have a walk symbol or anything for the pedestrians to know it's safe to walk. So they hit the button, and the light flashes to make cars stop, but then the pedestrians don't see anything change in front of them so they wonder if it works and they're allowed to cross, and so they just stand there while the lights flash without crossing and basically it's a great way to lose faith in humanity.

The lesson here is to put a walk symbol for the pedestrians too!

It's actually a bit baulking, I KNOW how it works and even I feel weird pressing the button and just immediately walking without anything having to change.

They're such a good idea though. Makes it sooo much easier to know when there's pedestrians around in places without great vision of the sidewalks, especially at night.

Birb Katter posted:

Pedestrians should all be given rocket propelled grenades. That way they can fight back at cars with the equivalent firepower. Cars will be a lot more polite when it comes to giving way to pedestrians when they can be blown to bits at the drop of a hat.

Solemn Sloth posted:

Birb Katter posted:

Pedestrians should all be given rocket propelled grenades. That way they can fight back at cars with the equivalent firepower. Cars will be a lot more polite when it comes to giving way to pedestrians when they can be blown to bits at the drop of a hat.

Endman posted:

This only instead of aliens and predators it's just a couple of wet cardboard boxes

quote:

It's pitched as the battle between young and old; the rich and poor; the investors who can buy housing that loses money, versus renters watching 'the dream' slip from their grasp.

If you know a tiny bit about housing policy, you know that negative gearing is contentious. It's an issue both sides of politics have studiously avoided for years. But then, a bit over a week ago, Labor announced they would do away with negative gearing on existing housing to make it easier for first home owners to enter the market. Turnbull hit back; Labor's policy would "smash" the value of house prices.

So, here's what you need to know to understand the negative gearing debate and whether it will actually make it cheaper for you to buy your first house.

Former ANZ Chief Economist Saul Eslake reckons "there's never been a more exciting time to be an advocate for winding back negative gearing"!

101: What is negative gearing?

If you buy a house that makes more money (in rent) than it costs (in repayments), then you can say it's 'positively geared'. Nice work, savvy investor, your mortgage is paying itself off.
But if the rent doesn't cover the costs, then you can claim that loss on tax (negative gearing). In the 2012-13 tax year, the average loss on an investment property for negatively geared investors was about $10,000.
You can then say to the taxman 'hey, can you knock that off my taxable income?' and reduce the amount you can be taxed by $10,000. So if you're earning $90,000 per year, the amount you pay tax on is $80,000.

Blah blah blah, why should I care?

Because investors are subsidised to buy housing they're losing money on, it makes housing a really attractive investment option which pushes up prices. Which makes it harder and harder for younger people to get into the market and you end up renting for longer.

CEO of Youth Action, Katie Acheson says originally negative gearing was pitched as a way to increase the number of houses being built, which would push down rent prices and make it easier for people to save for their deposit. But then, Katie says "negative gearing became a tax rebate for investors and for wealthier older people. So we started having housing prices being driven up by investors rather than actual home buyers."
Katie says younger Australians should be jumping up and down about negative gearing. "It's really a systemic inequality issue for young people... it's super important that we start talking about it now, because we really need to change this or young people will be completely left out of the market."

Would removing negative gearing on existing housing make it easier for first home buyers?

Independent economist Saul Eslake says "it's hard to think of any single measure that a federal government could take that would do more to help first home buyers than what Labor is proposing".

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 93 per cent of home-loans in Australia go towards existing properties. Labor says by restricting negative gearing to brand new properties, it will drive investors to build more housing stock and reduce competition amongst existing housing. Because if you're an investor trying to reduce the amount of tax you pay, then investing in new housing will be your only option to access negative gearing.
Btw, Labor aren't proposing to reverse negative gearing arrangements already in place. If you're already taking advantage of negative gearing, then keep doing what you're doing.

"I don't like that very much, but I accept that's probably a compromise you have to make because there are almost 1.5 million people who've got them [negative gearing deductions]. And no opposition who hopes to be in government can afford to annoy that many people," says Saul Eslake.

Will Labor's policy drive housing prices up or down?

Malcolm Turnbull says all homeowners should be concerned; "Bill Shorten's policy is calculated to reduce the value of your home". Because Labor have given a timeline for when they would introduce the policy (June 30, 2017), it gives investors time to snap up properties before the changes kick in. That competition will likely see an increase in prices up to the cut off.
"There's obviously nine months where there will be a bit of a rush," says Saul Eslake. "You can imagine real estate agents and investment agents will be saying 'you've got nine months to gear up to the gills'. So that is a risk with what the Labor party is proposing."

Eliza Owen, housing market analyst at 'onthehouse.com.au' agrees prices for existing housing could surge and then drop off. But she says if people are a little more forward-thinking about it, that might not happen.

"If you rush in to buy a house over a million dollars, if after the negative gearing policies are implemented it's only worth half that much, then really you've lost out. Because essentially, once you take away the negative gearing benefits there will be a real dramatic fall in demand in that market which will affect prices."

And then Eliza says there's the problem of house prices surging for new properties (which you could still negatively gear). "Once you buy a new property you can negatively gear it, but if you try and sell it on, you can't negatively gear it because it's not a new property anymore. So the prices might fall dramatically there as well."
"I think it would have a really interesting effect on prices over time, but short answer is yes when you take away financial incentives from property it'll make prices go down, it'll be good for affordability."

Why retain negative gearing on building new houses?

"The argument for exempting new housing, is that investors might be encouraged to invest in building new houses which would add to housing supply, of which there is currently a shortage," says Saul Eslake.
But Eliza Owen says keeping negative gearing for new houses will make it really hard for first home buyers to get into new property. "But it'll be easier for them to get into the established market."

Will removing negative gearing on existing housing drive up rental prices?

This is a question ABC's Fact Check examined in detail recently. Negative gearing was removed temporarily between 1985-1987, and rental prices went up in Melbourne and Sydney (but dropped everywhere else). But there were other factors at play (interest rates and boom in the share market), so the conclusion both Saul Eslake and Fact Check came to was no, removing negative gearing won't drive up rental prices.

Will removing negative gearing hurt 'Mum and Dad investors'?

This is one of the government's main arguments. They say two thirds of people who use negative gearing have a taxable income of $80,000 or less. But that's after they've knocked the costs of their investment off their taxable income. Addressing the Press Club last week, Treasurer Scott Morrison said "70 per cent [of people using negative gearing] own just one property, and 70 per cent have a net rental loss of less than $10,000. It is one of the few opportunities that people on modest incomes have to try to get ahead. They have taken advantage of that, and I say to them good luck, and good on you."

Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen says using the same set of statistics, 64,000 people are claiming negative gearing interest deductions who have no income at all.

"The more relevant figure in my view is that according to the ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics] in 2013/14, 72 per cent of the total value of investment property was owned by households in the top 20 per cent of the wealth distribution," says Saul Eslake. "And 51 per cent of the property investment debt was owed by the top 20 per cent of households."
"To put it another way, someone in the top tax bracket - that is with a taxable income of over $180,000 - is more than three times as likely to be using negative gearing than someone earning less than 80,000."

Why is housing so expensive in Australia in the first place?

Eliza Owen says there's a combination of factors that make Australian housing so unaffordable. She thinks the generation of baby boomers coming up to retirement have looked to property to reliably make money, because housing is considered a safe investment. "And then you have the benefits of negative gearing! It's virtually impossible to make a loss on property whereas shares can be a bit more risky."
Saul Eslake agrees first home buyers are being out-gunned by older investors. "Especially in the last three or four years when investors have accounted for more than half the amount lent to home purchasers, compared with about 30 per cent 12 years ago."
What about foreign investment? Eliza says there's no data to support the idea Chinese foreign investors are pushing up prices, citing a 2014 University of Sydney study that found they only made up 2 per cent of all residential property transactions in Australia.

What happens when you sell the property?

Capital gains is how much money you make (let's keep the focus on property) on a house when you sell it, compared with how much you paid for it. So if your parents bought an investment property for $200,000 when you were little, and now they want to sell that to fund their retirement, but the house is now worth $700,000 - well, they need to pay tax on the extra half a million they just made. That's called capital gains tax (and it doesn't apply to the house you live in).
Investors are given a 50 per cent concession on the capital gains tax on properties - so they only pay tax on $250,000 rather than the $500,000. Labor are proposing reducing capital gains discounts available to investors down to 25 per cent, so in the same example they would pay capital gains tax for $375,000 of the $500,000.

Has that answered your questions?

If not, hit us up in the comments and we'll put the best questions to an economist on air, during Wednesday's show at 5:30pm.
Editor's note: This article has been updated. In the original explanation of negative gearing, the example would have only applied to interest only loans, which is something people do for the first few years of the mortgage.

quote:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-25/police-crackdown-on-bicycles-without-bells-in-queensland/7198784
Brisbane cyclists should check their bikes to ensure a bell is fitted and working after Queensland Police fined a number of people at Mt Coot-tha this week.

A police operation at the base of the popular hill saw riders pulled over and fined for not having a bell.

Four separate $117 fines were issued at a number of locations in the area under the Queensland Road Rules.

Senior Sergeant Mick Stevens, officer-in-charge at the Road Policing Unit at Indooroopilly, said the legislation stated that a working bell must be fitted.

"A bike has to have a bell to warn other pedestrians and road users when the bike is nearby or when the bike is going to overtake," he told 612 ABC Brisbane's Spencer Howson.

Everyone is required to maintain their vehicle or bicycle in accordance to the legislation, just as a car has to have a working horn.
Senior Sergeant Mick Stevens

"An example of that is along the bikeways and walkways we have across Brisbane where pedestrians and cyclists mix in the one area.

"When a cyclist is overtaking or going past a pedestrian they should give a toot on the bell to let them know we're going past."

Sergeant Stevens said his unit had fielded many calls from pedestrians complaining about the lack of warning.

"Over the past 12 months I've had many complaints from pedestrians indicating that cyclists aren't doing that and are causing accidents where they are running into pedestrians," he said.

Many cyclists choose to use a vocal warning instead of a bell, yet Sergeant Stevens said that was not enough.

"It needs to be a bell or a horn warning," he said.

"The same as cars and motor vehicles, they're required to meet certain standards.

"Everyone is required to maintain their vehicle or bicycle in accordance to the legislation, just as a car has to have a working horn."

Sergeant Stevens said many car horns were tested when pulled over for random breath tests.

"We do a vehicle inspection then also and my officers check all aspects of the vehicle, including the horn," he said.

When asked if police should spend time catching "real crooks", Sergeant Stevens said bicycle and vehicle safety was important.

"We have to attend to everyone and to all a matter of driving offences," he said.

Cartoon posted:

$49.95 from Jaycar. Revving their car engines is nothing on this 120 db horn. Who wants to just warn pedestrians when you can trigger spontaneous bowel movements! 100% Brisbane cop approved!

open24hours posted:

Halo14 posted:

Another good article explaining Negative Gearing...

Negative gearing explained: will Labor’s policy make it cheaper for first home buyers?

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/negative-gearing-explained/7192920

Anidav posted:

The ALP heading into the election with one good policy is a surprise. The Coalition will probably copy it come April.

Anidav posted:

The ALP heading into the election with one good policy is a surprise. The Coalition will probably copy it come April.

hooman posted:

Create a watered down version that claims to do the same thing but actually screws the poor and benefits the rich

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Thanks for this, I tried to explain negative gearing to my wife the other day and was struggling for a nice, concise summary like this.

That the stats back up Labor's plan helps too.

Cartoon posted:

Today sees the release of the latest defence white paper and already the front pages of the gutter press are full of stuff about us having to stand up to the Chinese. WTF!? The Chinese are about as credible a 'foreseeable' threat to Australia as Argentina. Is this some advanced Domino theory bulllshit? The whole argument about us needing to pull our fair share or suffer from the US pulling out? These are all far right army jerk fantasy land wank fests. The US is desperate for military partners and Australia has been bestest buddy forever for so long I think there was probably genuine surprise in the Pentagon when the LNP declined the invitation to send more troops to the middle east quagmire. Now suppose we were to accept as dogma that 2% of our GDP absolutely must be spent on defence. Then that 2% better be spent predominantly in Australia developing the sort of high tech agile innovations that are apparently at the heart of modern weapon systems. Delivering 2% of our GDP to the US arms industry is like us paying a Pro Consul in Rome. Sounds sensible? Note how little it is followed in the upcoming policy and procurement programs.

Solemn Sloth posted:

while claiming that the watered down nature is in fact its virtue because labor are reckless, unlike the good economic managers in power.

hooman posted:

Labor's reckless financial wrecking will wreck home prices and wreck home affordability!

evilbastard posted:

It's important to note that the $150 billion dollars in submarines was being listed as a proposal to counter China's submarine fleet.

Here is a post I did a few years ago, comparing the Australian vs Chinese fleets



The Type 092 / 094 / 095 are ballistic missile submarines - We will have a fleet of between 7 and 9 submarines (under their staggered-build rule) to counter 18 missile submarines and a shitload of patrol craft.

Also remember, we don't have the staff to man the submarines we have now, with 2 Collins class all-but-mothballed.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Too many words, needs to be reduced to 3.

MonoAus posted:

Stop the prices
Keep prices high
Don't stop houses
Price UP, good!
Keep buying houses
Investors best buyers


Nah, none of these are dumb enough for the Australian public.

Birb Katter posted:

Cleiv to Turdballs

Birb Katter posted:

Seeing as none of you are picking up the slack, moar Poep

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Pope is the best. Where are these coming from, a break down of the Defence White Paper?

open24hours posted:

At least with the submarines the money mostly stays here. Nice and Keynesian.

Frogmanv2 posted:

Assuming we dont get a foreign country to build them in their own facilities, which was one of the scenarios required in the submission to the tender process that isnt a tender process.

Birb Katter posted:

Yeah, isn't part of our Japan FTA thing to have them build it all?

open24hours posted:

I thought they were going to do it in Adelaide but now that I think about it that's probably not the whole truth.

That we're even considering building them overseas is bizarre, I don't see what we could possibly hope to gain (aside from cushy post-politics jobs).

open24hours posted:

I thought they were going to do it in Adelaide but now that I think about it that's probably not the whole truth.

That we're even considering building them overseas is bizarre, I don't see what we could possibly hope to gain (aside from cushy post-politics jobs).