Auspol May - Crisis on Infinite Australias - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol May - Crisis on Infinite Australias

Dude McAwesome: Sep 30, 2004; Still better than a Ponytar

Solemn Sloth posted:

Bonus points for you apparently having never worked or met anyone who has worked hospitality/bottle-o in your life if you think a loving register of every prohibited person is even remotely enforceable.

"oh hey let me just check your photo id and punch your details into our up-to-date, well funded, national registry"

*gets slipped some cash* and/or *threatened with violence*

"cheers mr smith, have a nice day"

# ? May 15, 2016 23:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 14:54

The Before Times: Mar 8, 2014; Once upon a time, I would have thrown you halfway to the moon for a crack like that.

Solemn Sloth posted:

If there's one thing we've learnt it's that you can break people's addiction with the threat of jail time.

Bonus points for you apparently having never worked or met anyone who has worked hospitality/bottle-o in your life if you think a loving register of every prohibited person is even remotely enforceable.

Not just logistically as well. As you are well aware, refusing service to some people, even just with current policy (i.e. not selling to people who are already too drunk), can be incredibly unsafe for the hospitality/bottle-o worker, depending on the customer's reaction. That threat would be far worse with such an extensive list of people who will be consistently refused service.

# ? May 15, 2016 23:50

Amoeba102: Jan 22, 2010

ABC vote compass confirms buyers remorse from 2013 election

# ? May 15, 2016 23:53

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

Does anyone know if the AEC has something on their website about where the polling booths are? We've had our boundaries changed again and I'd really rather not go to the wrong place, line up, and be told I'm actually out of area by 500 metres.

# ? May 16, 2016 00:48

V for Vegas: Sep 1, 2004; THUNDERDOME LOSER

OK maybe a small silver lining from the Arts cutbacks - Quadrant has been defunded as well. Of course they blame 'teh left' for this

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/05/australia-councils-revenge/

quote:

The only leftist literary magazine to miss out this year was Meanjin, but it was teetering on its last legs anyway,

# ? May 16, 2016 00:58

norp: Jan 20, 2004; TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

let's invade New Zealand, they have oil

Starshark posted:

Does anyone know if the AEC has something on their website about where the polling booths are? We've had our boundaries changed again and I'd really rather not go to the wrong place, line up, and be told I'm actually out of area by 500 metres.

Border booths are meant to have both sets of papers.
The worst will be just do an absentee vote, filling out the envelope is easier than driving to a different school

# ? May 16, 2016 01:03

Granite Octopus: Jun 24, 2008

https://twitter.com/australian/status/731985698325069824

# ? May 16, 2016 01:03

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

V for Vegas posted:

OK maybe a small silver lining from the Arts cutbacks - Quadrant has been defunded as well. Of course they blame 'teh left' for this

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/05/australia-councils-revenge/

Maybe if they did a better job of promoting themselves. Bloody ivory tower dwelling whingers.

# ? May 16, 2016 01:04

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

Wow, Duncan doesn't want to talk to Murdoch Character Assassins? Colour me SHOCKED!

# ? May 16, 2016 01:05

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

Why wont the man on suicide watch talk to us about being a filthy poor dole bludging scoundrel?????

# ? May 16, 2016 01:11

Periphery: Jul 27, 2003; ...

Sensible debate: ignoring the issue raised and personally attacking the person who raised it.

# ? May 16, 2016 01:19

V for Vegas: Sep 1, 2004; THUNDERDOME LOSER

open24hours posted:

Maybe if they did a better job of promoting themselves. Bloody ivory tower dwelling whingers.

This is some serious Windschuttling going on in this piece.

quote:

The Australian Council last week announced it would cut its annual grant to Quadrant magazine to zero.

This is the first time in the magazine�s 60-year history that we have applied for a federal literary grant and been completely denied. This not only leaves a gaping hole in our modest operating budget; it is also a political decision designed to devalue our reputation and demonstrate that the Left remains in control of the arts.

Although the Australia Council itself suffered a loss of government funds in 2015, the Quadrant decision was not taken because of a lack of money for literature. Indeed, while abolishing our grant, the council increased its funding to other literary magazines, all of them left-wing. Instead of the one-year grant of $60,000 that we applied for, the others were awarded grants of four-years, with an annual increase of from $20,000 to $40,000 for each of them. The 2016 grants list for literary magazines looks like this:

Australian Book Review, increase per year $20,000; total grant $560,000
Griffith Review, increase per year $40,000; total grant $400,000
Overland magazine, increase per year $20,00; total grant $320,000

The only leftist literary magazine to miss out this year was Meanjin, but it was teetering on its last legs anyway, with a succession of stop-gap editors since radical feminist Sophie Cunningham resigned in 2010 over plans by its board, Melbourne University Press, to end its print edition and publish it online only.

None of these publications match the output, the quality, or the readership of Quadrant. With a circulation of more than 6000 buyers/subscribers per month, it is easily the best read of these publications. Quadrant is also the most prolific publisher of poetry in Australia, in either magazine or book format, with up to 300 poems published per year for the past decade. Our Literary Editor, Les Murray, has worked on every edition since 1990, that is, for 256 of the magazine�s 518 editions. He is not only widely recognized as Australia�s greatest living poet but also Australia�s foremost poetry anthologist. He has made an outstanding and enduring contribution to the literary arts in this country, unmatched by anything achieved by the minions funded by the Australia Council.

Griffith Review and Overland are only published quarterly and each struggles to find 1000 purchasers per edition. Australian Book Review and Griffith Review publish no poetry at all. Yet all three are also heavily subsidized by universities and other government agencies. And the contents of all three have long been dominated by left-wing academic literary fashions of postmodernism and critical theory. They are little more than production lines for the Left�s limitless appetite for identity group politics of gender, race and sexual preference, and its support for any national culture, no matter how violent or barbaric, except our own.

In contrast, since its founding in 1956, Quadrant has consistently defended high culture, freedom of speech, liberal democracy and the Western Judeo-Christian tradition. Apart from the grant we have now lost, we have no other public subsidies or major patrons. We survive entirely through the honest market revenues of subscriptions, newsagent sales, and donations from subscribers.

The Australia Council�s decision to end our funding is plainly an act of revenge by its bureaucrats and advisers. It is designed to punish us for being on the same side of the political fence as the Abbott government�s Minister for the Arts, George Brandis, who himself was responding to an act of arts-funding bastardry by Julia Gillard.

Faced with the certainty that Labor would lose the 2013 election, Gillard pushed the Australia Council Act 2013 through parliament with her partners, the Greens. This was intended to both entrench the existing bureaucracy and ensure a Coalition Minister for the Arts could no longer do what all his predecessors had been able to do since 1975, that is, make his own appointments to the Literature Board and other sub-boards within the organization. George Brandis decided to circumvent this Act by cutting some Australia Council funding and placing the money saved with a new organization, Catalyst, run from within his Ministry.

However, funding for literary magazines such as Quadrant remained with the Australia Council. In response to Brandis�s action, the Australia Council cancelled last October�s round of funding applications and made us apply in February this year, announcing results last week.

Our Australia Council funding has always gone to the writers of Quadrant�s literary content, that is, our poetry, short fiction, book reviews and essays on literature, film, theatre and the arts. We had to account for every dollar of this expenditure. The Australia Council did not fund our opinion pieces, political commentary, printing, Quadrant Online, or Quadrant Books.

The decision by the Australia Council is a blatant breach of its public duty to be politically even-handed. Throughout the eleven years of the Howard government, its appointees to the Council never reduced the funding of any of the overtly left-wing literary magazines.

Despite this latest blow, we are determined to maintain the quality of our literary output. We are also determined to preserve the volume of our content and the rates we pay the authors who write for our literary pages. We intend to show adversity can bring out our best.

In the second half of 2016, Quadrant�s marks its sixtieth anniversary. We have planned a program to make this a memorable year, with a number of innovations already in the pipeline. We will be sending out invitations and placing advertisements soon.

To do this, however, we need the help of our subscribers, readers and supporters to recover the funding we have lost. Please send us a donation (tax deductible), however modest. Please print the form below, fill it in and return it ASAP. Donations can also be sent directly to the Quadrant Foundation Thank you.

# ? May 16, 2016 01:33

V for Vegas: Sep 1, 2004; THUNDERDOME LOSER

What exactly is the Australian Book Review doing with its extra funding - oh, just paying writers more money

http://www.australianbookreview.com.au/images/PDFs_2016/ABR_lifts_its_payments_to_freelance_writers.pdf

quote:

Because of strong continuing support from the Australia Council for the Arts,
subscribers and private donors, Australian Book Review has again increased its
standard rate of payment for freelance reviewers. Critics will now be paid at least
$50 per 100 words. This represents a 150% increase during the past three years.

In 2015, ABR launched a campaign to increase payments to writers and to
highlight the low or non-payment of some freelance writers elsewhere (especially
younger ones). The response to this campaign has been enthusiastic.

Peter Rose, Editor of Australian Book Review, has commented: �ABR takes its
responsibilities to its writers very seriously. Critics deserve to be paid properly �
like authors, publishers, printers and booksellers. I am thrilled that ABR is in
a position to increase its rates and to support Australian writers.�

Australian Book Review (a Key Organisation of the Australia Council from 2011 to
2016) welcomes the new four-year funding for 2017�20. The magazine is committed
to increasing its standard rate to $75 per 100 words over the course of that period.

Freelance writers interested in writing for ABR can find out more about the magazine
by visiting our website https://www.australianbookreview.com.au or by contacting the Editor.
We are committed to publishing new writers from around Australia. In 2015, of the
300 different writers we published, almost 100 were new to the magazine.

# ? May 16, 2016 01:40

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Can't even do dumb idealogical policy on the run Mr Speaka!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/tax-treaty-to-deliver-billions-to-us-treasury/7416534

That whole trickle down BS about the corporate tax cut? Well looks like someone forgot about the US tax treaty and the size of US corporate involvement. :doh:

quote:

Turnbull's tax treaty will deliver multi-billion-dollar 'gift' to US Treasury, research shows AM By Stephen Long Updated 22 minutes ago

The Turnbull Government's planned company tax cuts would slash Australian revenue while delivering a multi-billion-dollar tax windfall to the US Treasury, new research says.

Key points:

Planned cut will transfer over $11billion revenue from Australian to US
Government argument for cut is to attract more foreign investment
Mr Oquist says under treaty US companies pay difference to US Treasury
On current exchange rate it would mean $AU11 billion in revenue foregone
The US company tax rate is 35 per cent, while Australia's is 30 per cent. Under a tax treaty, American companies paying tax in Australia would have to make up the difference at home.

Using data from the US Internal Revenue Service, research by the Australia Institute found the planned company tax cut outlined in this month's budget would transfer more than $11 billion in revenue from Australian to US coffers. The main argument for the Turnbull Government's proposal to cut the company tax rate to 25 per cent over the next 10 years has been that it would attract more foreign investment � producing a bigger, more productive economy in the long run. US companies are by far the biggest source of direct foreign investment in Australia. "So in a sense what you've got is a tax transfer from the Australian ATO to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the United States," the Australia Institute's executive director Ben Oquist said. He argues that Australia's lower company tax rate was effectively a gift to the US, allowing its tax office to collect more revenue at Australia's expense. And if the company tax rate is cut lower, the size of the gift will grow. "Once the company tax cut as proposed comes into full operation in 2026-27, we estimate that that extra transfer that will essentially go from the ATO to the US Internal Revenue Service, the annual rate is approximately $US732 million or around $US8 billion over 10 years," Mr Oquist said,

On the current exchange rate that would mean that $11 billion in revenue is foregone.

"I think that Australians will be mightily disturbed to think that they're going to lose some of the revenue from a company tax cut to US taxpayers at their expense, for no economic benefit," Mr Oquist said. "If that US company is essentially paying the tax but just to somebody else, there can be no extra foreign investment as a result of that." Mr Oquist said the Government's argument was that the revenue loss would be offset by the possibility of more foreign investment from other jurisdictions due to the lower company tax rate in Australia. "The reality is of course foreign investment comes to Australia for all sorts of different reasons," he added. "Whether there's a good education system, whether there's a good infrastructure, whether there's a stable democracy � these are much bigger determinants of investment than the corporate or company tax rate." Responding to the Australia Institute's report, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann said then-Treasury secretary Ken Henry's tax review, released in 2010, found employment and the economy would benefit from lower company taxes. "A more competitive company tax rate will attract additional investment, it will boost productivity, it will increase the size of the economy permanently by more than 1 per cent in the long term," Senator Cormann told reporters. "It will lead to more jobs, it will lead to higher real wages over time and, of course, it will lead to additional revenue for Government over time which will help underpin additional investments in schools, hospitals, roads and so on."

Oh come on Mathias it's transparant bullshit and you know it. After comprehensively demonstrating that no amount of money is too much to throw away doing pork barrelling badly (SA subs and ships).

Trickle down does work! Say it isn't so? Oh OK.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/verrender-cutting-taxes-to-balance-the-budget/7416608

quote:

Cutting taxes to balance the budget? You're having a Laffer OPINION By Ian Verrender posted about 2 hours ago

Interest rates, not tax, are the overriding forces driving investment and investor behaviour right now. Yet the ideas propounded by Arthur Laffer and others - that cutting taxes will ensure economic growth - persists. It's time we started to ask why, writes Ian Verrender.

Arthur Laffer is a jovial bloke despite all the critics, a ready smile on his lips, even when he's delivering a sarcastic crack at his enemies. Almost 42 years after his now famous steak dinner with Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney at Washington's Two Continents restaurant - where he illustrated his economic theory on a cloth napkin - Laffer and his devotees have stuck to their guns. The Laffer Curve, as it came to be known, formed an integral part of Reaganomics and Thatcherite thinking and Arthur became the poster boy. As Laffer explained to his dinner companions all those years ago, government revenue would be zero if companies were taxed at 100 per cent because there would be no incentive to operate. Similarly, it would be zero if taxes were completely eliminated. Somewhere in the middle was an optimum. Driven by Laffer's theory, the 80s were dominated by tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, the idea being that lower taxes would provide an incentive for investment which in turn would create jobs, deliver economic growth and ultimately, raise more revenue. Dismissed by many, including George Bush senior, as voodoo economics and disparaged by mainstream economists as the Trickle Down Effect, the theory didn't exactly deliver the goods, particularly for Reagan. By the end of his eight year administration, the government deficit had blown out and debt ballooned.

Even the Pope reckons it's a dud.

It relies on "a crude and na�ve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralised workings of the prevailing economic system", he wrote three years ago. In the rush to lower tax rates, so that revenue theoretically will rise ... it appears no-one ever really bothered to check what the optimum tax rate was. It's a theory that hasn't lost all credibility, however. On a working tour of Australia last year, Arthur clearly touched a nerve within government circles, including Treasurer Scott Morrison, whose first budget - make that Economic Plan - borrows heavily from Arthur's supply side theories. (There's one born every minute - PT Barnum) Hence the corporate tax cut, to make us a more attractive place for foreign corporations that specialise in evading taxes, and to high income earners. In the rush to lower tax rates, so that revenue theoretically will rise at some undefined point down the track, it appears no-one ever really bothered to check what the optimum tax rate was. It's clear it is somewhere between all and nothing. But Laffer devotees continually want the rate pushed ever closer to zero.

But there is another massive hole in the argument, one that is likely to scupper ScoMo's Economic Plan and see the Australian government deficit and debt continue to blow out with Treasury forced to make yet another embarrassing correction by December. And the man likely to ensure it all comes to grief will be Philip Lowe, heir apparent to the throne of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Not that that's his intention, mind you. Budget day's surprise interest rate cut, to a record low of 1.75 per cent, is unlikely to be the last. JP Morgan economist Sally Auld last week predicted Australian interest rates could drop below 1 per cent by next year. And the Commonwealth Bank's Michael Blythe on Friday upped his number of cuts from one to two; to a 1.25 per cent low. What's that got to do with tax and government revenues, I hear you ask? Surely, lower interest rates will boost growth and provide more tax revenue. That's the theory. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked. Since the financial crisis in 2008, central banks have flooded the global economy with cash. But investment has slowed to a trickle.

It's true that punters have poured cash into higher risk assets looking for a return. Stocks, bonds and property markets have boomed. The unforeseen side-effect of all this largesse, however, has been that businesses have been so desperate to deliver returns to shareholders, they've done so at the expense of investing in their operations. Australian companies have been paying ever increasing dividends. Five years ago, our companies paid out around 55 per cent of their profits in dividends. By June 30 last year, that had risen to 74 per cent. Yield-hungry investors, spurned by the meagre returns on term deposits, have sought out companies with decent payouts. That's boosted the stock prices of big dividend paying companies and, as a consequence, the bonuses of those running them. Until a few months ago, even BHP and Rio Tinto - resource companies that historically eschewed massive payouts - were in the race. With the collapse in commodity prices, however, they've now been forced to withdraw.

Had corporate Australia reinvested that cash, our productivity rates would have been higher, our output increased and wages - which have been all but stagnant - may have received a boost.

It's not just a local phenomenon. In the US, corporate America has been delivering cash to investors by the shipping container load. Major American companies have taken advantage of low interest rates, not to borrow money to invest for the future, but to buy back their own shares. It's a tax effective way to shower shareholders with cash. And those that turn on the shower the most, are stampeded by investors, resulting in ever greater bonuses for those running the show. Last year in the US, the payout to shareholders outstripped net earnings. Last financial year, US companies spent a staggering $US520 billion buying back their own stock. Add in the $US365 billion in dividends, and that totals $US885 billion. The only problem, was that total income for American companies last financial year was less than that; at $US847 billion.

That's correct. The payout to shareholders has outstripped net earnings.

American companies are reporting their third quarter results right now. And they are on track to deliver their third consecutive earnings decline; the longest streak since 2008. Not that anyone on Wall Street is too perturbed. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has soared since 2008 and is now sitting just shy of a new record, buoyed by the recent bad news that sluggish growth may hinder the US Federal Reserve's plans to raise interest rate this year. Interest rates, not tax, are the overriding forces driving investment and investor behaviour right now. For Australia, the phenomenon is exacerbated by the collapse in mining investment that appears to have caught the West Australian government horribly off guard. Last year, its hopelessly optimistic budget forecast business investment in the financial year ahead would drop by 7.5 per cent. Last week, the new budget had it in freefall, with a 19 per cent crash. Again, a lower company tax rate or a cut to income tax for anyone earning above $80,000 will not fix that. The recently announced budget tax cuts are likely to deliver less tax revenue, in the short term and the longer term.

So why do it? In his dotage, even old Arthur has figured out how the wealthy scam the system.

"Rich people can hire lawyers, accountants, deferred income specialists, they can hire congressmen, they can hire senators in the US," he told ABC's The Business last year on his visit. In an interview with Ticky Fullerton, Laffer said: When you see a group of people hanging with the President, don't for a moment think that's a group of street people trying to explain to him what it's like being poor. As for the political class, he dropped this little gem. If you look at all the people in the Bush (junior) administration and Obama administration, they just shift between their private companies and back to Treasury. They're all after favours to the rich people. Maybe Arthur could come up with another curve: one about wealth, tax cuts and political influence.

You almost have to admire the stubborn stupidity and incompetence. How long is usually between tragedy and comedy?

Also 'stopped the boats': No you haven't didn't, you just stopped talking about it. Are people really this dumb.

# ? May 16, 2016 01:43

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

The average voter is actually very dumb.

Extremely loving dumb.

I cannot even begin to explain how dumb they are.

# ? May 16, 2016 01:46

Amethyst: Mar 28, 2004; I CANNOT HELP BUT MAKE THE DCSS THREAD A FETID SWAMP OF UNFUN POSTING
plz notice me trunk-senpai

gay picnic defence posted:

It's the answer to the equation you loving idiot.

Calm down. No need to fly off the handle about a difference in theoretical policy approach.

# ? May 16, 2016 01:48

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

Look what the newest LNP ad does!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfFlXhCQ24g

# ? May 16, 2016 01:49

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

See, the voter base is so dumb you can wheel out that dickhead from AUSSIE for more votes!

# ? May 16, 2016 01:51

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Granite Octopus posted:

https://twitter.com/australian/status/731985698325069824

Yes clearly the Australian is the victim in all this, also she deleted her twitter account.

V for Vegas posted:

OK maybe a small silver lining from the Arts cutbacks - Quadrant has been defunded as well. Of course they blame 'teh left' for this

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/05/australia-councils-revenge/

The free market will fix it.

# ? May 16, 2016 01:57

Snod.: Oct 3, 2014

This whole saga has been a complete mess

# ? May 16, 2016 01:59

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

Is sky news even profitable here? They keep giving every dickhead and his dog it's own show and they are all flops so what's the point really?

# ? May 16, 2016 01:59

Snod.: Oct 3, 2014

I strongly doubt it

# ? May 16, 2016 02:04

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

Anidav posted:

Is sky news even profitable here? They keep giving every dickhead and his dog it's own show and they are all flops so what's the point really?

Push an ideological pov

# ? May 16, 2016 02:04

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Anidav posted:

Is sky news even profitable here? They keep giving every dickhead and his dog it's own show and they are all flops so what's the point really?

It's advertising :ssh:

# ? May 16, 2016 02:05

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

It's only one third owned by news Corp anyway.

# ? May 16, 2016 02:07

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

If a right winger says an opinion and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

# ? May 16, 2016 02:11

CrazyTolradi: Oct 2, 2011; It feels so good to be so bad.....at posting.

Mithranderp posted:

Not just logistically as well. As you are well aware, refusing service to some people, even just with current policy (i.e. not selling to people who are already too drunk), can be incredibly unsafe for the hospitality/bottle-o worker, depending on the customer's reaction. That threat would be far worse with such an extensive list of people who will be consistently refused service.

This is the first thing that came to mind, just how much more dangerous it would make it for people in the hospitality industry. They have enough poo poo to deal with as it is without this being lumped on them.

Secondary to that, if people who want booze can't buy it legally, they'll either just buy it illegally or make it themselves. It's not rocket science.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Push an ideological pov

Shill News is basically a constant promotional campaign for the LNP.

# ? May 16, 2016 02:13

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Anidav posted:

If a right winger says an opinion and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Someone always hears it. Most people probably experience Sky News indirectly but they're constantly being quoted in other media with lines like "X said Y in an interview on Sky News".

# ? May 16, 2016 02:16

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Cartoon posted:

Trickle down does work! Say it isn't so? Oh OK.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/verrender-cutting-taxes-to-balance-the-budget/7416608

quote:

nterest rates, not tax, are the overriding forces driving investment and investor behaviour right now. Yet the ideas propounded by Arthur Laffer and others - that cutting taxes will ensure economic growth - persists. It's time we started to ask why, writes Ian Verrender.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

John Galbraith (1908 -2006)

# ? May 16, 2016 02:27

The Before Times: Mar 8, 2014; Once upon a time, I would have thrown you halfway to the moon for a crack like that.

CrazyTolradi posted:

Secondary to that, if people who want booze can't buy it legally, they'll either just buy it illegally or make it themselves. It's not rocket science.

I mean, you could probably make some kind of rocket from really pure moonshine...

# ? May 16, 2016 02:38

CrazyTolradi: Oct 2, 2011; It feels so good to be so bad.....at posting.

The odd thing about Sky/Shill News is that there are people who actually do change the channel just to watch it. Also it gets displayed in a few public places in Brisbane CBD, but that might just be Brisbane.txt at play.

# ? May 16, 2016 02:40

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Labor's workplace relations spokesman has repeatedly refused to guarantee that weekend penalty rates would not be cut under a Shorten government, despite the opposition making the issue a key part of its campaign strategy.

In a fiery interview on Melbourne radio station 3AW on Monday, host Neil Mitchell castigated Brendan O'Connor for saying voters should await the final decision of the independent industrial umpire.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten later also refused to guarantee penalty rates would not fall under Labor, while saying only his party could be trusted to protect the "penalty rates system".

The independent workplace relations tribunal, the Fair Work Commission, is assessing weekend penalty rates in the retail and hospitality industries, and a decision to reduce rates could be handed down shortly after the election campaign.

Labor's campaign advertisements state that, if elected, the party would "keep weekend penalty rates" but the party has also vowed to respect the independent of the commission.
3AW host Neil Mitchell.

3AW host Neil Mitchell.

Mr O'Connor said, if elected, Labor would "intervene" by making a submission to the Fair Work Commission in support of penalty rates.

"Labor is the party of penalty rates," he said.

"There is a fundamental principle of independence at stake here.

"Labor believes in the independence of the umpire; always have."

When asked by Mitchell if he could guarantee that weekend penalty rates would not be cut under a Labor government, Mr O'Connor said: "The umpire makes these decisions."

Mr O'Connor said it was not a "black and white issue" because, under some industrial deals, workers had traded away penalty rates for other conditions and not been left worse off.

Mitchell accused Mr O'Connor of trying to avoid his questions and offering voters a "pig in a poke" by saying he would await the final decision of the commission.

Mitchell grew exasperated when Mr O'Connor declined to say "yes" when asked seven times whether he supported Bill Shorten's past statements on the issue, backing the independence of the umpire.

"I support the principle of independence of the umpire [but] I believe the weight of our arguments will have a bearing on the outcome," Mr O'Connor said.

Speaking in Geelong, Mr Shorten said: "I can guarantee to the workers here and indeed workers across Australia, that only a Labor Government can be trusted to protect our penalty rates system ... The case to get rid of penalty rates simply doesn't stack up."

Mr Shorten said, by contrast, at least 50 Coalition MPs had backed reducing or abolishing penalty rates.

Industry spokesman Kim Carr said on Monday: "In all my experience with the Labor party our defence of penalty rates has been absolute, I expect it to continue that way."

ACTU President Ged Kearney told The Australian Financial Review she would "certainly like to see some more protections for penalty rates".

"What that would look like in legislation, or through the award system, is yet to be determined, but we would certainly like to see something that would go a bit further to protecting penalty rates than we have now," she said.

The Greens on Monday announced a policy to legislate to protect existing penalty rates and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is pushing for stronger protections for weekend workers.

Mr O'Connor said enshrining penalty rates in legislation, as proposed by the Greens, would be "reckless".

"If you wanted to legislate the way the Greens are proposing you would open the door for the Liberals to have the mechanism to abolish penalty rates," he said.

# ? May 16, 2016 02:40

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

Actually Brisbane's screen shows Channel 7 now.

# ? May 16, 2016 02:41

Snod.: Oct 3, 2014

I think the News corp office has Sky News on the tv

# ? May 16, 2016 02:42

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

So is Shorten sneakily wedging towards dropping penalty rates or are they just being polite in waiting for the independent review?

# ? May 16, 2016 02:43

CrazyTolradi: Oct 2, 2011; It feels so good to be so bad.....at posting.

Mithranderp posted:

I mean, you could probably make some kind of rocket from really pure moonshine...

That'll give Australia the kickstart for our space program.

Snod. posted:

I think the News corp office has Sky News on the tv

Some dickhead on my floor at Telstra always changed it to Sky News. Absolute diehard Liberal voter too, complete with shooting himself in the foot logic. "Unions are evil, blah blah blah" all the while CPSU is fighting tooth and nail for him to have his break so he can watch his beloved Sky News.

# ? May 16, 2016 02:47

CATTASTIC: Mar 31, 2010; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

can do

Campbell Newman has cost Queensland taxpayers more than half a million dollars in costs to settle a defamation suit over his comments when premier that lawyers for bikies were �part of the criminal gang machine�.

Newman and his former attorney general Jarrod Bleijie are understood to have settled a suit brought by solicitors Chris and Daniel Hannay with a $525,000 payout, Guardian Australia can reveal.

It is understood Newman and Bleijie declined to offer public apologies to the Hannays that could have reduced the amount taxpayers would pay on their behalf, instead offering only to make face-to-face apologies, which were rejected.

Taxpayers� exposure to the case will be greater than the $525,000 payout figure, as they also have to wear the cost of legal teams for Newman, Bleijie and the Hannays.

Under political convention in Queensland, the government indemnifies politicians who are sued in the course of their duties.

Legal sources told Guardian Australia that a $525,000 settlement was large for a defamation suit, and a public apology may have reduced taxpayers� exposure.

Newman was targeted by the libel suit after responding in February 2014 to a question about reports the Hannays had advised clients not to appear in court together for fear of being arrested under anti-association laws.

The then premier told a media conference: �I�m sure that�s completely disingenuous from the defence lawyers concerned and I am sure they have ways of dealing with that. That is just nonsense.�

�These people are hired guns. They take money from people who sell drugs to our teenagers and young people.

�Yes, everybody�s got a right to be defended under the law, but you�ve got to see it for what it is, they are part of the machine, part of the criminal gang machine and they will see, say and do anything to defend their clients and try to get them off or indeed progress their sort of case, their dishonest case.�

Bleijie was also targeted in the lawsuit over his comments a day later that Newman was responding specifically to a question about Hannay Lawyers on the Gold Coast.

The Hannays alleged Bleijie�s remarks helped identify them as the targets of Newman�s attack, despite the attorney general�s lawyers arguing they were �made generally with respect to unidentified lawyers and criminal gang members at the Gold Coast�.

The Hannays, represented by prominent defamation lawyer Stuart Littlemore, filed a claim seeking $1.2m in aggravated damages from Newman and Bleijie in April 2014.

Newman and Bleijie filed a defence that accused Chris Hannay of �an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice� and contempt of court by advising clients not to front court together.

The case went to mediation with former high court judge Ian Callinan.

It is the second high-profile defamation case involving Newman as premier which has concluded since he was unseated in the January 2015 election that cost the LNP government.

Days before that election, Newman sued Alan Jones over the broadcaster�s comments the LNP government had �prostituted� itself in support of a donor�s controversial coalmine. Guardian Australia revealed that while this suit was being drawn up, Newman�s lawyers in the Hannays matter tried to have a deadline of his defence pushed back to the day before the election. The suit, funded by the LNP, was dropped months later.

Newman did not respond to a request for comment on Sunday.

Bleijie declined to comment when contacted by Guardian Australia.

Neither of the Hannays could be reached for comment.

Newman�s remarks about lawyers provoked widespread ire in the legal community, with the Queensland Bar Association and the Queensland Law Society calling for him to withdraw them and apologise.

Peter Davis, the then president of the bar association, said he was contacted by Bleijie at the time and told there would be no apology from Newman.

�The idea that a lawyer, by representing someone who is accused of a criminal offence, is somehow or other joining the criminality is just misconceived,� Davis told the ABC at the time.

The fracas came at the height of the former Liberal National government�s political campaign against outlaw motorcycle gangs and uncertainty in the legal community over the scope of the anti-association laws.

A solicitor, Adam Magill, said he was forced to send home witnesses threatened with arrest by police at the Maroochydore magistrates court in late 2013.

Another solicitor, Andrew Bale, had written to the police commissioner and the director of public prosecutions five months before Newman�s remarks asking if clients would be arrested for facing court together but received no reply.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/16/campbell-newman-defamation-case-taxpayers-cover-525000-payout