quote:

Budget fixed as Morrison hunts bludging polygamists

From 2GB this morning comes Australia’s most sackable aylite, Downgrade Morrison:

We’ve got $6b of welfare savings measures before the parliament right now. Labor are like that guy on the roadside when they’re doing roadwork, but they’ve got the sign on stop when it comes to fixing the economy.

…The law and its implementation cannot condone polygamy. It’s against our values, it’s 100 per cent wrong.

He’s hot on the heels of another parasite too in students seeking the dole:

Originally it was at six months, and that was unacceptable to the Senate…so you can’t go from the school front gate to the Centrelink front door.

We put the protections in place, these are young people who can stack shelves, pick fruit, and we say if they knock back those jobs they should not be getting the dole.

A fine narrative to carry the nation: Labor, Muslim polygamists, bludging students…all much of muchness.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

We have dishonoured the millions of soldiers who laid down their lives in the 20th century fighting for our freedom and the future of Western civilisation.

BBJoey posted:

every day i am thankful for the anzacs who died fighting the oriental hordes of germany

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

We fought the islamists at Gallipoli right?

G-Spot Run posted:

What kind of dog whistle bullshit will the media publish tomorrow!

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

http://webstreaming.lawinorder.com.au/rcpdcnt

You can watch Dylan Voller at the NT Royal Commision into Don Dale but be warned it's hosed.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

good to see the treasurer focusing on the important things when we are a week away from a credit rating downgrade.


http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/12/budget-fixed-morrison-hunts-bludging-polygamists/

quote:

Proposals to make politicians shoulder their share of the weight now that the Age of Entitlement is over:

1. Scrap political pensions.

Politicians can purchase their own retirement plan, just as most other working Australians are expected to do.

2. Retired politicians (past, present & future) participate in Centrelink.

A Politician collects a substantial salary while in office but should receive no salary when they’re out of office.

Terminated politicians under 70 can go get a job or apply for Centrelink unemployment benefits like ordinary Australians.

Terminated politicians over 70 can negotiate with Centrelink like the rest of the Australian people.

3. Funds already allocated to the Politicians’ retirement fund be returned immediately to Consolidated Revenue.

This money is to be used to pay down debt they created which they expect us and our grandchildren to repay for them.

4. Politicians will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Politicians pay will rise by the lower of, either the CPI or 3%.

5. Politicians lose their privileged health care system and participate in the same health care system as ordinary Australian people.
i.e. Politicians either pay for private cover from their own funds or accept ordinary Medicare.

6. Politicians must equally abide by all laws they impose on the Australian people.

7. All contracts with past and present Politicians men/women are void effective 31/12/16.

The Australian people did not agree to provide perks to Politicians, that burden was thrust upon them.

Politicians devised all these contracts to benefit themselves.

Serving in Parliament is an honour not a career.

iajanus posted:

I don't care about any other public holidays, but Australia Day isn't allowed to be moved as we have our wedding anniversary that day and I demand to have a public holiday for it. If it's offensive for people I will allow it to be renamed "iajanus & iajwife" Day.

The only way I'll allow it to be moved if it's a few days later on my birthday.

Higsian posted:

Christmas should span 2 days so everybody gets a Christmas day off each year.

hiddenmovement posted:

I believe you are talking about Boxing Day

Higsian posted:

It should be called Christmas though.



And yeah political entitlements are usually just a cut the budget distraction. Though I do like the idea of pinning the fortunes of politicians to the fortunes of either the general public or the worst off. Like having politician salaries be a specific multiple of Newstart or the median wage or whatever.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

http://webstreaming.lawinorder.com.au/rcpdcnt

You can watch Dylan Voller at the NT Royal Commision into Don Dale but be warned it's hosed.

adamantium|wang posted:

You Am I posted:

*Peter Dutton quickly writes down notes to send to the Naurian Government*

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:

Who first brought up this polygamists welfare argument? Was it morrison or some newspaper jerk?

quote:

Sadly, this is not the first time I have seen reference to “wives” plural. A few years ago I was in a meeting in Canberra discussing budget reform when our conversation moved to the area of rorts within the welfare sector and family payments specifically; after all, we spend billions every year supporting people with children.

Slipped into this briefing was acknowledgment by the public service of cases where it was likely that payments were being provided to families living under one roof with multiple wives. I thought I must have heard it wrong. So I followed up again.


No, I got it right the first time. I was ­informed that it was probably better for the taxpayer anyway because if one wife had to be paid separately she would receive additional support as a single parent.

I couldn’t believe what I was told. If it was true, I said, we were accepting as a principle in welfare policy something that was fundamentally wrong — both at law and in our culture — pure and simple.

No one really disagreed but as is so often the case in Canberra, it was someone else’s problem and they took a few notes.

Straight after the meeting, I raised it with the then prime minister, who found it just as difficult to believe as I did.

He said regardless of the budget argument put forward by the public servants, the principle was paramount. He demanded more ­details and action but the leadership change came … and the rest is history.

Higsian posted:

And yeah political entitlements are usually just a cut the budget distraction. Though I do like the idea of pinning the fortunes of politicians to the fortunes of either the general public or the worst off. Like having politician salaries be a specific multiple of Newstart or the median wage or whatever.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Peta Credlin in her column


Malcolm's fault.

open24hours posted:

Isn't polygamy, like, illegal? Or is it only illegal to get two marriage certificates and de facto polygamy is fine?

quote:

Polygamy is not permitted in Australia. Polygamous marriages may not be performed in Australia,[1] [2] and a person who marries another person, knowing that the previous marriage is still subsisting, commits an offence of bigamy under section 94 of the Marriage Act 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.[3] Whether or not either or both partners were aware of the previous subsisting marriage, the second marriage is void.[4]

Polygamous marriages entered into in jurisdictions that legally recognise and perform such unions may be legally valid in Australia for some purposes.[5][6] While the extent of benefits granted to a foreign polygamous marriage are unclear, benefits such as welfare are legally granted to each spouse and their children.[7] In addition, the polygamous marriage is recognised for the purpose of a spouse having access to the Family Court for divorce, and involving property settlement and children issues.[8]

2000–09

In 2008, a number of Islamic leaders, particularly Imams advocated the legalisation of polygamous marriages in Australia,[9][10][11] which stirred controversial and emotional debate.[12][13] Proponents of polygamy have claimed that legalisation would "protect the rights of women,"[14] while opponents have claimed that it would "endanger the Australian way of life."[15] In response to the intensifying debate, Australia's former Attorney General Robert McClelland remarked that "There is absolutely no way that the government will be recognising polygamist relationships. They are unlawful and they will remain as such. Under Australian law, marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Polygamous marriage necessarily offends this definition."[16]

In 2009 there was further support expressed for polygamy within the Australian Muslim community.[17]

2010-14

In 2011, a small community of polyamorists in Australia were working towards the removal of prejudice against multiple-partner relationships and ultimately to the legalisation of polyamorous marriage.[18][19]

In 2012 polyamorists again lobbied for marriage recognition with the Australian "poly community" claimed to be, "diverse, and thriving",[20] however the Australian Greens have said that equal rights should involve only two consenting adults.[21] The Greens were accused of "narrowmindedness, denial of equality, fear of sexual difference and political expediency" and of being "hypocrites" because the logic they use to argue for marriage equality should extend to people who have multiple partners.[20][22]

In the lead-up to the 2012 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras LGBTI polyamorists were offended when their application to enter a float was questioned. A concern for Mardi Gras organisers was reconciling any endorsement of polyamorous relationships, while at the same time promoting marriage equality for couples. Polyamorists felt excluded particularly as the Mardi Gras theme was "universal and infinite love".[23] The issue was resolved by having restrictions placed on the polyamory group's signage within the parade.[24] A polyamory float was entered in the 2012 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras based on the theme "Queer Polyamory".[25]

Former High Court Judge, the Hon. Michael Kirby said in 2012, "I have known homosexual people in a relationship of three . . . . Human relationships are complicated, but these, I would respectfully suggest, are issues for the future".[26]

Dan Savage developed the term monogamish, being a relationship that’s "mostly monogamous". He lectured in Melbourne in 2013 promoting this concept.[27] Another term, developed by Savage, is throuple, which is used to describe a (polygamous) relationship of three people.[28] The functioning of monogamish relationships is being explored.[29][30] Concern has been raised in regards to 'monogamish' and 'throuple' as both redefine relationships, "primarily about adult desire".[31]

In 2013 polyamory activists were saying, "For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love. And that's why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families."[32][33]

There was a polyamory float in the 2014 Mardi Gras, themed, "Polyamory Sydney ‘Birds of a Feather, love together’ – the infinite love Nest".[34]

In 2014 and 2015 further recognition for, and acceptance of, polygamy was sought.[35][36][37][38][39]

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Peta Credlin in her column


Malcolm's fault.

Starshark posted:

I was going to say 'two seconds of google' but Wikipedia is still putting out the loving money box at the top of every page and it's annoying as poo poo. Allow me to save you that.

open24hours posted:

You'd think cracking down on that would be an easy vote winner.

Higsian posted:

No post-politics employment allowed. Immediate family are restricted to median wage, all they earn beyond this is confiscated by the government. Former politicians are restricted to whichever Centrelink payments they would eligible for if they were from the general public. They must fulfil all requirements including any meetings job search requirements and training, except they are not required to take a job if offered.

There we go.

Cleretic posted:

Christmas can stay, at this point it's pretty inoffensive and secular unless you're religious yourself.

Pickled Tink posted:

A month of lovely christmas carols, many of which are overtly religious, being blasted incessantly from the speakers at every shopping centre is inoffensive? Even if they weren't religious, they are still universally terrible.

Pickled Tink posted:

A month of lovely christmas carols, many of which are overtly religious, being blasted incessantly from the speakers at every shopping centre is inoffensive? Even if they weren't religious, they are still universally terrible.

asio posted:

Why are you going to shopping centres

Pickled Tink posted:

A month of lovely christmas carols, many of which are overtly religious, being blasted incessantly from the speakers at every shopping centre is inoffensive? Even if they weren't religious, they are still universally terrible.