quote:

Churches have taken the extraordinary step of offering sanctuary to asylum seekers facing deportation in the wake of a High Court verdict, raising the prospect of police raids on places of worship and possible charges for clergy.

gay picnic defence posted:

Most of the LNP are christian so having a large section of the christian community call them out on this poo poo might make a difference, although the churches have been pretty vocal for a while without having much of an impact so maybe it won't do a thing.

Birb Katter posted:

I'd like to thank the irc chan for doing the needful to allow this to come to light.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6027/5971979084_a02a9a038c_o.jpg

V for Vegas posted:

If you're not eating 468 Monte Carlos a year you're dead inside.

Goffer posted:

Don't mean to be a downer but are kids really any safer from molestation inside a church?

quote:

The union representing low-paid workers at Coles stores knew some might be financially worse off under an agreement it struck with the supermarket giant but did not tell its members, the Fair Work Commission has been told.

An industrial officer for the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association also told the commission that the union knew some workers could be financially worse off under the agreement than under the award when it signed a statutory declaration saying the agreement should be approved.

An executive director of consultancy firm Ernst and Young was also accused of "cutting and pasting" portions of an expert report tendered by Coles to support its contention that the deal would leave workers better off.

The deal, which would affect 77,000 Coles workers Australia-wide, is under scrutiny after a Coles worker in Queensland claimed it would leave many employees out of pocket. By law, no enterprise bargaining agreement can leave workers worse off than they would be under the award, the basic wages safety net.

The employee, Duncan Hart, is now fighting both the powerful union and the giant supermarket chain in the commission, with the help of a Melbourne unionist Josh Cullinan, who is working on the case in a personal capacity.

Although the deal was originally approved by the commission, the process was halted last year after Mr Cullinan and Mr Hart provided evidence that a substantial proportion of Coles' workforce might be worse off under the agreement.

At a hearing this week, union industrial officer Matthew Galbraith was cross-examined by Siobhan Kelly, acting for Mr Hart, about the negotiation process for the agreement.

Mr Galbraith admitted that some workers would be financially worse off under the agreement, that the union did not provide workers with a copy of the award so they could compare the two, and that it would be impossible for workers to determine whether they were worse off without having the award.

He admitted that Coles employees, who voted to accept the agreement, might not have done so if they had known they could be financially worse off.

Ms Kelly asked Mr Galbraith: "Did you explain to the employees that some of them would earn less than the statutory award minimum?" to which Mr Galbraith replied: "I don't believe that was explained, no."

Ms Kelly then asked whether union representatives did not believe that detail was relevant.

"I don't think it's that they considered that it wasn't relevant. I think they considered that it was a deal that was generally beneficial to the majority of employees that worked for Coles," Mr Galbraith said.

"If they had that information, they may have voted differently."

Ms Kelly asked: "Was the SDA aware at the time the agreement went out to vote that some employees would earn less than the award minimum?"

Mr Galbraith replied: "The SDA's aware that the employees who work predominantly penalty rate times without the compensation of higher base rates of those hours during the week could potentially be worse off."

Earlier in the hearing, an executive director of Ernst and Young was accused of "cutting and pasting" portions of an expert report she prepared for Coles from other sources.

Louise Rolland was unable to explain why parts of the reports were identical to material in other studies.

"You represented this as your own work, while in fact it had been cut and pasted," Ms Kelly said while cross examining Ms Rolland.

Ms Rolland replied: "No, that wasn't my intention."

Ms Rolland blamed "researchers" at the firm for the alleged copying of other material. At the start of the hearing, lawyers for Coles tendered a list of corrections to Ms Rolland's references.

In another exchange, Ms Kelly questioned Ms Rolland about references in her report to the fact that 27 per cent of domestic violence victims lose their jobs, a high figure that would make the domestic violence leave provision in the agreement more valuable to Coles workers.

Ms Rolland admitted that the actual figure in the research she cited — the Swanburg report — was between five and 27 per cent, that she did not know where the study was conducted, what the socio-economic background of the participants was, what their health status was, their racial background or what their employment status was.

"Where, in your report, can I find an explanation of the lack of available Australia data and the assumptions that you used to apply the American report of Swanburg, to generate the statistic in the absence of having read the Swanburg report? I won't find that in your report, will I?" Ms Kelly asked.

Ms Rolland replied: "No."

Ernst and Young refused to comment as the matter is still before the commission.

In response to the evidence given by Mr Galbraith, the SDA's national secretary Gerard Dwyer said he disagreed with his own industrial officer, and that the union stood by its claim that all Coles employees would be better off under the agreement than under the award.

"It's an agreement that's built on almost two decades of negotiations inside this company, it was a negotiation process across some six months, over 20 meetings, three unions involved and we negotiated in good faith, we arrived at an outcome where we were satisfied that the employees in Coles would be better off overall when you're looking at the package in its entirety," Mr Dwyer told the ABC today.

Mr Dwyer said the entitlements in the agreement, which apart from longer breaks and paid meal breaks include blood donor leave, sporting leave, study leave, natural disaster leave and emergency services leave, make up for any financial shortfall.

"The Coles proposal has to be looked at in its entirety, not cheap shots in terms of headlines in articles ... of course this is complex and that's why the Fair Work Commission is examining the Coles agreement, there are complexities with bargaining, we've conducted ourselves through that bargaining process in good faith," he said.

Earlier in the hearing, Mr Cullinan's analysis of the agreement was questioned by lawyers acting for Coles and the SDA.

During his evidence Mr Cullinan was queried by Commissioner Julius Roe over not including undertakings that Coles had made, during an earlier hearing before the commission, to increase the loading paid to casual workers to 25 per cent.

Mr Cullinan's calculations about the losses that casual Coles workers endured under the new agreement was based on a casual loading of 20 per cent.

Mr Cullinan said he had never put himself forward as an expert and had conducted his analysis in an effort to raise concerns about the fairness of the deal with the Fair Work Commission.

In response to the evidence given this week, a Coles spokesperson said more than 90 per cent of employees voted to accept the agreement.

"Our Store Team Agreement delivers an average 3 per cent increase in annual base wage rates for more than 75,000 team members — that's well ahead of inflation," she said.

"Already our store team members have received two pay rises since July 2015 and two further increases are scheduled in 2016 under the Agreement. Coles maintains the view that this is a good Agreement for our team, and we will continue to make that case very strongly to the Commission."

thatfatkid posted:

Obesity is always fair game.

PaletteSwappedNinja posted:

Recoome posted:

Turns out that some members of the United Patriots Front are neo nazis

Zenithe posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/12/senate-voting-changes-coalition-wins-over-nick-xenophon-and-greens

R.I.P random weirdo parties.

Probably for the best really though. No real explanation as to why Labor didn't support it.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/02/morrison-negative-gearing-your-once-chance-to-build-wealth/

quote:

Tax breaks on investment properties and superannuation are costing the budget nearly $40 billion a year with almost none of the benefits going to the under 30s, who remain locked out of the game, according to new research.

The result has been described as a "double hit" on younger Australians, who are being sold a myth that the budget-busting concession regime is in place to help them get ahead. Instead, it is overwhelmingly older, it is wealthier people who access the breaks to buy and sell properties and to park income at discounted tax rates.

The findings come as Labor pledges to introduce new restrictions on the negative gearing of rental investments, limiting the ability of landlords to write-off interest payments against income for new, rather than existing homes in future. It would be accompanied with a halving of the current 50 per cent discount on capital gains tax when those properties are sold.

The government has slammed those proposals variously as raising too little money - projected at around $600 million in first 4 years - and as seriously market distorting. Yet the government, which recently retreated from a higher GST, is also considering changes to negative gearing, which could include a cap on the amount of deduction claimable, or on the number of properties able to be negatively geared.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten said Labor's policy would apply only to investment dwellings purchased after 2017, and would recover some $32 billion over a decade.

"This proposal of ours will cut the taxpayer-funded concessions, which are going to the fortunate few," he said.

Exclusive analysis of the costs and take-up of negative gearing, the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, and superannuation tax concessions, shows the combined revenue loss - or tax expenditure - will amount to some $50 billion annually within three years, although under 7 per cent of that benefit will flow to the under 30s.

The data-crunching has been undertaken by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling using its own database of Australian households as well as the latest information released by the Australian Tax Office.

It was commissioned by the progressive think tank, The Australia Institute.

Executive Director Ben Oquist said the findings showed conclusively that keeping the current concession regime in place is neither in the national interest nor fair.

"In total, these concessions are worth more than $37 billion, yet the young receive only $2.4 billion of their value," he said.

"The capital gains tax discount and negative gearing are particularly unfair for the young, with the under 30s taking approximately 1 per cent of the benefit of tax breaks worth $7.7 billion a year and climbing.

The NATSEM research also shows that 73 per cent of the benefits of the capital gains tax discount, flows to the top 10 per cent of income earners.

All up, it says the under 30s share of the three concessions combined is just 6.4 per cent, whereas those over 50 years of age receive 53 per cent of the benefits. That works out to $2.4 billion versus $19 billion for those over 50 - many of whom are already well-off.

Labor's plan has been criticised by the Australian Council for Social Service for being too timid. ACOSS will call for a complete removal of all negative gearing concessions in a pre-budget submission to be released on Tuesday.

Treasurer Scott Morrison will address the National Press Club on Wednesday, in a keenly awaited speech in which he is expected to give more guidance on the government's thinking in the tax reform debate.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tax-breaks-on-rentals-and-super-unfair-to-young-20160215-gmu6rd.html#ixzz40DuLqkET
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Smegmatron posted:

"People have the right to be a bigot"

quote:

Christian lobby seeks anti-discrimination 'override' for plebiscite campaign

The leading advocates for a "no" vote on same-sex marriage are pushing the federal government to "override" anti-discrimination laws during the upcoming plebiscite campaign.

The Australian Christian Lobby are calling for the temporary change to ensure the "no" camp can speak freely during the debate to legalise same-sex marriage.

ACL managing director Lyle Shelton told Fairfax Media his organisation was very concerned about fairness during the campaign as state anti-discrimination laws in particular have "such a low threshold".

Pointing to a case in Tasmania where the Catholic Church has faced questions from the state's Anti-Discrimination Commissioner over a "Don't mess with marriage" booklet, Mr Shelton warned those who argued against same-sex marriage would be faced with the "constant threat of quasi and full-blown legal action".

As well as federal laws, all states and territories have anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexuality. For example, in NSW, there are laws against "any public act that could incite or encourage hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule", however the specifics of laws vary between jurisdictions.

The Turnbull government has been been consulting with the "yes" and "no" camps on how the plebiscite will work, and Mr Shelton said the ACL had pressed for "some sort of ... setting aside of these [anti-discrimination] laws".

Mr Shelton stressed that those in the "no" camp were not seeking to say anything bigoted, but to put forward the "millenia-old" argument that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

The Law Council of Australia said any exemptions to discriminatory behaviour when it came to marriage equality "should be construed as narrowly as is absolutely necessary".

"People cannot use their religious beliefs as an excuse for unlawful discrimination in business and the same principle would apply to public political campaigns," president-elect Fiona McLeod said.

Australian Marriage Equality said it was concerned the plebiscite was being used "as an excuse to suspend laws that protect vulnerable Australians".

"It's impractical and unnecessary to suspend anti-discrimination laws in every state and territory," national director Rodney Croome​ said.

Mr Croome said the "yes" and "no" camps should work out an agreement between themselves on how the debate should be conducted.

"Both sides should be mature enough to sit down and agree on the framework for a free and respectful debate, facilitated by the Human Rights Commission or some other impartial body," he said.

Concerns over free speech in the plebiscite debate come as questions are asked over what, if any, public funding should be given to the opposing sides.

Mr Shelton said he wanted to ensure funding was equal for both sides and that international funds were prohibited.

While some within the "yes" camp are against any public funding for either side - as they believe taxpayers' money should not be used for arguments that are potentially hurtful to gay people - Mr Croome said funding should be equal and "kept to the bare minimum".

He said federal funds should be "directed instead to counselling for those people whose mental health will suffer from attacks on their basic rights".

Attorney-General George Brandis was travelling overseas on Monday and could not be reached for comment.

Last week in Senate estimates, he said there had been a "great deal of stakeholder consultation" on the plebiscite and that he would take a submission to cabinet "in coming months".

Senator Brandis added the submission would also make a recommendation on public funding of the "yes" and "no" cases.

There is no date set yet for the plebiscite, which is due after the federal election.

quote:

Lawyers for Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen want members of a parliamentary inquiry and corruption chief Megan Latham to give written guarantees they did not leak controversial transcripts of Australian Crime Commission phone taps involving her to Fairfax Media and other news outlets.

In a letter to committee chairman Damien Tudehope after Fairfax Media revealed the transcript excerpts last week, Ms Cunneen's lawyers "ask that the chair seek written confirmation from Ms Latham and each of the members of the parliamentary committee as to whether either they or any of their staff" leaked the material to journalists.

The letter says Ms Cunneen has instructed them to refer the matter to the commissioners of the Australian Federal Police and NSW Police "for immediate investigation" as to whether the leak breached the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act or the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.

Mr Tudehope said: "The committee does not take directions from [Ms Cunneen's] lawyers."

The committee met on Monday as planned but the only formal decision made was to postpone its next meeting from this Friday to an as yet undecided date.

This was because it has yet to receive legal advice as to its powers to publicly release material gained under the the federal Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act.Excerpts of the secret recording revealed by Fairfax Media capture Ms Cunneen telling a tow truck driver she had sent a message to her son's girlfriend, who had been drinking alcohol, "to start having chest pains" after a 2014 car accident to delay being given a breath test.

It also reveals Ms Cunneen expressed the hope that the delay would mean an ambulance would be called and the woman, Sophia Tilley, would record a blood alcohol reading of zero once tested.

The recording prompted the Independent Commission Against Corruption to launch an investigation into whether Ms Cunneen had tried to pervert the course of justice.

When she tendered the transcript and audio to the committee last Thursday, Ms Latham urged their public release because they serve to "undermine the basis for the adverse findings" in a damning report on ICAC's investigation of Ms Cunneen by its inspector, David Levine.

However, the February 12 letter from Ms Cunneen's lawyers argues this is not a valid reason for their release.

The inquiry is being held after Mr Levine's December report accused ICAC of "unreasonable, unjust, [and] oppressive maladministration" in its pursuit of Ms Cunneen.

It followed the ICAC being forced to abandon its investigation after a successful challenge by Ms Cunneen to the High Court, which found the watchdog had exceeded its jurisdiction.

The NSW Solicitor-General later said no prosecution should be pursued. Ms Cunneen has always denied the allegations.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cunneen-l...l#ixzz40Hr4PE00
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Solemn Sloth posted:

This is perfectly timed given the Huns cover tomorrow

Solemn Sloth posted:

Yeah, I assumed it was Bolt frothing up?

Endman posted:

It's truly bizarre what some people consider to be Christian morals these days.

I'm sure Jesus would be all about the wall. I mean, he was all about telling everyone that Samaritans were foreign scum come to steal are jobs oi oi oi

my stepdads beer posted:

Fairly sure her claims on statins have been validated though

quote:

While some in Canberra are choosing their words carefully, emails obtained by New Matilda reveal a dark streak to a campaign spearheaded by the Australian Christian Lobby. Max Chalmers reports.

Emails sent to MPs encouraging them to oppose the LGBTI friendly Safe Schools Coalition describe homosexuality as “unnatural”, compare it to murder, warn God sees gays and lesbians as an abomination, rail against “heterophobia”, and claim lesser evils than the program have caused civilisations to end.

The disturbing content the campaign has produced emerges a day after the Federal Coalition agreed to review the Safe Schools program after complaints from the party’s right forced Education Minister Simon Birmingham to ease off previous statements of stern support.

New Matilda has seen a relatively small portion of the thousands of emails sent to NSW state MPs but they reveal a deep seam of open homophobia, paranoia, and confusion at the heart of the movement opposing the Safe Schools Coalition.

The majority of the emails appear to have been sent with the assistance of a generator produced by the Australian Christian Lobby, and the conservative lobby group’s talking points can be found throughout.

Many of the emails are openly hostile to LGBTI people.

“Do not allow these funds to be use for the advancement and propagation of gay lesbian agenda. We do not want our children to adopt these unnatural habits,” one says.

“It is an thinly disguised attempt to indoctrinate our children and young people into accepting homosexuality and ‘gender diversity’ as normal,” another notes.

The emails, some of which come from concerned parents, often put forward general religious objections to homosexuality or gender diversity.

Yet another email states:

“I am very disappointed to find a backside way to approve things God Almighty forbid using our children to force us to accept and also to distort a whole generation by insulting the human race. God only created am man & a woman nothing was unclear, to get marry each other & have babies & fill the earth.”

The Safe Schools Coalition provides resources to schools on request, and is currently working with close to 500 schools around the country. The material it offers for primary and high schools differs. Even once a school has signed on to work with the Coalition, teachers and principals are able to choose which resources they would like to use.

New Matilda understands the service offered to primary schools is specialised; a school with a trans child or a large number of same-sex parents may ask for assistance with training or resources, for instance.

Many of those who have contacted MPs opposing the program insist they support anti-bullying campaigns to help LGBTI students and that they are not homophobes, but argue Safe Schools goes too far, and introduces children to age-inappropriate material. A closer look at the emails, however, tends to cast doubt on how genuine those claims are.

“Please note, I am not homophobic,” one person writes. “That implies a fear. That would be like saying I’m lie-aphobic. Or treat-your-parents-disrespectfully-aphobic. Or steal-aphobic. Or murder-aphobic. I just believe homosexual behaviour is wrong.”

Another email reads, in its entirety: “Please stop. Gay and lasbians. (Abominacion) God never aprove gays and lasbians. Stop Know.”

New Matilda has opted not to fix the grammar or spelling reproduced here as it is indicative of the broader correspondence. :masterstroke:

A key theme hit on by those who have written to MPs is that a secretive and powerful ‘gay lobby’ is responsible for the Safe Schools program.

“Why all the propaganda…. seems very political to me. Once again the loud gay community with lots of money is influencing our politicians,” one says.

Others attempt to provide their own sex education lessons to MPs, such as the following:

“The focus on explicit sexual deviations from the natural design of the human body lead to health risks both mental, physical, and sociological. The fact is the vagina in a female is primarily for the male penis to introduce sperm to fertilise ova and thus create another life. God created this act to be pleasurable. The anus is meant for expulsion of body waste products, and using it for sex is unhealthy and dangerous.”

Greens MLC David Shoebridge’s office told New Matilda they had received well over 2,000 emails since October 2015. Labor MLC Penny Sharpe said she had been sent “hundreds”, and said they were “at best misinformed, at worst homophobic and transphobic, and deliberately misleading.”

NSW Greens Sexuality and Gender Identity spokesperson, Jenny Leong, accused the Australian Christian Lobby of running a misinformation campaign.

“Sadly, many of the people opposed to Safe Schools are opposed to diversity in general,” Leong said. “They won’t accept our LGBTIQ communities and seem to think that by sticking their heads in the sand they can make diversity, in terms of sexuality and gender identity, go away. They need to realise that being gay, being transgender, being intersex, being a child in a same-sex family, are all very real experiences and very normal experiences that should be celebrated, not condemned or ignored.”

Much of the anger in the emails is not actually directed at content in the Safe Schools Coalition’s core All of Us brochure, instead making reference to peripheral materials, especially the Minus18 website, which Safe Schools recommends as a useful resource.

The emails are particularly focused on the idea children are being taught in the classroom to bind their chests, a practice used by some people who experience body dysphoria to reduce the appearance of breasts, by wearing compressing clothing. The claim is untrue, and is based on the fact an article on the Minus18 website lists ways this can be done safely. As BuzzFeed has reported previously, the ACL and anti-marriage equality groups have for some time been using chest-binding as a key talking point.

Minus18 CEO Micah Scott told BuzzFeed the resource was designed to ensure young people did not harm themselves if they engaged in the practice, common among transgender and gender diverse adolescents.

“Our transgender and gender diverse young people really identified that there were a number of people who were binding their chest,” he said. “But a lot of them weren’t aware of the risks, and they weren’t aware of what methods were safe.”

Though separate, Minus18 and Safe Schools have worked together in some instances.

ACL Managing Director Lyle Shelton told New Matilda his organisation was not able to vet the emails their website helped generate to send to MPs, but that around 5,777 had been sent. He noted those seen by New Matilda, around 80, made up a small component of the total.

“The difficulty is how do you quantify how many of them there are there,” he said. “We always encourage people to engage respectfully with MPs and be respectful in the way they present issues.”

Shelton said when he had showed the Safer Schools Coalition resources to Federal Coalition MP Scott Ryan, the Victorian Senator had agreed they were inappropriate.

Shelton said rather than a sign of the program’s success, the fact so many schools had signed up was negative for children.

Much of the correspondence seen by New Matilda argues that there are bigger issues than homophobic bullying in schools which should be focused on instead. Others say it is simply not an issue worth tackling.

“Please do the cost benefit analysis,” a parent implores. “For the potential benefits in relation to a very small percentage of kids who are bullied for not being heterosexually oriented, the cost in damage done in exposing all kids to information that normalises unnatural behaviour is simply not worth it.”

In the Federal Parliament yesterday, Coalition MP Andrew Hastie said he opposed the program because “it is ideological big government reaching into the lives of ordinary Australians”. Senator Cory Bernardi told his party the initiative indoctrinated children “with Marxist cultural relativism” and has previously argued it would make them “advocates for the homosexual cause”.

The grassroots backers of Bernardi and Hastie are being a little less subtle. In fact, so worried are they, many saw the Safe Schools Coalition as contributing to the final decline of civilisation as we know it.

“Any society that can countenance such evils has reached an advanced stage of auto-destruction,” one email concludes.