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

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

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

I never quite understood why aligning ourselves with our Asian neighbours was desirable? What's the end game supposed to be?

# ¿ May 1, 2016 03:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 11:02

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

In this age of rapid transport everyone is our neighbour. Better business relations will presumably happen anyway, there's too much money to be made for them not to. I'm all for teaching Asian languages in schools and organising cultural exchanges to support this though, it's the diplomatic side that I don't really get.

What does aligning ourselves with our Asian neighbours even mean? Trying to read up on it most of what's out there seems to be extended platitudes about how we need to be 'modern' (apparently aligning ourselves with China is modern?) or about how we need to be closer to Asia because it's the 'Asian Century'.

# ¿ May 1, 2016 05:09

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

quote:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...07fb-1462160235

MALCOLM Turnbull�s $50 billion submarine deal takes a big strategic risk that�s escaped attention: it gives France unprecedented power to cripple us in war.

In fact, the Prime Minister risks giving France, an unreliable ally, a veto power it has already used against other countries that have bought its weapons.

France has three times cancelled or delayed the delivery of weapons or critical spares and ammunition to customers fighting wars that don�t suit French national interests.

And on a fourth occasion, it allegedly betrayed Australia, too, reportedly threatening to withhold spare parts for our French-built Mirage jets to prevent the RAAF from using them in the Vietnam War.

The question now is: did Turnbull make a strategic error in not giving the submarines contract to Japan, a more reliable ally, especially in any conflict with China?

Here are some disturbing examples of how France has hurt buyers of its armaments just when those countries needed them most.

In 1967, France placed an arms embargo on Israel during its six-day war against Egypt, refusing to supply key spare parts for Israel�s French-built Mirage jet fighters. France, looking to build relations with Arab dictatorships, also refused to hand over 50 other Mirages that Israel had paid for before the war.

In 1980, France, wanting to help Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, stopped the delivery of French-built missile-launching patrol boats ordered by Iran.

In 1982, France gave in to threats from Britain during the Falklands War and agreed to delay delivery of its deadly Exocet missiles to Argentina and its intermediaries.

France caved after its missiles had already been used to sink HMS Sheffield, and French president Fran�ois Mitterand even agreed to give Britain detailed information about plans and weapons France had sold to Argentina.

But what should alarm Australians most are allegations that in 1968, France warned Australia not to use our French-built Mirage jets in the Vietnam War, or it would block supplies of spares and ammunition. None of the Mirages fired a shot in Vietnam.

Defence sources a decade later denied France made any such threat, but the claim is reported as fact to this day by the Australian Defence Association and Royal Australian Air Force Association.

Moreover, Sweden and Switzerland, also critics of the war in Vietnam, likewise stopped Australia from using weapons they�d built � Swedish missiles for a Swedish-built antitank system and one Swiss-built aircraft.

Now ask yourselves: can France be trusted not to do the same again with our submarines?

If we are ever in a conflict with China, who would France side with � some country at the end of the world or the rising superpower of the 21st century?

And who would it side with if we sent our French subs to a war against a Muslim country, particularly as France�s own Muslim minority becomes dangerously big and volatile?

Yet the Turnbull Government last week awarded to DCNS, a company 62 per cent owned by the French Government, the contract to build 12 submarines.

One of the extraordinary aspects of this deal is that the first submarine won�t be delivered until around 2032 and the last not until after 2050 � and perhaps closer to 2060.

As Turnbull said last week in boasting that DCNS would build the submarines largely in Adelaide: �Fifty years from now, submarines will be sustained here, built here.�

That leaves France involved in our national security for half a century.

Government figures with whom I have raised France�s record of betraying its clients say this proves Turnbull was actually smart to insist all 12 submarines be built in Australia, and to accept a bid that involved guarantees that France would transfer technology to Australian companies. Sean Costello, head of the DCNS in Australia, has promised just that: �We set them up in Australia with French technology. We transfer that fully into the company.�

But this overlooks some big caveats.

First, France will actually build parts of the submarines in France, and presumably the most technologically difficult.

Turnbull on the ABC last week refused to say whether 50 per cent or 70 per cent of the submarines would actually be built in Adelaide, but DCNS chief Herve Guillou said the project would employ 4000 people in France, while just 2800 workers would be employed here.

True, much of that French work will almost certainly be just on the initial design of the submarine, but Guillou said the project would also benefit French shipyards and industrial sites in Brest, Lorient, Cherbourg and Nantes.

Someone might be overselling the deal here.

And that design work raises serious questions.

DCNS has not yet built the kind of sub it is selling us � involving conventional fuel cells rather than the nuclear power of France�s subs, plus a new pump jet propulsion system no one has managed yet to use in non-nuclear subs.

Who can be sure this technology will work � or mesh with the weapons systems to be installed by US suppliers? What technology will we even need by 2050, when the last submarine or two is being built?

I am told by senior government sources that the design for our submarines by then could have switched to nuclear power or even to subs with a capability to deploy unmanned underwater drones, which suggests French know-how on this French project would almost certainly remain critical.

So how can the Turnbull Government have any confidence in French reliability for the next 35 years or more?

Of course, the government can minimise the risk by building stockpiles of spares and insisting on technology transfer so we can eventually build the entire submarine ourselves.

But almost any other likely supplier would be a safer bet.

The US, for example, would almost certainly be on our side of any major dispute, particularly if it involved China or the Middle East.

It is largely for that reason Australia will at least get US weapons systems for these submarines.

But Japan would be just as staunch in any stand-off with China. China is its existential rival, and Turnbull�s rejection of Japan�s submarine bid has been interpreted by senior Japanese ministers as a surrender to China.

Shouldn�t Australians also worry?

Here is a project that will cost us billions of dollars more just so the subs can be built in Adelaide and save Liberal seats.

It is a project that doesn�t actually deliver a single sub for perhaps 17 years � again, because the government gave Adelaide the job.

As DCNS warned, not building at least the first few submarines in France meant the company �delivers submarines to the Royal Australian Navy more slowly and at a higher overall cost�.

Moreover, this project won�t deliver the last submarine for at least 35 years, when we don�t even know if we�ll still need such technology.

Perhaps most dangerously, it gives an historically unreliable ally and supplier the power to nobble one of our major armaments if we fight a war it doesn�t like.

Is this smart?

# ¿ May 2, 2016 04:40

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

First you win the military contracts, then you invade them with their own materiel!

# ¿ May 2, 2016 04:54

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

I'm surprised he didn't mention the Russian fiasco, it's the most recent example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Russian_purchase

# ¿ May 2, 2016 05:14

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Easily solved: set up a nuclear industry.

# ¿ May 2, 2016 05:25

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Well, this was one of the best selling books of 2015 in France. Maybe it's more likely than you think.

# ¿ May 2, 2016 05:35

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Nah I'm pretty sure it'll be free childcare and training, designed to be flexible and able to accommodate the full diversity of new mothers.

# ¿ May 3, 2016 01:21

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

People probably said that about primary school before it was compulsory.

Of course it's going to be wet nurse for the dole.

# ¿ May 3, 2016 01:34

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Can't even rely on the Liberal party for cheaper cigs these days.

[edit

Cartoon posted:

I have read plenty about China and the South China Sea. I have already agreed that China are being poo poo heads. I again ask you. Why do we have to choose between the US and China? And if we did...The US are absolutely worse on any metric than China (Iraq, Panama, Cuba, I could literally go on for pages)

This is insane. ]

open24hours fucked around with this message at 02:25 on May 3, 2016

# ¿ May 3, 2016 02:22

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

ewe2 posted:

Don't be shy guys, give us the benefit of your superior grasp of geopolitics then. I've got no hope that open even understands what Cartoon wrote, but BBJoey is usually more insightful.

Well, why don't you tell us why it's a good idea?

ewe2 posted:

All this "oh noes we have to pick sides", the last time I looked, I didn't see India rushing to one side or the other. But then they're a bit more grown-up than us as a nation, even though they're half our age. Painting the US like good international citizens is just hilariously one-eyed. Very lazy of you BCR, you're usually better than this.

Yes, a nuclear power with over a billion people has the same decisions to make as Australia.

open24hours fucked around with this message at 03:11 on May 3, 2016

# ¿ May 3, 2016 03:09

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

ewe2 posted:

Thought you'd chicken out, I didn't say anything was a good idea.
[...]
This is diplomacy, I don't expect you to understand it.

Come on man, you're better than this.

ewe2 posted:

And we need China economically more than we need the US. Shouldn't we worry more about China thinks, or don't we need all those export dollars when they flex those muscles? Why didn't we go for the Japanese sub contract for instance, open?

I don't know, you tell me?

# ¿ May 3, 2016 04:23

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

quote:

India is a good deal more mature as a diplomatic country than Australia because they took the position of independence from all sides from the start of their nationhood, not because they have a bunch of people, oh and started from a much weaker economic base than we did.

What does 'diplomatic maturity' mean? Is there a list of countries by diplomatic maturity?

This is exactly the kind of platitude I was talking about when I brought this up earlier. These kinds of meaningless statements don't help anyone, and don't do anything for your credibility.

open24hours fucked around with this message at 04:33 on May 3, 2016

# ¿ May 3, 2016 04:30

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

...right. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but I might just let it go.

# ¿ May 3, 2016 05:03

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

In 2011 the median was something like $65k for someone employed full time. You can add inflation to that to approximate the current level.

# ¿ May 5, 2016 02:33

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Amethyst posted:

Where can I find these figures?

ABS has everything on their website.
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/About+TableBuilder

Looks like it was a bit less than $65k.

# ¿ May 5, 2016 02:41

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

They were interested in making the unemployed miserable when they were in government, why would being in opposition change anything?

# ¿ May 5, 2016 04:40

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/05/norfolk-island-proposed-as-open-detention-centre-for-asylum-seekers

Norfolk Island to the rescue.

# ¿ May 5, 2016 12:28

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Any losses will be offset by the extremely rapid growth in investment that will be prompted by the lower tax rates.

# ¿ May 6, 2016 01:16

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

quote:

http://www.afr.com/news/68-short-acoss-changes-tune-on-interns-after-union-backlash-20160505-gonr90
The nation's peak welfare body has shifted ground on the Turnbull Government's internship scheme, calling for young job seekers to be paid up to an extra $68 a week for participating in the program.

The call by the Australian Council of Social Services came after the body was privately criticised by unions and other welfare groups for its strong initial support for the federal budget initiative.

On Tuesday night, after the budget was handed down, ACOSS chief executive Cassandra Goldie said the body was "very pleased to see the new approach to helping young people into paid work".

She said the Coalition's scheme provided an opportunity for young people to get work experience in real jobs with a wage subsidy, something we have urged for some time and should be used more widely."

In a subsequent statement to The Australian Financial Review, Dr Goldie said young jobseekers participating in the internship program should be paid at least equal to the national minimum wage.

Unions and the Labor Party in recent days have attacked the scheme for not paying jobseekers the minimum wage.

A single childless job seeker on Newstart currently receives $527.60 per fortnight. If the recipient was engaged on an internship for 25 hours a week, he would get an extra $4 an hour, receiving $363.80 per week.

Given the minimum wage is $17.29 per hour, a business would save $432.25 if the job seeker was employed as an intern for 25 hours a week rather than as a minimum wage employee. Interns would receive $68.45 per week below the minimum wage and not receive sick leave, superannuation and penalty rates.

Dr Goldie said "young people in the internships should receive at least the equivalent of the minimum hourly wage or a training wage where appropriate training is provided".

"It's also essential that health and safety protections are in place, that interns are mentored and have the opportunity to raise complaints of exploitation, that existing workers are not displaced, and that employers can't 'churn' people through internships without offering them jobs," she said.

"A key goal of employment programs is to give opportunities to people who would otherwise be unemployed for a long time.

"If a long-term unemployed young person gets a job as a result of being offered the opportunity to demonstrate their abilities, that's good for them, good for society, and it also strengthens jobs growth in the long run. On the other hand, work for the dole is a punishment, not a opportunity."

"The program should be seen as a complement to apprenticeships not a replacement for them."

Dr Goldie reiterated that ACOSS welcomed the shift away from the "compulsory and ineffective work for the dole program towards real work experience and wage subsidies for people at risk of prolonged unemployment, but warns that protections are needed to ensure young people are not exploited in the proposed internships".

"The scheme should be targeted towards people who are long term unemployed and make a real difference to their job prospects," she said.

On Thursday night, Employment Minister Michaelia Cash backed away from insisting employers would have to prove they had a "real vacancy" before being able to access the Coalition's new internship scheme.

Senator Cash issued a statement after previously supportive business groups said the vacancy requirement would make them less likely to use the program.

Rather than produce upfront evidence of a 'real vacancy', Senator Cash's statement said a business would only have "to demonstrate that there is a real prospect of ongoing employment should the job seeker be deemed suitable."

"The guidelines of the programme are currently being developed," she said.

"These guidelines consistent with other similar programmes will ensure protections against displacement of paid employees and prevention of churn of interns through a workplace where job outcomes are not realised."

Senator Cash issued the statement after The Australian Financial Review reported industry concerns about the vacancy requirement.

# ¿ May 6, 2016 03:07

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

hooman posted:

Preventing refoulment is exactly the point of the refugee convention. It's what happened to Jewish people fleeing Nazi Germany and here we are in 2016 refouling the gently caress out of people without processing.

Awesome.

Actually I think you'll find that the convention is outdated and refouling people is fine now.

# ¿ May 6, 2016 04:02

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Doesn't meet the needs of the modern world, you see.

# ¿ May 6, 2016 04:02

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Is it really in a company's interest to have people working uninsured? If someone hurts themselves aren't they liable to be sued?

# ¿ May 6, 2016 06:38

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

PaletteSwappedNinja posted:

Where is an intern going to find the money to sue anyone?

Union?

# ¿ May 6, 2016 06:47

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Wouldn't work here, too many bludgers.

# ¿ May 7, 2016 04:24

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Meany greenies.

quote:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...508-gopjsw.html
As the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader head north to the key election battleground of Queensland, another kind of cage fight is under way in the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne.

On day one of a marathon eight-week campaign, Greens leader Richard Di Natale has hightailed it to the inner-Sydney seat of Grayndler, helping his firefighter candidate Jim Casey take on Labor's Anthony Albanese.
It sets the scene for a tough slog between the two left-of-centre parties, as they fight it out for the hearts and minds of progressive voters in urban seats.

Mr Albanese, who holds Grayndler on a comfortable margin but has been disadvantaged by a redistribution, wasted no time in telling the Greens to direct their efforts elsewhere.

"Richard Di Natale could choose to target Liberal Party members," he told ABC Radio National.

"It says a lot about Richard Di Natale that his priority today � is removing me from the federal Parliament. If you think the Parliament will be a more progressive place without me in it ... then by all means that's his priority."

The comments assert Labor's long-standing position that the Greens should seek to reduce conservatives' presence in Parliament by targeting Coalition-held seats.

At last year's NSW state election, the Greens took the north coast seat of Ballina off the Nationals. They stole the Melbourne seat of Prahran from the Liberals at the 2014 Victorian state election.

Meanwhile, the Greens argue they are simply pursuing their most winnable seats, as all parties are wont to do.

Mr Di Natale recently told Fairfax Media he believes the Greens can win eight lower house seats within a decade, including some Coalition-held seats in Melbourne, New South Wales and Perth.

"We remind them [Labor] that they once had a conscience," he said of his critics in the ALP.

Mr Di Natale was also on Sydney radio on Monday morning, railing against the two major parties as "the Coles and Woolies of politics" and accusing both of neglecting climate change and the environment.

He said Mr Albanese was "a decent person" but noted he voted in favour of cuts to the Renewable Energy Target and offshore processing of asylum seekers. Labor was "locking up young kids" and "failing to show the courage against this cruel government", Mr Di Natale said.

Labor has been particularly sore over a supposed preference arrangement between the Greens and the Liberal Party in Victoria, in which Liberals would preference the Greens in seats the Greens are targeting, in return for the Greens running open tickets (rather than preference Labor) in some marginal suburban seats.

Mr Albanese said that would increase the likelihood of Mr Turnbull remaining Prime Minister and predicted a "backlash" from progressive voters.

The Greens currently have one lower house MP - Adam Bandt in the seat of Melbourne - and are likely to put considerable resources into other Melbourne electorates such as Batman, Wills, Melbourne Ports and Higgins.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 02:18

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Telling the truth never got anyone anywhere.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 02:42

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

What do people think about parallel book imports?

quote:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/productivity-commission-copyright-findings-leave-canberra-authors-concerned-20160506-goo7yv.html
The Productivity Commission's description of copyright protection terms as "excessive" in Australia has left Canberra authors concerned about the future of the system.

The commission's draft report on intellectual property found an optimal copyright term for works would be "closer to 15 to 25 years" after their creation, far less time than the current arrangements which provide protection for the author's life, plus 70 years.

Australia would require international co-operation and negotiation to lower its copyright terms, which the commission felt did not deserve "high-priority policy attention" but argued current arrangements were inconsistent with "an efficient and effective IP framework".

If the commission's draft finding was adopted, the author of a book published this weekend could lose their exclusive rights to their work by the early 2030s.

The 15 to 25-year period was justified using ABS figures showing some three-quarters of original literary works were retired after a year, with the commercial life of books ranging between 1.4 and five years on average.

"A commercial life of a couple of years suggests most works are granted protection for decades longer than necessary," the report said.

"Extensions of term mean where works are still commercially available, consumers can expect to pay higher prices for longer."

The finding sparked outrage from writers, publishers and the Australian Writers Guild, with Canberra Times columnist and award-winning children's author Jackie French penning an open letter condemning the proposals.

Submissions have since been made to the report from other authors criticising the report.

In her submission, crime writer Sandi Wallace said the copyright length finding was inadequate for authors who relied on the industry for a living.

"Writing is my livelihood, not a hobby," she said.

"How can it be fair that my ownership of my work be limited to a mere 15 years? Even 20 years is tremendously inadequate."

One of the report's main focus areas was on parallel import restrictions, which prevents sellers from importing books when an Australian publisher has exclusive rights to the title, provided the latter does so within 30 days of the original overseas publication.

Authors and publishers have criticised the commission's proposal to wind back the restrictions by the end of 2017, but the report described the practice as enabling "geographic price discrimination".

Queensland University of Technology Professor of Property and Intellectual Law Matthew Rimmer described the campaign against stopping parallel import restrictions as a scare campaign.

"Australia's parallel imports restrictions are out-of-date and anti-competitive, so this report will help modernise our intellectual property laws for the 21st century," he said.

"Current restrictions have largely benefited multinational publishing networks and foreign authors so it is a shame publishers and authors are running this scare campaign."

Written submissions about the draft report can be made before June 3. The commission is expected to hand the final report to the federal government in August.

quote:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/publishing-in-peril/7387884

The Productivity Commission has just handed down its draft report which recommended that parallel import restrictions be lifted to benefit consumers by reducing book prices.

Publishers and authors are opposed to the restrictions being lifted because they say that it will reduce income for Australian publishers and authors, many of whom already struggle to make a living.

I didn't really know much about it and assumed it was just a hangover from the protectionist days, but the people interviewed on LNL make a pretty compelling case for restricting it, and you can already order whatever from wherever if it's for your own use.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 04:30

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

The whole method is flawed. The scales should be 'more like Labor on economic/social issues' to 'more like Liberal on economic/social issues' rather than left/right conservative/progressive.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 04:51

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

gay picnic defence posted:

lmao
Murdoch must be desperate to try and prove he can still influence a political process somewhere after Trump destroyed Fox News' hold over the GOP.

Jokes on him because he might be unable to influence News Corp soon: http://www.theage.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/news-corp-faces-shareholder-revolt-after-2015-near-miss-20160505-gomt87.html

The current restrictions are apparently one reason why textbooks are so loving expensive. There is probably some sort of compromise that makes textbooks cheaper but retains protections for local authors and publishers.

A simple solution would be to order them from overseas individually rather than through the university bookshop.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 07:12

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Yeah I guess that relies on the publishers not intentionally making them different.

I was really fortunate at uni in that most of my books were cheap, and sometimes the lecturer would provide their own 'text book', which was just a bunch of papers bound into a book. I feel for people who have to buy multiple multi-hundred dollar books.

# ¿ May 9, 2016 08:33

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

The paywall is easy enough to get around, the article is awful even by I'm-not-racist-but standards though.

# ¿ May 10, 2016 01:14

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Anidav posted:

I'm happy for him given the front page of the Australian is "ABC's budget 'victim' pays no net tax"

He's gonna need that money to sue.

The article doesn't even go into how much tax he pays.

quote:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/fed...88348d1508811ef
Duncan Storrar, the audience member on national TV who railed eloquently against tax relief for the wealthy, pays no net tax and relies on Austudy payments after a difficult life marked by ill health.

Mr Storrar, 45, caused a social media storm on Monday�s Q&A on the ABC when he personalised the claim that it was unfair to give tax advantages to high-income earners rather than the working poor.

He told the panel he had been on the minimum wage all his life because he had little education and a disability, which he revealed yesterday was a decades-long �battle with post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by sexual abuse.

Visiting his partner Cindy�s housing commission home in Geelong, about 80km southwest of Melbourne, where his daughters, Indica, 8, and Jakayla-Rose, 6, are raised by their mother, Mr Storrar said his life had been tough.

He and his wife are separated and he lives with his mother, sporadically working as a truck driver on $16 an hour and �relying on a $520-a-fortnight �Austudy �allowance to survive.

But he was not seeking more handouts, just arguing for an �increase in the $18,200 tax-free threshold so he could survive when he worked reduced hours because of his �illness. �A lift in the tax-free threshold will change my daughters� lives,� Mr Storrar said, adding that he wanted them to go to university.

Mr Storrar is studying youth work and mental health at a not-for-profit disability educator.

�I get $16 an hour (driving trucks) ... there is this whole level of people like me, we work below the radar, we don�t complain and there is a whole heap of things set up to make it really easy for people to exploit us,�� Mr Storrar said.

�One of the things is if you leave a job, you automatically lose your payments for 12 weeks.�

He added that it was unfair that the wealthy were getting tax breaks and incentives to invest. Instead, he said the government should allow housing commission tenants to buy properties from the government with the fortnightly subsidised payments.

Mr Storrar, who is a disenchanted former Labor voter who thinks it is now in the same camp as the Liberals, said he was upset by the response of the panel to his question about why the rich were getting tax breaks.

Ai Group chief executive Innes Willox, a panellist, pointed out that Mr Storrar would pay little or no tax.

Mr Storrar described Assistant Treasurer Kelly O�Dwyer�s re�action � when she spoke about jobs and growth � as �disgusting�.

�Is that really what politicians think? Our country is not a business, it�s a country,�� he said.

On ABC radio yesterday, Labor leader Bill Shorten said: �We understand, unlike Mr Turnbull, that a lot of Australians are doing it hard. That�s why we won�t go down the inappropriate path of providing a millionaire ... a $17,000 tax cut whilst people like Duncan get nothing in their tax and face harsh cuts.�

Comments are pretty awful too.

quote:

This stunt puts paid to the "fairness" argument once and for all. Mr Storrar receives housing benefits, Austudy benefits and pays no effective tax whatsoever.....yet wants more. He is a typical welfare parasite who has made poor life choices, yet wants those who contribute to this nation to support him. His life is portrayed by the ABC as tough! Apart from his spurious claim of an easily faked "disease" brought on by an unprovable catalyst. Rather than lift himself up by his bootstraps as most of us with "tough" lives have been forced to do; he's content to play the victim card. Storrar is a prime example of everything that is wrong with this nation today, and its spiralling plunge into the depths of welfare enablement.

[e: beaten]

# ¿ May 10, 2016 23:55

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

The LNP should be paying for their own travel too, surely.

# ¿ May 11, 2016 05:29

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Cleretic posted:

Yes, I recognize that makes me a freak.

It just makes you sound like you have depression.

# ¿ May 12, 2016 00:43

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Has a Dirty Dozen feel to it. Twelve of Australia's worst tax evaders, released from prison, trained by the ATO and let loose on the Panamanians.

# ¿ May 12, 2016 04:13

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

quote:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...511-got15o.html
Shoppers would pay an extra 50 cents a litre for milk in a plan being pushed by desperate farmers, after major dairy companies slashed the prices they pay for raw milk.

An emergency "milk levy" was one idea backed by dairy farmers and councillors who held a crisis meeting in the south-west Victorian town of Terang on Wednesday night.

Farmers are also demanding the Turnbull government urgently intervene to address a situation they say threatens the livelihood of producers and the viability of Australia's milk exports.

Chris Gleeson, president of grassroots farming collective Farmer Power, said the proposed levy meant a typical consumer would spend an extra $50 on milk a year, "which would solve the crisis of the dairy industry and have food security for our nation".

He conceded "nobody is happy about paying extra for groceries" but expected people would support a levy if they knew it supported Australian farmers. "They were paying $1.40 for milk 20 years ago," he told Fairfax Media. "Now milk is sold for bugger all compared to water."

Mr Gleeson said the only alternative to a levy was a "milk pool" or single desk marketing model, similar to the defunct Australian Wheat Board, to set an average price for producers.
Farmer Power president Chris Gleeson.

Farmer Power president Chris Gleeson. Photo: Leanne Pickett

Fonterra, the world's largest dairy company, last week cut the farm-gate price of milk to $5 from $5.60 a kilogram, acknowledging it could have done more to warn its suppliers.

It came a week after Murray Goulburn, Australia's largest milk processor, also slashed its prices. The cuts are retrospective - they apply to the entire 2015/16 financial year, meaning farmers will be paid well below $5 a kilogram for the milk they produce from now on, in order to reach the average price of $5 for the year.

Fonterra and Murray Goulburn are sprawling co-operatives owned by dairy farmers. But the decision to slash milk prices has put farmers on a "war footing", Mr Gleeson said.

"Something has to change in this industry. We've got to cover costs of production," he told Fairfax Media. "The only way we're going to survive is if we get a higher return on [our] investment."

Farmers have also called on Deputy Prime Minister and Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce to launch an independent review into Australia's dairy industry.

"He's got to give hope to these farmers," Mr Gleeson said, though he acknowledged it would be difficult for Mr Joyce to act during the caretaker period of the election campaign.

The Coalition's campaign spokesman, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, said it was a matter for Mr Joyce. Fairfax Media has contacted the minister for comment.

Mr Gleeson also demanded the Victorian state government immediately offer financial assistance for affected farmers. Victoria is home to about two-thirds of Australian dairy farmers, with 1700 in the south-west region around Terang. Farmers are planning to hold a rally in Melbourne next week.

Fonterra, in a letter to farmers, said it had cut its Australian prices to meet the local benchmark set by Murray Goulburn. In compensation, it offered a 60 cents a litre, interest-bearing loan to farmers who agreed to stick with Fonterra for another four years. The company delivered a first half net profit of $NZ409 million ($379 million), an increase of 123 per cent.

Murray Goulburn, which cut milk prices a fortnight ago, has since since plunged into chaos, with the chief executive, chief financial officer and three directors resigning (one is understood to have left due to serious illness). It is also being investigated by the corporate regulator over information supplied to the Australian Stock Exchange.

Chairman Phil Tracy told the ABC his firm was "very comfortable" with its decisions and would co-operate with the investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.