Auspol March - fuck the poor, fuck the SDA - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol March - fuck the poor, fuck the SDA

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Capt.Whorebags posted:

Is the prevalence of the phrase "Judeo-Christian values" because it's frowned upon to hate on the Jews?

Clearly it's okay to paper over the history of anti-Semitism, and well, anti-Catholic (or anything not CoE) that prevailed in this country.

jews being allowed into 'Western Civilization' is a product of the cold war. then it was accelerated by neocons and the rise of sam huntington style cultural essentialism in the 80s as it wound down

# ? Mar 2, 2017 18:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 08:20

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Tony Abbott has called on Malcolm Turnbull to toughen his defence of the decision to scale back penalty rates.

# ? Mar 2, 2017 20:09

TheMightyHandful: Dec 8, 2008

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Tony Abbott has called on Malcolm Turnbull to toughen his defence of the decision to scale back penalty rates.

gently caress the poor with gusto

# ? Mar 2, 2017 20:58

gay picnic defence: Oct 5, 2009; I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Tony Abbott has called on Malcolm Turnbull to toughen his defence of the decision to scale back penalty rates.

lol

meanwhile, in marginal seats across the country

quote:

The Turnbull government is under growing pressure to overturn the Fair Work Commission decision to cut some penalty rates, with voter resentment particularly high in regional areas, according to new seat-by-seat polling commissioned by the ACTU.

The electoral ire is spooking some government MPs, feeding One Nation's growing support, and could yet threaten Coalition seats at the next election if left unresolved.

With unions preparing for a major WorkChoices-style campaign against the cuts, nervous Coalition MPs are privately urging the leadership to find a solution or face further falls in public support.

"The lowest-paid workers in our communities rely on these wages for food and rent, and these are the workers we depend on to keep our shops and businesses open," said ACTU president Ged Kearney.

"These poll results show politicians must act on behalf of the majority of voters and put new laws in place to protect take-home pay of the lowest-paid workers."

However, the government has ruled out legislating against the cuts, arguing the Fair Work Commission was created under Labor and was always intended to be an independent umpire.

While pointedly avoiding any discussion of the merits of its ruling, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has now moved to spruiking a phased introduction of the reduction over enough time to subsume them within annual wage increases.

ReachTEL polling conducted on February 27-28 in five Coalition-held seats � some of which are referred to as bellwethers for their tendency to swing with the government of the day � has found three could fall to Labor on the basis of the penalty rate cut alone.

The five seats are Page on the far-north coast of New South Wales; Dawson in northern Queensland; Corangamite in Victoria's coastal west; Leichhardt in Queensland's far north; and the electorate of Brisbane.

All of the seats would register swings away from the government, according to the polling, with Page, held by the Nationals' Kevin Hogan, Dawson, held by the Liberal National Party's George Christensen, and Corangamite, held by the Liberals' rising star, Sarah Henderson, all recording swings big enough to see them tipped out.

The rising tide of support for Pauline Hanson's One Nation in Queensland makes predicting preference flows difficult, but the polls show that voters clearly disapprove of the cut to Sunday and public holiday rates for casuals, and favour direct government protection of take-home pay.

Among the five electorates, 65.1 per cent of the 3515 surveyed said the government should legislate to protect penalty rates, compared with 34.9 per cent who oppose such intervention.

Support for legislative action is even higher among female voters at 68 per cent and fractionally lower among males with 62.2 per cent wanting Parliament to act.

Respondents also appeared unconvinced about the rationale for the cuts, with 61.5 per cent thinking it would result in lower pay for affected workers and 38.5 per cent believing it would lead to more jobs.

Under siege over the issue, the government on Thursday provided revised departmental calculations that put the estimated number of Australians disadvantaged by the ruling at 300,000 to 450,000 workers, which is substantially lower than the 700,000 estimated by Labor.

Facing a fourth straight question time in which all 34 opposition questions dealt with penalty rates, Coalition MPs believe they are being unfairly tagged with the umpire's ruling.

As their frustration grew over Mr Turnbull's "technical defence", one said "another approach is clearly needed".

To that end, Mr Turnbull offered affected workers some comfort by citing the Fair Work Commission ruling that proposed transitional arrangements to ensure take-home pay "is not reduced overall as the penalty rate changes come into effect."

"That is entirely consistent with the law, it is consistent with their practice," he said of the commission.

The Liberal Party also stepped up its political war, unveiling a new website called protectourweekend.com, in which Mr Shorten is targeted for his "hypocrisy" over the FWC.

# ? Mar 2, 2017 21:03

aejix: Sep 18, 2007; It's about finding that next group of core players we can win with in the next 6, 8, 10 years. Let's face it, it's hard for 20-, 21-, 22-year-olds to lead an NHL team. Look at the playoffs.

That quote is from fucking 2018. Fuck you Jim; Pillbug

gay picnic defence posted:

These poll results show politicians must act on behalf of the majority of voters

What a loving novel idea

# ? Mar 2, 2017 21:18

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

I wondered for a sec why the gently caress the liberals would launch a site named protectourweekend then remembered their idiotic line about small business owners having to work weekends because otherwise they'd have to pay someone a fair wage to do it :qq:

:qq:

# ? Mar 2, 2017 21:42

gay picnic defence: Oct 5, 2009; I'M CONCERNED ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS

if opening on a sunday isn't profitable why do it in the first place? maybe they should leave it to the better business operators who somehow manage to pay people properly and make a bit of money for themselves

# ? Mar 2, 2017 22:00

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

look it's all well and good for you to talk about profitability but it's one thing to be profitable but it's another to be profitable enough

# ? Mar 2, 2017 22:02

You Am I: May 20, 2001; Me @ your poasting

aejix posted:

What a loving novel idea

What, you mean against self interest and what their corporate overlords tell them to do?

Imagine if the politicians actually voted for what the majority of voters wanted, we'd have same sex marriage at least a decade ago. And no GST.

# ? Mar 2, 2017 22:26

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

So this article might seem like it's come out a bit late, but it looks like the ABC were waiting for the results of some FOI requests before running this particular story.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-03/centrelink-debt-controversy-what-is-robodebt/8317764

The result?

quote:

Background Briefing filed a freedom of information request to find out how many people were asking for an online reassessment or a formal review of their debt.

It was blocked by the department, who said it would generate too much work for them to find out.

(That's after they said they'd found the documents, and after Background Briefing paid them $45 in search and retrieval fees.)

quote:

The department also refused to provide numbers on how much money had been paid back to date.

So there you are. FOI requests: Just say whatever the gently caress you want.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 00:12

norp: Jan 20, 2004; TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

let's invade New Zealand, they have oil

Freedom of information is only ok if it's someone's private personal data

# ? Mar 3, 2017 00:15

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Starshark posted:

So this article might seem like it's come out a bit late, but it looks like the ABC were waiting for the results of some FOI requests before running this particular story.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-03/centrelink-debt-controversy-what-is-robodebt/8317764

The result?

So there you are. FOI requests: Just say whatever the gently caress you want.

For what's its worth:

quote:

Lol So i did some digging today..

Wow... Good Work alan.. you managed to claw back 22 million dollars.. Yet spent around about 5.2 Million in man hour's and wages so far on the appeals and you have not even got through 40 percent of the complaints.

Wow...Alan..gently caress,You are so Hot alan bed me u make me wet...I love a man who knows how to turn a massive profit.

Where is the 300 Mill u promised us.. Getting close to budget time mate..

Also they managed to get the error rates down from 80.17 percent down to a pretty decent 61 percent error rate?. wow

https://www.reddit.com/user/tightassbogan?count=25&after=t1_debbprv

He has posted inside information before.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 00:16

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

It must have been a pivotal moment when JWH discovered that you can do even the most heinous of things so long as you were running a good distraction campaign using the basest of political sentiments. The government knows it can pretty much get away with anything because at election time people won't remember all the poo poo that got rammed down their throats it will be all about pithy slogans and attacking the other players. We hate refugeess more than we care about civil liberties and basic rights.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 00:41

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

The 2001 campaign was headlined by heinous things though, and the 2004 one was based around the radical idea that Mark Latham was not a good fit for the office of Prime Minister.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 00:45

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

I was listening to the background briefing documentary on robodebt and Paul Shetler is such a goon:

quote:

Mr Shetler said the approach was typical of the giant Department of Human Services.

"Generally speaking they were difficult to work with and very, very defensive...'nothing is wrong, everything is good, the house is burning down but everything is fine,'" he said.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 00:47

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

Federal Government is definitely laying the groundwork for some harsh cuts in the upcoming budget.

The West Australian posted:

Malcolm Turnbull has warned of a mountain of debt - closing in on $500 billion - that future generations will have to repay unless the federal budget is brought under control.

�That will mean, inevitably, they will either have reduced government services or higher taxes or probably both,� the prime minister told ABC radio on Thursday.

�We cannot keep on living beyond our means and passing a larger mountain of debt on to the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.�

Treasurer Scott Morrison will need to issue a new direction within months allowing government debt to rise beyond $500 billion.

Treasury officials told a Senate committee debt was due to go above $500 billion early in the 2017/18 financial year and a new direction is needed from Mr Morrison in order for the Australian Office of Financial Management not to be in breach of its own laws.

The latest figure from the AOFM for Australian government securities on issue, dated February 24, was $477 billion.

The mid-year economic review forecast the figure to be $496 billion by the end of this financial year.

Treasury senior official Matt Flavel says the government�s figures show the �path of debt in nominal terms continues to rise over the medium term�.

In late 2013, then-treasurer Joe Hockey reached a deal with the Greens to get rid of the $300 billion debt ceiling.

But Mr Hockey soon after issued a direction to Treasury, without having to go through parliament, to ensure the total face value of stock and securities that may be on issue was limited to $500 billion.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 01:23

Cartoon: Jun 20, 2008; poop

Doctor Spaceman posted:

The 2001 campaign was headlined by heinous things though, and the 2004 one was based around the radical idea that Mark Latham was not a good fit for the office of Prime Minister.

quote:

Throughout much of 2001, the Coalition had been trailing Labor in opinion polls, thanks to dissatisfaction with the government's economic reform programme and high petrol prices. The opposition Australian Labor Party had won a majority of the two-party-preferred vote at the previous election and had won a series of state and territory elections. Labor also recorded positive swings in two by-elections, taking the Queensland seat of Ryan and coming close in Aston.

The 11 September attacks and the so-called Children Overboard and Tampa affairs were strong influences in the minds of voters at this election, focusing debate around the issues of border protection and national security. Polls swung strongly toward the coalition after the "Tampa" controversy but before the 11 September attacks. Another major issue was the collapse of the country's second biggest airline Ansett Australia and whether it should be given a bailout; the Coalition was opposed to the bailout because it was not the government's fault. However, Labor was for a bailout because the company's collapse was about to result in the biggest mass job loss in Australian history, whilst also arguing that the government was partially responsible for allowing Ansett to be taken over by Air New Zealand who had caused Ansett's failure.[2] Although the two-party preferred result was reasonably close, the ALP recorded its lowest primary vote since 1934.[3]

Political scientists have suggested that television coverage has subtly transformed the political system, with a spotlight on leaders rather than parties, thereby making for more of an American-presidential-style system. In this election television news focused on international issues, especially terrorism and asylum seekers. Minor parties were largely ignored as the two main parties monopolized the camera's attention. The election was depicted as a horse race between the Howard, who ran ahead and was therefore given more coverage than his Labor rival.[4]

The election-eve Newspoll reported the Liberal/National Coalition on a 53 percent two-party-preferred vote.[5]

If by heinous things you mean cashing in on terror sentiment for 9/11, Tampa and children overboard then you are agreeing with me.

2004? It was closer than most like to concede because it should have been a romp (For JWH).

quote:

5.1 Opening shots: "who do you trust?"
5.2 Labor starts ahead in national opinion polls
5.3 After the first week, the Coalition draws ahead
5.4 A terrorist attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta marks the second week
5.5 The leaders debate and the worm turns in Latham's favour
5.6 At the midpoint, it is too close to call
5.7 Contradictory polls in the fourth week
5.8 Tasmanian forests erupt as the main issue during the last week
5.9 The Handshake
5.10 Final opinion polls are not conclusive

Yeah I'm not convinced your opinions have any foundation in Australian political history.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 01:24

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

Cartoon posted:

2004? It was closer than most like to concede because it should have been a romp (For JWH).

The Coalition picked up votes in the House and even got enough in the Senate to take control outright, I don't know how it wasn't a romp.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 01:33

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013

You Am I posted:

What, you mean against self interest and what their corporate overlords tell them to do?

Imagine if the politicians actually voted for what the majority of voters wanted, we'd have same sex marriage at least a decade ago. And no GST.

Ah, but you're forgetting about the tyranny of the majority. Why if politicians ruled as the majority of Australians wanted them to rule you'd see vulnerable minorities in camps being tortured to the cheers of the everyman! We need an elitist regime to be our betters.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 02:19

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

For those who are interested, I just got an email from the guys behind Saturday Paper. They are following the lead of Crikey by offering a weekday daily "briefing" in the morning that is basically a neat summary of news from Australia and around the world.

I don't think it's a paid-for thing, whereas I think Crikey's is. Crikey's version comes out around 8am EST but I think you have to be a subscriber to get it.

Both of these outlets do high quality investigative work, and Saturday Paper has been great from the beginning when it started a few years ago. I have zero problem advocating for either of them and if you can spare the sub fee do it.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 02:21

Kafka Syrup: Apr 29, 2009

Les Affaires posted:

For those who are interested, I just got an email from the guys behind Saturday Paper. They are following the lead of Crikey by offering a weekday daily "briefing" in the morning that is basically a neat summary of news from Australia and around the world.

I don't think it's a paid-for thing, whereas I think Crikey's is. Crikey's version comes out around 8am EST but I think you have to be a subscriber to get it.

Both of these outlets do high quality investigative work, and Saturday Paper has been great from the beginning when it started a few years ago. I have zero problem advocating for either of them and if you can spare the sub fee do it.

I signed up and got the first one. It's a nice little digest of interesting news articles from around the world.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 03:12

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Cartoon posted:

Yeah I'm not convinced your opinions have any foundation in Australian political history.

Governments have to lose elections not win them here. They didn't lose enough. The issues have to get as far as a pub test before they're even tested. Also the current government have to have JWH's political ability to manage the news cycle, I'm not convinced your opinion applies to current political history.

Eg: how does this government sell a repeat of Budget 2014?

# ? Mar 3, 2017 03:23

starkebn: May 18, 2004; "Oooh, got a little too serious. You okay there, little buddy?"

ewe2 posted:

Eg: how does this government sell a repeat of Budget 2014?

They failed in '15 & '16 too, so why buck the trend?

# ? Mar 3, 2017 03:32

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

ewe2 posted:

Eg: how does this government sell a repeat of Budget 2014?

They can't, because that kind of poo poo is unsellable. They'd have had more of a chance if they'd have proposed actually significant savings (like Howard's first budget) instead of vindictive penny-pinching, but that would have required them to not be chickenshits.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 03:37

You Am I: May 20, 2001; Me @ your poasting

Les Affaires posted:

For those who are interested, I just got an email from the guys behind Saturday Paper. They are following the lead of Crikey by offering a weekday daily "briefing" in the morning that is basically a neat summary of news from Australia and around the world.

I don't think it's a paid-for thing, whereas I think Crikey's is. Crikey's version comes out around 8am EST but I think you have to be a subscriber to get it.

Both of these outlets do high quality investigative work, and Saturday Paper has been great from the beginning when it started a few years ago. I have zero problem advocating for either of them and if you can spare the sub fee do it.

I can't see anything on their website, do you have a link?

# ? Mar 3, 2017 03:42

Doctor Spaceman: Jul 6, 2010; "Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."

You Am I posted:

I can't see anything on their website, do you have a link?

# ? Mar 3, 2017 03:44

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

Ten Becquerels posted:

The government wants to have the powers to do the same thing Tudge did with ARE VETERANS info - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/government-wants-new-power-to-release-veterans-personal-info/8320268

What the gently caress is going on with all this? Is there an actual endgame here or do they really just want to have something to shut down people thinking about making public criticisms? How can they think this looks like anything besides an insanely unethical mess?

Thread reminder that this had ~~~bipartisan~~~ support in the lower house, thus reinforcing that the Australian Labor Party is actually extremely poo poo and aren't left-wing at all

e:

quote:

Labor's Shadow Veteran Affairs Minister Amanda Rishworth said while the Opposition had supported the legislation, it now had "serious concerns".

???????????????

# ? Mar 3, 2017 04:22

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

It's a pretty straightforward win for both outlets. They already have the staff on board to do it, and they are already trawling the web and other sources for material for their normal publications so it's only natural and minimal additional investment to give out a daily in the morning for ~~content~~ news freaks.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 04:23

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

What do they do now if a veteran is making false claims that could be refuted by releasing the information? Show it to a judge and have the court order them to stop/apologise/whatever?

# ? Mar 3, 2017 05:07

You Am I: May 20, 2001; Me @ your poasting

Recoome posted:

Thread reminder that this had ~~~bipartisan~~~ support in the lower house, thus reinforcing that the Australian Labor Party is actually extremely poo poo and aren't left-wing at all

e:

???????????????

Amazing how it becomes a "concern" when the poo poo has already hit the fan and the horse is like 10 paddocks away.

Just like how politicians change their minds about things like same sex marriage or euthanasia when they are faced with a family member dealing with either subject.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 05:08

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013

Were they claiming this as part of their bipartisanship on all national security measures? Because lol if they were.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 05:14

aejix: Sep 18, 2007; It's about finding that next group of core players we can win with in the next 6, 8, 10 years. Let's face it, it's hard for 20-, 21-, 22-year-olds to lead an NHL team. Look at the playoffs.

That quote is from fucking 2018. Fuck you Jim; Pillbug

I think i heard some bullshit on the radio this morning that Labor supported it due to "assurances" from the Liberals that it wouldn't be used flippantly or for political purposes. They're either laughably loving gullible if they take any assurances of ethical behaviour from the Libs, or (more likely) they are totally ok with wielding that power themselves. So basically what Recoome said

# ? Mar 3, 2017 06:33

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

The Poll bludger at Crikey details what might be the real reason the Liberals are seeking to knife the Nats in WA

quote:

Poll Bludger: the party with the cojones to take on the mining fat cats is ... the Nationals?

The rent-seeking minerals peak body is campaigning hard against the one party that dares to suggest charging the mining companies more for carting away Western Australia's material wealth.

William Bowe � Editor of The Poll Bludger

If politically disengaged Western Australians are aware that a state election is being held next Saturday, chances are they have the Chamber of Minerals and Energy to thank.

Since early November, free-to-air television has been saturated with advertisements in which a series of ordinary Joes denounce a proposed new tax on a mining industry, which, notwithstanding an acknowledged recent downturn, is said to hold the key to the state�s future prosperity.

Even before the formal campaign period began, the cost of the advertising was put at $2 million � well on the way to what a major party would ordinarily expect to spend over the full length of an election campaign.

Only with the quickening of the campaign tempo over the last week has either party�s advertising matched the visibility of the mining industry�s.

In tone and content, the ads are all but indistinguishable from those unloaded on the Resource Super Profits Tax when Kevin Rudd unveiled it six weeks before the termination of his leadership in June 2010.

Aside from the very specific details of the policy being denounced, the only observable distinction is the political target � not the Labor Party this time, nor even its rival in the race to form government after next Saturday.

Instead, the mining industry sledgehammer is being applied to the walnut of the National Party, which has again illustrated the independence of mind peculiar to its Western Australian state branch by offering a brave strategy to tackle a public debt forecast to reach a dizzying $40 billion in 2019-20.

This involves increasing a lease rental rate paid on iron ore production by BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto from 25 cents a tonne to $5 � finally adjusting for inflation a rate that had effectively gone unchanged since it was set in the early 1960s.

It is promised that this will add as much as $2 billion to government revenue annually, assuming the correctness of inevitably contested assumptions.

The policy bears all the stylistic hallmarks of party leader Brendon Grylls, whose remarkable electoral achievements over the past decade largely reflect his success in imposing the Royalties for Regions scheme on the Barnett government.

This reserves a quarter of the state�s mining royalty revenue for regional projects, and would itself be first for the chop under any rationally ordered scheme to restore the budget to health, if either major party dared countenance it.

But whereas Royalties for Regions offers a politically happy confluence of thinly spread pain and thickly concentrated benefit, the loser this time around is the most powerful enemy that anyone in Western Australian politics could contrive to create for themselves.

Even so, the initial reception appeared positive, with a ReachTEL poll in September finding 45.4% in support and 31.5% opposed � suggesting the public now takes a much more sceptical view of the mining industry than it did when federal Labor�s ill-fated tax plans were launched at the peak of the boom.

But when the same pollster repeated the exercise after two months of the ad campaign, support was found to have dropped to 34.8%, with opposition up to 39.0%.

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy further cranked up the psychological pressure on Grylls late last year by releasing results of two privately conducted polls from Pilbara, the formerly Labor-held seat to which Grylls audaciously moved in 2013 as part of a successful strategy to break the party out of its wheat belt heartland and into the then-prospering mining regions of the state�s north and deep interior.

Both showed Grylls in third place, with the implication that the Liberals would win the seat ahead of Labor after the distribution of his preferences.

In late January, however, the Nationals countered with a very different internal poll of their own, showing the Liberal vote tanking and Grylls headed for much the same winning margin over Labor he achieved in 2013.

Either way, there are a number of reasons to think the mining industry can rest easy so far as Grylls� tax policy is concerned.

Every other party of consequence, including One Nation, is vehemently opposed, and it is highly unlikely that the Nationals will emerge from the election in the formidable bargaining position they enjoyed in 2008, when they held the balance of power in both houses of parliament.

Ultimately, the industry has a bigger objective in mind than simply seeing off a policy proposal from a marginal player like the Nationals � a point made abundantly clear by its massive advertising spend in Perth, where the party isn�t even fielding any candidates.

It�s to ensure that no political party, major or minor, ever loses sight of the fact that any endeavour to draw more revenue from the industry will come at a heavy political cost.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 06:36

DancingShade: Jul 26, 2007; by Fluffdaddy

Recoome posted:

Thread reminder that this had ~~~bipartisan~~~ support in the lower house, thus reinforcing that the Australian Labor Party is actually extremely poo poo and aren't left-wing at all

This is worth repeating.

Just because Labor aren't the LNP doesn't mean they're the "good ones". Vote green, independant, anything other than the big two.

gently caress I sound like a shill. Well it was meant more as a warning.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 07:04

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

open24hours posted:

What do they do now if a veteran is making false claims that could be refuted by releasing the information? Show it to a judge and have the court order them to stop/apologise/whatever?

What type of false claims? Is this the Jackie Lambie style false claims, or do you think that the legislation might be used to silence detractors?

I mean your post is an extremely hot take here but you might want to contextualise your comment with what actually just happened with a person speaking out about Centrelink. I'm guessing you took a glance at that and were like "lol bitch had it coming"

e: Not really relevant

Recoome fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Mar 3, 2017

# ? Mar 3, 2017 07:09

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Solemn Sloth posted:

The Poll bludger at Crikey details what might be the real reason the Liberals are seeking to knife the Nats in WA

gently caress our lovely mining companies in our lovely mining state.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 07:12

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013

Recoome posted:

What type of false claims? Is this the Jackie Lambie style false claims, or do you think that the legislation might be used to silence detractors?

I mean your post is an extremely hot take here but you might want to contextualise your comment with what actually just happened with a person speaking out about Centrelink. I'm guessing you took a glance at that and were like "lol bitch had it coming"

I read it as a question, not a hot take? :shrug:

:shrug:

What does happen currently if someone criticises defence using false claims? Do they just ignore it?

# ? Mar 3, 2017 07:12

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Recoome posted:

What type of false claims? Is this the Jackie Lambie style false claims, or do you think that the legislation might be used to silence detractors?

I mean your post is an extremely hot take here but you might want to contextualise your comment with what actually just happened with a person speaking out about Centrelink. I'm guessing you took a glance at that and were like "lol bitch had it coming"

I would have thought a 'false claim' would be pretty self explanatory. It's a claim that is, in fact, false.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 07:15

Recoome: Nov 9, 2013; Matter of fact, I'm salty now.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

I read it as a question, not a hot take?

What does happen currently if someone criticises defence using false claims? Do they just ignore it?

Yeah I've edited my comment, although I get the insinuation that the current powers aren't good enough.

Obviously serving ADF members can't really speak out about these things because thats really bad, and I guess if they aren't an ADF member anymore then the ADF tried to correct the record as much as it can without breaching privacy, or ignores it.

An amazing example here is how the ADF lost control of the mental health narrative, when actually ADF members these days generally have better support WRT mental health when compared to the general population. Also due to the more regular psych screening, problems are also detected faster when compared to the general population. There's still a public perception that it's poo poo (it's still not ideal, and some services e.g. Navy/Army lag behind), but mental health is a bigger deal then it is in any other workplace, government or otherwise.

For contrast, the Queensland Police Service has some of the highest rates of PTSD/mental health problems of any organisation, ever. I want to say the prevalence of PTSD is approximately 33%-40%

# ? Mar 3, 2017 07:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 08:20

snaeksikn: Feb 28, 2010

Hi auspol I wonder if anyone might have some advice for me in regards to Centrelink�s general incompetence impacting someone close to me. My girlfriend is doing tafe full time to carry through for her Cert IV and Diploma and has applied for Youth Allowance from Centrelink. She gets about 3 hours work a week from a retail job (usually Friday or Saturday work, never Sunday), both of her parents are disabled and not in a position to support her financially.

She lodged her initial claim for Youth Allowance on 4th Jan, and despite providing everything they asked for at the time had her claim rejected 3 weeks later on the 25th Jan and was advised that she needs to provide evidence of her tafe contact hours, but once she did that processing �should be pretty quick� because it will all be part of the same claim assessment and won�t be treated like a new one again. She provided the tafe timetable info as proof within the same day for the claim to progress.

2 weeks after resubmitting the info on the 24th Jan she hadn�t heard back so she called Centrelink�s Student Services department. She called Student Services multiple times a week every week at different days and different times only for the call to ring out every time. After 3 weeks of not being able to contact the Student Services dept she called the Complaints department and was advised nobody had looked at her claim yet and there was no ability to progress things and to keep calling Student Services.

Today (2 weeks after speaking to Complaints) she finally got through to Student Services and was told that the claim still hasn�t been reviewed, and it�s probably at the bottom of the pile because they were currently dealing with a number of contested rejected claims. They have now told her they have marked it as urgent after she told them the same thing she told Complaints, ie she is in a very precarious position work wise and her parents are not in a position to support her, and they have now said they�d be hopeful someone will be in touch with her on the 13th and if not to call them again on the line that has proven impossible to get ahold of anyone on for the last month and bit.

Is there anything else she can do from here both from a getting the claim assessed point of view or as a way to lodge a complaint with Centrelink that will actually get some traction (and not a public smearing in retaliation?). Her work cancelled her shift for this week and its completely hosed her, she has spent the last 5-6 weeks living off the $70 a week she sees from her one shift and her phone and smartrider burns up half of that each week before food.

I�ve never dealt with Centrelink before in my life so I don�t really know the best way for someone to get traction with the bastards.

# ? Mar 3, 2017 07:45

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol March - fuck the poor, fuck the SDA

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.04)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS