quote:

There is an irc channel, #auspol on synirc where Australians discuss things, presumably dark spooky things that man was not meant to know.

IRC Rules: Don't be a shithead, don't say racist, sexist, or nasty things. Don't discuss verboten topics.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

https://twitter.com/rpy/status/835770761679785984

JBP posted:

The Guardian posted:

Think Trump’s travel ban was bad? Peter Dutton may soon have the power to play God


The world reacted in horror as President Trump’s executive order to limit travel from seven Muslim-majority nations saw families torn apart and citizens refused entry at US airports. US courts have blocked the order for now, yet Australia’s immigration minister, Peter Dutton, seeks those very same draconian powers.

Two bills currently before federal parliament are an attempt to significantly expand Dutton’s Trump-like powers. This expansion would increase his power, decrease government accountability and all but write out the courts’ review powers. They would allow the immigration minister to play God; to make significant decisions that would affect the lives of vulnerable people, and to do so unchecked.

Information about a welfare recipient is considered protected but there are exceptions to the rule

The first is the “visa ban bill”, formally the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016 – a proposed law that would prevent any adult taken to Nauru or Manus Island after 19 July 2013 from ever making a valid Australian visa application. It applies to asylum seekers intercepted at sea and taken to Nauru or Manus, including those currently in Australia for medical treatment.

The visa ban bill contravenes Australia’s international human rights obligations. Refugee law experts, human rights advocates and even the Labor party, which reintroduced the use of detention centres on Nauru and Manus, argue the bill is inhumane, discriminatory and pointless.

In a similar vein to Trump’s executive order, this ban will separate families.

The only so-called safeguard is that the minister would have the power to overrule the visa ban in individual cases when he considers it is in “the public interest”. Of course, a safeguard that relies on the whim of the decision-maker, with no independent oversight, is no safeguard at all.

The second bill, currently before the Senate, is the Migration Amendment (Visa Revalidation and Other Measures) Bill 2016. This bill allows the minister to personally issue a revalidation requirement for entire specified cohorts of visa holders, immediately preventing them from being able to enter Australia until their visa is revalidated. The power is not limited to any particular class of visa.

This power may be exercised on the basis of defined criteria, such as health checks, but may also be exercised when the minister considers it is in “the public interest” to do so. The unfettered, exceptionally broad power this gives the minister over any individual residing in Australia, who does not hold Australian citizenship, is alarming.

Refugees are too often described by politicians and parts of the media as a problem. But behind the headlines are people with powerful personal stories. The Guardian’s Dear Australia project is a new series that will hear the firsthand testaments of refugees and asylum seekers. Together their videos will tell the larger story of those who seek sanctuary to build new lives in Australia

These bills allow just one person – the immigration minister – to make substantial and permanent decisions about another person’s life: whether a young woman will be sent back to the persecution from which she fled; whether a baby born in Australia to asylum seekers will be allowed to grow up with his or her parents; whether a person will have their visa cancelled without warning or opportunity to apply for its reinstatement.

The minister’s decision is virtually unreviewable unlike Trump’s executive order which, we have seen, the courts can interrogate.

Liberty Victoria’s Young Liberty for Law Reform has comprehensively reviewed the past 60 years of Australia’s immigration laws and found a troubling increase in decision-making powers that include “public interest” as a condition for the exercise of a non-reviewable, non-compellable ministerial discretion.

Public interest has been described by the courts as entirely discretionary and politically motivated. So, Dutton can decide whether to exercise his decision-making power and he defines what the public interest is. No checks. No balances. No accountability.

The government argues that ministerial discretion is necessary in migration matters, and that it is often used in compassionate cases. That does not mean that this power always achieves compassionate outcomes.

While increasing the minister’s powers, these two bills also sideline the checks and balances that keep our government accountable.

Powers of this kind have long been criticised. As far back as 1989 the then-immigration minister, Robert Ray, attempted to remove all ministerial discretion from the Migration Act, stating: “Decision-making guidelines are perceived to be obscure, arbitrarily changed and applied, and subject to day-to-day political intervention in individual cases.”

In 2004, a Senate inquiry into ministerial discretion in migration recommended that these powers should be “a last resort to deal with cases that a truly exceptional or unforeseeable.”

The committee found the minister’s ability to “micro-manage” the immigration system concerning, given it “creates the possibility and perception of corruption.” And in 2008 then-immigration minister Chris Evans stated he was uncomfortable with the unprecedented power given to the immigration minister because these powers lack transparency, accountability, appeal rights and allowed him to “play God.”

Discretionary ministerial powers were originally established to prevent injustice. They were a tool to fix anomalies, a safety net reserved for extraordinary cases, and a power to override the missteps of a blind bureaucracy.

These bills increase Dutton’s ability to make life or death decisions. They allow him to decide which families get to be together and which don’t. They do all of this while simultaneously eroding the safeguards that were designed to protect fair decision-making.

The minister must not be allowed to play God.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

https://twitter.com/rharris334/status/838517213917147137

Recoome posted:

Only the loving ultranationalists would wear faux Islamic religious dress while going to court for racial vilification

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

A Turnbull government cabinet minister has been caught out failing to properly declare her financial interests, potentially placing her in “serious contempt” of federal parliament.

Employment Minister Michaelia Cash did not declare a mortgage on a $1.4 million investment property for almost four months – and finally made the disclosure only after questions from Fairfax Media.

Ms Cash bought the house next door to her home in the upmarket Perth suburb of Floreat in early November, property records show.

It’s the fourth house in her portfolio, and second investment property. Ms Cash took almost three months to declare the house but did not declare the new mortgage – both of which are required under the rules.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

The same journalist who broke the Ley story broke the Bronwyn Bishop story, there's something going on I reckon.

G-Spot Run posted:

Faces of PHON voters on ABC24 this morning and the haggard toothless stereotypes are out in force

freebooter posted:

Not from the Onion

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/female-traffic-light-signals-melbourne-pedestrian-crossing/8330560

Cirofren posted:

Vic polls have turned against labour. The hun's frontpage says voters are abonding them in droves and according to the ReachTEL poll they'd lose 18 seats if the next election was now.

They blame the $100k scandal as though crossing signals have nothing to do with it!

You Am I posted:

The Herald Sun has hated Dandrews winning the last state election and have tried everything to get dirt on them, both with the CFA and the youth justice issues.

Bogan King posted:

Happy international womens day ladies, the chamber of commerce has your back. See cutting penalty rates is their gift to women so now they can work more hours on Sundays. Who says men never do anything for you females.

https://twitter.com/AusChamber/status/839294771961049089

Bogan King posted:

Doctor Spaceman posted:

And they only get about $5 an hour too.

The Deadly Hume posted:

A good cartoonist died

Bogan King posted:

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

aejix posted:

Attaboy Jay

I eagerly await the wall-to-wall coverage of Libs screaming hysterically that we'll all be rooooooooned

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

https://twitter.com/workmanalice/status/841813278019878912

Milky Moor posted:

i'm happy as anyone else to rip on bad writing but it's pretty funny to watch dudes rip extra hard on someone (probably because she's a woman)

SLASHER HAWKE posted:

that one was though wasn't it?

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/842150907747885057

hooman posted:

Man who's party privatised Telstra complains about quality of service from Telstra.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

“If people want to enter politics then do that, but don’t do it from the office overlooking the harbour on your multimillion dollar fees each year.

“It’s high time these people pulled back from these moralistic stances and we’d be a better society without them.”

The Before Times posted:

This government likes to harp on about intergenerational theft and this is the hugest projection because they're robbing the young to feed the pensioners as we speak

JBP posted:

The poll was taken 2 days before that presser and indicated 39% blame SA and 35 or 36% blame the national energy market. I'm fairly sure that Weatherill knocked that figure into reverse with his appearance alongside Frydenberg.

Anidav posted:

Also nuclear power is back on the table, multiple tests.

Bogan King posted:

Bogan King posted:

It's easy to lose sight of the little things when such matters of importance as 18c are being discussed but it should be noted that the NSW Transport Minister thinks apps will replace public transport in the next decade.


Please note that anytime someone says 'big data' they are talking right out of their arse. In fact it is quite possible that anyone who seriously talks about big data to be entirely composed of arse.

Urcher posted:

I want to know how they plan to safeguard the transport history data of the entire population.

J/k they don't plan do to anything that might interfere with private profits innovation

Bogan King posted:

Truly in touch with the common man.

JBP posted:

I like Barnaby in a weird way.

starkebn posted:

paraphrasing what I heard on ABC Radio 20 minutes ago:

host: the business tax cuts aren't really popular with the broader public though are they? A recent IPSOS poll puts support at about 44%

president of the BCA: well, they're not 50% or more but there is clearly a majority who support the cuts

host: -did not challenge that verbal diarrhea at all-

.~forging a narrative~.

Cartoon posted:

Turns out wind farms are the great satan.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/wind-farm-settings-to-blame-for-sa-blackout-aemo-says/8389920


Well not really but we'll choose to believe it despite any amount of facts. A factoid for long term players - The SA grid is privatised.

JBP posted:

Mark Latham sure is a piece of poo poo.

Bogan King posted:

https://twitter.com/SenatorLudlam/status/846897909534679040