|
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/24823764/bullock-backs-racial-discrimination-changes/quote:Rookie WA Labor Senator Joe Bullock has indicated he would support lifting the ban on offending, insulting or humiliating people on racial grounds – if given the opportunity. I sure am glad that this guy replaced Louise Pratt in the Senate.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
Brown Paper Bag posted:https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/24823764/bullock-backs-racial-discrimination-changes/ ALP - The progressive party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Laserface posted:Was trying to buy Metro Redux for XBox today and came across this Outlast cover art which looks surprisingly like Abbott. The resemblance is... uncanny. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
I kind of want to make "Outlast" Greens 2016 Posters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:Also the costs of pit remediation and laying additional copper if getting everyone on a minimum 25M/? is your goal. They left $ figures out of the overall comparisions, probably so they don't have to show that woukdnt save enough as it would cost in the longrun to upgrade. But hey, it's the broadband
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
I'm watching question time and it is bad and democracy is a farce
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Children.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Yep, it's a loving joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Fat old turd from the Nats has, after having an hour to practice his dixer, addressed a question to the "minister for agg... aggacultcha"
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Catch anyone playing solitaire?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Tim Watts is livetweeting it. He seems like he would be a good guy if he wasn't in the ALP
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
And yet another Liberal (Bart Bassett) steps aside due to ICAC...
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Who's been a bad doggie?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Every time I hear question time (or any other broadcast sitting) I've wondered how well members would rank if the amount of partisan attacks were compared to on-point discussion. It's almost always 'this is what we think and we can't say why because the other side are a bunch of doo-doos and they left us a mess and mum won't clean it for us so no-one gets to play'. It seems worst with the LNP/ALP, but everyone joins in to some extent. Are there any stats on this? Any way to see which members are actually the least useful for discussing policy because they won't stop ranting about the other side? Or is it just everyone, all partisan, all the time 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
deathofmusic posted:And yet another Liberal (Bart Bassett) steps aside due to ICAC... Does that make 9 now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
ICAC have hounded him out
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Mad Katter posted:Does that make 9 now? I was asking for a definitive list earlier in the thread as I have heard conflicting numbers. It would be great to get so that you can throw it into the face of anyone that believes the Libs aren't as corrupt as Labor Edit: For content Barry O'Farrell (NSW Premier) Mike Gallacher (NSW Police Minister) Arthur Sinodinos (Federal Assistant Treasurer) Chris Hartcher (NSW Resources Minister) Marie Ficarra (Member of the Legislative Council) Andrew Cornwell (NSW Government Whip) Tim Owen (Member for Newcastle) Bart Bassett (Member for Londonderry) Chris Spence (Member for The Entrance) Darren Webber (Member for Wyong) SMH posted:Seven Liberal MPs have now moved to the crossbench during the ICAC's inquiry, including former police minister Mike Gallacher and former energy minister Chris Hartcher. So that means if you include Sinodinos and Barry (he just stepped down from being Premier - he didn't leave the party correct?) there have been 11 Liberals brought down by ICAC so far Freudian Slip fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
Freudian Slip posted:I was asking for a definitive list earlier in the thread as I have heard conflicting numbers. It would be great to get so that you can throw it into the face of anyone that believes the Libs aren't as corrupt as Labor  It's not corruption, it's just that Labor made things we were doing that were legal illegal and created false crimes that have taken us down we aren't corrupt like Labor are
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Freudian Slip posted:I was asking for a definitive list earlier in the thread as I have heard conflicting numbers. It would be great to get so that you can throw it into the face of anyone that believes the Libs aren't as corrupt as Labor Chris Spence and Darren Webber as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 07:22
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Chris Spence and Darren Webber as well. Cheers - updated the list Still missing one bucket of pond scum! \/\/\/\/\/\/ - Double cheers! Freudian Slip fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Aug 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Also I can fill these in for you: Marie Ficarra (Member of the Legislative Council) Tim Owen (Member for Newcastle) Bart Bassett (Member for Londonderry) Chris Spence (Member for The Entrance) Darren Webber (Member for Wyong)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
UrbanLabyrinth posted:http://www.industry.gov.au/HigherEducation/StudentSupport/Documents/StudentAssistanceDetermination2009Compilation.pdf seems to have a list. My degree is covered, holy crap. Maybe I should go figure out how much our savings would screw us over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Josie posted:My degree is covered, holy crap. Maybe I should go figure out how much our savings would screw us over. The most they can withhold payments from you is 13 weeks unless you have over $320k in liquid assets. Having savings over 6k just postpones the start of payments  They postponed mine but I found myself in hardship, I called them up when I was still 3 weeks away from the scheduled start of my payments and they started mine earlier and gave me a hardship payment as well.If you work, you can make a surprising amount of money before it starts to eat into your ausstudy as well. It's a really great system; there was nothing like this available in Canada while I was an undergrad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
The Abbott government is poised to announce a revamped school chaplaincy program following two High Court rulings that the program is constitutionally invalid. Fairfax Media can reveal the scheme will remain restricted to religious workers despite a cabinet discussion on Monday about including a secular option for schools. Prime Minister Tony Abbott argued against a change in the cabinet meeting. In a bid to prevent another High Court challenge, the federal government will direct funding to state and territory governments rather than to chaplain providers. The High Court ruled the scheme invalid in June because it went outside the Commonwealth government's funding powers – a decision that threw the fate of hundreds of government grants and programs into doubt. The High Court also struck down the scheme in 2011. Cabinet explored extending the $244 million scheme to include funding for secular welfare workers – reflecting an acknowledgment among ministers that the issue is politically sensitive. This option would have reversed the government's existing policy that funding should be restricted to religious chaplains. During the cabinet discussion, Mr Abbott argued that the government should stand by its existing policy. Mr Abbott argued the scheme's original intent was supporting pastoral care in schools and that should remain its focus. No major further changes are expected to the program, as it has now been designed, before it comes back to and is approved by the cabinet. At the same cabinet meeting, Liberal Party officials reportedly told ministers to tighten their focus, with "no more distractions", "no more ideology" and an instruction to "stick to the middle". The chaplaincy scheme was also raised in the Coalition party room on Tuesday, where at least two government members argued the scheme should be broadened to include funding for secular workers. The chaplaincy scheme was introduced by the Howard government in 2006. Labor expanded the scheme to include secular workers in 2011 – an option the government scrapped in this year's budget. Both challenges in the High Court were brought forward by Toowoomba father Ron Williams, a secularist opposed to public funding for religious workers in public schools. Labor and the Greens both oppose restricting the chaplaincy scheme to religious workers. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said in June: "Labor certainly does not support restricting chaplains to just religious organisations. "We think this is taking the education system down the wrong track."
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
I had the TV on in the background and I hear a newscaster say "Tonight at 6, The Government's controversial proposed changes to penalty rates - A win for small business and young workers." I think it was Channel 9.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
Anidav posted:I had the TV on in the background and I hear a newscaster say The young workers will be paid less, and in a year all the extra profit to the small businesses will be eaten by rent costs that rose correspondingly. A win for people that own commercial housing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
gently caress the High Courtquote:THE Abbott government has moved to circumvent a High Court decision, allowing school chaplains to still be funded in schools. This scheme has been to the High Court twice already and twice found to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
What was the reason it lost the first time? This one they did actually lose because it broke the funding laws, so it's fair enough to get around that error by funding it through the states. Just because it's a lovely policy to push their sky deity in schools doesn't make it unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 09:33
|
|
|
Lid posted:gently caress the High Court The news is reporting this as if it's a thing that is already happening and will continue to happen but is there anything stopping the high court from saying "no" a third time? How does ferrying the money to the states first make this any more viable?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
Serrath posted:The news is reporting this as if it's a thing that is already happening and will continue to happen but is there anything stopping the high court from saying "no" a third time? How does ferrying the money to the states first make this any more viable? Because to my knowledge, high court rulings are fairly specific. If they ruled that the funding method was unconstitutional, then changing the funding method gets around that ruling. Someone would need to bring a new challenge on a new basis to get it struck down again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
quote:The scheme, which sees schools given $20,000, will still be exempt from secular workers. Have they given any indication as to how they determine who is and isn't religious in order to pay them? I get that this provision means that Atheists are out but what about extreme minority or joke religions? Can a member of the Jedi religion apply for funding? What about Buddhism which doesn't actually take a position on the existence of a creator deity? Like, I get the intent, to put more Christianity in schools but do they explicitly spell that out in the legislation or do they leave the door open for other faiths and actually nominate a process to determine which faiths are and are not entitled to funding under this program? How do laws like this get passed in an apparently secular government?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Tinks got moved again. Now friday at ICAC. https://twitter.com/MWhitbourn/status/504552149502541824/photo/1
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 09:55
|
|
|
Yeah, if you look of s 51 of the Constitution it's a list of things the federal government can legislate on with anything not listed been up to the states (unless they surrender that power to the Commonwealth). States can legislate in these areas but I would imagine there's always going to be issues where the commonwealth is giving money earmarked for the program.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Last time the chaplaincy stuff went to the High Court I remember people (including people in the thread) saying they'd just rejig it slightly and then be able to put it through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Last time the chaplaincy stuff went to the High Court I remember people (including people in the thread) saying they'd just rejig it slightly and then be able to put it through. Yeah, basically the issue was the Commonwealth giving funding directly for an education program, something which is done by the states according to the constitution. This is all they had to do to get around it, but it requires the states to play ball.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
The Commonwealth was purporting to make contracts with chaplaincy providers, giving them cash. Problem is, there was no legislation authorising the making of these contracts. In the first case, the Commonwealth argued that they didn't need legislation anyway. The High Court said "No, you do." Then they made some pretty lovely legislation purporting to support the contracts. Then the High Court said "No, you don't have any legislative power to make that legislation." That's because under the Constitution the Commonwealth can only make laws about a bunch of particular, specified subjects. Chaplains don't come under any of those subjects. Now the Commonwealth is saying "Fine, we'll give the money to the states." That's specifically provided for in the Constitution. Section 96 of the Constitution says the Commonwealth can make "grants" to States. Those grants can be subject to conditions. The way this typically works is the Commonwealth can make an agreement with the State. The agreement says "The Commonwealth agrees to give you $X, on the condition that you then give most of it to someone else." That's fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
Those On My Left posted:The Commonwealth was purporting to make contracts with chaplaincy providers, giving them cash. Problem is, there was no legislation authorising the making of these contracts. In the first case, the Commonwealth argued that they didn't need legislation anyway. The High Court said "No, you do." Then they made some pretty lovely legislation purporting to support the contracts. Then the High Court said "No, you don't have any legislative power to make that legislation." That's because under the Constitution the Commonwealth can only make laws about a bunch of particular, specified subjects. Chaplains don't come under any of those subjects. This is good. With upcoming state elections, Libs at the state level don't have the same luxury to push lovely policy like the Feds do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 12:40
|
|
Kim Jong ill posted:This is good. With upcoming state elections, Libs at the state level don't have the same luxury to push lovely policy like this as the Feds do. None of the people whose votes will decide the election know or care what a chaplaincy program is
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Kim Jong ill posted:This is good. With upcoming state elections, Libs at the state level don't have the same luxury to push lovely policy like the Feds do. Labor support the chaplaincy program too though. IIRC the rushed legislation that got rejected in the high court the second time around came in under Rudd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 12:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:49 |
|
|
Haters Objector posted:None of the people whose votes will decide the election know or care what a chaplaincy program is Well try and make them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 12:47
|
|
