|
Splode posted:So if I'm following this correctly, we're either up for the great depression or the american civil war? Great Depression - Odds on favorite Civil War - 100:1 If we as a nation were so insane as to do anything in that commission of audit it will shrink our economy dramatically. In all the commentary there has not been a single one (I've read) that points out that the 'structural' side of the deficit was nothing to do with Rudd/Gillard. It was 100% Howard/Costello. If you were going to criticise Rudd/Gillard then it would be that they didn't do anything to reverse it but hello GFC anyone? This isn't a 'Labor Mess' it is 100% a LMP mess and it isn't that big a deal anyway. This will trash our economy and leave us in about the same shape New Caledonia (Nickle) and Nauru (Phosphate) are in these days. If this is what makes for economic credibility then I'm Clucky the loving duck. Extra irony points for the Prod Com's baby, the NDIS, being called incompetent economics. 
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
Meanwhile in Queensland  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-01/attorney-general-plans-changes-to-qld-double-jeopardy-laws/5423206?section=qld The work experience AG is considering overturning 800 years of common law. I'm amazed they could find someone who makes Brandis look sharp. WTF is it with this loving state? And why haven't we learnt any lessons about people with "Blje", "Belj" names?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
Pudding Space posted:Meanwhile in Queensland What's the big deal about this whole "precedent" thing anyway?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:AusPol SportsBet Fortunately there are a bunch of bureaucracies in canberra who will quite rightly point out the negative economic consequences of each of these policies. As I keep saying, why on earth would Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey deliberately want to be the first prime minister and treasurer to reside over a recession in over 25 years?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98oeOocy2yI&t=149s OH look at this, it's Australia.mp4
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:Fortunately there are a bunch of bureaucracies in canberra who will quite rightly point out the negative economic consequences of each of these policies. Unfortunately those same bureaucracies appear to be part of the massive cuts they're proposing so they've already gotten rid of that pesky bit of red tape. Is this march Australia thing likely to take off now do you think or are we doomed to remain apathetic to the country going to poo poo?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:47
|
|
|
Give it a Sith hood and it's perfect.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
I mean the M and S keys ARE right next to each other
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Essentially the audit is proposing that Australians really need to pay a small fine if they get the flu and need a couple of days off work. People working minimum wage (freeze that sucker for the next decade) casual jobs will not only be out of a days pay but have to pay a fee on top of it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Already seen that with casuals. Wife miscarried, nope need to come in otherwise can't pay the rent. Concrete shards outside eye leading to an infection. Nope can't afford to take time off. They wouldn't join a union because they were agency workers that are dropped if they get uppity. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
My first job was via an agency. had a minor disagreement with my manager at my place of work regarding the quality of the tools provided to me to do my job. got a call 5min after I left the building from the agency telling me i was no longer required and not to go to work tomorrow. full time casual employment should be illegal if its not already (this was about 10 years ago)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
This is a good article, talks about women and Aust politics and representative viewpoints. I like the idea that we value women in the political sphere because they are different from men and do bring a different perspective for that reason. The picture is also good. http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/may/1398866400/rachel-nolan/men-certain-age 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Laserface posted:full time casual employment should be illegal if its not already (this was about 10 years ago) It's supposed to be. I forget the numbers, but you're not supposed to work over say 25-30 hours a week as a casual, you have to be given full-time benefits. Also, isn't it great that the audit goes out of its way to say that apparently the best way to address government spending is to reduce the minimum wage and not, maybe, closing all the tax loopholes and going after the cheats.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Captain Rehab posted:Happy International Workers' Day, which is also my birthday, comrades! Happy B'day! So where are people meeting for this, I've long put off being more active with my political beliefs and laughing at the AFP (which I keep reading as Australian Federal Police, my brain is dumb) seems like a drat fine way to kick it off.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
International Reactions to Australia Chat: They Hate Usquote:UN alarmed by Great Barrier Reef dredging plans Optimistic Idiot, thy name is Greg Hunt.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Otoh, my greens branch just got 31 new members so thanks for that I guess Tony
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Splode posted:So if I'm following this correctly, we're either up for the great depression or the american civil war? ¿Porque no los dos? Haters Objector posted:
And not a single costing to be found in the lot.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
A few of my pharmacy friends had a brief discussion on the Commission of Audit and it was unusual to hear them sit on my side of the political fence for a change. Here are a few of the proposed recommendations: - increasing general co-payments by $5.00 (increase from $36.90 to $41.90), while above the safety net a rise of $5.00 (from $6.00 to $11.00) - concession co-payments won't increase, although once they reach the safety net, they will be required to co-contribute $2.00 for each script - extending the scope of health professional practices to address the future health care needs - new arrangements for funding the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme - opening up the pharmacy sector to competition, including through the deregulation of ownership and location rules The last point is massive for the community pharmacy industry, for many years they championed the protection of pharmacists owning pharmacies, from ownership being opened up to supermarkets. At least this is an opportunity to tell everyone from many fields about what the Abbott Government may have in store for them.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
I think the reef story sums us up pretty much as a country. I mean even the US (probably) wouldn't start drilling in Yellowstone or excavating the Grand Cannon Canyon.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
I love the fact that they recognise that scripts should be cheap for concessions($2), but apparently not free. I guess there are hordes of pensioners buying prescription medication just for the hell of it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Campbell Newman: Let's boycott the UN
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Nibbles141 posted:I think the reef story sums us up pretty much as a country. I mean even the US (probably) wouldn't start drilling in Yellowstone or excavating the Grand Cannon Canyon. The Republicans would - still "drill, baby, drill" haunts the memory. This is the worldwide stench of neoconservatist ideology - accept no data keep trying until it "works".
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Good OP poo poo Country
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:I love the fact that they recognise that scripts should be cheap for concessions($2), but apparently not free. I guess there are hordes of pensioners buying prescription medication just for the hell of it. Those pensioner hippies have been getting their high at the government's expense for 5 decades too long 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Pudding Space posted:Meanwhile in Queensland I hate queensland liberals as much as the next guy, but I'd argue that the bigger part of blame lies with Labor for allowing people to be tried again for murder in the first place, not with the libs for making Labors changes apply retroactively.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Cassa posted:the AFP (which I keep reading as Australian Federal Police, my brain is dumb) To be fair the difference is vanishingly slight.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:I hate queensland liberals as much as the next guy, but I'd argue that the bigger part of blame lies with Labor for allowing people to be tried again for murder in the first place, not with the libs for making Labors changes apply retroactively. Double jeopardy as already been abrogated across Australia. TBF it might be case of broken clock, as if you're going to do it you're missing the point if you don't make it retroactive. In fact, I think Qld might be the only state where it wasn't made retroactive. I think for serious crimes with DNA evidence now, it's a compelling argument to abrogate it in serious cases.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Watch LNP support for the idea evaporate when they realize how many skeletons they have in their closet that they could be re-tried for.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Nibbles141 posted:It's supposed to be. I forget the numbers, but you're not supposed to work over say 25-30 hours a week as a casual, you have to be given full-time benefits.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Nibbles141 posted:I think for serious crimes with DNA evidence now, it's a compelling argument to abrogate it in serious cases. Yeah, it's not actually such a stupid idea. I mean, let's not give the state unlimited bites at the apple for every crime, but it might be good to relax the principle of double jeopardy for some serious, violent offences in relation to which compelling evidence can later come to light due to scientific advancements. Could actually be a good thing. If done right. Too bad it won't be.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:I hate queensland liberals as much as the next guy, but I'd argue that the bigger part of blame lies with Labor for allowing people to be tried again for murder in the first place, not with the libs for making Labors changes apply retroactively. Coincidentally was in a discussion on American double jeopardy laws yesterday over the case of Timothy Hennis: American soldier - raped and murdered a woman and two of her children back in the 1980s - was originally found guilty, mistrial was ordered on appeal, was found not guilty on re-trial, DNA evidence nearly two decades later proved that all the physical semen/hair etc. was his, Double Jeopardy kicked in. To get around it they used Hennis backing as a soldier to have him court martialed and face a military trial for the same crime, was found guilty again and is on death row. http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/hennis/overkill-three-brutal-murders.html Essentially that's a long way of saying "double jeopardy" laws existed to prevent people being tried over and over and over again for the same crime until you got a favourable result. They were not meant to mean that if new overwhelming evidence comes to light (technology marches on) that having already been the prime suspect once does not mean you are now immune from the new evidence. Nibbles141 posted:Double jeopardy as already been abrogated across Australia. TBF it might be case of broken clock, as if you're going to do it you're missing the point if you don't make it retroactive. In fact, I think Qld might be the only state where it wasn't made retroactive. Pretty much this. If you want a case of this being the real implication of double jeopardy being abused and abused look at Italy and the Amanda Knox trial (the only case I can think of where three people have been convicted of an individual murder and each trial is individual from the other and just because someone has been convicted, and is still in prison, does not mean that the others are also innocent. Also one trial has physical evidence and the other is literally based on "satanic sex ritual gone wrong".)
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Yeah, it's not actually such a stupid idea. I mean, let's not give the state unlimited bites at the apple for every crime, but it might be good to relax the principle of double jeopardy for some serious, violent offences in relation to which compelling evidence can later come to light due to scientific advancements. The Age article (link) talks about a specific case where one man has been convicted of the same (pretty loving horrific) murder like 3 times, but has managed to successfully appeal because of legal technicalities. I think the issue in that case isn't really double jeopardy but the state's complete inability to competently hold a trial. Double Jeopardy is justifiable in cases of fresh and compelling evidence for serious offences (which is the law now, though it only applies to cases after 2007), and it does make sense to retroactively apply that. I guess it depends on the scope of the changes and how efficient they will be in addressing the problem. I'm not sure how statistically significant it is (like how often does double jeopardy ACTUALLY prevent justice from being served?) so the jury is still out on these proposed changes until there is an actual amendment to read. e: pun intended The Before Times fucked around with this message at 15:50 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Mithranderp posted:The Age article (link) talks about a specific case where one man has been convicted of the same (pretty loving horrific) murder like 3 times, but has managed to successfully appeal because of legal technicalities. I think the issue in that case isn't really double jeopardy but the state's complete inability to competently hold a trial. Double Jeopardy is justifiable in cases of fresh and compelling evidence for serious offences (which is the law now, though it only applies to cases after 2007), and it does make sense to retroactively apply that. I guess it depends on the scope of the changes and how efficient they will be in addressing the problem. I'm not sure how statistically significant it is (like how often does double jeopardy ACTUALLY prevent justice from being served?) so the jury is still out on these proposed changes until there is an actual amendment to read. If you want to read about the murder they're referring to it's a bit more confusing than that (though why the appeals court quashed the conviction forcing double jeopardy as opposed to ordering a new trial is beyond me): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Carroll Essentially the double jeopardy kicked in when they charged him with PERJURY over the first trial. The perjury? Saying he didn't kill the infant. So they were trying him on the question of murder by proxy and the High Court had a loving fit (because seriously, what the hell is that?).
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Destroyenator posted:How does this work out for people who contract to a single company full time? As in they do full time hours at an hourly rate and no leave, super etc. and there's some threshold above which they have to start charging GST? I guess they have their own ABN? Sorry I'm not completely clear on the details but this is a thing that happens right? That's called sham contracting and it's illegal. FWA has a pretty thorough list of the things that are required for you to qualify as a contractor:
It's theoretically possible that someone could qualify for all of that while contracting to a single company full-time, but it's incredibly unlikely and 99 times out of 100 someone "contracted" to a single company is under a sham contract. If you have a roster or specific, pre-decided hours and receive a paycheque and don't have creative/professional license in the work you do with the responsibility of rectifying mistakes and also carrying financial risk for those mistakes, using your own tools and equipment, you aren't a contractor.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:56
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Lid posted:International Reactions to Australia Chat: They Hate Us I want to stuff about 10 kg of benign silt down his benign throat. How does an environment minister not understand that things being where they don't belong is bad?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
Lid posted:If you want to read about the murder they're referring to it's a bit more confusing than that (though why the appeals court quashed the conviction forcing double jeopardy as opposed to ordering a new trial is beyond me): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Carroll Yeah, it is a bit confusing, especially on the issue of what we can actually blame for the whole mess. I mean, double jeopardy was of course an issue, but it wouldn't have been an issue if the prosecution in this case had been a bit less complacent (like not even bothering to dispute the alibi...?). You might blame the judge for quashing the conviction and not ordering a retrial, but I think the reason the judge didn't order a retrial was that because the prosecution in fact had not proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, it wasn't a mistrial as much as it was, well, the wrong verdict. edit: and then, the whole idea of charging him with perjury is completely whack. The Before Times fucked around with this message at 16:07 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Splode posted:So if I'm following this correctly, we're either up for the great depression or the american civil war? You probably have no idea how close this nation came to the latter during the 2000's drought.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:53 |
|
|
XyloJW posted:I want to stuff about 10 kg of benign silt down his benign throat. How does an environment minister not understand that things being where they don't belong is bad? He's afflicted with a little something we call "being Australian".
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 16:23
|
|
