quote:

PUP threatens to block supply over privatising states' assets

Date
August 1, 2014

82 reading now
Comments 163

Heath Aston, Judith Ireland



Clive Palmer says his Senate team is prepared to vote to block supply to prevent Treasurer Joe Hockey's $6 billion asset recycling fund, designed to pay state governments to privatise assets.

''The only recycling we would vote for is recycling the Treasurer,'' Mr Palmer said. ''Joe Hockey is the most spectacularly unsuccessful treasurer Australia has seen.''

''The government should call a double dissolution and let the public decide on things like privatisation, but they've got no guts.''

And Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said on Friday that the Abbottt government's budget had failed because the Prime Minister believed negotiating with the opposition was a ''sign of weakness''.

''What has amazed me in the 10 months I’ve been Opposition Leader is that Tony Abbott will do anything but deal with the opposition,'' Mr Shorten told ABC Radio.
Clive Palmer.

''He thinks that somehow negotiation with Labor is a sign of weakness I just think it's a sign of pragmatism.''

Mr Palmer's hardened stance against asset recycling came as Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Mr Hockey focused on infrastructure renewal and privatisation in their bid to jump-start the budget sales job.

Spruiking the merits of privatisation in Tasmania on Thursday, Mr Abbott fended off taunts by Mr Palmer to go to back to the polls to break the budget deadlock with the Senate, saying ''Australia doesn't need another election'' right now.

''We need a Parliament which respects the mandate that the government was given at the election we've just had,'' he said.

On Friday, the Treasurer batted away the threat and urged critics to take a ''chill pill''.

''Most of the budget has passed through the parliament because of the appropriations, so its important that everyone has a bit of a chill pill here,'' he told Sky News.

Constitutional lawyer Professor George Williams has cast doubt on whether Mr Abbott could take Australia back to the polls even if he wanted to, saying it was not clear whether a double dissolution trigger existed.

He said it was not certain whether the old Senate could ''roll over'' its disagreements with the lower house when the Senate renewed on July 1 and the High Court may need to get involved on the question.

The Senate rejected the Clean Energy Finance Corporation abolition bill twice before July and the mining tax repeal bill once.

''The fact that the Senate has rolled over means that there's some uncertainty with that trigger. The constitution doesn't deal specifically with that question,'' Professor Williams said.

The Asset Recycling Bill, which would strip $5.9 billion from Labor's Building Australia Fund and Education Infrastructure Fund, has been rejected once by the Senate and it is viewed by the Palmer United Party as the likely next double dissolution trigger if it comes back again from the House of Representatives.

The scheme will pay a loading of 15 per cent of the value of a privatisation to states as long as the money goes back into new infrastructure projects such as Melbourne's East West link and the Sydney WestConnex motorway.

But Mr Hockey took the unusual step this week of warning that he could bypass the Senate altogether by establishing the fund via an appropriation bill. He dared the opposition to block an appropriation bill - tantamount to blocking supply and bringing on a constitutional crisis.

It is understood the Labor Party would not block supply on this issue, while Mr Palmer has stated his readiness.

The government is likely to try again to negotiate the bill through Parliament. A spokeswoman for Mr Hockey said: ''The government is committed to the government's bill but if it has to look at other ways of funding infrastructure for the states it will.''

Mr Hockey hit the road this week, meeting crucial crossbench senators independent Nick Xenophon, Family First's Bob Day and PUP Jacqui Lambie, trying to win their support for key budget measures being blocked by the Parliament.

The Treasurer also accused Labor of tearing up its support for a budget surplus and said any shift from the bipartisan goal could put Australia’s triple-A credit rating at risk.

But Mr Shorten hit back on Friday saying Mr Hockey was ''flailing around'' trying to blame anyone for his budget mess and said the ''spectacle'' of the Treasurer trying to ''retrofit the votes to get it through'' 10 weeks later was a ''joke''.

Mr Shorten says the government needs to sit down with Labor and not the assortment of crossbench Senators.

Mr Shorten accused Mr Abbott of being so ''addicted to the politics of opposition'' that he lacked the skills to negotiate and needed to appreciate that ''the rest of us got elected too''.

with Latika Bourke

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...l#ixzz396IyqFsX

quote:

No modelling to prove Abbott's dole plan works

Date
August 1, 2014

20 reading now
Comments 39

Gareth Hutchens
Gareth Hutchens

View more articles from Gareth Hutchens

Follow Gareth on Twitter Email Gareth



A Department of Employment official has admitted the Abbott government has not done any modelling to estimate how many job seekers will find employment within three months after completing its multibillion-dollar work-for-the-dole program.

That is despite the government's own data showing work-for-the-dole programs are the least effective way to help people find jobs.

Department of Employment data shows that - for job seekers in 2013 - only 19.8 per cent of participants in work-for-the-dole schemes found a full- or part-time job within three months.

That compares with 40.3 per cent of people who did unpaid work experience, 28.4 per cent of those who completed some form of work training, 25.7 per cent who were trained in job search techniques, and 21 per cent of those who did voluntary work.

In senate estimates in June, Job Services Australia general manager Moya Drayton was asked by Greens senator Rachel Siewert if the government had any estimates of the proportion of unemployed participants that could expect to find a job within three months after finishing the Abbott government's new work-for-the-dole program.

''The department does not have estimates on the number of job seekers for the under-30 measure expected to be in full or part-time employment three months after participation in work for the dole,'' the department said.

The department also said it had no idea how many people it expected would move off income support as a consequence of being referred to the government's work-for-the-dole program.

The Abbott government has stressed that recent data relates to the former Labor government's work-for-the-dole programs.

''Labor watered down work for the dole and the number of job seekers moving into work decreased under Labor's watch,'' Assistant Minister for Employment Luke Hartsuyker said.

''Our new model is less prescriptive [than Labor's] with a stronger focus on only paying providers for results. It is this new combination of incentives and services that will improve the chances of a person getting a job.''

But Senator Siewert said the government could not be confident its program would be any different to Labor's.

''Given they've done no modelling, on what basis do they know they're going to be any different?'' she said.

''The evidence suggests that work-for-the-dole programs aren't effective, and if you talk to academics and non-government organisations who are engaged with the issue, they don't think it's effective at all.''

As of March 31, there were 17,000 job seekers who were doing work for the dole.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/no-modelling-to-prove-abbotts-dole-plan-works-20140731-3cx9g.html#ixzz396JhZ9L4

quote:

Film studios and other content creators should sue “mums and dads and students” who download pirated content, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull says.

Although doing this will be unpopular, he says it will help curb piracy.

quote:

But Village Roadshow co-chairman Graham Burke said suing individuals wouldn’t work and “would clog up the courts”.

“New Zealand has proven that that is ineffective and also the music industry has had a bad experience [with it],” Mr Burke said on Friday.

“New Zealand has graphically demonstrated that with the music industry, after spending a fortune for a small market on lawyers and legal costs, and taking often up to 18 months to go through the court system, et cetera.

"We’re either serious about stopping piracy or we’re not.”

quote:

The office of Ricky Muir has spectacularly imploded, with allegations of racism, sexism, bullying - and even personal threats against the rookie senator - at the heart of a dispute that led to the sacking of his most senior aide, Glenn Druery.

Mr Druery, known as the ''preference whisperer'' for his success in getting micro parties elected, was escorted out of the Parliament by officers on Thursday night.

He was sacked by an email from Senator Muir that accused him of ''not getting along with other staff''.

Advertisement

But Mr Druery has laid the blame for his shock dismissal with Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party founder Keith Littler who he accused on Friday of plotting to take Senator Muir's seat in Parliament through a bizarre plot known as ''Plan Z''. Mr Littler moved from Queensland to Melbourne to head Senator Muir's electorate office with his wife Sharyn Littler.

Senator Muir issued a statement on Friday saying Mr Littler retains his full confidence but Fairfax Media has obtained an incident report to the Parliament dated July 18, raising serious questions about Mr Littler's conduct since July 1.

The email, sent by Peter Breen, a policy adviser in Senator Muir's office, outlines ''numerous clashes'' between Mr Druery and Mr Littler and states that ''at least one Senator'' has complained about Mr Littler.

''Mr Littler and Mr Druery had numerous clashes about Mr Littler's presence in the office, his volatile temper, aggression, offensive language, inappropriate remarks about Aboriginal people, Asians and women and his disagreeable demeanour more generally when confronted by people or issues that did not comply with his world view,'' the letter states.

''[Littler] is a heavy smoker and appeared to have no consideration for the comfort of others in the confined space of the Canberra office.

''At least one Senator complained about the way they were treated by Mr Littler as did lobbyists and staffers.

''It should also be said that Mr Druery has had a difficult relationship with Mr Littler ever since he, Mr Littler, made personal threats against Senator Muir prior to the Senator taking office over the appropriate pay-grade at which Mr Littler and his wife should be employed.''

Mr Breen ends the letter by saying: ''I have been advised by Human Resources at the Department of Finance that I have a legal obligation to make this incident report.''

Mr Littler, a truck driver who produces motor sport programs known as 'The Grunt Files', did not return calls.

Senator Muir issued a statement in support of Mr Littler, saying it was his decision alone to sack Mr Druery.

Mr Druery said: ''I don't expect the party to survive in the long term but I wish Ricky all the best.''

quote:

The federal government delivered its May budget fully aware its spending cuts would hit poorer households much harder than wealthier ones, a Fairfax Media freedom of information request has revealed.

Treasury numbers released to Fairfax Media back private modelling showing the cuts were sharply inequitable, a contention repeatedly played down by the government.

The budget has been widely criticised as unfair, and a hostile reception from the public led to a slump in the polls for the government. Many of its measures are being blocked by the Senate, with Treasurer Joe Hockey frantically negotiating with crossbenchers to salvage the budget.

The Treasury analysis reveals the spending cuts cost an average of $842 a year for lower income households, while the average high income family lost just $71. Middle income families were down $477.

Partly offsetting the skewing of spending cuts towards low earners was the temporary deficit repair levy for those earning above $180,000 a year.

The Treasury modelling says the average high income family would pay an extra $446 a year in tax; middle income families an extra $15; and low income families only $2 a year more.

The combined effect is that an average low income family loses $844 per year in disposable income (earnings after tax and government payments) due to the budget. Middle income earners forgo $492; while a high income family is down by $517.

The Treasury analysis is simplistic. It does not account for the effect of changes such as the proposed $7 Medicare co-payment; fails to account for inflation, and is for only one year – 2016-17 – of the budget estimates. As such, it understates the disproportionately negative impact of the budget measures on poor families compared to wealthier ones.

For example, in 2017-18 the deficit repair levy will be abolished and high income earners will be much better off. Also in 2017-18, the full effects of the cuts to family benefits will be felt.

The analysis was just one of several provided to government in the lead-up to the budget. However, Treasury refused to release two detailed sets of modelling because they were ''brought into existence for the dominant purpose of submission to the cabinet''.

It is understood the 52-page and 21-page submissions starkly showed how less wealthy households suffer far bigger falls in disposable income than richer ones, especially for families with children aged between six and 16.

A spokeswoman for Mr Hockey said the average lower-income household would still receive $12,604 in 2016-17 in cash transfers such as family benefits from the government.

''Our budget aims to make the welfare system sustainable and to reduce $123 billion in projected deficits and debt, heading towards $667 billion without remedial action,'' she said.

''Our budget is focused around building a stronger economy so Australians can experience more and better jobs.''

Mr Hockey hit out at Fairfax Media's report on Monday, saying it was more ''malevolent misinformation'' from Fairfax because it failed to acknowledge the greater amounts of tax middle and higher income families pay.

''That story is wrong because it fails to take into account a range of things like the fact that higher income households pay half their income in tax, low income households pay virtually no tax,'' the Treasurer told the Nine Network.

''It just seems to be a little inconsistent, I saw they were apologising for one of their cartoons on the weekend and there's a lot of misinformation that's coming out and I sometimes its quite malevolent out of those papers.''

Chief executive of the Australian Council of Social Service Cassandra Goldie said the budget hurt most those that could least afford it.

''If this budget stays in place, you will see an acceleration of inequality. You will see a rise in child poverty,'' Ms Goldie said.

''Mr Hockey is asking if there’s an alternative plan for fixing the budget deficit. There are a raft of ideas, starting with the billions of dollars of tax concessions for higher-income earners and wealthy retirees.''

The government’s secrecy about its modelling of the impact of the budget on households is unusual. This year’s was the first budget since 2004 to be presented without detailed tables showing the projected change in the real disposable incomes of different family types.

Australian National University public policy experts Peter Whiteford and Daniel Nethery attempted to replicate the household ''cameo'' tables usually in the budget and found that a single parent with one child aged six on the parenting payment would lose 10 per cent of their real disposable income by 2016-17.

A single person on three times the average wage would lose just 1 per cent of his or her disposable income, they found.

An analysis of the budget by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, commissioned by the ALP, found the poorest 20 per cent of families will lose, on aggregate, $2.9 billion over four years due to the budget changes, while the wealthiest 20 per cent were down only $1.78 billion.

quote:

The federal government is refusing to release more detailed modelling prepared before the budget by Treasury, that shows the likely impact of the proposed measures on different household types.

Documents released under freedom-of-information legislation to Fairfax Media show the government delivered its budget fully aware its spending cuts would hit poorer households much harder than wealthier ones.

But two larger documents were withheld from the FOI request, one of 56 pages and the other of 21 pages. It is understood they show clearly how the less wealthy households would suffer far bigger falls in disposable income than richer ones, especially for families with children aged between six and 16.

A spokeswoman for Treasurer Joe Hockey said the documents would not be released because they were prepared for the cabinet and were therefore protected in the FOI process.

''Every government receives a range of advice and analysis during the budget preparation process,'' the spokeswoman said.

''[And] the Abbott government clearly shows what the welfare changes would mean, with 10 pages of material contained in the budget papers. This is significantly more than has been included in most previous budgets.''

Hockey criticised Fairfax Media's report of the Treasury analysis on Monday, saying the figures did not tell the complete story.

He also denied the data indicated the government knew its budget would hit the poor the hardest. He noted it ''fails to take into account the massive number of concessional payments such as discounted pharmaceuticals, discounted transport, discounted childcare that goes to lower-income households''.

However, all of these payments had been cut in the federal budget in one way or another.

Subsidies to pharmaceuticals have been reduced, federal funding for transport discounts are being withdrawn, and there are tougher conditions to get childcare benefits. All these changes will result in lower-income earners being worse off.

But shadow treasurer Chris Bowen slammed Mr Hockey on Monday for attacking the media for ''daring'' to report on the data, saying the Treasurer ought to be ''acknowledging [the] Treasury figures show the fundamental unfairness of the budget.''

''These are Treasury figures. These aren't Sydney Morning Herald's figures, not the Labor Party's figures - these are Treasury figures, which have been released under FOI,'' Mr Bowen told ABC Radio.

A former Treasury official, who did not wish to be named, said he had ''no reason to expect Treasury's figures are wrong''. ''And I have no reason to expect these figures will go away, either,'' he said.

Stephen Koukoulas from Market Economics said the government would have known that its budget was going to hit lower-income households hardest.

''The way that all these policies are actually costed and analysed, there is almost always an income distribution effect, particularly on these sorts of policies when its obvious there's going to be some sort of impact,'' he said.

Les Affaires posted:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...0805-3d65l.html

Gough Suppressant posted:

Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18C and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed.

Senor Tron posted:

So for sake of consistency, people should also be allowed to yell swear words at people in public, and there shouldn't be any laws against public nudity?

Cartoon posted:

Arsetralian, paywalled. 1/10 see me after class.

quote:

Conservative columnist Andrew Bolt - who was found to have breached the current Act in 2011 - is mourning the Government's move to abandon the changes.

"I think it is desperately sad that freedom of speech has so few defenders that the Government has failed to get this measure through," he told the ABC.

Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson said the decision not to repeal section 18C was "extremely disappointing".

"This government has squibbed at this important opportunity to allow for the human right to free speech in Australia," he said.

quote:

Abbott’s odd reason for dumping Racial Discrimination Act reforms

...

But surely the ethnic communities which produced those jihadists and the 21 Muslims we’ve jailed on terrorism offences already need exactly the kind of critical scrutiny too easily shut down with cries of “racism”.

...

His proposals were badly sold by Attorney General George Brandis, and far more groups than Muslims fought them. Jewish leaders, foolishly, were the most vocal.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

here's a question, what the gently caress does the herald sun put on their front cover tomorrow? I predict they will blame labor some how.

quote:

Prime Minister Tony Abbott unveils anti-Jihadist laws

NEW laws making it easier to arrest suspected terrorists, detain them without charge and revoke their passports are to go before Parliament in the biggest overhaul of Australia’s anti-terror laws in a decade.

adamantium|wang posted:

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Ahahahaha.

Also the IPA is trying to run ads against Abbott now.

Amethyst posted:

Jumpingmanjim posted:

here's a question, what the gently caress does the herald sun put on their front cover tomorrow? I predict they will blame labor some how.

Lid posted:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/prime-minister-tony-abbott-unveils-antijihadist-laws/story-fni0fiyv-1227014705177

Nibbles! posted:

Aren't we about 10 years late for the overreaching laws to protect us from TERRORISM?

Scylo posted:

Guardian Story basically saying cabinet didn't find out about metadata until they read the newspapers. So I guess Cabinet is also another group Abbott is trying to annoy.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/06/george-brandis-concedes-websites-saved-two-years?CMP=twt_gu

gay picnic defence posted:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/terror-touches-down-20140806-3d8wj.html

loving lol

quote:

Call for migration rort crackdown as data reveals foreign workers snare net job growth

Date
August 7, 2014 - 10:52AM

10 reading now

Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker


A new report using fresh federal government data has found recent overseas-born arrivals to Australia have "taken almost all of the net job growth" since 2011.

Immigration experts Dr Bob Birrell and Dr Ernest Healy have obtained fresh Australian Bureau of Statistics information showing that 380,000 arrivals to Australia since 2011 had found jobs. But over the same period, net job growth in Australia was only 400,000.

The pair have called for changes to Australia's skilled migrant program in order to provide more opportunities for citizens and permanent residents.

They found that Australia continues to grant skilled migration visas to thousands of foreign cooks and accountants. This is despite an excess of local candidates suitable for those jobs, and government claims the migration program is attracting workers who have skills required by Australia.

Confidential Immigration Department documents obtained by Fairfax Media reveal that many of those foreign workers who have gained permanent residency in Australia through skilled migration programs are likely to have first arrived as students in suspected fraudulent international education schemes operating between 2006 and 2010.

An October 2009 department report made the startling finding that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship "may have been responsible for granting a record number of student visas to people who may not be considered genuine students as well as granting permanent residence to skilled migration applicants who do not have the appropriate skills being claimed.”

Despite recent changes to make it harder to rort the student visa and skilled migration programs, high-level concerns remain about international education providers and visa fraud.

Fairfax Media believes the Immigration Department's education visa consultative committee has recently discussed employer-sponsored migration rorts.

In their report, titled Immigration and Unemployment, Dr Birrell and Dr Healy call for the halting of the recruitment of migrant workers whose occupations are in surplus in Australia or have available resident candidates.

The pair - both from Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research - found Australia's job market had been creating only about 100,000 positions per year since the end of the mining boom in mid-2011. But unchanged foreign worker migration policies have led to the current situation where the number of people looking for jobs in Australia far outstrips the amount of positions available.

Immigration Department data used in Dr Birrell and Dr Healy's research shows overseas-born cooks and accountants made up the leading occupations granted visas under the permanent entry skill program in 2012-13.

Almost 8450 cooks, as well as 1022 pastry chefs and bakers, were given visas under the permanent entry skill program in 2012-13. For the same period, cooks also made up the largest occupational group given temporary 457 visas.

This was despite cooking not having been on the federal government's skilled occupation list for more than four years.

Their report also highlighted how Australia granted visas under the permanent resident skilled program and 457 category to nearly 7000 foreign accountants in 2012-13.

This was despite 7200 domestic students completing bachelor or higher degrees in accounting in 2012, and the Commonwealth Department of Employment declaring “a more than adequate supply of accountants”.

Dr Birrell said Australia's immigration program also encouraged rorting of the different visa categories to obtain permanent residency rather than educational outcomes, and the exploitation of foreign workers.

“The whole system needs to be reviewed fundamentally,” he said.

The labour force problems highlighted by Dr Birrell are a hangover from the widespread fraud in the student visa and skilled migration programs that are identified in a series of confidential Immigration Department documents obtained by Fairfax Media.

The documents show how Immigration Department investigators repeatedly highlighted their concerns about student visa and skilled migration visa rorts between 2006 and 2010. But their calls for more enforcement and resources to tackle the problem went unheeded for years.

An October 2009 “in-confidence” Immigration Department report identified “significant concerns” in Victoria's international educational industry and “in particular, related pathways to permanent residence”.

The report warned: “The department's investigators reported that foreign students were paying about $50,000 to achieve permanent residency through a 'significant cottage industry' involving 'migration agents, employers and education providers who are linked to a significant level of organised fraud and crime."'

The former federal Labor government made changes in 2011 to clamp down on the rorting of the student visa program to obtain permanent residency by introducing a new points test for skilled migrants.

But Dr Birrell said the decision to shield the thousands of foreign students already here from the impact of the reforms and to continue to allow them to apply for residency under the old rules has resulted in the “warehousing” of a large number of low-priority applicants.

He said many of these had studied cooking courses and had only begun to be processed by the Immigration Department in 2011-12.

“This is why cooks and accountants have been the major occupations visaed in this and in subsequent years. We know this because the visa-issued data identifies those who were former overseas students,” Dr Birrell said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...l#ixzz39fdHmnjr

Haters Objector posted:

*He calls himself a QC, despite never having practiced law as one

*He bought two big-rear end book walls for his parliamentary office to show everybody how many books he has read

*He likened himself to Voltaire in a valiant defence of racists and climate change deniers

*He had a huge dummy spit over being wrong about the legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and forced a bunch of colleagues to give interviews the next day and deliver verbatim testimony as to what a "fine intellect" he possessed

*He attributed his massive failure to sell the merits of racial abuse to Australia to the inability of the plebs to understand freedom at the same level that he, an acolyte of John Stuart Mill, does.

quote:

'Grow a set': PUP opposes uni reforms

Date
August 10, 2014

38 reading now


Matthew Knott
Communications and education correspondent



Senate kingmaker Clive Palmer has stated categorically that his party will not vote for the deregulation of university fees when the Abbott government presents legislation to the Senate. Mr Palmer's stance was backed by Palmer United Party senator Jacqui Lambie, who called on the Nationals to ''grow a set'' and oppose fee deregulation.

When asked whether his party was open to supporting fee deregulation, Mr Palmer replied: ''No.'' PUP policy is that university education should be free.

Senator Lambie said fee deregulation ''will not happen on PUP's watch … If the Nationals grew a set, they could also say no to the Liberals on key issues, like university deregulation, which, of course, will see campuses close in regional country areas and bush families greatly disadvantaged.''

The government will need the support of at least two senators from the PUP/Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party alliance to pass its higher education package. It plans to introduce a bill this month to deregulate university fees, reduce course funding by an average of 20 per cent, increase the interest on student debts and extend government support to students at TAFEs, private colleges and sub-bachelor degree programs.

Last week, Education Minister Christopher Pyne said he took heart from the fact that Mr Palmer had not said he would block the government's reforms.

''I don't think [Mr Palmer] ever said he was going to vote against our higher education reforms,'' Mr Pyne told the ABC. ''If you haven't said no, then we're a long way from ending the siren, as they say.''

Mr Pyne later said he believed the Coalition and PUP would work closely together ''to bring about the necessary reform for universities and students that is needed''.

Mr Pyne, who indicated he may give ground on a plan to peg student debts to the government bond rate, said he had been in ''constant communication'' with Mr Palmer.

HECS architect Bruce Chapman predicted fees could double - or even triple - at prestigious universities under a deregulated system.

Mr Palmer's comments will concern university vice-chancellors, whose worst fear is a blocking of fee deregulation but support for a 20 per cent cut in course funding.

Universities Australia and the Regional Universities Network support fee deregulation, saying it is the only policy that will make universities sustainable in the context of declining government funding.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/grow-a-set-pup-opposes-uni-reforms-20140809-3dfdu.html#ixzz39xwb0LQg

quote:

Treasurer Joe Hockey has been urged to reboot his budget and scrap the unpopular $7 GP co-payment, with former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello saying governments have to cut their losses.

Mr Costello said the Coalition should "reboot the whole argument" by bringing forward the next intergenerational report, which highlights long-term pressures on government spending.

It should also dump measures unlikely to pass the Senate, he said.

"Sooner or later you have to cut losses," he told the Ten Network on Sunday.

"The $7 co-payment ... it's just not going to happen, so let's move on."

Mr Costello also rebuked his former colleague for complaining that business had not adequately backed his budget.

"There is no point blaming business ... he's got to get it through, it's his responsibility," he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/dump-gp-copayment-peter-costello-tells-joe-hockey-20140810-102i5z.html#ixzz39yqIojby

quote:

Australian Islamic State supporter walks off the set of Insight

Date
August 13, 2014

582 reading now



An Australian teenager who supports the Islamic State, formerly known as ISIL, stormed off the set of SBS program Insight on Tuesday night.

The discussion on the Islamic State throughout the current affairs talk show was tense but became even more heated when host Jenny Brockie turned the conversation towards cancelled passports.

Nineteen-year-old Abu Bakr has had his passport cancelled by Australian authorities.

After being probed on the matter, he walked off the set.

Mr Bakr, a Muslim of Iraqi and Italian background, said he thought Muslims were obligated to help fellow Muslims overseas.

He also said he believed that the Islamic State represented the purest interpretation of the Islamic holy book, the Koran.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has classified the Islamic State as a terrorist organisation.

Other Islamic youth representatives on the program completely disagreed with Mr Bakr.

"We've got family in Iraq who have experienced all of this, you cannot say that," said guest Ninva Yakou.

"For ISIS to claim that they are just fighting for Islam is just a joke, they don't fight for anyone but themselves and their so-called state," said guest Yehya El Kholed.

Mr Bakr felt that Muslims were being unfairly targeted by Australians.

“In order for me to be connected to the values here of Australia, the Australian government needs to stop picking on the Muslims here,” Mr Bakr said during the program.

"Whenever you express your opinion of a tyrant, you are subjugated to being a terrorist or subjugated to being a national threat," he said.

Mr Bakr arrived at the program wearing the flag of the Islamic State, a group reportedly responsible for massacres and mass beheadings in Iraq.

Another Australian supporter of the Islamic State, Mohamed Zuhbi, appeared on Insight via a Skype link from Turkey.

Born in Syria, Mr Zuhbi has lived in Australia since the age of one.

He said he was currently undertaking humanitarian work but had crossed the Syrian border a number of times.

"I believe that [Islamic State] are the future of Syria," he said.

"I believe that they're the future of the Islamic empire to come."

Another Australian Islamic State supporter, Abdul Salam Mahmoud, said he was also working in a humanitarian capacity in Syria.

"In Islam we're obligated. Wherever our people are being harmed or being oppressed it's an obligation for us to go and help them to fight tyranny and to fight oppression," Mr Mahmoud said.

He explained what humantiarian work he was doing with the Islamic State.

"We give monthly payments to families who have orphans and widows and we give them food packages," he said.

Australian National Imams Council spokesman Sheikh Mohamadu Saleem was concerned by the number of young Australian Muslims fighting with the Islamic State.

"There is a very small number of people ... who are not listening," he said.

"But the large number of people who are in schools, in the universities, doing the right thing, they are listening."

Sheikh Mohamadu Saleem reaffirmed that it was not the duty of Australian Muslims to fight overseas.

Fairfax Media

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-islamic-state-supporter-walks-off-the-set-of-insight-20140813-103eex.html#ixzz3AE1M63h9

adamantium|wang posted:

quote:

Treasurer Joe Hockey is facing a fresh round of criticism for being out of touch and not understanding the impact of his budget on the less well off after suggesting “poorest people either don't have cars or actually don't drive very far in many cases”.

Mr Hockey made the comments on Wednesday as he argued the government's proposed rise in fuel excise was a progressive measure that would cost people on middle and higher incomes more.

The Treasurer said the Coalition was asking "everyone to contribute, including higher income people" by restarting indexation of fuel excise, a measure Labor has labelled a new fuel tax.

Contrary to Mr Hockey's claim, a 2001 research paper from the Parliamentary Library states that "petrol and diesel excises are regressive in that people on low incomes pay a higher proportion of their incomes in the form of excise than people on high incomes, given the same level of fuel use".

And in a June 2014 submission to the Senate Economics Committee inquiry into the proposed excise rise, the Australian Automobile Association stated that: "Research indicates that the people who use their cars most frequently are in the outer metropolitan areas and rural and regional areas where there are lower incomes, less jobs, and little or no access to public transport"

"The AAA is concerned that individuals in these areas will bear the highest cost increases of indexation changes."

Labor leader Bill Shorten, welfare groups and crossbench senator Ricky Muir have rounded on Mr Hockey, labelling the Treasurer's suggestion fallacious and based on incorrect assumptions.

“Are you serious, Joe Hockey? Are you really the cigar chomping, Foghorn Leghorn of Australian politics where you're saying that poor people don't drive cars?," Mr Shorten said.

“Joe Hockey says [poorer Australians] don't drive cars yet they don't give them another alternative. It is almost as if the Treasurer believes that poor people should be sleeping in their cars, not driving their cars.”

St Vincent de Paul Society chief executive John Falzon said the claim was “completely fallacious”.

“This is a massive assumption on the Treasurer's part. In fact many low income households are heavily dependent on quite old motor vehicles that are not terribly fuel efficient as their only means of transport," he said.

“Cheaper housing is often located in areas far from necessary infrastructure and jobs and so they find themselves having to travel long distances at times. And they are often very poorly served by public transport.”

Uniting Care National Director Lin Hatfield-Dodds said the rise in fuel excise would disproportionately affect poorer people.

“Proportional to their income, these sorts of measures end up costing people who are poor more than people who are wealthy," she said.

“That's just maths,' she said

“To put the fuel excise up as an example of fairness in the budget is a bit of a stretch, if we want to make the budget fairer we could look at less impact overall on vulnerable Australians and more impact on people who can afford to meet the costs.”

Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party Senator Ricky Muir said that in rural and regional areas, people needed to use their cars, "regardless of wealth".

"Coming from the country, I know firsthand, when you live a fair distance from work and there's no public transport, people from all backgrounds use their vehicles a lot."

Haters Objector posted:

There's some stiff competition, but I think that the Joe Hockey should be awarded the prize for most incompetent coalition minister thus far

quote:

Just pointing out the facts: Joe Hockey stands by comments on poor people and cars


Treasurer Joe Hockey says he is "sorry" if his comments that increasing the petrol tax will not hurt the poor as much sound callous, but stresses that he is just pointing out the facts.

Mr Hockey on Thursday continued to defend his comments that because poor people did not own cars or drive as far they would be not be as hard hit by a rise in the fuel excise, blitzing radio stations on the east coast from Perth, where he met Palmer United Senator Dio Wang for budget negotiations.

Mr Hockey, speaking on Sydney Fairfax Radio 2UE, said his comments were backed by the facts.

"The fact of the matter is that I can only get the facts out there and explain the facts, how people interpret them is up to them," he said.

Mr Hockey was asked if he realised if his comments sounded callous.

"I'm sorry if that's the case but the fact is that the Labor party says that it's an unjust initiative, unfair initiative, higher income people aren't paying enough, well here is an initiative where higher income people pay on average three times the amount of lower income households in the fuel excise," he said.

He has also hit back at Labor's depictions of him as an out of touch ''cigar-chomping Foghorn Leghorn of Australian politics'', saying he has no regrets about being pictured smoking cigars during budget preparations and had smoked them since he was 16.

He said he didn't care about "personality politics" because "you've got to be who you are".

"Everyone keeps talking about how politicians are sometimes phoney, I mean I am what I am," he said.

Mr Hockey said "I'm doing my best for the country" and noted the "conga line of criticism" but cautioned that was "self-deprecating humour" and added "unless someone wants to interpret that as well".

But some government MPs are unimpressed by Mr Hockey's remarks.

Senator Ian Macdonald told ABC Radio on Thursday that "you have to have a car whether you're rich or poor . . . regional Australia don't have the alternative of public transport".

NSW Nationals senator John Williams said people in the bush needed cars.

''You have to have a car whether you're rich or poor, you need a vehicle to be able to get from one place to the other,'' he told ABC Radio on Thursday.

''Regional Australians don't have the alternative of public transport of other means of getting there.''

Consumer group One Big Switch argued poor people spend a higher proportion of their income on fuel and live further away, meaning they're hit twice.

A major survey in June showed the biggest average fuel bill in Sydney was in the south-western suburbs, while those in Melbourne's north-east and north-west paid the most for petrol on average.

quote:

Alan Jones convinced government on voting policy: Shooters MP

Date
August 14, 2014 - 3:05PM

813 reading now
Be the first to comment

Nicole Hasham
State Politics reporter

View more articles from Nicole Hasham

Email Nicole


Broadcaster Alan Jones convinced the Baird government to back moves to overhaul business voting rights in the City of Sydney, the Shooters and Fishers Party says, prompting Lord Mayor Clover Moore to ask, “Who is running NSW?”

The government is supporting a Shooters and Fishers Party bill that would force thousands of businesses to vote in City of Sydney elections, potentially boosting the conservative vote and undermining Cr Moore and her progressive agenda.

Introducing the bill to the NSW upper house on Thursday, Shooters MP Robert Borsak thanked 2GB talk back host Alan Jones “who has been a driving force for this change”, adding that “without his assistance, I doubt that the government would have been persuaded to support” the bill.

He also thanked The Daily Telegraph for its support.

Cr Moore said the remarks confirmed the legislation was “driven by vested interests, right-wing media and shock jocks”.

“[Mr Borsak] said the NSW Government wouldn’t have supported his bill without Alan Jones at 2GB driving for change and without the support of The Daily Telegraph,” Cr Moore said.

“The community needs to ask, just who is running NSW?”

She accused the government and the Shooters Party of “working together to manipulate democracy and to dilute the voting rights of NSW residents”.

The Daily Telegraph and 2GB have been highly critical of Cr Moore, particularly her support for bike paths in central Sydney, and have campaigned for greater business voting rights.

Jones, a fierce critic of the Lord Mayor, fronted a "No More Clover" rally in the week before the 2012 local government elections to urge voters to remove Cr Moore from office.

Jones told the crowd of about 40 people that the event’s low turnout was by no means a "measure of the anger that exists in this city".

Some observers have questioned why the Shooters Party, with its traditional support base in regional NSW, was now turning its attention to the City of Sydney.

As a state government MP, Cr Moore often pushed for stronger gun controls, and in 2012 she opposed the hunting in national parks proposal.

Mr Borsak rejected suggestions the bill was an attempt at “payback”.

“We are a party that supports free enterprise and capitalism and a few other things like that … we are not a single-issue party,” he said.

Mr Borsak said he approached Mr Jones “and asked him would he support me in trying to get … a bit of publicity for my bill, and he said 'most definitely' ”.

Asked to respond to Mr Borsak's comments, Mr Baird said: “The government supports these important reforms that give business people a voice in the city that they work and pay rates in."

Mr Jones has been contacted for comment.

Cr Moore rejected claims by Liberal councillor Edward Mandla that she was preventing businesses from voting, saying the NSW Electoral Commission runs the voting regime.

Orkin Mang posted:

John Hewson on Hockey's (less than luminous) performance as treasurer. Talking about just how easy it is in politics to gaffe, he gives his own example:

quote:

Joe Hockey is doing an 'inspirational' job as treasurer and has long been standing up for low-income earners, senior coalition MP Christopher Pyne says.

Mr Hockey is reportedly facing internal criticism over his suggestions poor people don't have cars, with some colleagues questioning his ability to sell the budget.

But Mr Pyne says his frontbench colleague has the full support of the party and is doing a 'fantastic' job as treasurer.

Mr Pyne said Mr Hockey's track record, including helping to abolish the carbon tax, was proof he championed the cause of low-income workers to reduce their cost of living pressures.

'Joe has been standing up for low income workers; and middle income workers, he wholly supports,' he said.

quote:

The things being said about him in Coalition ranks in ­recent days are remarkably harsh. This, for example, from a frustrated Liberal MP: “We work our butts off selling the Budget. Then along comes Hindenburg Hockey.”

Another line from a Liberal yesterday was: “People criticised Joe for going on holidays to Fiji. Now some of us are sorry he came back”.

A cricket tragic on the ­Coalition side said: “The highest scorer for the Opposition is actually the ‘extras’ column — and it’s mostly off Joe’s bowling”.

The Treasurer is so on the nose at the moment that the national newspaper, The Australian, felt the need to run a front-page article yesterday warning against any thought that he should be sacked.

He “goes from train wreck to car wreck and makes a bad Budget situation worse”, the writer conceded, but argued that dumping him at this stage would be even more damaging to the government.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

What's the status on Hockey's lawsuit, anybody know?

Endman posted:

I'm actually okay with Bolt being a person who is allowed opinions, because at least people are slowly coming to realise he's a fuckwit, and he's getting called a racist on national TV. Vanstone is just an evil, aristocratic harpy that needs to die.

quote:

IT is easy to attack this stuttering Abbott Government. Just ask me: I’m a conservative and even I’ve joined the pack.

How dare this Government break its promise to restore free speech?

How can it still not have made one single cut to welfare spending?

Why can’t it get its Budget through the Senate and get on with governing?

Why let Clive Palmer, that great bag of wind, posture like a kingmaker?

Business is growing restless, too. Real wages are actually falling and the deficit keeps growing, but where are the reforms to save us? Why this log jam?

Andrew Liveris, the Dow Chemical Company chairman, protested last week: “Instead of working together, you just throw things at each other and yell at each other. That is really scary. I have never seen an Australia like that.”

But wait. Let’s call things by their proper name.

Look at the list of problems I’ve given. Every single one is caused, at least in part, by something not of the Government’s making.

Every single one of those things the Government has dropped or failed to achieve is opposed by the Senate, where the Government is outvoted.

We are blaming the Government for not doing what, in fact, the blockers in the Senate — reckless Labor, extremist Greens and irrational Palmer United senators — stop it from doing.

Yes, we can criticise the Government for not being more deft. Why did Treasurer Joe Hockey wait months before negotiating seriously with crossbench senators over his Budget?

Why did the Government propose unpopular cuts before properly explaining why they were needed?

Why did Hockey get sucked into a stupid and unwinnable debate about whether his proposed 1c-a-litre rise in petrol excise was unfair to the poor, when the big question is how the hell we stop the whole country from getting poorer?

And all that is true. But let us not excuse the real wreckers — the people who have most exposed this country to danger.

The truth is this Budget never was the horror Labor claimed. In fact, government spending still goes up, and the books will not balance for years. We’re still spending borrowed money, and the next downturn could sink us.

Yet in proposing even its pathetic restrictions to the massive spending Labor unleashed, the Government faces a Senate not just hostile but feral. It is a Senate dominated by politicians putting self-interest above the national interest, and opposing the very things many would privately admit need doing.

Take Labor. It shamelessly opposes $5 billion in cuts to education and health programs that it itself promised in government.

Take Palmer’s senators. Palmer in May claimed talk of a “Budget crisis” was “bulls--t” and a “fairytale”, but last week attacked Abbott for having “left the country at a time of critical economic crisis”.

Yet despite now admitting there is indeed an economic crisis, Palmer still opposes every single cut the Budget proposes to welfare spending, and, instead, insists even more billions be spent on health.

Or take the Greens. Despite demanding massive taxes on carbon dioxide to “stop” global warming, it spitefully refuses to pass the Government’s measly 1c hike in petrol excise — a carbon tax by another name. Or take the Motoring Enthusiasts senator, Ricky Muir. This petrolhead opposes a rise in petrol prices, yet suddenly reveals he’s actually a Green wanting to keep the futile renewable energy programs the Government planned to slash.

Then, add this level of complexity to the Government’s task — its opponents in the Senate actually don’t want to make a deal, or haven’t yet figured what they want.

Labor actually thinks the more chaos the better for its re-election chances, and the Greens are simply off the dial. Moreover, Palmer’s senators still don’t know what they’d like in exchange for their votes, making it impossible for the Government to offer them some trade-off. With no agenda of their own, Palmer’s team get their power just by saying “no”.

And just to make the Government’s job even harder, the ABC has become more fiercely anti-Liberal than it was even under the Howard government.

It is also now more dominant than ever, being the largest media organisation in the country by far, with twice as many Canberra journalists than any other outlet.

So, yes, attack the Abbott Government for clumsiness, own goals, poor sales and the rest. But never forget what really stands between the Government and action. Between our busted finances and reform.

That isn’t the Government. It is Labor, the Greens and Clive Palmer.

If you must be angry, start with them.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Andrew Bolt is right, the left are the real racists.

quote:

The blogger and commercial broadcaster Andrew Bolt has been declared a racist “by your own criterion” on his own television program by the former Labor frontbencher Craig Emerson.

The two men locked horns on Sunday morning during a dispute over the “Recognise” campaign.

Recognise is a government-funded organisation spearheading the push to acknowledge Indigenous Australians in the constitution. Bolt took exception to a decision by Qantas last week to work with Recognise in promoting the constitutional campaign.

The campaign for recognition enjoys in-principle multi-partisan support. But Bolt is a vocal opponent of the constitutional recognition of Indigenous people because he contends it divides Australians on the grounds of race, and is therefore racist.

The commentator made that argument in opening remarks to a segment on The Bolt Report on Sunday morning.

But Emerson, a panel guest on program, took sharp exception to Bolt describing Recognise as a “racist” campaign.

“I take fundamental issue with your introduction to say this is a racist campaign,” the guest told his host.

Bolt persisted in his analysis, and said: “Dividing people on the grounds of race is racist.”

“Then you are a racist,” Emerson said, “because of the comments you made in relation to Indigenous people. By your own criterion, and that’s what you did. You identified a group of people and went for them.”

Emerson’s remark relates to the legal case in which Bolt was found to have breached racial discrimination laws in articles that implied light-skinned Indigenous people identified themselves as Aboriginal for personal gain.

A clearly furious Bolt said on Sunday Emerson’s observation was wrong, and completely offensive.

Emerson appeared undeterred by the shocked reaction of the host. “Well, I’m offended by you describing this [Recognise] as a racist campaign,” he persisted. “This is not a racist campaign.”

“I said let’s not divide people on the grounds of race,” Bolt said.

“You went after a bunch of Indigenous people. You know you did,” Emerson said.

“I said don’t divide by race. This is dividing by race,” Bolt said.

Emerson persisted in describing Bolt’s characterisation of constitutional recognition as offensive and incorrect.

“We should be mature enough to recognise there were people here before 1788,” Emerson said. “If we are going to talk about racism, let’s talk about the racism in the constitution.”

It’s not the first time Bolt has been confronted with rebuttals using his own rhetorical criteria. The academic Marcia Langton apologised to Bolt after mounting an almost identical argument to Emerson’s during an ABC current affairs program.

Langton noted that his “singling out of ‘fair skinned’ Aboriginal people goes to the issue of ‘race’ and could be construed as racist”.

Langton later apologised, as did the ABC for broadcasting her comment, when Bolt said the observation had left him devastated.

quote:

Tony Abbott says new migrants must be on ‘Team Australia’ as he steps up war on home-grown jihadists
51 MINS AGO


DON’T migrate to Australia unless you want to join “Team Australia” Tony Abbott has declared, ahead of his meetings with Muslim leaders this week.

The Prime Minister will sit down with community heads in Sydney today in a bid to allay fears about the recently announced beefed up counter-terror laws.

“We’ve got a serious problem of radicalised people going to the Middle East to fight with terrorist groups,” Mr Abbott told 2GB Radio this morning.

“Some of them will want to come back to Australia and they do pose a risk if they do, because they’ve been radicalised, militarised and brutalised by the experience.”

The Prime Minister said about two-thirds of people who returned from Afghanistan went on to be involved in “home-grown terrorist plotting”.

“So we do have to be vigilant against it, and my position is that everyone has got to be on Team Australia,” he said.

“Everyone has got to put this country, its interests, its values and its people first, and you don’t migrate to this country unless you want to join our team and that’s the point I’ll be stressing.”
Mr Abbott, who has recently announced beefed up counter-terrorism laws, urged the “moderate mainstream” to speak out.

“Overwhelmingly, our country is comprised of good decent people who want to put Australia and its people first, and it’s important that individual communities can’t be caricatured on the basis of a militant few rather than on the basis of what I take to be a sensible majority.”

The only flag that should be flying is the “Australian national flag”, the PM said, when asked what should be done if someone in Sydney wants to fly the flag of a terrorist organisation.

Ahead of his first meeting of the week, Mr Abbott also issued a strong warning to those considering leaving Australia to fight overseas.

“If you leave our country as an Australian citizen, as an Australian resident, as anyone at all, to join a terrorist group overseas, to work with a terrorist group overseas, that is illegal,” he told reporters in Sydney.

“If you come back to Australia, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and if you are successfully prosecuted there will be a substantial jail term because people have to obey the law in this country and it is illegal, seriously wrong, to serve with an overseas terrorist organisation.”

A fortnight ago the Abbott government announced plans to inject another $630 million to help the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), AFP, ASIO and Customs and Border Protection.

It also wants to make it an offence to travel to ‘designated areas’ where terrorist organisations are conducting hostile activities unless there is a valid reason.