eBay

boris1gary · ‎20-04-2014

As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.

This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.

and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598

Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says

The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.

Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).

But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.

"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.

boris1gary · ‎30-04-2014

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/jewish-community-opposes-changes-to-18c-rac...

Jewish community opposes changes to 18C racial vilifcation laws

The largest Jewish peak body in Australia says Attorney-General George Brandis' planned changes to the 18C racial vilification laws are fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has pointed out that former prime minister John Howard, who now publicly backs the changes, used the 18C law to win a Holocaust denial case in 2003.

The Howard government used the 18C law to defeat Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben, who had been ordered by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to remove material it considered racial hate speech from his website.

"It is ironic that, while Mr Howard now says he supports Senator Brandis' plans to change 18C, when he was prime minister the Commonwealth intervened to vigorously defend the act's validity, including the specific words "offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate", to defeat Toben's challenge," said Peter Wertheim, executive director of the council, who also worked on the court case.

Earlier this month, former prime minister John Howard threw his support behind the changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, telling a Liberal Party gala dinner in Melbourne the changes were in line with the classical liberal tradition.

monman12 · ‎30-04-2014

I do wonder why some often just C&P others work without any personal comment/research, makes for an easy post I suppose. However, a little proof reading of copied material would appear mandatory :

Jewish community opposes changes to 18C racial vilifcation laws. (vilification)

One would think the Age would have some form of spell checking.

Now for some facts (facts😞

Under the government's proposed changes to the Act, section 18C will be repealed along with sections 18B, 18D and 18E, and the following section will be inserted:

1. It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if
a) the act is reasonably likely:
i. to vilify another person or a group of persons; or
ii. to intimidate another person or a group of persons,

and

b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that person or that group of persons.

nɥºɾ

It would appear that, however you spell it, racial vilification will remain unlawful !

boris1gary · ‎30-04-2014

http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2014/1624/04-undermining-democratic-rights.html

The government has trivialised the significance of Section 18C, arguing that speech should not be limited because someone might be offended or insulted.

However, as a result of the government’s stated intention to dump this section Attorney General George Brandis and other cabinet ministers have received protest delegations from the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and other organisations representing people from Chinese, Greek, Cypriot, and Arabic backgrounds.

In describing their position Fairfax journalist Jacqueline Maley pointed out:

“Making offensive statements about someone is categorically different to offending someone over (for example) their religion, they say. Skin colour is not a matter of belief or choice. If you insult or offend a black person for being black, you are attacking their dignity as a human, not their choices or beliefs (which in a free society are up for genuine discussion, even if that discussion is offensive).”

freakiness · ‎30-04-2014

Free speech?

Only for those on the right side!

And no, that is not an interpsersonal assault on anyone.

boris1gary · ‎30-04-2014

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-climate-policies-a-40-billion-bud...

Tony Abbott's climate policies a $40 billion budget slug, says Climate Institute

The Abbott government’s changes to existing climate change policies would cost the budget as much as $40 billion by 2020, according to the Climate Institute, and the cost will blow out even further if it weakens the renewable energy target.

The estimated costs stem in part from payments to polluters to curb greenhouse gas emissions under the government's Direct Action emissions reduction plan. This tally includes the $2.55 billion for the first four years of the Emissions Reduction Fund and an estimated $1.2 billion annually after that.

"This is a friendless piece of policy and not many people are standing up to defend it," said John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute.

A bigger blow to the budget, though, will come from the loss of the carbon tax revenues if, as expected, the new Senate votes to repeal it after July 1. Current laws indicate the price – now a tax but due to convert to a floating price by mid-2016 at the latest – will bring in more than $18 billion.

That combined tally, at about $24 billion, swells to more than $40 billion by 2020 if the Abbott government sticks with its plan to block the purchase of cheaper international emission reductions to meet domestic commitments, the institute said.

bella_again · ‎30-04-2014

Here's the link to Tony's 100,000 dollar welfare test.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbotts-100000-welfare-test-for-families/story...

bella_again · ‎30-04-2014

Boris you may find ted.com interesting. Richard Wilkerson talking about how economic inequlity harms societies. Interesting to listen to

https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/cZ7LzE3u7Bw

Of course everyone will have different views concerning this but its still worth having a listen.

boris1gary · ‎01-05-2014

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/canberra-to-be-cut-to-bone-in-audit-report-201...

Canberra to be cut to bone in audit report

Tony Abbott's Commission of Audit has recommended massive cuts to the size of government, with whole agencies to be abolished, privatised, or devolved to the states, in what would be the biggest reworking of the federation ever undertaken.

Among its 86 recommendations, to be finally revealed on Thursday afternoon, are calls for the axing of multiple agencies and the surrender of huge swathes of responsibility back to the states in education, health, and other services.

The National Preventive Health Agency is the largest in a string of small so-called ''orphan'' health agencies marked for abolition. Under heavy attack from the alcohol industry, it releases its long-awaited report into a minimum floor price for alcohol on Thursday. The report has been gathering dust now for a year and it is to be released under a clause in the agency’s act that requires the automatic release of reports if a year has elapsed since they were presented to government.

Also marked for privatisation or abolition is Defence Housing Australia, which manages and owns properties for defence families. It turns an annual profit before tax of $1 billion and employs 600 people. The government has commissioned Ernst & Young to advise on whether it should be sold.

boris1gary · ‎01-05-2014

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/economists-sceptical-of-abbotts-budget-emergen...

Economists sceptical of Abbott's 'budget emergency'

Australia's chief economists have warned Joe Hockey not to rush the budget back to surplus, saying the urgency of the deficit was being exaggerated for political purposes.

Interviews with four chief economists at banks and financial institutions revealed a common scepticism with the “budget emergency” described by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Treasurer, Mr Hockey. All economists cited Australia’s “enviable” budgetary position compared to other rich countries, and none thought the speculated “deficit levy” on high income earners was an intelligent way to repair the budget.

“I don’t think you could make the case that there is a budget crisis,” said HSBC chief economist Paul Bloxham, responding to Mr Abbott’s description of the “emergency” that would force dramatic changes in the budget.

Mr Bloxham said he did not think a deficit levy on wealthy Australians was necessary “because I don’t think we need to urgently get the budget back to surplus".