Nope, they're going after the aged pension instead.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Nope, they're going after the aged pension instead.
Elaugaufein
Member
The HECS debt is already on the books as an asset, so selling it doesn't "raise" money (especially given you'd have to sell it for less than it's worth because otherwise no one is going to buy interest free loans). There probably are insane book keeping tricks which could be used to sell it and show profit for a single years budget, but that's not something the LNP want this year. They are busy selling the notion of Labour debt and using it to justify the standard ideological cuts and backtracking on the election promises on Disability Insurance and Education that only the terminally naive thought they were going to strictly honour.
Agreed with you on the Greens.. despite usually being the best hope for progressives in Australia. They really need to step-up their game when it comes to campaigning for progressive issues that relate to the common man at the very least.
Unfortunately, they're still called the Greens
The LNP voters that comment on news sites saying that Labor made us an international laughing stock confuse me. 6-months into Labor's first term they were getting along with everyone pretty well... now...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-off-g20-agenda/story-e6frg6xf-1226873127864
Elaugaufein
Member
That's not it. The international grouping of similar parties are called Greens and its sufficiently well known in Europe for example that the Pirate Party are more or less counted as part of the block. Its more a failure to communicate that they do this stuff to even the less involved part of their base here.
You expect LNP supporters on Murdoch sites to be rational?
What are their views on drug reform? What are their views on Euthanasia? There is plenty more that they could stand for and yet they don't.
Considering how loudly they're crowing about democratic this and undemocratic that I'd expect them to at least make an effort
roosters93
Member
As Markot points out, their views on those issues are generally well-known, if you don't know them by now that's on you. Political parties' responsibility to disseminate their policy positions only goes to a certain point. At some point you have to put on your own underwear and chew your food yourself.
I also don't understand the call for the Greens to become something they're not. They are always going to be a pro-environment party first and foremost. The fact they are generally left-wing and progressive on many other issues is a bonus and they have become a significant player in regards to a fair amount of them which are unrelated to the environment. It's perfectly fine to bemoan the lack of progressive alternatives to the big parties that are also not micromicro parties, but expecting the Greens to betray their base is a bit silly.
what were they thinking
Um, they are pro both? And have been for ages?
You guys might wanna look up Scott Ludlam's recent comments about drug reform at least.
Speaking of The Guardian: Julia Gillard on Game of Thrones http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/apr/07/game-of-thrones-parallels-prime-minister
Elaugaufein
Member
On one hand today's Crikey was interesting on the other hand its incredibly creepy because large sections of it felt like it was written by me if I had decided to become a journalist. Maybe I need to subscribe to the Australian.
You could link to it, well could have, instead of having us try to find it. I couldnt find anything. They have a much more 'liberal' drug policy then any of the major parties, harm minimisation, decriminalisation for personal use... etc...
Box of Bunnies
Banned
The Greens' drug policy is about harm minimisation and not treating individual use as a criminal act which is a good step but also precludes legalisation of currently illegal substances which I know rubs some people the wrong way.
reptilescorpio
Member
Why is an Australian baby locked up in detention?
I don't understand how anyone, anyone, could ethically work in the immigration department at this point.
I don't understand how anyone, anyone, could ethically work in the immigration department at this point.
roosters93
Member
Decriminalisation is where I want it to go so...
On the green army, A Rational Fear just came out with a great video in regards to it.
roosters93
Member
So umm I don't know if anyone remembers this show, but I'm wondering if anyone else (literally anyone else) has noticed how damn predictive Julia Gilliard's interview on David Tench Tonight (that short-lived animated host show on Channel Ten) was?
"I'm joined by the woman who many people think will be our first female prime minister"
"When are you going to knife Kim Beasley in the back and take the leadership by force?" (Yes Kim Beasley)
"Julia, I know politics is the art of pretending you have no leadership ambitions until just before you come leader"
2006.
Also reminds Gillard was a lot more personable back then.
"I'm joined by the woman who many people think will be our first female prime minister"
"When are you going to knife Kim Beasley in the back and take the leadership by force?" (Yes Kim Beasley)
"Julia, I know politics is the art of pretending you have no leadership ambitions until just before you come leader"
2006.
Also reminds Gillard was a lot more personable back then.
Man, I wish we had someone like Beazley heading up the Labor party again. Came damn close with Albo, but that gutless wonder Shorten got in :/
Fucking hell, this thread is depressing.
I'd like to think it's only a powerful minority that make those kind of judgement calls. I really would.
Fucking hell, this thread is depressing.
Elaugaufein
Member
Heard Brandis on the radio, saying that in response to the Snowden leaks our intelligence response will be to do exactly what we were doing only more so. Nice. He also called Snowden's act treasonous. Apparently the correct response to things you know the public won't approve of is to make sure they never find out and if they do yell "terrorism" as loud as possible.
Well it's officially over:
http://www.afr.com/p/technology/turnbull_locks_nbn_into_cheaper_FoLmvEAJvHtTaD3gvFW92L
I love how in opposition Turnbull was always banging on about how Labor shouldn't have gone ahead without a cost benefit analysis and a review process of the NBN. So not only is Turnbull not instructing NBNCo to lock in there waste of money lame duck NBN approach BEFORE THE REVIEW IS COMPLETED but there will be no cost benefit analysis either, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
http://www.afr.com/p/technology/turnbull_locks_nbn_into_cheaper_FoLmvEAJvHtTaD3gvFW92L
I love how in opposition Turnbull was always banging on about how Labor shouldn't have gone ahead without a cost benefit analysis and a review process of the NBN. So not only is Turnbull not instructing NBNCo to lock in there waste of money lame duck NBN approach BEFORE THE REVIEW IS COMPLETED but there will be no cost benefit analysis either, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Elaugaufein
Member
Can't say I'm surprised. Pretty much everyone even a little bit savvy saw this coming as soon as it was clear which way the election was going. You only roll back commitments that make you more electable, not less, after elections.
ETA - Cheaper is also a misnomer. It's cheaper in the sense that a lot of economy goods are, it costs less now but more in the long term. But they are probably figuring that's another governments problem given the Howard government just let internet infrastructure stall with no plan for doing anything.
ETA - Cheaper is also a misnomer. It's cheaper in the sense that a lot of economy goods are, it costs less now but more in the long term. But they are probably figuring that's another governments problem given the Howard government just let internet infrastructure stall with no plan for doing anything.
Funnily enough I'm actually getting hooked up to the NBN in the near future 
Why and how the Labor party needs to be reformed
Why and how the Labor party needs to be reformed
We know why. Not enough Albo. Solution? More Albo.Funnily enough I'm actually getting hooked up to the NBN in the near future
Why and how the Labor party needs to be reformed
Interesting LRB piece on this in the new issue
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/nicholas-phillips/closed-material
I'm laughing bitterly.
But... but... the adults are in charge... I know because they told me they were
And everyone know it would go this way...and yet they still voted for who they did. And how the dark days of the Howard regime looks like the good olde dayes.
Never thought I'd say that *shudder*
roosters93
Member
More Coalition MPs voicing their concern about revising 18c/d
"Mr Laundy has received 3000 individual pieces of correspondence from constituents on the governments intentions for sections 18C and 18D of the Discrimination Act."
Nice to hear!
Also on that subject is this hilarious fake student report on the Racial Discrimination Act.
The first page:
"Mr Laundy has received 3000 individual pieces of correspondence from constituents on the governments intentions for sections 18C and 18D of the Discrimination Act."
Nice to hear!
Also on that subject is this hilarious fake student report on the Racial Discrimination Act.
The first page:
Elaugaufein
Member
I actually have mixed feelings on this. I do pretty firmly believe that expression of ideas has to be free in order to have a viable democracy. It doesn't matter how well meaning your suppression of ideas are, once the precedent that suppression is possible is set, people are going to be more cautious about expressing any controversial idea , because once suppression is allowed the only defense against further suppression is popularity, and those are precisely the ideas that least need defense.
I don't think insult should be actionable. The idea that people have a right not to be insulted doesn't lead anywhere good e.g "Climate change deniers are either misinformed, dumb or deliberately deceitful" is insulting , it's also an accurate expression of my views.
There's really no need for public exemptions to vilification though, expressions of ideas do not need calls for violence.
And I do think that expression of ideas/ opinion needs to be clearly separated from reports that pretend to be factual. Saying you think that X group is stupid is a different matter from making up lies saying you have evidence that X group is stupid , and the latter should be actionable (even in political discourse).
ETA- I also question the wisdom of leaving it solely up to the members of a group whether that group has been insulted: Christian Fundamentalists in the US would currently tell you that they are being oppressed terrible by dreadful liberals and gays, any kind of rational look at the situation pretty much shows this is completely untrue, but they do sincerely believe it . I do admit that its unwise to leave the decision up to the group doing the insulting too (for pretty much the same reason).
(And now it's my turn to play Arksy for a while. )
I don't think insult should be actionable. The idea that people have a right not to be insulted doesn't lead anywhere good e.g "Climate change deniers are either misinformed, dumb or deliberately deceitful" is insulting , it's also an accurate expression of my views.
There's really no need for public exemptions to vilification though, expressions of ideas do not need calls for violence.
And I do think that expression of ideas/ opinion needs to be clearly separated from reports that pretend to be factual. Saying you think that X group is stupid is a different matter from making up lies saying you have evidence that X group is stupid , and the latter should be actionable (even in political discourse).
ETA- I also question the wisdom of leaving it solely up to the members of a group whether that group has been insulted: Christian Fundamentalists in the US would currently tell you that they are being oppressed terrible by dreadful liberals and gays, any kind of rational look at the situation pretty much shows this is completely untrue, but they do sincerely believe it . I do admit that its unwise to leave the decision up to the group doing the insulting too (for pretty much the same reason).
(And now it's my turn to play Arksy for a while. )
Elaugaufein
Member
There exist ideological groups that also have strong racial components (like various Middle Eastern religious extremists and certain European white nationalist groups ) can you make a clear distinction on when this would apply in such a situation ?
ETA- Furthermore there exist political groups that are pretty much defined by being marginalized groups (eg Familiy First, GLBTQ or Aboriginal rights activists) is it problematic to say something insulting about them ? This would make it very difficult to engage with them given that their purpose for existing is closely tied to a marginalized group and any attack on their viewpoints can be interpreted as an attack or insult directed at the group.
Elaugaufein
Member
Which ones ? Sorry, I'm a little confused now. Are you referring to the proposed exceptions which basically make vilification okay if it's done in private or in public (for pretty much any reason), which I disagree with, I believe in the free expression of ideas and viewpoints, not the free expression of shooting people (or encouraging other people to shoot people because that group deserves it) .
Or the saner ones that currently exist ? My problem with such is that they are never clearly expressed (which is a problem with a great many laws of this type), the only way to tell if something "on the edge" is unacceptable is to risk expensive court cases and judgments , which has a chilling effect in and of itself. Tests based on "I'll/They'll know it when they see/hear it" are terrible for this reason. Admittedly when it comes to the expression of ideas it is utterly impossible to clearly delimit everything that is over the line and there is unlikely to be a practical method. Requiring a prior judgment to exist for strong penalties will end up with the same mess our common law system has involved into, where you need access to a dedicated library and to be an expert in that specific area to actually understand what the law is. And there will be the inevitable public calls for lynching when someone does something utterly repulsive but not covered (because the public response to repulsive acts is emotional rather than rational).
Fair call on the chilling effect portion. But if you look at the history of cases that have actually been prosecuted under the RDA, it seems to be a) rare and b) almost entirely made up of stuff that would immediately trigger the smell test in some capacity. The Bolt Case is actually probably the only one I thought would have been a good test had it actually been good journalism, which it is not.
Of course you get into the question of what the smell test actually is, but from my perspective given that legislative law has to go through an interpretative step before application anyway it doesn't seem to be as onerous as you make it out to be.
Of course you get into the question of what the smell test actually is, but from my perspective given that legislative law has to go through an interpretative step before application anyway it doesn't seem to be as onerous as you make it out to be.
Elaugaufein
Member
The problem with a chilling effect though is that trying to evaluate it, is like trying to work out what was stolen from a room you've never been in before. How many people didn't say/write something that would have been (just barely) acceptable, because they deemed it too risky (or their legal department advised against it, because of potential costs) ? Inappropriate cases are only part of it.
It's hard for me to entirely disagree with you re: criminalising mere offence, but let me take another tack. The currently proposed amendments restrict prohibited conduct to 'inciting violence' and that kind of thing. What's the difference between insult and psychological damage or expression that may lead - not to incitement of violence, but perhaps merely to widespread contempt and an unhealthy, unfriendly society? Isn't that worthy of stopping as well?
(Let me just quietly put aside my "Why the fuck is our shithead government talking about freedom of speech with one hand and censoring the shit out of government employees with the other" pile...)
(Let me just quietly put aside my "Why the fuck is our shithead government talking about freedom of speech with one hand and censoring the shit out of government employees with the other" pile...)
Elaugaufein
Member
The problem is that democracy is based on the expression of ideas. If ideas have to be withheld because it may effect the ability of someone to function, then that someone effectively occupies a privileged position , which disadvantages others. Essentially the public good requires that ideas be expressed that may hurt people, the public good doesn't require that anyone be physically harmed.
If you're speaking of inciting contempt without expression of ideas, I'm not certain that's possible. And given that the Red Scare, effectively set progressive politics back an immeasurable distance in the (UK/America/Australia)*, I don't think that trying to judge the "validity" of ideas, which is the only way I see to tackle that, is worthwhile. Facts can be valid or invalid but expressions of opinion can't be.
I don't think you can regulate incitement of contempt without essentially destroying our current political process though. There's plenty of incitement of contempt for traditionally conservative groups and viewpoints to be found in this thread after all. And the comments on even Fairfax newspapers are a cesspool of contempt for anyone to the left of Centre Right. Bad ideas need to be able to be held in contempt and a consequence of that is that people who hold those ideas will also be viewed with contempt.
I'm not really sure about psychological harm though, enjoining a group to all commit suicide because they are all worthless , only differs from inciting others to kill them, if that group has sufficient self-esteem to resist the call. Which is pretty easy when you're a wealthy white male adult (my reaction to assaults on atheism is amusement) but isn't necessarily so for other groups. This is one of those areas where my opinion is mixed. There is probably some room for evaluation here, like if the ideas in question are directed specifically at that group to cause psychological harm, as opposed to directed at the public as an expression of opinion.
I can't really see any clear way to define the difference between insult and psychological damage though, comments that unsettle me for a couple of hours might cause others to commit suicide, but a speaker may in good faith make them without the intent of causing anything beyond insult. And in such a case I have to fall on the side of free expression of ideas because it seems like the greatest public good.
It also strikes me to have the potential to create political martyrs who commit suicide in order to bring harm to those with different viewpoints, which is not something that seems like a good idea. Either for those people or for the public. The number of undeniably good laws that have been passed due to public reaction shortly after a death is probably close to zero, and I'd be significantly surprised if the net effect of such laws is not negative, given that such things are basically impossible to repeal for fear of appearing "soft on crime".
And it's not really debatable that people will go to some pretty extreme interpretations in order to bury ideas they find distasteful (like the use of "public interest" and "national security" exemptions in areas where there applicability is questionable at best, or ridiculously broad "classified information".
*Side track but I feel the need to clarify this: The Right side of politics has a wide gallery of utterly insane public figures that they can use to appear more moderate than they are, the Left is absolutely terrified of allowing such figures to exist, to the extent that their reaction to any such figure is to move to the right as opposed to use their existence to show how moderate they are.
Because many politicians , like religious leaders and the nobility before them , only pay lip service to whatever noble ideals they espouse. Such things are merely a convenient means to power not a sincerely held belief. And picking on public servants is pretty much absolutely safe for Conservatives since a great many dedicated conservative voters regard public servants as leeches and/or ivory tower academics so they'll never even care enough to find out what the public servants are complaining about.
I suppose the real problem I have is that there tends to be an unstated assumption that should people be say to blather whatever they wish, then the people or the public or whatever will turn their backs on 'non-worthwhile' expression, i.e. expression that is nothing more than undirected vitriol or hate with no grounding in facts or a grounding in lies, etc, but - judging by the state of discourse - that tends not actually to be the case. And that worries me. Look at the discourse on Asylum Seekers before we've repealed the RDA; it's already fucking vile. Imagine what it'll be like after those protections are gone.
Elaugaufein
Member
I pretty much agree here. Its one of the reasons I want to see a clear line drawn between opinion pieces and factual articles. There's a shameful history of using false/outdated statements and portraying them as factual. If people can go into something knowing its a presentation of opinion rather than facts, they are at least less likely to be deceived.
I do not understand the Asylum Seeker thing even a little tiny bit. My mother and sister are both in the "Turn Back the Boats" camp but if the Red Cross / Amnesty International / etc rang up and described the situations in the countries these people come from they'd give money in a heartbeat. There's some kind of terror induced by these people arriving that pretty much shuts down the ability to make the link that these are the same people.
And its doubly ironic given that conservative parties favor global races to the bottom with regard to wages and working and societal conditions which is a significantly greater economic threat to Australia than a few thousand people on boats per year.
- Status