If "Treasurer for sale" is libel (which to be fair, it likely won't be) then that this most definitely libel.
-
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
If "Treasurer for sale" is libel (which to be fair, it likely won't be) then that this most definitely libel.
Actually it's different, in one case you're accusing someone of accepting a monetary incentive for something (basically a bribe), here, someone is just accusing someone..at worst..of being a traitor, which is questioning his allegiance, purely political.
I doubt either will be defamation though.
I doubt either will be defamation though.
shanshan310
Member
More than that it's pretty falsely representing labor policy and their stance on the issue to the public.
That's still not defamation for a number of reasons;
1. Only people can be defamed.
2. Even if we're talking about a person, it's still political. They are talking about what they perceive to be the logical consequence of what a politician said. Right or wrong, good or bad faith....doesn't matter. That's democracy.
1. Only people can be defamed.
2. Even if we're talking about a person, it's still political. They are talking about what they perceive to be the logical consequence of what a politician said. Right or wrong, good or bad faith....doesn't matter. That's democracy.
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-sex-refugees-taped-it-court?CMP=share_btn_tw
how much worse can it get?
how much worse can it get?
reptilescorpio
Member
Headline should be 'Refugees allegedly used as sexual currency' for added shock value.
How the fuck is this just happening. Shouldn't someone step in and tell us to stop being fucked up?
I mean seriously. "Either you let me rape you or you don't get a shower". How is that acceptable? It has to be shut down right now.
holy-
bobnowhere
Member
So they've finally managed to almost successfully damage Shorten, turn the media onto the Labor Party while ignoring the surplus of LNP lies and hidden polices, even if they haven't really moved the polls and now they kick the biggest own goal in recent memory.
The Greens/Labor and everyone else can now run until the next election on nothing else but education policy. Hubris was always going to take out these clown out at some point.
Elaugaufein
Member
That's from the Shove or Backburnerl right ? That's the only way that statement makes sense.
Candescence
Member
There's no fucking way this can possibly go over well with the electorate. Labor and Greens could easily run a Workchoices-esque scare campaign on this.
Then again, we're talking the same government who has elements who really want to bring back Workchoices in a brand new package.
Then again, we're talking the same government who has elements who really want to bring back Workchoices in a brand new package.
Tony has already had a press conference when he basically pins it on the States.
edit: Pyne out on the front foot early after the Tony press conference. https://twitter.com/cpyne/status/612754950314024960
edit: Pyne out on the front foot early after the Tony press conference. https://twitter.com/cpyne/status/612754950314024960
It's officially up for discussion. If you believe in a public education system equally accessible by everyone, this is cause for concern.
I think I agree with you here, but the bolded is why this is pretty hard. The GST arrangement has made it very difficult to give any responsibility back to the states without major taxation reform.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Let's just dissolve the Federation already.
I fundamentally disagree on all of that lol. I think a cohesive national policy and funding for all those things is important. Otherwise we may as well just do this:
and have a bunch of separate countries on this island.
Elaugaufein
Member
Yes, if States have total control over schools (both public and independent/private) that's at least a logical consistent position. Not one that I completely agree with but one that makes internal sense. My disagreement with total state control is that within a federation you need some federal level oversight so that qualifications are equivalent between states, otherwise you end up with a mess.
As for the rest I agree with various exceptions:
National Highways and such should be handled federally.
The Federal government requires some revenue to function so it should have some taxation powers (the current situation where it controls a large chunk of the state level funding is probably undesirable).
I actually think marriage is theoretically better handled at the Federal level, our civil union laws are a mess because its various state institutions recognized federally. Your marriage is not a thing that should potentially cease to exist because you cross state lines.
And I also think that some Federal oversight of employment and corporate law is necessary for compatibility between states and to create a consistent set of rules for international business in both directions. Avoiding a dystopian race to the bottom would also be nice, I may live in Queensland but I'd really rather not live in Wisconsin if its all the same to you
.That wouldn't be so bad. Smaller organisations are better. The main reason it doesn't happen is defense.
Elaugaufein
Member
Well in the Australian context there are other reasons. Some states/territories are basically nonfunctional without Federation. The Northern Territory would end up being abandoned except for ripping all of its resources out of the ground. That's one of the reasons they want to setup a special zone for the NT (the other reason is so that every wealthy person in the country can buy a house there so they get lower tax rates because Freedumb, Job Creators and Bootstraps).
Yeah, I meant generally I guess. I wasn't suggesting that every state should secede.
Or maybe I was? In which case I retract that
I agree with the points in your previous post. I'm not even really sure about my whole theory behind all this, I'm in the "throwing mud against a wall and seeing what sticks" phase of deciding what my opinion is on this.
Oh man this is a fantastic idea, why didn't I come up with it?!?
In all seriousness, to answer people's questions here, we have a drivers licensing system that is completely based on the states, the federal government plays absolutely zero part in the provisioning and distribution of car licenses, states do it all in a different way one way or another and yet we're able to drive in every state without any issue because the states have talked with each other and have agreed a bunch of things. Currently, teacher qualifications are run entirely by a national body created by the states, you don't need the federal government there either. Law associations are state run, doctors accreditations are also state based.
The federal government dipping its hand into the education system in my mind has been nothing short of a disaster. NAPLAN which John Oliver took apart pretty handily when analysing the American equivalent, and the national curriculum which has now become a political battleground based on the content.
If the federal government wanted to mandate a national STANDARD, I'd have less issue with that...but we're not talking about standards here, we're talking about standardisation. There's a big difference. There's a lot of good arguments around by people from the left and right as to why that's a bad idea. (Also arguments for on either side but hey I'm bias).
The federal government dipping its hand into the education system in my mind has been nothing short of a disaster. NAPLAN which John Oliver took apart pretty handily when analysing the American equivalent, and the national curriculum which has now become a political battleground based on the content.
If the federal government wanted to mandate a national STANDARD, I'd have less issue with that...but we're not talking about standards here, we're talking about standardisation. There's a big difference. There's a lot of good arguments around by people from the left and right as to why that's a bad idea. (Also arguments for on either side but hey I'm bias).
How the hell is that proposal #1 to charge wealthy parents to send their children to public schools even supposed to work?
So you'd need what, 15 million children of wealthy parents attending public school? I don't think there are even that many children in Australia period.
So you'd need what, 15 million children of wealthy parents attending public school? I don't think there are even that many children in Australia period.
It's supposed to work by closing the fee gap between public and private schools. A wealthy person who might not otherwise consider private education suddenly has to weigh up $1000 for public vs whatever fees for independent schools. In some cases school fees are even less than $1000 for independent schools at least for NSW primary schools, so now an independent school is the cheapest option, or in most cases not that much more. So a reasonable percentage of people now choose independent schools over public schools, reducing demand for public schools, reducing spending on public schools.
Now private schools get to spend that money directly on wages and attract "the best" teachers, so now even more people choose independent schools. It's the first step in the path towards rich schools and poor schools to the extent that location doesn't already determine that.
tldr: Class stratification is how it's supposed to work.
Is what I suspected; but then that leaves the children of families for who public is the only option in a very tough spot in terms of funding.
Elaugaufein
Member
Not a Bug. Working as Designed.
Isn't that exactly what they were doing with the GST? As in, "We're not going to raise the GST, but we are going to reduce certain funding to the states. To raise revenue, it's on them to raise GST".
This fucking government.
Known shippable.
bobnowhere
Member
Amazing headline earlier on ABC24:
I think someone facerolled on the keyboard. For all the moaning about the ABC from the government and it's supporters, ABC24 really is bare bones, errors all the time and constant equipment failures. Must be time for another efficiency dividend.
Intern above their pay grade? said:
I think someone facerolled on the keyboard. For all the moaning about the ABC from the government and it's supporters, ABC24 really is bare bones, errors all the time and constant equipment failures. Must be time for another efficiency dividend.
What, I watch ABC24 all the time and it's fine.
And until the government allows broadcasts in h.264 or (gasp!) skip straight to h.265 and/or increase per channel bandwidth, who gives a shit about free-to-air HD. It looks awful whether it's SD or HD.
Candescence
Member
So Senator Larissa Waters (Greens) openly asked the Coalition's catholic members whether they'll actually listen to the Pope on climate change. Their response is to call her a bigot and for some reason ask if she's married, as if that somehow is relevant to the topic.
Stay classy, Libs/Nats.
Stay classy, Libs/Nats.
Labor to back petrol excise indexation: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/labor-to-back-petrol-tax-hike-20150622-ghv04w
Hopefully this new consultative Greens party makes Labor do more good things. Pity about the internet though.
Hopefully this new consultative Greens party makes Labor do more good things. Pity about the internet though.
someone had a speech today bleating about how persecuted catholics wererrrererererhahahahahaha fucking shitbags
i don't even understand how you could take that as offensive to catholics. all she asked was whether or not they were going to follow ALL the tenants of a religion, not just the bit where we lock children in jail overseas
Box of Bunnies
Banned
That's unfairly reductive. They're also pretty into the bits about subservient women and gays not being people.
if you can use religion to drum up votes and support and funding you should be able to be called on that religion to affect policy
If you can find me a time in recent history that a politician has said, "I'm catholic, vote for me." I'll be happy to indulge. - It's a pretty silly proposition given that most of the ALP front bench is catholic, and about half of the coalition front bench is also catholic.
I also just wanted to add that this is stupid, this is a majority protestant country and protestants revel in their long and proud history of anti-Catholicism. For roughly, I dunno, a half dozen centuries?
Ugh. It's so much like what happened in the US, except people don't care as much to try and stop it.
Also lol at the amount of people there.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked