• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
I'll have to do a bit of reading about the Stern review and get back to you, seems like there's a lot to digest. I don't believe we have made a significant contribution as a tiny nation to global CO2 levels so therefore I don't believe we don't bear a huge responsibility. Our responsibility should be proportional to our contribution.

That's not to say that I personally don't care, or that I don't want to reduce our CO2 emissions, but in order to meet the challenge we're going to have to do a lot, lot more and change a lot more about our society than simply implement a tax.

Edit: This is on the premise that shaving 0-10% off our total emissions by 2020 won't make any significant impact on global CO2 levels. If it did I would advocate for change of some sorts.

Sorry, but this is some terrible logic. Any price mechanism applied to the Australian economy for reducing greenhouse emissions would be proportional to our global output because it would only apply to the Australian economy. You seem to be suggesting that despite being an affluent country and one of the highest per capita emitters in the world (nearly twice the OECD average and more than four times the world average) any efforts we make to reduce our emissions should be tokenistic at best because overall, it wouldn't make that much of a difference. How do you think that would play during global negotiations? Does it apply to every country with a population under say, 100 million?
 

Dead Man

Member
I love Scott Morrison. How he can say this with a straight face I will never know.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...licy-of-towing-boats-back-says-scott-morrison

He sells this under the guise of compassion:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...rs-to-give-birth-on-nauru-20131004-2uyv0.html

Pregnant asylum seekers will give birth in Nauru for the first time since 2004 under the Abbott government's ''no exemptions'' approach to offshore detention.

Fairfax Media has learned a woman carrying twins is one of the first asylum seekers since the Howard era to face the prospect of giving birth in the tiny island republic.

Refugee advocates are seeking details about the woman, who is said to be 22 weeks' pregnant and arrived on Nauru last Friday, according to sources on the island.

Of six pregnant women transferred from detention on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea by Labor earlier in the year, three miscarried.



A section of Nauru's only hospital burned down in August and medical experts and campaigners say there is no proof that conditions for mothers and babies are adequate in an environment where detainees live in tents in temperatures of 40 degrees celsius and above.


''This is a dangerous shift in policy,'' said Kon Karapanagiotidis of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre. ''[Immigration Minister] Scott Morrison is saying there is now no exceptions. It's a dereliction of his duty of care as minister.

''If you did this to women in this country there would be uproar. The minister is saying people will be sent offshore without exception just to fulfil a political slogan.''

In July, Fairfax revealed confidential advice to government from International Health and Medical Services, which operates throughout the detention network, that pregnant women on Manus had an increased risk of death, stillbirth, miscarriage and low birth weight babies.

In PNG the infant mortality rate for children under five is 60 in 1000 and in Nauru it is 37. By comparison, just five of every 1000 children die in Australia.


Professor Nick Talley, president-elect of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, said: ''It might sound just like numbers but these are dramatically different situations, really significant.''

Professor Talley said there was also ''serious concern'' among medicos about the government's accelerated health checks before boat arrivals were dispatched from Christmas Island to Manus and Nauru.

The 48-hour turnarounds now in place had effectively ended screening for Hepatitis B, typhoid, tuberculosis, HIV and syphilis, he said.

''Those tests are not going to come back within 48 hours. That means these people won't have been screened.''


The 12-member Detention Health Advisory Group, of which the college is a part, has not been consulted by the Coalition government on changes.

Mr Morrison, who visited Manus Island last week, also plans to travel to Nauru next week - his first trip to the island nation as Minister.

The Immigration Minister would not provide any detail of any planning for births on Nauru but in a statement did not resile from sending pregnant women there.

''The government's policy is to provide no exemptions for offshore processing for those who have arrived illegally by boat,'' he said.

''The previous government sent very few people to Manus Island and Nauru for offshore processing because they didn't really believe in it. The difference between the Coalition government and Labor is that the Coalition is actually implementing offshore processing properly.''

Mr Morrison's office rebuffed calls from the former immigration minister Tony Burke to release advice from the health advisory group about the health screening process for asylum seekers.

Mr Burke said he was told repeatedly that it would take a minimum of 10 to 12 days to all the necessary health checks.

The man simply has no shame.
 

Arksy

Member
I don't find my logic faulty at all.

Will the carbon tax make an impact on climate change? No.

Will the carbon tax damage our economy? Looks like it hasn't yet, but it may. Either way it doesn't look like it will make a huge difference to emissions either unless the carbon price was increased drastically, at which point it WOULD damage the economy.

So, as it currently stands, the scheme is worthless. So lets get rid of it.
 
The carbon tax financially forces people to adopt more sustainable methods of living. It isn't just "STOP CLIMATE CHANGE MAN GOTTA STOP THAT CO2". Its using the power of the free market to incentive people to think about how they use energy for once. Even if it doesn't do anything, it encourages people to finally take simple things seriously, such as insulation and turning off your lights, because shit actually costs money now.

British Columbia had a carbon tax and they've had very good success in reducing carbon emissions, dependence on fossil fuels and at making sure businesses don't "collapse" overnight. And this is in Canada where winters are cold as fuck.

You still haven't provided a real source besides that hilarious OPED from the director of deregulation from the IPA.
 

Arksy

Member
The carbon tax financially forces people to adopt more sustainable methods of living. It isn't just "STOP CLIMATE CHANGE MAN GOTTA STOP THAT CO2". Its using the power of the free market to incentive people to think about how they use energy for once. Even if it doesn't do anything, it encourages people to finally take simple things seriously, such as insulation and turning off your lights, because shit actually costs money now.

British Columbia had a carbon tax and they've had very good success in reducing carbon emissions, dependence on fossil fuels and at making sure businesses don't "collapse" overnight. And this is in Canada where winters are cold as fuck.

You still haven't provided a real source besides that hilarious OPED from the director of deregulation from the IPA.

Why should I? You attacked the source, not the arguments. There's no reason to provide anything if all you can do is respond using fallacious logic. Not to mention that you haven't sourced a single one of your arguments at all. The only person who has provided sources was Hidys.
 

markot

Banned
The IPA is a reputable think tank that didn't skew everything through its ideological prism to suit its paymasters.
 
Because:
There's a reason why we like clean citations. Janet Albrechtsen once wrote this in an OPED for The Australian in 2002:

"Pack rape of white girls is an initiation rite of passage for a small section of young male Muslim youths, said Jean-Jacques Rassial, a psychotherapist at Villetaneuse University."

Because she actually cited the author, you could do a quick search that showed that she slotted in white and Muslim into the above places, thus completely misrepresenting the French academic's argument. She also cited a Danish academic using similarly dishonest techniques - he told the Australian media that she was misrepresenting his social study that had little to do with religion or race. Just saying OECD is not good enough because considering the agenda this guy has, is he pulling shit from thin air, misrepresenting the report, or does he actually have an actual point to make? Who knows, we won't know until we know what report he's actually talking about...absolutely nothing, not even a quote.

To put it bluntly, I actually don't think the writer of that OPED is being completely honest considering he offered no actual quotes to trace the article or really anything for us to track down. I can't even get anything from Google besides cut/paste blogposts of this OPED.
 

Arksy

Member
Because:


To put it bluntly, I actually don't think the writer of that OPED is being completely honest considering he offered no actual quotes to trace the article or really anything for us to track down. I can't even get anything from Google besides cut/paste blogposts of this OPED.

Well that would be easy to see if they'd fucking release the OECD report already. :/

Yes, I want it too. Sounds like a smoking gun for a repeal if what he says is the actual content of the report.
 
If you want reports of successful carbon taxes, I've mentioned British Columbia. This report shows that fossil fuel consumption fell by a considerable amount compared to the rest of Canada while maintaining GDP growth similar to the rest of the country.

Furthermore, the shift in taxes also results in lower corporate and income taxes which is beneficial for business and consumer. The government doesn't really get all of that carbon tax bucks and shove them into their pockets. No, they hand it around like candy to encourage the growth of the policy.

A proper implementation of it is not a FUCK BUSINESS tax. Its a tax to financially force businesses to adopt better practices, like what they've done in British Columbia.

Edit:
Here we go. OECD responds to the OPED by the IPA guy. Guy basically says "wait what, I didn't really say that...". Here's an article that directly calls the IPA director out and it has the included link to the OECD report too (but the link seems to be broken):

The rather alarming $75 carbon price expected to materialise by 2020 that The Australian interpreted as representative of the Australian ETS missed something rather important – Australia’s ETS does cover gases besides carbon dioxide. The report actually found the carbon price would drop to $35 once these were included in the scheme. In addition while agriculture is not liable under Australia’s ETS, it can supply abatement into the scheme via offsets produced under the Carbon Farming Initiative. Taking this into account drops the carbon price to $20 per tonne of CO2.

What’s more their modelling assumed Australia’s scheme wouldn’t be linked with carbon markets operating overseas – but it is. And it assumed Australia would be unable to use our emissions credits from undershooting our 2008-12 Kyoto Protocol target – but we can.

In terms of the rather scary 15.9% reduction in energy intensive exports and the 1.2% income fall (which is in fact an income gain but not as great as under a zero emission reduction scenario), this was all based on the $75 carbon price that in no way represents “Australia’s pioneering carbon pricing”.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
I don't find my logic faulty at all.

Will the carbon tax make an impact on climate change? No.

Will the carbon tax damage our economy? Looks like it hasn't yet, but it may. Either way it doesn't look like it will make a huge difference to emissions either unless the carbon price was increased drastically, at which point it WOULD damage the economy.

So, as it currently stands, the scheme is worthless. So lets get rid of it.

The point is that just because Australia is a smaller emitter on the global scale (though to reiterate, twice OECD average and almost four times global average per capita, top 20 in total emissions) doesn't mean that the nation gets a pass. Should we not have regulations on CFCs because we're a small country and our overall contribution to the degradation of the ozone layer was smaller than that of larger nations? I'll ask again, should every smaller nation be allowed to tailor their emissions reductions to take advantage of the "we're so small it doesn't really matter" argument?
 

Dead Man

Member
MPs expenses: Barnaby Joyce says Gina Rinehart stopped him from having to claim more for Indian wedding trip

Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce says the fact that mining magnate Gina Rinehart paid for him to fly to a wedding in India helped make the trip cheaper for taxpayers.

The Nationals Member for New England has come under fire for claiming expenses for the 2011 trip.

Mr Joyce and Coalition colleagues Julie Bishop and Teresa Gambaro attended the Hyderabad wedding of the granddaughter of Mrs Rinehart's business partner.

All three claimed overseas study entitlements for the trip home, with Mr Joyce stopping off in Malaysia for a one-day study tour.

Mr Joyce has told Fairfax radio that Mrs Rinehart paid for his flight to India.

"If someone else wants to pay half a trip, pay for it privately, which is basically what Gina Rinehart did, then it's actually made it cheaper for the taxpayer," he said.

Yesterday it was revealed that Prime Minister Tony Abbott paid back money he claimed during a trip to attend a wedding, saying the Department of Finance was unable to provide clear advice to him about whether or not the claim was legitimate.

There are also questions about Labor MP Bernie Ripoll, who claimed expenses for a 2011 trip to France during which he watched stages of the Tour de France.
More at the link.

These fucking guys are getting away with this shit. :/
 

Dryk

Member
Saying that we don't need to do anything about climate change because we won't have an effect is classic tragedy of the commons. We are the biggest emitters per capita, we should not be giving every other country someone to point to and whine "But they're doing it!"

Also: Seems legit

Six of the attendees confirmed yesterday that Mr Abbott had raised the idea of banning welfare payments for young people to encourage them to fill the thousands of jobs emerging in states such as Western Australia and Queensland.

"He said he was thinking more and more about it, with a view to formulating something on it," said one of the participants, who asked not to be named.

Another recalled: "He definitely said it was something he was considering as a policy."

A third executive said: "It certainly wasn't a throwaway line. He brought up the issue twice during the meeting."

Mr Abbott also told the business leaders that safety mechanisms would be needed under such a scheme to protect disabled people or those with mental health problems. And he raised the possibility that employers would need to be given funding to train the unemployed, according to those present.

Some of the business leaders were surprised by the remarks, while others were impressed Mr Abbott was considering new measures to address the labour shortages in Western Australia that threaten to crimp the next resources boom.

"I thought to myself: here is a guy who thinks outside the square," said one participant.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arc...the-under-30s/comments-e6frgczf-1225856154348
 

markot

Banned
Abbott defends use of taxpayer funds to attend weddings

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has defended his use of taxpayer expenses after confirming he paid back taxpayer money claimed to attend the weddings of Sophie Mirabella and Peter Slipper.

It was revealed yesterday that Mr Abbott repaid more than $1,000 he claimed a trip to Ms Mirabella's wedding, while he confirmed today that he also repaid more than $600 he claimed to attend Mr Slipper's wedding.

Mr Abbott told reporters today that MPs have certain representational roles and he thought the claims were within his entitlements.


lol, what a bunch of clowns.
 

hidys

Member
Abbott defends use of taxpayer funds to attend weddings

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has defended his use of taxpayer expenses after confirming he paid back taxpayer money claimed to attend the weddings of Sophie Mirabella and Peter Slipper.

It was revealed yesterday that Mr Abbott repaid more than $1,000 he claimed a trip to Ms Mirabella's wedding, while he confirmed today that he also repaid more than $600 he claimed to attend Mr Slipper's wedding.

Mr Abbott told reporters today that MPs have certain representational roles and he thought the claims were within his entitlements.


lol, what a bunch of clowns.

It's the Liberal Way. Marriage is between a man and a woman and an expense claim.
 

hidys

Member
Excellent tweet by Possum Comitatus:

"With Toneee's $84K+ on PR travel expenses and $900K on office expenses, this guy is a living, breathing, one man Keynesian stimulus program"
 

markot

Banned
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has defended charging taxpayers for his travel expenses to compete in an Ironman event in Port Macquarie two years ago.

Department of Finance documents show Mr Abbott claimed $349 in travel allowance and $941 for the flights to and from the NSW mid-north coast city in November 2011.

Mr Abbott says he was entitled to claim the $1,290 because Port Macquarie was effectively a marginal electorate.
 

Dead Man

Member
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has defended charging taxpayers for his travel expenses to compete in an Ironman event in Port Macquarie two years ago.

Department of Finance documents show Mr Abbott claimed $349 in travel allowance and $941 for the flights to and from the NSW mid-north coast city in November 2011.

Mr Abbott says he was entitled to claim the $1,290 because Port Macquarie was effectively a marginal electorate.

So competing is now campaigning which is now something they deserve to be paid for. :/

Edit: Also, post some links, you Hitler.
 
It's all been a bit of a damp squib so far!

First Month

SMH said:
The first month anniversary of the Abbott government's election on a ''no surprises, no excuses'' platform passed on Monday. The Coalition has certainly delivered on the ''no surprises'' part when it comes to meeting voters' low expectations of MPs' use of taxpayer-funded expenses. There have been few surprises, either, in the government's avoidance of scrutiny and its rewrite of asylum seeker policy.
 

Dead Man

Member
Well done QLD, you got a senator in Victoria!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-07/amep-shuts-victorian-branch-ricky-muir/5003480

The Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party (AMEP) has terminated its Victorian state council over an unauthorised Facebook page and liaising with the media without authorisation.

The closure comes less than a week after the Australian Electoral Commission confirmed AMEP's Ricky Muir would represent Victoria in the Senate despite receiving just 0.5 per cent of the primary vote.

A notice sent to all AMEP members lists a series of breaches, including the unauthorised establishment of social media presence and unauthorised media liaison.

A Facebook page was allegedly set up by the Victorian branch without the consent or authorisation of AMEP's central executive.

The letter also states the illegal and unauthorised use of AMEP identification, confidential information, incorrect policy announcements, and the misuse of the party brand.

The party's central executive - which is based in Queensland - will now take on a caretaker role for the Victorian council until further notice.

In his letter to AMEP members, chairman Tony Standfield says a directive was issued to all federal state councils that all media contact must be cleared by the national media liaison officer, Keith Littler.

It is claimed a Victorian official organised an interview with Mr Muir for a journalist from the Australian Financial Review without clearing it with Mr Littler first.

According to the letter from Mr Standfield, Victoria's state council has shown a "blatant disregard" for the direction and instructions set by the party's central executive.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-...r-not-seen-by-vic-amep-since-election/5008412
The sacked Victorian branch of the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party (AMEP), which campaigned successfully for Ricky Muir to enter into politics, has had no contact with the Senator-elect since the election.

The former Victorian chairman of the AMEP, Scott McDonald, says there has been no sign of Mr Muir since Mr McDonald helped him win the Senate seat.

"Nobody's been able to contact him since the 10th of September," he said.

"We were banned from talking to him after the election.


"I've had no thank you for getting him into the seat. I've had no correspondence as to how he's going, if he's okay.

"To my knowledge he did not attend a meeting for newly elected senators last week. No one knows where he is, what he's doing or what's happening."

Mr Muir will represent Victoria in the Senate after receiving just 0.5 per cent of the primary vote.

But he will do so without any contact with the Victorian council, which was sacked on Sunday.

Mr McDonald stepped down as the Victorian chairman before the sackings.

The Federal Executive of the party sent notices to all members listing a series of breaches, including the unauthorised establishment of a social media presence and unauthorised media liaison.

Mr McDonald says 290 paid-up Victorian members were told about the sacking before the council was informed of its demise.

Mr McDonald says the Queensland national executive created a wedge in the party.

"Since the election everything has been in lock-down, and any attempt to be open and honest with people has been shut down," Mr McDonald said.

"The party was always based on the fact we were not politicians, we were attempting to become politicians in an effort to be open and honest, and to bring honesty back to policy," he said.

He says the members are now being controlled by Queensland.

"We must stick by our original values," Mr McDonald said.

"The minute you start locking people out, and performing secret strategic plans, you form a split in a party, and you can't have that, especially in a small group.

"As a Victorian party we've had nothing to hide."

Mr McDonald says it is unclear if Mr Muir will take up the Senate position, and believes should he fail to do so, the Queensland national office will nominate someone else in Victoria.

"Given the fact they have sacked everybody who worked so hard to get them there, that they've disregarded Victorian members, it's going to be difficult," he said.

"Things aren't looking too flash at the moment and time is ticking away."
 

bomma_man

Member
It's gonna be a fun six years in the senate.

At least we didn't get this champ.

Peter Madden, who ran as the lead Senate candidate for Family First in Tasmania at the federal election last month, has also hit out at the major parties, referring to state Liberal leaders Will Hodgman and Jeremy Rockliff as social Marxists for their views on abortion, despite the MPs recently voting against abortion legislation.

And Mr Madden said Premier Lara Giddings was an "angel of death" for her stance on voluntary euthanasia. Mr Madden said abortion had been normalised in modern society.

"They call it abortion," he said. "But it is in fact modern-day pagan human sacrifice."

Mr Hodgman and Mr Rockliff both rejected Health Minister Michelle O'Byrne's recent Private Member's Bill that would remove abortion from the Criminal Code.

But Mr Madden said their speeches in Parliament would not appease Christians.

Mr Hodgman said issues such as abortion should be dealt with in a sensitive manner.

"I would encourage any member of the Tasmanian community who wants to have a serious discussion about [these issues] to treat them with the sensitivity that they deserve," he said.

"These issues come before Parliament [and] the Liberal Party has a proud track record of dealing with them sensitively.

"And of course we listen to the views of all Tasmanians.

"We saw in the federal election all sorts of parties coming out of left field and, while they might have some entertainment value, what they present to Tasmanians is risk.

"If you vote for one of these minority parties or fringe groups you can expect another hung parliament."

Mr Madden, who will decide at the weekend if he plans to run in next year's state election, said the Liberal Party assumed they had the votes of Christians.

He took to Twitter yesterday to air his views. "Tas Christians need to wake up," he tweeted.

"A vote for the Libs is not in accordance with life or Christian values.

"Will & Jeremy support human sacrifice!"

Ms Giddings said Mr Madden's views on voluntary euthanasia were disappointing.

She said the legislation had undergone thorough consultation and had strong safeguards in place.

I'm fairly sure this guy is a 'reformed' sex addict too.
 

hidys

Member
There really needs to be an inquiry into these expense claims, like there was in Britain. I do believe however that id such an investigation did occur, both parties would get into shit. i find it hard to believe that it is just the Liberals pulling shit like this.
 

Arksy

Member
Both (Edit: all) sides are guilty as sin when it comes to this sort of bullshit. I had assumed that the changes to MP remuneration and the limiting of entitlements was supposed to curb this stuff, but I suppose many of these expenses claims go back further.
 

Arksy

Member
I feel like this is an inherent problem with letting your employees decide their terms of employment...

They don't though. Well, not really...anymore.

The constitution states when an MP can be removed without an election. (Bankruptcy or Imprisonment over a year).

They are held to account every three years with voters.

They don't decide their pay and entitlements any more because that has been assigned to a quango. (The remuneration tribunal)

This is why we should have the ability to recall our politicians. If they're behaving really badly we should be able to force a by-election in their seat. Such provisions exist in Canada and while they've never really been used, they're a good deterrent for this sort of shit.
 

Dead Man

Member
There really needs to be an inquiry into these expense claims, like there was in Britain. I do believe however that id such an investigation did occur, both parties would get into shit. i find it hard to believe that it is just the Liberals pulling shit like this.

Oh it's not just the Libs, but it is especially funny from them given their claims about dodgy deals by Labor and people with a sense of entitlement. All of them do it, they all need to be fired.
 

Jintor

Member
I'm currently having a quick look over the 2010 Malaysian Case High Court Decision. The (Labor) Government's case at the time essentially boiled down to "If the minister has made a decision in good faith he doesn't actually need to base it on facts".

:lol
 

Arksy

Member
I'm currently having a quick look over the 2010 Malaysian Case High Court Decision. The (Labor) Government's case at the time essentially boiled down to "If the minister has made a decision in good faith he doesn't actually need to base it on facts".

:lol

Hilariously, the solicitor general who argued that case is now sitting on the High Court. This might come back to bite me in the ass later but I don't hold a very high opinion of his legal prowess.
 

bomma_man

Member
Hilariously, the solicitor general who argued that case is now sitting on the High Court. This might come back to bite me in the ass later but I don't hold a very high opinion of his legal prowess.

Who are your favourite judges, just out of interest?
 

Arksy

Member
Eh, to be honest I find them all a bit inconsistent.

Some of the judgments I read of members of the High Court I think 'wow, thank god we have these people on the High Court', and then they turn around with another judgment which makes me facepalm.

I enjoy French J because he's got a really good perspective on history, which is obvious in the case of Pape and WIlliams. His whole judgment could basically be boiled down to 'Parliament's supreme prerogative is to restrain executive spending you twits. Look at the last 600 years in the UK.'

Heydon J had some really good dissents. I hate how in the most recent case (don't know the name off by heart, concerning preachers in Rundle Mall) he was basically like "Oh god someone please seek leave to overturn the Lange test!'

I think the High Court is a misconstruction anyway. Each state should appoint a justice to the High Court with the Commonwealth appointing the Chief Justice. (An idea I'm going to shamelessly steal from a report on federalism by George Williams (I THINK) a few years ago).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom