Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, goughy said:

MT interviewed overnight claiming he was ousted from the leadership because they didn't want him to win another election!!

Kassidy saying this morning there may be a little bit of truth to it (a little bit) because if he won the next election that would be statement against the right.

i didn't realise he was going to win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He thought they could!  He reckoned they were on about parity with Labor in the polls, but were 4% up in the marginals and you know the marginals decide the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like my mate Potato Head will break his own record again this year. He set a record for the most asylum seekers in a year last year, with over 27,000, and looks set to beat it again this year.

The funny thing is, that even with the boats stopped, illegal people smugglers are still working, just using airlines, and the number of non-genuine cases far outstrips the numbers when they were coming by boats.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

It looks like my mate Potato Head will break his own record again this year. He set a record for the most asylum seekers in a year last year, with over 27,000, and looks set to beat it again this year.

The funny thing is, that even with the boats stopped, illegal people smugglers are still working, just using airlines, and the number of non-genuine cases far outstrips the numbers when they were coming by boats.

dammit...stop the planes or turn them around...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

It looks like my mate Potato Head will break his own record again this year. He set a record for the most asylum seekers in a year last year, with over 27,000, and looks set to beat it again this year.

The funny thing is, that even with the boats stopped, illegal people smugglers are still working, just using airlines, and the number of non-genuine cases far outstrips the numbers when they were coming by boats.

Boat arrivals since 1976 by calendar year (gee the Gillard Rudd years were good.

Year Number of boats Number of people
1976   111
1977   868
1978   746
1979   304
1980   0
1981   30
1982–88   0
Year Number of boats Number of people  (excludes crew)
1989 1 26
1990 2 198
1991 6 214
1992 6 216
1993 3 81
1994 18 953
1995 7 237
1996 19 660
1997 11 339
1998 17 200
1999 86 3721
2000 51 2939
2001 43 5516
2002 1 1
2003 1 53
2004 1 15
2005 4 11
2006 6 60
2007 5 148
2008 7 161
Year Number of boats Crew Number of people (excludes crew)
2009 60 141 2726
2010 134 345 6555
2011 69 168 4565
2012 278 392 17 204
2013 300 644 20 587
2014 1 N/A 160
2015 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0
Edited by IronmanFoz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends if they are legitimate or not. Illegal immigrants coming in via boast are not valid asylum seekers hence the reason they are sent back/detained.

This below explains why we do let legitimate people into this country.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Australia has international obligations to protect the human rights of all asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia, regardless of how or where they arrive and whether they arrive with or without a visa.

While asylum seekers and refugees are in Australian territory (or otherwise engage Australia's jurisdiction), the Australian Government has obligations under various international treaties to ensure that their human rights are respected and protected. These treaties include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). These rights include the right not to be arbitrarily detained.

As a party to the Refugee Convention, Australia has agreed to ensure that asylum seekers who meet the definition of a refugee are not sent back to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened.

Edited by IronmanFoz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

90% by boat are found to be legitimate.  Less than 50% by plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronmanFoz said:

Boat arrivals since 1976 by calendar year (gee the Gillard Rudd years were good.

Year Number of boats Number of people
1976   111
1977   868
1978   746
1979   304
1980   0
1981   30
1982–88   0
Year Number of boats Number of people  (excludes crew)
1989 1 26
1990 2 198
1991 6 214
1992 6 216
1993 3 81
1994 18 953
1995 7 237
1996 19 660
1997 11 339
1998 17 200
1999 86 3721
2000 51 2939
2001 43 5516
2002 1 1
2003 1 53
2004 1 15
2005 4 11
2006 6 60
2007 5 148
2008 7 161
Year Number of boats Crew Number of people (excludes crew)
2009 60 141 2726
2010 134 345 6555
2011 69 168 4565
2012 278 392 17 204
2013 300 644 20 587
2014 1 N/A 160
2015 0 0 0
2016 0 0 0

And just under 28,000 asylum seekers last year, and looking like over 30,000 this year coming. And most will be found to be non-genuine, but allowed to wander (and disappear) through the community till their investigation is complete. Some of these take over 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Youtube keeps showing me attack ads against Gladys Berejiklian... I don't think they've realised I can't vote...

#taxationwithoutrepresentation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, monkie said:

 

#taxationwithoutrepresentation

Welcome to my world, pay all this tax, but no right to lots off thing

#kiwilivinginAus   #hiddenaustralianracistpolicies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rory-dognz said:

Welcome to my world, pay all this tax, but no right to lots off thing

#kiwilivinginAus   #hiddenaustralianracistpolicies

I understand why I wouldn't be allowed to vote in national elections but I can't get involved in my local council... that seems weird!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, rory-dognz said:

Welcome to my world, pay all this tax, but no right to lots off thing

#kiwilivinginAus   #hiddenaustralianracistpolicies

Isn't it your choice to remain on SCV?  You could apply for PR and then get citizen after that. It's what the majority of migrants have to go through (whom also pay tax).

Mrs FP had to renounce her Korean citizenship to become an Australian. 

When I first arrived in Oz, I had to pay twice the Medicare levy but wasn't automatically entitled to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FatPom said:

 

When I first arrived in Oz, I had to pay twice the Medicare levy but wasn't automatically entitled to it. 

That’s because you were a “self funded” refugee!!!! 

We cant look after everyone. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronmanFoz said:

That’s because you were a “self funded” refugee!!!! 

We cant look after everyone. :(

I was an emotional refugee. I'd broken up with a girlfriend and Oz was the furthest I could think of to get away from her. :lol:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FatPom said:

When I first arrived in Oz, I had to pay twice the Medicare levy but wasn't automatically entitled to it. 

Well I just had to cough up £2,000 (AUD4,000 approx) for a 5 year UK National Health Insurance number which they surprise you with just as you're about to complete your UK Ancestry Visa application (the application also had a £520 fee attached to it). I was reminded by a colleague that it was a privilege to even be considered for a work Visa. To which I replied, "Meghan Markle". Silence followed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, The Customer said:

Well I just had to cough up £2,000 (AUD4,000 approx) for a 5 year UK National Health Insurance number which they surprise you with just as you're about to complete your UK Ancestry Visa application (the application also had a £520 fee attached to it). I was reminded by a colleague that it was a privilege to even be considered for a work Visa. To which I replied, "Meghan Markle". Silence followed. 

They don't surprise you with it, it's in the download guidelines.  If you're on an Ancestry visa, what is Jas on?  I didn't think AVs could sponsor?

 

ETA, the costs for Mrs FP as a non EU spouse when we came (21010) were:

$1590 AUD for Settlement Visa

$200 interview fee

£1390 ILR fee. (only needed one back then)

£50 Life in the UK Test

£907 Citizenship fee

 

We never needed to pay the £200 pa, per applicant NHS access fee.

Edited by FatPom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FatPom said:

They don't surprise you with it, it's in the download guidelines.  If you're on an Ancestry visa, what is Jas on?  I didn't think AVs could sponsor?

 

ETA, the costs for Mrs FP as a non EU spouse when we came (21010) were:

$1590 AUD for Settlement Visa

$200 interview fee

£1390 ILR fee. (only needed one back then)

£50 Life in the UK Test

£907 Citizenship fee

 

We never needed to pay the £200 pa, per applicant NHS access fee.

What your saying is regardless of which country you live in we all get shafted!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

What your saying is regardless of which country you live in we all get shafted!!!

Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FatPom said:

Isn't it your choice to remain on SCV?  You could apply for PR and then get citizen after that. It's what the majority of migrants have to go through (whom also pay tax).

Mrs FP had to renounce her Korean citizenship to become an Australian. 

When I first arrived in Oz, I had to pay twice the Medicare levy but wasn't automatically entitled to it. 

No, for a Kiwi very hard to move to permanent residency. As initial entry is different to all other countries.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, rory-dognz said:

No, for a Kiwi very hard to move to permanent residency. As initial entry is different to all other countries.

 

Ah I see. I notice that there has been a general change in EOI threshold. Even though 65 pts is still the EOI benchmark, they are only inviting applicants with 70pts at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael McCormack (or who ever the leader of the nats is, does anyone know or care) owned BJ today.  BJ made the comment that the nats aren't married to the libs, and McCormack counted with I know what makes a successful marriage!

Burn, mic drop.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beetroot also claiming he is the “elected deputy prime minister of Australia”

Despite being ineligible for the election and forced to a by-election as a result, and resigning, who the f*k does this idiot thinks elects him as NAT leader, let alone Deputy Prime Minister? - it sure as sh*t isn't the voters, and you would have thought not even barnyard would try on that line of BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he was a tomato?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

He's talking about when it finally works.

Ours works great....although my boss has just gone rogue, left his wife, moved out to a BumbleFark Missouri village humpy to set up a Tinder brothel, and tells me his wireless internet out there is 3x faster than NBN here in town 😲

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day I'll get wireless, the guy 4 doors down will be satellite, and another 4 doors down will be FTTN.

But of course the guys 4 doors down is currently being told he'll get wireless. He has no LoS to the tower, so won't be able to get wireless, but of course won't be eligible for the satellite till next year when the tower I am going to use (with 600 others) is RFS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting choice of venue by Bill yesterday, visiting a supermarket warehouse to spruik his proposed minimum wage increase to people who aren't on the minimum wage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Interesting choice of venue by Bill yesterday, visiting a supermarket warehouse to spruik his proposed minimum wage increase to people who aren't on the minimum wage...

Warehouse workers. Every chance they could have kids on minimum wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Warehouse workers. Every chance they could have kids on minimum wage.

Which is why they should be concerned about the impact of a big rise on the smallest businesses in the economy which would suffer as a result

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Which is why they should be concerned about the impact of a big rise on the smallest businesses in the economy which would suffer as a result

Like multinational hospitality & retail outlets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Like multinational hospitality & retail outlets.

No, employees of those businesses (such as the people Bill visited yesterday) are generally covered by enterprise bargaining agreements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My daughter never got to vote on an EA at Hungry Jacks?

Yes they pay above minimum wage (by less than 50c an hour) but an increase in minimum wage will flow on to those large companies that pay x% above minimum wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Unions are backing Buffalo Bill and want a 6% increase in the minimum wage. Holy smokes batman. Here come da recession....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imagine if 20 % of the population got 6 % more wages, oh god that would dampen aggregate demand and cause a recession. Better to give 0.5 % huge tax breaks so they can buy more ferraris.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

imagine if 20 % of the population got 6 % more wages, oh god that would dampen aggregate demand and cause a recession. Better to give 0.5 % huge tax breaks so they can buy more ferraris.

true, even though we are talking about the mimumim wage, there is usually a cascading effect on the rest of the wages in an organisation and possibly an industry, especially if it is 6%.   I am all for a moderate increase though.   We have just completed our reviews and i sit down with the director to decide on increases of 2%, 4% and 6% taking into account the benchmarking i do as well as on performance.   I do tell my director though, he does not have to increase wages each year and anyone getting above cpi which is 1.9% in Qld should be pretty thankful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the retail sector want 1.1% increase, which is about half of inflation, for the poorest sector of the community. That on top of losing their penalty rates bodes well for them.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

And the retail sector want 1.1% increase, which is about half of inflation, for the poorest sector of the community. That on top of losing their penalty rates bodes well for them.

true, but i do know retail are very much struggling. We manage a few shopping centres and see almost a closure every couple of months or so at the moment, though we do what we can to assist them through lease incentives.We also have heaps of them trying to close their doors early particularly on thursday nights and sundays, and we have to breach them for this. 

 

The majors are still doing well though.    Hopefully penalty rates for sundays are reinstated though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Prince said:

true, but i do know retail are very much struggling. We manage a few shopping centres and see almost a closure every couple of months or so at the moment, though we do what we can to assist them through lease incentives.We also have heaps of them trying to close their doors early particularly on thursday nights and sundays, and we have to breach them for this. 

 

The majors are still doing well though.    Hopefully penalty rates for sundays are reinstated though. 

Isn't this though part of the cycle, retailers are struggling as we are told that people don't have any spare cash to spend in those shops. 

So giving the lowest paid an increase should surely be beneficial for small business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, roxii said:

Isn't this though part of the cycle, retailers are struggling as we are told that people don't have any spare cash to spend in those shops. 

So giving the lowest paid an increase should surely be beneficial for small business. 

You'd think, so but nup, some of the stupifyingly stupid who I hope live in the eastern burbs and earn millions are worried about how its going to impact Amazon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, roxii said:

Isn't this though part of the cycle, retailers are struggling as we are told that people don't have any spare cash to spend in those shops. 

So giving the lowest paid an increase should surely be beneficial for small business. 

yes, It is cyclical. There is evidence to suggest that retailers are struggling as people know there is an election coming and won't spend. 

Depends what you believe.  I don't know why wages in general are not growing even when it has been some decent economic growth in the past, possibly due to the downturn in mining industry having a flow on effect.  I hate to say it but we may need to adopt some of Trumps trade tariff policies to encourage new industries to start and to grow. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Prince said:

the Unions are backing Buffalo Bill and want a 6% increase in the minimum wage. Holy smokes batman. Here come da recession....

That's cheap compared to what we have on the table in our negotiations at the moment.  We have one union wanting their members to go from 2 bands of wages to 4 bands but are happy with the proposed 2% increase.  Just so happens all of the members will then also go from band 2 right to band 4 under their proposed model, and get the proposed increase and holy batman we have an instant 26% increase in wages for that sector.  Stuff the recession, here comes the outsourcing for an area already not commercially viable

Mind you this is the worse of the 4 unions we are dealing with, 2 of the others are reasonable to deal with and the other one despite 3 months of notice hasn't been able to lodge a log of claims - which is pissing off every one of their members which is embarrassing when they have the largest portion of workers being covered - too busy meeting with members about  'national campaigns' ( ie refugee supporting actions and upcoming internal elections for union officials) to actually take half an hour to listen to their members

Is it unethical for me to be handing out membership forms for my Association of Paper Shufflers and Staple Removers during all of this? 😈

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we feel about our kids being moved from casual to Permanent Part Time in workplaces such as aldi, Rebel and Woolworths. These are 17 year old kids and working casual jobs while at school and Uni, casual in any sense of the word being forced into reclassifying as PPT with set hours and no ability to roster off for exams, holidays etc. None of them are union members. If you don;t go PPT funnily enough the hours you previously worked as a casual dry up and disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Prince said:

true, but i do know retail are very much struggling. We manage a few shopping centres and see almost a closure every couple of months or so at the moment, though we do what we can to assist them through lease incentives.We also have heaps of them trying to close their doors early particularly on thursday nights and sundays, and we have to breach them for this. 

 

The majors are still doing well though.    Hopefully penalty rates for sundays are reinstated though. 

Commonly hear stories of established businesses in shopping centres closing as their lease expires and they can;t afford the landlord's increases in rent. Our local subway is the latest. Could be to do with the joke that is the franchise model and the costs that imposes as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Parkside said:

How do we feel about our kids being moved from casual to Permanent Part Time in workplaces such as aldi, Rebel and Woolworths. These are 17 year old kids and working casual jobs while at school and Uni, casual in any sense of the word being forced into reclassifying as PPT with set hours and no ability to roster off for exams, holidays etc. None of them are union members. If you don;t go PPT funnily enough the hours you previously worked as a casual dry up and disappear.

Parkside, many businesses are doing this in regards to a Fairwork decision which specifically set out that casual employees have to be offered permament part time hours after 12 months.  Beyond this there is a danger the employee can take action to retain their casual loading, but also be backdated with sick leave, public holiday pay, annual leave etc.  Granted employers could handle it better with appropriate conversations, planning  and paperwork, but it's having the same effect as when Fairwork said the minimum hours had to rise from a 2 hour shift to 3 hours - the stores could no longer give the school kids a 2 hour shift after school.  The laws are designed to protect adult workers (as they should), but fail to take into account the impact on the younger workers still at school trying to get experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cottoneyes said:

Parkside, many businesses are doing this in regards to a Fairwork decision which specifically set out that casual employees have to be offered permament part time hours after 12 months.  Beyond this there is a danger the employee can take action to retain their casual loading, but also be backdated with sick leave, public holiday pay, annual leave etc.  Granted employers could handle it better with appropriate conversations, planning  and paperwork, but it's having the same effect as when Fairwork said the minimum hours had to rise from a 2 hour shift to 3 hours - the stores could no longer give the school kids a 2 hour shift after school.  The laws are designed to protect adult workers (as they should), but fail to take into account the impact on the younger workers still at school trying to get experience

I thought casuals could request to go PPT and employer couldn’t refuse a reasonable request. Didn’t know it was compulsory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Parkside said:

I thought casuals could request to go PPT and employer couldn’t refuse a reasonable request. Didn’t know it was compulsory

I can only speak for our work place but I assume the laws are the same Australia wide.

After 12 weeks of working the same hours a casual is considered to be PPT and the employer is meant to enable this. Every single employee we have offered has rejected it as they didn't want to lose the casual loading. We had to negotiate an enterprise agreement to allow them to continue as casuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case involved a worker who was there for almost 2 years with a company, and the work dried up and was let go.  Fairwork ruled he was entitled after 12 months to be considered permanent and therefore should get everything else etc, which clearly swung the compulsion onto the employer to ask before that point in time.  The employer can choose not to, however if the employee brings any action on this precedent the employer is screwed

Google Workpac Pty Ltd V Skene for further details if you want to get into the nitty gritty

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, roxii said:

Isn't this though part of the cycle, retailers are struggling as we are told that people don't have any spare cash to spend in those shops. 

So giving the lowest paid an increase should surely be beneficial for small business. 

I'll probably be hammered for saying this but I think the lowest paid workers are less likely to spend in small businesses and far more likely to:

a) pay bills

b) 'spend' it at the local club

I've always favoured tax cuts over wage increases. Wage increases will inevitably lead to price increases because businesses/shareholders will demand increased prices to offset the additional wage bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...