Australia General Discussion 4.0: It ain’t easy under Albanese

[GoTfan]

The voters have been telling us for 20 years that they don't want people coming to Australia by boat, and the Greens and the left generally have spent 20 years telling them they are racists and xenophobes. This has done more than any other issue to drive low-income people into the arms of Dutton and Hanson.

Mate,

You are a racist an xenophobe.

[KaiserDave]

The voters have been telling us for 20 years that they don't want people coming to Australia by boat, and the Greens and the left generally have spent 20 years telling them they are racists and xenophobes. This has done more than any other issue to drive low-income people into the arms of Dutton and Hanson.

Nobody is in the arms of Dutton. Too creepy!

[GoTfan]

The voters have been telling us for 20 years that they don't want people coming to Australia by boat, and the Greens and the left generally have spent 20 years telling them they are racists and xenophobes. This has done more than any other issue to drive low-income people into the arms of Dutton and Hanson.

Mate,

You are a racist an xenophobe.

I am only "right wing" relative to the Communist Party of Talk Elections. I am a member of the ALP, the party of Curtin. Whitlam and Hawke. You yourself wouldn't know Labor values if you fell over them.

I have a suggestion for the Herald Sun and The Age on a joint campaign: make Jordan De Goey a Greens Senator. Then his behavioural issues won't be noticed.

I AM LITERALLY AN ALP MEMBER YOU HALFWIT.

Also:

[GoTfan]

You are admittedly a socialist. An ideology which is unelectable in a modern Australian FE or SE. Which is rightly why our last truly socialist PM was in the 1940s. The fact that this led to 23 years in Opposition....

I'm a social democrat, dipstick. I mark myself as a socialist because it triggers people like you.

[Pulaski]

"11.b. Could the American Indians have repelled the Europeans?

   No, nor any other people from the Old World who might have discovered
   the New. Even apart from a considerable technical edge (guns, but also
   metal working, shipbuilding, etc.), the Europeans had a decisive
   advantage because of their diseases. Due to their late settlement of
   the continents and lack of domesticated animals, the native Americans
   lacked any immunity to most Old World diseases, which meant a
   catastrophic population collapse (definitely higher than 50%, and
   perhaps more than 90%) in the first generations following contact.
   Deaths on a similar scale will necessarily follow *any* extensive
   contact between the hemispheres."

I mean, it's just laughable at this point. I link you to Wikipedia, the most basic of sources, that indicates a breadth of historical opinion that argues what happened in Tassie was genocide, and that the countervailing viewpoints argue not that massacres occurred but as to whether genocide was the intent, and you respond with some quote about Native Americans.

Absolutely no-one denies that a significant portion of Indigenous deaths in the wake of colonisation were down to disease. But that fact and the fact of intentional massacres are hardly mutually exclusive.

Instead of denouncing anyone that corrects your novel views on history as a communist, perhaps you should educate yourself.

[Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre]

You are admittedly a socialist. An ideology which is unelectable in a modern Australian FE or SE. Which is rightly why our last truly socialist PM was in the 1940s. The fact that this led to 23 years in Opposition....

I'm a social democrat, dipstick. I mark myself as a socialist because it triggers people like you.

Albanese, Wong etc. are social democrats. But, you, Bandt, Mckim, the psychopathic curried woman et al, are not.

Social democracy is a form of socialism, just as Turnbull etc are conservatives.

[GoTfan]

You are admittedly a socialist. An ideology which is unelectable in a modern Australian FE or SE. Which is rightly why our last truly socialist PM was in the 1940s. The fact that this led to 23 years in Opposition....

I'm a social democrat, dipstick. I mark myself as a socialist because it triggers people like you.

Albanese, Wong etc. are social democrats. But, you, Bandt, Mckim, the psychopathic curried woman et al, are not.

Really? I'm not? So you have a better knowledge of my political views than I do.

Also, 'pscyhopathic curried woman's. Yeah you're a racist, mate. No wonder you love the old ALP. You'd fit right in with people who think that White Australia was the greatest policy ever.

"11.b. Could the American Indians have repelled the Europeans?

   No, nor any other people from the Old World who might have discovered
   the New. Even apart from a considerable technical edge (guns, but also
   metal working, shipbuilding, etc.), the Europeans had a decisive
   advantage because of their diseases. Due to their late settlement of
   the continents and lack of domesticated animals, the native Americans
   lacked any immunity to most Old World diseases, which meant a
   catastrophic population collapse (definitely higher than 50%, and
   perhaps more than 90%) in the first generations following contact.
   Deaths on a similar scale will necessarily follow *any* extensive
   contact between the hemispheres."

I mean, it's just laughable at this point. I link you to Wikipedia, the most basic of sources, that indicates a breadth of historical opinion that argues what happened in Tassie was genocide, and that the countervailing viewpoints argue not that massacres occurred but as to whether genocide was the intent, and you respond with some quote about Native Americans.

Absolutely no-one denies that a significant portion of Indigenous deaths in the wake of colonisation were down to disease. But that fact and the fact of intentional massacres are hardly mutually exclusive.

Instead of denouncing anyone that corrects your novel views on history as a communist, perhaps you should educate yourself.

He can't. He genuinely believes that the Greens are communists, despite not actually endorsing any communist veiwpoints. In general, he believes that anyone who opposes him is a communist, which makes him about as politically literate as a certain fat man from Queensland.

[MaxQue]

Grayndler is always near the top of the Greens' target list, and the 2016 redistribution improved their position by adding the Greens stronghold of Balmain. In both 2016 and 2019 they failed to take advantage of this, partly because their socialist candidate, Jim Casey, was too far left even for Balmain. Albanese's prestige as Labor leader is probably sufficient to keep him safe from the Greens, although they could win the seat when he retires.

http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2022guide/reps/gray/grayndler2022.shtml

Oh, Adam Carr, well-known member of Labor Right with similar views to yours.

[GoTfan]

The left tends to have a collective misunderstanding of what the electorate is thinking and about what issues are influencing the voters.

Just as you have a severe misunderstanding of what communism is.

[GoTfan]

Is that like how Veganites deliberately use civilians' misunderstanding of sentient and sapient to prove their intellectual and moral superiority?

Thus confirming to the plebs the justness of their hatred for the urban multicultural progressive elite.

Thanks for the Asylum material lol.

[CumbrianLefty]

Heck, is Slugg still plugging away?

[Хahar 🤔]

Heck, is Slugg still plugging away?

People keep responding, don't they?

[KaiserDave]

the inner urban cosmopolitan (*) elite here in Oz refuses to accept it is an elite and that most of its sacred proletariat wouldn't vote for it even if offered them free beer for life.

* - in this statement, cosmopolitan means multicultural, not Jewish.

I am a racist, not an antisemite!

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

I idly wonder if my friends on here will ever bother to make the actual distinction between racially inept and racist?

Racist is such a better weaponised term, however.

"Racially Inept" lol

If it's like socially inept, that means you "...don't know how to comfortably socialize, engage in conversation, and calmly interact with other races."

So, basically racism.

[GoTfan]

I idly wonder if my friends on here will ever bother to make the actual distinction between racially inept and racist?

Racist is such a better weaponised term, however.

"Racially Inept" lol

If it's like socially inept, that means you "...don't know how to comfortably socialize, engage in conversation, and calmly interact with other races."

So, basically racism.

He seems to have a penchant for inventing words and terms out of nowhere. I still have no idea wtf a boatist is, and I'm not sure what a veganist is either.

[GoTfan]

Getting back to actual news and ignoring the narcissist, I'm a bit disappointed that Labor's ICAC will only hold public hearing in 'exceptional circumstances'. Who gets the power to decide what 'exceptional circumstances' are? The courts? The government? Seems a bit nebulous to me. I'll wait to pass judgement, but still, a bit diappointed.

[Pulaski]

Getting back to actual news and ignoring the narcissist, I'm a bit disappointed that Labor's ICAC will only hold public hearing in 'exceptional circumstances'. Who gets the power to decide what 'exceptional circumstances' are? The courts? The government? Seems a bit nebulous to me. I'll wait to pass judgement, but still, a bit diappointed.

It is interesting wording, apparently designed to appease the Coalition, which is evidenced by how quickly Dutton came out in favour of it - although, to be fair, a federal ICAC is probably one of the biggest issues you'd want to get opposition support on in order to lend it legitimacy.

There is actually a list of what constitutes "exceptional circumstances" which they mention on the latest Insiders (always worth a listen of course). The Greens and Teals have expressed concern that subjects of investigation may tie up the commission's proceedings by appealing to court to keep their hearings private. Dreyfus has responded a few times in Question Time that the government doesn't anticipate that will happen - but the wording is similar to the Victorian legislation which does have comparatively fewer public hearings.

Of course, most hearings of anti-corruption commissions at the state level are in private, and that reflects the fact that they aren't trials as such, they're investigations - and police investigations of private citizens are generally private for obvious reasons.

Still, former Chief Justice of the High Court Michael Barker (sorry to link to Sky News) thinks that instead of "exceptional circumstances," a "public interest" test should apply. This obviously has its own difficulties - the Leveson Inquiry in the UK brought to light a lot of stories that courts deemed to be in the public interest but were obtained through extremely questionable journalistic practices, demonstrating that the "public interest" test can also be fraught. I'm not educated in the law beyond HSC Legal Studies, but I would have thought since an anti-corruption commission is generally investigating public figures, a "public interest" test would be fairly easy to satisfy and would de facto result in most hearings going public.

Former head of the NSW ICAC Ian Temby also argues a "public interest" test should apply (and his arguments about the innuendo that surrounds investigations when it comes to light private hearings are being held are compelling), but also argues for a 12-month limit on investigations and findings, so that those who are being investigated aren't left in indefinite limbo and reputational damage - Berejiklian is still waiting to hear any findings against her, for example.

Food for thought.

[Pulaski]

Heck, is Slugg still plugging away?

People keep responding, don't they?

Sorry, I'm a culprit. I've finally placed him on ignore, the racist slur against Faruqi was enough for me. I generally don't like to ignore users, especially those to the right of me as this is already such a left-leaning forum, but that was the final straw.

[NewYorkExpress]

There was predatory and widespread sexual harassment on Australia's Antarctic research bases.

Australian women working on research bases in Antarctica have been plagued by a widespread culture of sexual harassment, a recently released report found.

The report, commissioned by the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD), notes that the women reported unwelcome requests for sex, inappropriate sexual comments and displays of offensive or pornographic material.

“Given the underrepresentation of women in the AAP (Australian Antarctica Program) (especially during winter) some women also described the culture as ‘predatory’ and objectifying,” the report said, while other participants described a homophobic culture on stations.

The report, conducted by associate professor Meredith Nash from the University of Tasmania, also revealed female expeditioners feel they “must go to great lengths to make their menstruation invisible” and go through “additional psychological and physical labor to manage” menstruation, including changing their menstrual products without privacy or adequate sanitation.

[GoTfan]

Getting back to actual news and ignoring the narcissist, I'm a bit disappointed that Labor's ICAC will only hold public hearing in 'exceptional circumstances'. Who gets the power to decide what 'exceptional circumstances' are? The courts? The government? Seems a bit nebulous to me. I'll wait to pass judgement, but still, a bit diappointed.

It is interesting wording, apparently designed to appease the Coalition, which is evidenced by how quickly Dutton came out in favour of it - although, to be fair, a federal ICAC is probably one of the biggest issues you'd want to get opposition support on in order to lend it legitimacy.

There is actually a list of what constitutes "exceptional circumstances" which they mention on the latest Insiders (always worth a listen of course). The Greens and Teals have expressed concern that subjects of investigation may tie up the commission's proceedings by appealing to court to keep their hearings private. Dreyfus has responded a few times in Question Time that the government doesn't anticipate that will happen - but the wording is similar to the Victorian legislation which does have comparatively fewer public hearings.

Of course, most hearings of anti-corruption commissions at the state level are in private, and that reflects the fact that they aren't trials as such, they're investigations - and police investigations of private citizens are generally private for obvious reasons.

Still, former Chief Justice of the High Court Michael Barker (sorry to link to Sky News) thinks that instead of "exceptional circumstances," a "public interest" test should apply. This obviously has its own difficulties - the Leveson Inquiry in the UK brought to light a lot of stories that courts deemed to be in the public interest but were obtained through extremely questionable journalistic practices, demonstrating that the "public interest" test can also be fraught. I'm not educated in the law beyond HSC Legal Studies, but I would have thought since an anti-corruption commission is generally investigating public figures, a "public interest" test would be fairly easy to satisfy and would de facto result in most hearings going public.

Former head of the NSW ICAC Ian Temby also argues a "public interest" test should apply (and his arguments about the innuendo that surrounds investigations when it comes to light private hearings are being held are compelling), but also argues for a 12-month limit on investigations and findings, so that those who are being investigated aren't left in indefinite limbo and reputational damage - Berejiklian is still waiting to hear any findings against her, for example.

Food for thought.

The wording around "public interest" and "exceptional circumstances" just seems way too nebulous to me. And like I said, who decides whether something falls in the public interest?

[Pulaski]

Getting back to actual news and ignoring the narcissist, I'm a bit disappointed that Labor's ICAC will only hold public hearing in 'exceptional circumstances'. Who gets the power to decide what 'exceptional circumstances' are? The courts? The government? Seems a bit nebulous to me. I'll wait to pass judgement, but still, a bit diappointed.

It is interesting wording, apparently designed to appease the Coalition, which is evidenced by how quickly Dutton came out in favour of it - although, to be fair, a federal ICAC is probably one of the biggest issues you'd want to get opposition support on in order to lend it legitimacy.

There is actually a list of what constitutes "exceptional circumstances" which they mention on the latest Insiders (always worth a listen of course). The Greens and Teals have expressed concern that subjects of investigation may tie up the commission's proceedings by appealing to court to keep their hearings private. Dreyfus has responded a few times in Question Time that the government doesn't anticipate that will happen - but the wording is similar to the Victorian legislation which does have comparatively fewer public hearings.

Of course, most hearings of anti-corruption commissions at the state level are in private, and that reflects the fact that they aren't trials as such, they're investigations - and police investigations of private citizens are generally private for obvious reasons.

Still, former Chief Justice of the High Court Michael Barker (sorry to link to Sky News) thinks that instead of "exceptional circumstances," a "public interest" test should apply. This obviously has its own difficulties - the Leveson Inquiry in the UK brought to light a lot of stories that courts deemed to be in the public interest but were obtained through extremely questionable journalistic practices, demonstrating that the "public interest" test can also be fraught. I'm not educated in the law beyond HSC Legal Studies, but I would have thought since an anti-corruption commission is generally investigating public figures, a "public interest" test would be fairly easy to satisfy and would de facto result in most hearings going public.

Former head of the NSW ICAC Ian Temby also argues a "public interest" test should apply (and his arguments about the innuendo that surrounds investigations when it comes to light private hearings are being held are compelling), but also argues for a 12-month limit on investigations and findings, so that those who are being investigated aren't left in indefinite limbo and reputational damage - Berejiklian is still waiting to hear any findings against her, for example.

Food for thought.

The wording around "public interest" and "exceptional circumstances" just seems way too nebulous to me. And like I said, who decides whether something falls in the public interest?

The idea is that the commission itself would make those decisions, but like I say, there would likely be challenges to federal courts on those decisions.

And unfortunately probably any wording that you, I, or anyone else could come up with would be some degree of "nebulous." Lawyers get rich advocating their clients' cases based on whatever wording there is.

[Pulaski]

A fantastic opinion piece in- where else? - The Guardian arguing the sheer absurdity of the planned stage 3 tax cuts, which are eerily similar to Truss's/Kwarteng's disastrous tax cuts in the UK that they've recently had to backtrack from.

Yesterday Jim Chalmers's tentative murmurings hinted that there may be changes to these planned cuts in the October budget.

If Labor is serious about making tough decisions in the name of "budget repair" then surely tax cuts for the richest Australians is about the easiest thing to jettison?

(Of course, Australia is still comparatively monied compared to other OECD countries).

[CumbrianLefty]

Haven't been following this, why on earth have the ALP persisted with said tax cuts anyway?

[Pulaski]

They were legislated under Morrison to begin in 2024 and the Opposition under Albanese went to the election promising to keep them as investors were entitled to "certainty." Part of Albo's lurch to the right.

Even as debate's opened up on whether to keep the cuts, shave them back or junk them entirely, a Labor MP has openly advocated keeping them, arguing that those earning $200K are "well-off," but not "rich."

Keep that red flag flying, Mike!

[Pulaski]

Most likely the fear of scrapping the cuts within the Albanese government comes from not wanting to backtrack on an election commitment so early. But it's important to note that any price they'd pay in political capital looks like it'd be minimal - a poll from the Australia Institute (admittedly a left-leaning thinktank) found that of those who had an opinion (so a minority), a majority favoured scrapping the cuts.