Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Status
Not open for further replies.
And now Greg Combet has announced that the proposed increase in the tax free threshold has been deferred because of the projected decrease in carbon tax receipts.

He didn't exactly say that. SMH is quoting him as saying it will be deferred because the lower carbon price means "there will be no additional anticipated increase in costs to households".

A bit of a twisted sentence. But it seems the correct thing to do. Why compensate for a cost that isn't going to happen? Greg hunt's comment is just a bit silly, claiming they already spent revenue they haven't yet received. Sorry Greg but the second increase was the spending of revenue, and that's not going to happen. More a case of not spending revenue they haven't received.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's complete bovine excrement. You might expect someone else to pay for sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, fresh water and public health. But I don't.


Wine ?..........

Anyway, back OT: Fully expect to pay for all those things (and have done so via substantial taxes over many years) but be honest as to what things the debt was really accumulated on shall we medhead ?

The wasteful things like $16 billion for the mismanaged school project, the pink batts scheme that burnt down so many houses, the 40,000 illegals being fully supported by taxpayers etc etc,
 
Wine ?..........

Anyway, back OT: Fully expect to pay for all those things (and have done so via substantial taxes over many years) but be honest as to what things the debt was really accumulated on shall we medhead ?

The wasteful things like $16 billion for the mismanaged school project, the pink batts scheme that burnt down so many houses, the 40,000 illegals being fully supported by taxpayers etc etc,

I didn't think you'd get the Monty Python reference.

Lets be honest. Mismanaged? Where's your reference to support that claim? I've only heard stories of mismanagement involving state government education departments. I've heard stories of private schools achieving great outcomes. It's not the federal government that mismanaged it based on what I've read.

How many houses burnt down? Again reference to support your claim.

It is not illegal to seek asylum. But don't let the facts get in the way of your Alan jones based world view. But do provide a reference to your 40000 figure, just for completeness.
 
[-]Ok I found it, in the SMH version of the story I linked earlier.[/-]

No I didn't.

Note to self: read!
 
All the fails of the current Budget is just showing the Government to be more and more incompentant

I'd say keep up the good work, but the harder the ALP works at failing, the more real work the Libs will have to do, to fix the mess
 
It is not illegal to seek asylum. But don't let the facts get in the way of your Alan jones based world view. But do provide a reference to your 40000 figure, just for completeness.
That's a per month figure?

Yeah, not illegal to seek asylum. But people-smuggling is illegal, as is entry without approval.

The rhetoric and use of what I might call mental shorthand to avoid honest consideration cuts both ways.

The reality is that asylum-seekers are rarely fleeing directly from danger and persecution. They might fly as regular passengers from (say) Pakistan to Malaysia, an utterly unremarkable journey, not pretending at either end to be in fear for their lives, but it is only when setting out from Malaysia to Australia that there is any claim of danger so great that they must risk the peril of the ocean on small, overcrowded boats.

Yeah, right.

I don't blame people for wanting to live in Australia. Not one little bit. I'd likely do exactly the same thing in their position to have a better life for myself and my family. The risk is worth it, and tens of thousands tell their tale of safe arrival in a land of plenty.

But let's not kid ourselves that the surge of asylum-seekers since Rudd dismantled the Pacific Solution is what the government or the Australian people wanted. It's a very expensive and dangerous way of accepting immigrants. Sure, some of them are genuine refugees, and it is Australia's duty as a good global citizen to provide a warm refuge.

But the way Rudd and Gillard have handled the situation has been remarkably ham-fisted. There are more deaths, more abuses, more unhappiness than anything from the Howard years.

Call out your names, labels, catchphrases as much as you like. Just don't try to pretend that the boat traffic is a good thing. To do so is to insult the intelligence of your fellow Australians.
 
And of course it is illegal to arrive in a country without any papers as most of the boat arrivals do.
Many really are economic refugees.
And what about the boatload who arrived in Darwin?Put up in a motel and 4 have disappeared.But that will not stop them being able to get refugee status.They are Vietnamese.I am unaware of too much political persecution there of late.

PS- a reference for medhead for the 40,000 figure.Half of that number have arrived this financial year.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2013/05/08/320656_ntnews.html
 
All these announcements of cutting proposed benefits stemming from the mining tax that didn't raise anything, and the carbon tax that doesn't look like its going to raise much(who knows what has happened with that its so convoluted and off the rails) are just testaments to what a failure the last couple of years have been with lots of flurries of movement and noise and nothing much to show for it... And what an impossible mess they have got asylum seeker policy into?!?!?!

The only thing showing strong growth is the amount of red ink, and increasing by the week it seems...
 
I'm with you medhead. You seem to have all the tories on your case. When I see the mention of Alan Jones I feel sick.
 
Wouldn't they be true refugees fleeing persecution if they sailed here directly from Afghainstan (tough job as its land locked), Sri Lanka, etc, etc... I don't believe any insufferable persecution is occuring in Indonesia, while i don't think refugees always get an open arm greeting when they hit Malaysia...

But by the time they sail to Oz they are often on about their 2nd to 3rd country already and isn't that just country shopping for economic/lifestyle reasons than straight our fear of life?? Again i might do the same thing as others have said, doesn't necessarily make it legal or right... I'd be all for better processing off shore occuring in the camps where they people are most needy, but these usually aren't the ones with money in the pockets, but little ID, that have made it as far as Indonesia... Who then hold up the process of assessment precisely because they have so little documentation...

I still can't figure out why these cases take so long to process, although you know there will be touchy feely Australian lawyers over there recommending them to appeal and reappeal any decision they don't like...
 
And here is the reference for fires-
Key statistics - Think Change

224 fires
30 homes structurally damaged.
And most importantly 4 deaths.

As to the BER it was a Federal Government program under the control of a Federal Minister.That's where the buck stops.There should have been more oversight on the part of the federal Government.
 
Well all I see are a heap of posts that seem to confuse tourists and refugees. That seem to confuse entering a country and claiming asylum. There is nothing illegal about arriving at a country and claiming asylum. They're not tourists here to visit Uluru and they don't need a visa or passport.

There is also confusion between people smuggling and refugees. People smuggling might be illegal, but the refugees aren't doing it. More smoke and mirror arguments to distract from the real issue.

Then there is a heap of stuff about economic refugees -yada yada yada. All of which proves that the government should have been allowed to implement their policy being the Malaysian solution or whatever else to set up a clear defined queue. You can whinge and moan all you like about that solution but the simple fact remains that it would have stopped the boats. The only reason that the government were not able to implement their policy is because Tony Abbott wants to score cheap political points. Rudd made a key promise to undo Howard's pacific solution and he got elected on that policy platform. It is outright hypocrisy to use the word Juliar and also attack the government for doing what they promised.

It is also hypocrisy to ignore Abbott's hand in the current situation. If he was so certain the governments policy would fail, why didn't he let it pass and then watch it fail. What difference the current situation and let them run their preferred policy to failure. Both would be a failure in Abbott's world view and his political point scoring has contributed to this mess via obstruction. Anyone who can't acknowledge his hand is this is simply engaged in boring, irrelevant party political announcements. That adds nothing of value.

PS- a reference for medhead for the 40,000 figure.Half of that number have arrived this financial year.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2013/05/08/320656_ntnews.html

That reference does not support the claim made. Inference is not fact.

In any case, what about the 150000 that illegally overstay their visas after arriving on a plane. What about the 10s of thousands who arrive on a plane to claim asylum after illegally obtaining a visa by giving a false declaration. It'd be nice if this country, the media, the coalition shills got their priorities straight on this issue.
 
Again, it may not be illegal to claim asylum, but it is certainly illegal to enter Australia without approval. The Migration Act refers.
 
I don't care if the government "should" have been allowed to implement their Malaysian Solution. The High Court held a contrary opinion to the government, end of story. It was illegal.

The buck stops with the Prime Minister on this. She hasn't found any solution beyond welcoming them into the community.

The community will have a say on this later on, and regardless of any hand-waving here, I think we know exactly what that say will be.
 
And here is the reference for fires-
Key statistics - Think Change

224 fires
30 homes structurally damaged.
And most importantly 4 deaths.

As to the BER it was a Federal Government program under the control of a Federal Minister.That's where the buck stops.There should have been more oversight on the part of the federal Government.

Right so 224 fires out of 1.7 million homes. And the fire incidence rate [now*] below the comparable pre-HIP incidence rate. Three deaths were caused by installers failing to follow set standards and one from heat exhaustion. That last one is an OHS issue which is covered by state legislation. Building standards are also covered by state legislation. Or are you suggesting that the federal government should have duplicated existing legislation? Lets ignore the constitutional issues of the commonwealth taking over state powers surely even you agree that duplication would be a bad thing.

As for the BER the State government administer the spending of that money. The value they obtained for state schools is entirely their problem. It's called self responsibility. Of course, perhaps we should follow the line of reasoning - clearly state governments cannot be allowed to build schools. Should the commonwealth government take over? Again ignore the constitutional issues.


*Edit to address drron's concerns with my eyesight.
 
Last edited:
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Am I the only person in the country who doesn't care about the boats? I want to be focussed on strengthening the economy post mining boom, fixing infrastructure, reforming funding for the states, removing duplication across states and territories, reducing debt, maximising the advantage of a terms of trade surplus, encouraging the rebuilding of industry - I couldn't give a flying **** about the bloody boats.
 
I couldn't give a flying **** about the bloody boats.
I could. Not because immigrants represent any sort of a threat to our lifestyle. That's always been the case, and we may ask the descendants of pre-1788 Australians for their opinions. Nor because the government has demonstrated yet another area of ineptness.

It is because with every boat sinking, every photo of relatives weeping, every expression of despair, my heart cries out in sympathy. If these were airliners crashing on their way to Australia, we would all be outraged and justifiably concerned. Are lives any less precious because they are on boats rather than Boeings?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top