Discuss Australian politics and other general stuff
HomeHome  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 

 Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history

Go down 

Posts : 64
Join date : 2018-08-14

PostSubject: Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history   Thu 29 Nov 2018, 4:30 pm

If you thought the Krudd/Gillard/Krudd chaotic brothel was bad then steel yourself because the Shorten Catastrophe will put the terrible destructive previous Socialist Labor+Greenies abortion in the shade.

The Greenies will be in charge again as they will have the power in the Senate so prepare for the BOATS to RESTART as they try to turn Australia into a sick stinking brown multicultural ghetto like something out of darkest Africa!!!!!

Prepare to pay about 5 to 6 times MORE for your power with Labor+Greenies 50% renewable stuff combined with a RETURN of the CARBON TAX!!!!  And prepare for the inevitable blackouts.

Prepare for out of control mad union insanity as they close down the last few industries left in Australia.

Prepare to be robbed by the sick Commo unions.

The Greenies "vision" for Australia - feel a bit scared now ?

Data analysis shows lower income retirees to be hardest hit by ALP franking credit proposal
12 Nov, 2018

A 20-year projection of different income levels confirms that lower earning retirees will be hit hardest by the ALPs proposed removal of franking credit refunds.

Data analysis by SuperConcepts confirms that retirees with an account-based pension receiving a minimum pension amount of $45,000/annum at age 65, will find themselves 15% worse off in retirement savings after 20 years.

“The data is very confronting and it was one of the key reasons why we made a detailed submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics,” said the report author Peter Burgess, SuperConcepts general manager of technical and education services.

“Our data analysis supports a view that the Federal Budget will receive much less than the projected $55 billion over 10 years from this measure and that the budget savings will not come from high net worth individuals, rather it will come from the lower end of the income spectrum,” Mr Burgess said.

Our analysis illustrates the impact of removing refundable franking credits over 20 years on the superannuation balance of a member who at age 65 had an SMSF balance equivalent to the average SMSF balance for a member of that age (i.e. $900,000)1.

The calculations assume a 40% allocation to Australian shares, 3% capital growth and a 4% income return. The calculations also assume the SMSF has a single member who only has a retirement phase interest in the fund and is receiving the minimum annual pension entitlement from an account-based pension.

Our analysis shows that the member’s closing balance after 20 years would be $825,519 if refundable franking credit were removed compared to $953,480 if refundable franking credits were not removed.

“This equates to a significant impact on the fund’s earning rate and the total income received per annum,” said Mr Burgess. “In year one the total income received including franking credits is $36,771 compared to $30,600 if refundable franking credits were removed. After five years the income differential is $7,631/annum and after 10 years the differential is $9,207 /annum.

“As a consequence, after 10 years the member’s minimum annual pension entitlement would reduce from $60,756 to $56,762 and after 20 years from $88,298 to $76,991.

“This is due to their retirement phase benefit being replenished at a lower rate as pension payments are made, resulting in a quicker depletion of their superannuation assets. While the member in this example could increase their pension payments above the annual minimum requirement, this would accelerate the depletion of their capital and increase their dependency on the age pension at an earlier age.

“It’s also worth noting, with the introduction of the superannuation reforms on 1 July 2017, superannuants with substantial balances are less likely to be impacted by the removal of refundable franking credits.

“This is because the introduction of the $1.6 million transfer balance cap on 1 July 2017 effectively limits the amount of franking credits which are refundable under the current regime.

“Superannuants, who before 1 July 2017 had pension balances in excess of $1.6 million, where required to withdraw any excess pension balance above $1.6 million or transfer the excess balance to an accumulation interest in the fund.

“As investment earnings derived from assets supporting an accumulation interest are taxable, the existence of an accumulation interest results in the fund having some taxable income to utilise its franking credits rather than those credits being refunded which may have been the case prior to the 2017/18 income year.

“This is an important point because it means SMSF members with a total superannuation balance in excess of the general transfer balance cap (currently $1.6 million) may not be impacted, or the impact from removing refundable franking credits, will be much less than first anticipated.

“In other words, the projected budget savings of $55 billion over 10 years is unlikely to be realised and much of the revenue that will be raised will come from the superannuation accounts of members which much smaller superannuation balances,” said Mr Burgess.
Back to top Go down

Posts : 64
Join date : 2018-08-14

PostSubject: Re: Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history   Thu 13 Dec 2018, 4:43 pm

Poor Lefties unable to think straight as their poor brains are malfunctioning due to overheating by Global Warming and exposure to high concentrations of dangerous poisonous Carbon Dioxide gas. They even believe in the Global Warming HOAX!!!!!

And now just to totally confuse the already confused Lefties

The poor Lefties from the DARK SIDE have lost focus as Shorty's unfunded renamed Greeny junk "Policies" blur into a massive debt swirling in smelly incompetence.

But there is hope for Lefty retirees that Labor will sink them with their evil Retiree Tax.

But for the Lefties the biggest thrill of all is when Shorty RESTARTS the BOATS

And Lefties won't you be really thrilled when your power bill increases by 5 to 6 times as Labor wrecks the power system and brings back the Greenies' Carbon Tax ? And even tho those few who have solar panels on a north facing roof will be hit as the enormous power increases will hit food and everything else.

And for the very few Lefties who actually work you will very likely lose your job as Labor + unions hit the hated small businesses with penalty rates and squashes them as anti Socialist anti union renegades.

Back to top Go down

Posts : 64
Join date : 2018-08-14

PostSubject: Re: Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history   Thu 13 Dec 2018, 4:57 pm

Now to put a cat amongst the Lefty pigeons!!!!!

Are the WELFARE Dependent Lefties so blind and gullible they cannot see what a sick disaster Labor + Greenies would be ?

Do you Lefties want to pay 5 to 6 times as much for your power after the Labor+Greeny imbeciles bring back the carbon tax plus wreck the Australian power network with their technically unachievable 50% renewable rubbish ?

The Greenies will control the Senate in case you out of it Lefties have not realized and so the Greenies will control Labor just like the last six sick years of Socialist waste and disgrace and shame.

Do you want to see the housing market collapse ?

Do you want to see pensioners freezing to death in winter because they cannot afford to turn a heater on ?

Do you want to see retirees out on the street because Labor steals their dividends from them ?

Do you want to see Labor RESTART the BOATS and bring thousands of Black African Terrorists into Australia when everyone else says reduce immigration ?

Do you want to see Labor+Greenies rack up a $ trillion debt and then waste the lot on Socialist stupidity just like last time ?

But then all Lefties care about is WELFARE and Bob Hawke singing Solidarity Forever off key. And Shorty has the charisma of roadkill.

Now get the facts about the Shorten "Govt" which would be the worst "govt" in Australia's history.

L-NP supporter concerns about the election of a Labor Party Government at the next Federal Election include the control the unions would have over the new Government with Bill Shorten as Prime Minister and questions about Shorten’s leadership capabilities. Many L-NP supporters say Shorten has poor leadership skills and his Government would be incompetent.

Many L-NP supporters also say an ALP Government would relax immigration policies and leave Australia with open borders and an influx of refugees because Labor is in bed with the Greens. L-NP supporters also mentioned the ALP’s poor economic management with spending blowouts and and increasing the debt as well as concerns about Labor’s policies towards superannuation.

The most frequently expressed concern from L-NP supporters about a potential ALP Government under Bill Shorten was the concern about Shorten’s union influence mentioned by many L-NP supporters that Shorten is beholden to the Unions (and also the Greens) and this will lead to out of control labour costs and hurt small businesses in the process.

“Run by union heavyweights who control Shorten.”

“Out of control labour costs due to union demands on small businesses.”

“Union power, the economy, power prices and their spending.”

“Inappropriate union influence.”

“Influence of the unions.”

“Bill Shorten – he is a union puppet!”

“They would be beholden to the unions.”

“Union control and Greens.”

“Shorten having his union mates in control.”

“Corruption with unions.”

“More union pandering, more lies and more socialistic policies and much more debt or selling off anything that’s left.”


“They don’t have a clue what they’re doing. They’re happy to give our money away and are driven by the unions. Very dangerous if Labor win.”

“Pandering to unions and pricing manufacturing out of existence.”

“Shorten is corrupt and will be led by unions. Australia will become a welfare state.”

“The unions would kill our country.”

“Bill Shorten taking the job of Prime Minister. He is more than a union thug. His record over many years speaks for itself.”

Many L-NP supporters also question the honesty and integrity of a future Labor Government as well as their incompetence, dishonesty and the lack of integrity the ALP has for running a Government.

“Their honesty and integrity.”

“They’re not trustworthy and have no known parliamentarians apart from Shorten.”

“They’re incompetent.”

“Poor leadership.”

“Shorten going down in history as the most dishonest PM we have ever had.”

“Their constant lying.”

“That Bill Shorten wouldn’t have a clue about how to run the country.”

“Shorten is arrogant and discriminatory towards Christianity.”

“Shorten’s complete lack of appropriate leadership capability.”

“The country would go to rack and ruin.”

L-NP supporters also consistently brought up the ALP’s soft border-protection policies that would bring people-smugglers back into business and lead to more and more refugees with an open-border policy.

“Immigration relaxation.”

“Immigration policies.”

“People smugglers back in action.”

“Illegal boat immigrants and renewable energy policies.”

“The return of the boat people.”

“My biggest concern would be open borders.”

“More refugees and more debt.”

“Labor is in bed with the Greens and both Labor and the Greens can’t be trusted with border protection.”

“Immigration, national security and variations of a carbon tax and too much pandering to the Greens.”

“Refugee intake relaxed and an increase in union power.”

“Open borders. Socialism/Communism. Genderless society. Militant unionism etc.”

“Excessive immigration.”

“Safe borders and immigration.”

L-NP supporters are also concerned about the ALP’s poor economic management and potential financial and fiscal mismanagement which will result in higher taxes, higher debt, and out of control spending.

“Financial mismanagement.”

“Financial mess.”

“Spend all the money.”

“Ridiculous spending and pandering to minority groups while lining their own pockets.”

“Budget overspending.”


“Economic mismanagement.”

“Their excessive spending habits and raising the country’s debt.”

“Higher taxes.”

“Higher deficit.”

“Over-spending and interest rate rises.”

“The amount of debt that won’t be paid back.”


“Reckless economics.”

“Australia’s debt levels.”

“More and more debt.”

“Poor economic management credentials.”

“Budget blowouts, overspending.”

“Public debt with interest rates high.”

“Managing the economy.”

“They spend spend spend and tax people who have worked hard.”

“Country would be potentially further in debt.”

“Economic management disaster.”

“An exponential increase to the already onerous national debt.”

“Reckless expenditures.”

“Labor failure to manage an economic recovery.”

“That they would wreck the wealth creation policies of the country.”

Also mentioned by L-NP supporters alongside a lack of economic management skills was concern about policies revolving around superannuation and the removal of dividend imputation credits.

“More changes to superannuation along with uncontrolled spending.”

“Big worry for self-funded retirees.”

“Stealing my super.”

“Losing my imputations credits.”

“Taxation increases and the removal of dividend imputation credits.”

“They have no concept of financial budgeting.”

ALP supporter concerns about an ALP Government elected at the next Federal Election included reference to the ALP continuing the policies of the L-NP in regards to refugees and asylum seekers and really not changing much as well as concerns about current Opposition Leader Bill Shorten as not being charismatic enough and up to the job.

ALP supporters also mentioned that the current ALP under Shorten may be too ‘right-wing’ and with little difference to the current Government and willing to pander to big businesses as the current Government does. The good news for a future ALP Government is that there were far more responses from ALP supporters indicating there was nothing concerning about the prospect of an ALP Government compared to very few L-NP supporters that said the same about an L-NP Government.

ALP supporters are concerned an ALP Government under Bill Shorten will not change the current Government’s refugee and asylum seeker policies but merely continue them and continue the mistreatment and detention of refugees through off-shore processing facilities.

“Continuation of mistreatment of asylum seekers.”

“Labor Party need to sort out their treatment of refugees. It’s appalling.”

“The continued mistreatment of refugees.”

“Not bringing refugees to Australia.”

“Off shore detention of refugees and weak respones to racism.”

“The treatment of refugees.”

“Their failure to reduce immigration levels.”

“They need to lift their game with asylum seekers.”

“That the offshore refugee processing continues.”

“Continued retention of refugees.”

“The lack of action regarding issues such as refugees in detention.”

“I fear that the present policy of cruelty to asylum seekers would continue.”

“That they wouldn’t change refugee policy.”

“They would also fail asylum seekers.”

“I want them to close the detention facilities on Nauru.”

“We continue to allow children to be harmed in offshore detention.”

“If they fail to assist the asylum seekers on Nauru and close the detention facilities.”

“No change to their appaling, brutal boat refugee policies.”

“The ongoing mandatory detention of asylum seekers.”

“They have sold out on refugee issues.”

“Not enough compassion for refugees.”

“Asylum seekers currently on Manus Island.”

Tied into the concerns about copying the policies of the current Government is concern that Bill Shorten is too far to the right and is too similar to the Liberal Party. Shorten also lacks charisma and provides weak leadership and may be subject to leadership speculation himself when compared to Anthony Albanese.

“Shorten is a bit wishy-washy and the Labor Party is still too similar to the Liberal Party in reality.”

“Bill Shorten isn’t brilliant.”

“They are short-sighted an no real leadership.”

“Bill Shorten’s lack of popularity.”

“Bill Shorten isn’t the greatest leader and the ALP’s policies aren’t the best but they’re better than the Libs.”

“That Shorten wouldn’t have the guts to make hard decisions.”

“No matter who you vote for a politician always gets elected.”

“Lack of leadership.”

“They will also change horses midstream again.”

“The instability of the support around Shorten and the credibility Albanese has with the community at large.”

“They aren’t trustworthy.”

“They need a strong leader that will listen to their constituents.”

“They need to provide stable Government and keep their leader.”

“Bill Shorten is a weak leader.”

“Shorten is not charismatic and I don’t like their refugee or environment policies.”

“Would prefer Albanese as leader but Shorten will do.”

“Shorten has no charisma.”

“Bill Shorten.”

“They have an invisble leader. No strong leadership. I have a lack of faith in current politicians.”

The concern about Shorten being too far to the right also gives credence to the worry that Shorten will give into pressure from the right-wing media and won’t pursue the right policies but rather the policies that will appease the media and the Senate cross-bench.

“The belief that they need to be more conservative to manage minority parties in the Senate.”

“The continued dominance of the Labor right and lunatic Catholics in Labor policy.”

“That they would move too far to the right and give in to pressure from the Opposition to talk about the economy and hang vulnerable people out to dry.”

“I trust neither party.”

“Them capitulating to the right and not governing with a long-term vision.”

“That Bill Shorten wouldn’t fight hard enough to promote the interests of what should be their natural constituency, the working class Australian.”

“That they would also obey the ‘fascist’ Murdoch media propaganda.”

“That they would also pander to big business and not make the big decisions necessary to support the less fortunate members of our society.”

“They are the lesser of two evils.”

“That they will be L-NP lite.”

“I’m concerned they may not repeal some of the laws changed under Abbott and Turnbull especially with public discourse.”

“The worry is the increasingly right wing media who will do what they did to Julia Gillard.”

“Usual negative media backlash. I live in a very right-wing national party electorate and the only newspapers round here are owned by News Corp and are very biased.”
Back to top Go down

Posts : 640
Join date : 2018-07-15

PostSubject: Re: Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history   Thu 13 Dec 2018, 5:40 pm

Shortarse actually went on the Andrew Bolt show on Sky News.  I missed it but The Lefty Guardian has an article about it. Rolling Eyes

Heaven help us if Shortarse becomes PM.

Back to top Go down

Posts : 640
Join date : 2018-07-15

PostSubject: Re: Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history   Sat 15 Dec 2018, 7:22 am

Back to top Go down


Posts : 483
Join date : 2018-07-17

PostSubject: Re: Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history   Sat 15 Dec 2018, 8:52 am

Quote :
Political catch-up splits the Nation
Paul Kelly
December 14, 2018

Scott Morrison’s game plan is to run on the economy, jobs and national security at the 2019 election but his “barnacle removal” end-of-year agenda has thrown up critical splits between the government and opposition over cultural, social and border protection issues.

The more people pretend there is little difference between the sides the more the differences and deadlocks are accentuated. The 2019 election will be dominated by the economy and taxation but this election will constitute a turning point for Australia on many non-economic fronts.

The most recent audacity by Labor has been its joining with the Greens and independents to attack offshore processing and settlement of asylum-seekers. This is a major change to border protection. The amendments supported by Labor would appear to allow most of 1100 adults on Nauru and Manus to come to Australia on the advice of doctors for medical treatment or assessment.

The government has laid this charge against Labor and, to this point, nobody from Labor has rebutted this interpretation based on how the amendments advanced two weeks ago would actually work. The minister’s powers are curtailed. The minister could stop a transfer to Australia based on medical advice only by invoking ­national security.

Public opinion is shifting given the campaign by doctors based on health and cruelty alarms. The cycle here is known: when the boats stop the compassion factor surges, and when the boats start the demand to halt them dominates. The Morrison government has reduced the number of children offshore to 10, seeking to neutralise any campaign based upon children.

While Bill Shorten insists Labor remains pledged to the offshore policy, its actions undermine this stance. The government, however, has also been bringing hundreds of people to Australia for medical reasons with the de facto consequence that they remain.

The progressive side of politics has mounted another argument — that keeping people on Nauru and Manus is now irrelevant to border protection. Witness the article in The Monthly by former Immigration Department official Shaun Hanns, saying that refusing to resettle these people no longer serves any purpose and they should be given residency in this country.

Legal changes to the offshore regime by enshrining decision-making to doctors, not public servants or ministers, is a novel but dangerous idea. While Labor has made significant changes to the original bill proposed by independent Kerryn Phelps and imposed a transparent system of medical assessment, the political logic of these amendments is unmistakable: that it is time to get the people off Manus and Nauru.

How this plays out in the election remains uncertain but the Prime Minister, as a former immigration minister, has declared: “I will fight to stop any change to that offshore processing arrangement.” The questions are whether Labor has picked the changing mood and whether Labor in office can make such changes consistent with denying any return of the boats.

Labor’s confidence has been on further display this week in its response to the government’s dual announcement of a religious discrimination act as recommended by the Ruddock religious freedom review, and a Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Both show the Morrison government in catch-up mode.

These initiatives should have come far earlier this year, giving the government the chance to sell its plans and possibly legislate them. The upshot is that neither measure is likely to become law before the election. For the Liberals, they constitute defining positions taken too late.

Morrison has given the Liberals what they needed long before the same-sex marriage debate — an initiative for a religious discrimination act. Labor has little interest in the idea. Shorten and opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus are unconvinced it is necessary. Shorten has said Labor’s No 1 priority in relation to schools is protection of gay schoolchildren.

The Liberal-Labor differences on religious protection are yet to be fully spelt out. But the signals are they are substantial and will become over time a fault line for the nation. Morrison has provided the Coalition parties with a platform around which they can now rally with the ability to tap into ­religious, school and ethnic communities.

Morrison captured the mood of a section of the community when he said people of faith “feel that the walls are closing in on them”. This exploits an emerging mood — witness the recent statements by religious schools that they feel threatened, and by religious leaders, notably Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher, who talked about the cultural changes now under way in this country when he supported Morrison’s proposal.

Fisher said the raft of attacks on religious freedom revealed the need for protection. “We used to be ‘live and let live’ on religious matters,” he said.

“We gave each other space to be different, but lately there has been a hard-edged secularism that wants to stamp out religion from public life.”

Dreyfus repudiated Fisher. He denied any threat to religious freedom. He said no inquiry into religious freedom had found this and the Ruddock review did not identify “any real threat”.

Asked for his response to Morrison’s proposed law, Dreyfus said: “We will look at it.” Labor offers nothing more beyond its ritual line of opposing all forms of discrimination, including religious discrimination.

While the Ruddock review “did not accept the argument, put by some, that religious freedom is in imminent peril” it said protection of belief or faith in Australia “requires constant vigilance”. The panel reported it had “a broad range of stakeholders” expressing concern that religion was not adequately protected, that their ability to “hold and communicate” religious views, wear religious symbols and engage in public life was compromised because of discrimination.

With many previous inquiries having recommended tougher laws against discrimination on religious grounds, the Ruddock panel concluded “religious belief or activity” should be protected under stronger federal laws. This is not a new argument; it is an old argument. The Liberals could have addressed this years ago.

The Ruddock review identified two trends — the need for firmer laws and “the low level of awareness and understanding in the community about these issues” tied into “the limited focus given to religious freedom in more general discussions about diversity, understanding and tolerance”. This is because the Left has run and controlled these debates — another failure of the Liberals.

It offers, however, some context for Shorten’s remark pointing to Labor’s real attitude: “I could not say to you that religion is in the top 100 issues that get raised with me”, though he also said “I accept for some people it is a very important matter”.

Australia’s public culture frowns on the raising of religious issues, and for those who try, media retaliation is more likely than not. This is widely understood. At a time when Labor moves amendments in parliament threatening the capacity of religious schools to uphold their mission, Shorten says he wants to work constructively with the government but is worried that it wants to “make religion a political football”.

The bottom line is Labor denies the existence of the problem that religious communities increasingly feel is threatening their freedom. Morrison does not seek to make this an election issue. He is keen, however, to have his commitment to a religious discrimination act entrenched as part of his political character. Morrison can articulate the core issue: “There is no more fundamental liberty that any human being has than their fundamental right to decide what they believe or not believe.” His proposal is not about any religion but about individual freedom.

Morrison has tied his proposed law to two concepts. First, that religious freedom is pivotal to a multicultural society — he says while 70 per cent of Australians identify as having a religious belief this proportion is far higher in many ethnic communities. He did not mention Sydney’s western suburbs that voted No in the same-sex marriage plebiscite and where religious faith is palpable but the politics are obvious.

The second concept is equality. This was put by both Morrison and Attorney-General Christian Porter, who said individuals cannot be turned away from entering a room because of sex, race or disability since this was illegal, but they could be turned away because of their religion.

The government’s purpose was to put religion on the same legal basis as other established discrimination laws.

In effect, this raised the question: does Labor believe in equality for religion in Australia? From Shorten’s reaction this week, Labor has not decided. The reality is that much of its progressive base has decided — it wants religion as a second order priority with weaker legal protections. Shorten’s dilemma is whether to resist this or seek to disguise it.

On the decision for a Commonwealth Integrity Commission, Morrison is cast as a pragmatist. This became an imperative in purely political terms. Morrison refused to face an election campaign where Labor would beat the drum about integrity in government and offer its own anti-corruption body while the government was left naked.

The case for such a body has neither been made nor won. But that is now irrelevant. Both Morrison and Shorten back the concept. Is it bipartisan? — yes and no. “Yes” as a concept but “no” as a commission. The differences are serious and the rhetorical warfare over the past two days has been hysterical and ignorant.

Obsession about an integrity commission is a classic elitist issue. It is a preoccupation of retired judges, journalists and left-wing politicians convinced the power structure is heavy with corruption. In truth, given the mainstream dysfunction in our politics on the priority issues that shape the country, corruption is a third-order problem — which is not to say it should be overlooked.

The briefing paper from the Attorney-General’s Department shows the federal bureaucracy is groaning with integrity and anti-corruption bodies. The paper says current arrangements are so successful “that the Australian public sector is consistently ranked as a low corruption jurisdiction and it is generally accepted that there is no evidence of systematic or endemic integrity issues in the federal public sector”.

Shorten said: “I am not aware of any corruption, full stop.” Anti-corruption bodies operate in the states but there is no evidence whatsoever that the states where they operate have higher trust than the commonwealth. Indeed, the reverse is likely to be the case.

Dreyfus said Labor’s preference was for a body that “should most resemble the New South Wales ICAC” — which is the anti-model for the Morrison government, with the PM saying “I have no interest in establishing kangaroo courts” that are used for political purposes. Labor’s statement is alarming since a NSW ICAC at the federal level would have the potential to become a net negative and render damage to confidence and trust in the system.

The Morrison government’s model based on Porter’s work during the year constitutes a Commonwealth Integrity Commission with two divisions — a law enforcement division incorporating a streamlined existing agency and a public sector integrity division that will investigate allegations of criminal conduct and corruption in the public sector.

Porter said his aim with the new arrangement was to make integrity “better rather than worse” — the point being this result was far from guaranteed depending upon the model. The Law Council of Australia supported the government’s initiative and its two divisions. The architect of the NSW ICAC model, Gary Sturgess, said he supported the “less aggressive” model designed by the government.

The Attorney-General said the commission could investigate parliamentarians and ministers. It would be able to receive referrals from the public. It would have serious investigatory powers and would be funded to $120 million over the forward estimates.

Labor deputy leader Tanya Plibersek called Morrison’s model “a superficial, weak, half-hearted, toothless tiger of an integrity commission that’s as fake as he is”. Porter said he was ready to negotiate with the crossbench to secure the model. But time will surely deny that process. Shorten wants an anti-corruption commission with more powers, wider scope and public hearings.

That’s right, we now have an ideological conflict between Liberal and Labor on how to devise an integrity commission.
Back to top Go down

Posts : 64
Join date : 2018-08-14

PostSubject: Re: Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history   Mon 17 Dec 2018, 11:09 am


The evil Greeny controlled Labor Party to ransack Australia again!!!

Labor embraces refugee intake increase for Australia
Samantha Maiden 10:00pm, Dec 16, 2018 Updated: 10:09pm, Dec 16

Shorten's Labor Party will discuss increasing Australia's refugee intake cap on Monday. Photo: AAP

Labor is set to embrace a boost to the refugee intake cap to 32,000 by 2025, but the increase will be delivered under a new sponsorship program.

The ALP conference is set to debate the contentious asylum seeker policy on Monday, with an olive branch to refugee activists who have pushed for a more generous cap.

Underlining the convictions of MPs on the issue, multiple sources confirmed Labor MP Ged Kearney openly wept in an ALP caucus meeting this year when discussing the plight of asylum seekers.

Moves are underway, led by Ms Kearney, to “embed” in the policy platform the proposals to allow the medical evacuation of asylum seekers, as proposed in legislation that Parliament is currently considering.

Activists predicted on Sunday night this would act as a de facto measure to “clear the camps” on Nauru and Manus.

But the vexed issue of boat turn-backs may not even be debated at the carefully managed conference, despite attempts by Labor For Refugees to put a motion up for debate on Sunday.

More generous welfare entitlements for asylum seekers in Australia, including access to education, will be debated under plans to establish a new ‘safety net’ for refugees.

But the substantive platform change that is expected to secure support is the increase in the refugee cap from 27,000 to 32,000.

Asked about an increase to the cap over the weekend, Labor leader Bill Shorten did not rule it out.

“But let’s put our approach on boats very clearly. One, we’re going to stop the boats and we’ll put whatever resources we need to do that,” Mr Shorten said

“Two, we are supporting regional and offshore processing. But three, we think that refugees are part of our population intake. So we will be taking refugees into this country but we’ll do it properly, not via people smugglers.

“We want to be a good international citizen, we also recognise, however, that we’ve got to make sure that whatever policy we adopt we can afford, and that it meets our combined goals of not keeping people in indefinite detention on Manus and Nauru, but also keeping our borders strong so we never again see the people smuggling trade start up, and we see hundreds of innocent people drown at sea merely because they want to come to Australia.”

The New Daily reported last month the ALP conference was preparing to lift the cap and implement a new sponsorship scheme for business and unions to sponsor a refugee.

Two years ago, then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull increased Australia’s annual refugee intake from 13,750 to 19,000.

While the standard cap is expected to remain at 27,000 by 2050, Labor will increase that figure by providing up to 5000 extra places under a new sponsorship scheme.

Left-faction sources negotiating the amendments also confirmed negotiations were continuing over the fate of thousands of refugees dealt with under so-called “fast-track” reforms.

More than 6000 rejected asylum seekers could potentially be given a second chance under the ALP’s plans to reject the “unfair” scheme. The key to the outcome rests on a dozen independent delegates at the ALP conference, including Victoria’s James Button, who are not aligned with the major factions.

Senior sources predicted that was unlikely to happen with Labor drawing a line in the sand under visa applications already processed.

But Labor for Refugees was still pushing for a second chance on Sunday night, arguing the 6000 rejected refugees should have the opportunity to reapply.

The key changes the activist groups want are an end to the policy of detention on Manus and Nauru with refugees to be brought to Australia for resettlement, increasing the annual intake to 50,000 and stopping boat turn backs.

The amendment proposed by Labor For Refugees states: “That national conference calls on an incoming Labor government to cease the practice of turning back the boats”.

It’s not clear if that motion will even be debated at the conference designed to showcase Mr Shorten’s leadership credentials.

ALP sources also predicted Labor MPs including Ms Kearney may be able to “clear the camps” on Manus and Nauru quietly, with Labor’s support for legislation to allow the medical evacuation of asylum seekers the big factor.

Mr Shorten has not pledged to allow these asylum seekers to stay in Australia, instead proposing they be resettled in a third country such as New Zealand or the US after receiving medical treatment.

“Good luck with that,” quipped one refugee activist at the ALP conference, predicting that any asylum seeker who came to Australia for medical treatment was highly unlikely to ever leave.
Back to top Go down

Posts : 64
Join date : 2018-08-14

PostSubject: Re: Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history   Mon 17 Dec 2018, 11:30 am

Now something to send shudders of fear up the Lefties from the DARK SIDE sponging on society.  The Libs - quality all the way!!!!

ScoMo the Shorty killer


Australians believe in a fair go. A strong welfare safety net is part of our national ethos. Equally, Australians believe in having a go.

Welfare spending represents more than a third of the budget — more than health, education and defence combined.

The right to welfare comes with responsibilities. Payments should not keep going to those gaming the system. They should not be spent on drugs. And welfare shouldn’t entrench intergenerational dependency.

The Coalition Government believes the best form of welfare is a job.

That’s why we are delivering greater support — and expectations — for job seekers.

Work for the Dole means those who receive benefits give something back to the community that supports them.

It means unemployed people gain skills and experience, along with pride and self-esteem.

It also means charities, not-for-profits and other community groups get extra help to do valuable community work.

Labor let Work for the Dole wither. By 2009-10, just 13,000 job seekers participated in Work for the Dole activities, down from 75,000 in the final year of the Howard Government.

We’ve reinvigorated it. Last year, 105,000 Australians participated in Work for the Dole.

74% of those who participate in Work for the Dole reported that it had increased their desire to find a job and 30% of those who participated were in a job three months later.

All of them will benefit from the pride and self-esteem of knowing they are contributing to a community that won’t give up on them.

If someone is on drugs and the dole, we want to get them off both.

For those with a drug and alcohol problem, we’re changing the rules.

Under our plan, those on welfare affected by drugs and alcohol will now be required to undertake available treatment.

If it is refused, we will no longer accept drug and alcohol use as a legitimate excuse for missing appointments or activities.

From 2018, we are also seeking to trial random drug tests for 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and Youth Allowance in three locations - Canterbury Bankstown (NSW), Logan (QLD) and Mandurah (WA).

The Coalition Government is trialling cashless welfare cards, which work like regular bank cards, except they cannot be used for gambling or alcohol products, or to withdraw cash.

An independent evaluation of the first two trial sites – Ceduna (SA) and Kununurra and Wyndham (East Kimberly region, WA) – have shown cashless welfare cards have been successful in reducing binge drinking, gambling and illegal drug use.

In 2018, two further sites will be trialled – the Goldfields region of WA and the Hinkler electorate (based around Bundaberg and Harvey Bay) in Queensland.

Taxpayers have saved $1.4 billion during the last 18 months, from a Coalition Government crackdown on welfare fraud and non-compliance.

We have increased checks through data matching to over 600,000 every year - half a million more than when Labor were in government (2012-13).

In one extreme case, a criminal was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to three years in prison, after fleecing the system of more than $160,000, using an alias to illegally claim the disability support pension.

The majority of job-seekers do the right thing by actively looking for work.

However, we have identified about 100,000 people who repeatedly fail to meet their obligations, with about 40,000 appearing to game the system.

They avoid penalties because Labor’s legislation allows penalties to be easily waived.

We’re introducing a clear and fair system of compliance. In the same way drivers lose demerit points for driving offences, job seekers will lose one point if they fail to turn up to an appointment, interview or mutual obligation activity, like Work for the Dole.

If an individual receives four demerit points in six months, there will be a rigorous assessment, followed by penalties under a “three strikes” system — one week’s payment for a first strike, a fortnightly payment for a second strike and cancellation of payments for four weeks for a third strike.

We are also:

Introducing a stronger relationship verification process for single parents, to ensure people are not getting higher payments by claiming to be single when they’re not.
Ensuring Tax File Numbers are collected before income support payments are approved in order to streamline administration and increase personal responsibility.
We are implementing consistent mutual obligation requirements to ensure more people prepare for, search for and accept suitable employment.

This will mean, for example, job seekers aged 30-49 (approx. 270,000) will have activity requirements increased from 30 hours to 50 hours per fortnight.

A new program called ParentsNext is helping disadvantaged parents break the cycle of dependency.

80 percent of young mothers on welfare had a parent or guardian also on welfare. Without extra help, there is a high chance their children will also grow up without a parent working.

We are now stepping in early with support and training for parents when children are young, so they have the skills and confidence to work when their children go to school.

ParentsNext has been successfully piloted in ten locations and the scheme will now be compulsory for about 68,000 people on parenting payments.

From March 2020, the Government will introduce a new, single JobSeeker Payment, which will replace or consolidate seven existing payments (Newstart Allowance; Sickness Allowance; Wife Pension; Partner Allowance; Bereavement Allowance; Widow B Pension; and Widow Allowance).
Back to top Go down

Posts : 64
Join date : 2018-08-14

PostSubject: Re: Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history   Mon 17 Dec 2018, 3:12 pm

Bill Shorten has just announced at the Labor conference in Adelaide that should he become Prime Minister, he will:

1) He will give the U.N $500 million dollars

2) Increase Refugee Numbers to 32,000 each year.

Once again, Labor put everyone but Australians first.

Welcome to a future Labor Government.

If people vote for Labor (Federal) they deserve to suffer. Bill Shorten will set the country back a lifetime and it will take Liberals a generation to repair the damage & cost!

Everyone is saying reduce intake to ease pressure on overcrowding yet these Greeny controlled Labor imbeciles want to dramatically increase new arrivals!!!!

And Labor will open up illegal invaders from the south as well as from the north thru NZ with the help of the NZ talking horse.

Repent Lefties while there is still time

The march of the Illegal Invaders into Australia
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history   

Back to top Go down
Prepare for the WORST "Govt" in Australa's history
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
AUSSIEPOLITICS :: Australian Politics-
Jump to: