Oh hey, it's Hyperbole Harry's twin brother, Dramatic Darren.

Oh hey, it's Hyperbole Harry's twin brother, Dramatic Darren.

i have no problem ...the whole prove it thing is subjective....and we all know the system under this socialist government is weighted against employers....just look at "fair work Australia" 90% ex unionists and left wing cronies running around fucking over business.....

as far as welfare bludgers....i have one living on my property.....hasn't been asked to prove or validate their claim in the 8 years he has lived here, up until last week....LOL 1 review in 8 years.......

to me it seems like your just a naive wet behind the ears sap.................

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/06/21/was-730s-tcs-takedown-fair/

Oh look, Qantas is abusing 457 visas for roles that should be filled by Australians.

Shame we don't have some kind of national airline carrier that is owned by the Government and could provide jobs for Australian workers instead of some private company offshoring everything and importing workers who will be sending all their money back to India...

http://delimiter.com.au/2013/06/21/was-730s-tcs-takedown-fair/

Oh look, Qantas is abusing 457 visas for roles that should be filled by Australians.

Shame we don't have some kind of national airline carrier that is owned by the Government and could provide jobs for Australian workers instead of some private company offshoring everything and importing workers who will be sending all their money back to India...

they don't have to prove their looking for work. Open the phone book, add a couple of employers, submit your form. Get paid. Repeat next fortnight.

I don't understand your problem batfink.

If they are having problems filling vacant roles, let them prove it and there are no other barriers to importing workers.

You'd expect a "welfare bludger" to prove that he/she has applied to jobs before receiving payment, wouldn't you? Or do we just take their word for it now as well.

To me it seems like you're just angry for the sake of being angry, and have no idea where or why to direct your anger.

I don't understand your problem batfink.

If they are having problems filling vacant roles, let them prove it and there are no other barriers to importing workers.

You'd expect a "welfare bludger" to prove that he/she has applied to jobs before receiving payment, wouldn't you? Or do we just take their word for it now as well.

To me it seems like you're just angry for the sake of being angry, and have no idea where or why to direct your anger.

If the fruit picking industry is that hard pressed for workers, they'll get an exemption.

I find it really hard to believe that fruit farmers are unable to find enough:

A) Australian Citizens
B) New Zealand Citizens
C) Foreign permanent residents on non restricted work visas
D) Foreign students that are restricted to 20 hours per week during school terms, unrestricted during school holidays (prime fruit picking time)
E) Foreign working holiday makers

To be able to pick their fruit without having to resort to importing cheap labour from overseas on 457's.

I find it so hard to believe that it would easily be classed as an extraordinary claim... And as you know, Batfink, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... Evidence that is being legislated for.

2, it's illegal to not hire someone based on their trade union membership, you realise.
3, citizens don't have priority over non citizens that are eligible to work in Australia, and nobody is suggesting that they should.

Edited by notorganic: 20/6/2013 04:33:10 PM

None if them would, nor are any 457's required to pick fruit.

Few, if any, of those backpackers picking fruit specifically to extend their stay would be on 457 visas.

With the number of backpackers doing 'regional service' to extend their visa it's laughable that farmers can't find adequate staffing.

No, the only reason they hire people on 457 visas is because of their cheaper wages.

no aussies prepared to work hard to pick fruit

1/. asking them to advertise for 6 months before they can offer the job to foreigners, the delay is the disadvantage.....
2/. i didn't say it promotes unions, however if a business advertises and a militant unionist from Australia applies business is obligated to employ this arsehole??
3/.Citizen of Australia have priority over foreign workers seems a tad racist to me,

And although I retract, I disagree that it's difficult for a fruit farmer to predict that he/she will be picking fruit during fruit picking season.

Have a little bit of respect for the intelligence of local producers, please.

Fair point on my anecdote, I retract.

Still, a couple of questions.

How does this legislation disadvantage business other than asking them not to exploit cheap foreign unskilled labor markets?
How does this legislation promote unions when it says nothing about unions?
How is this legislation racist when it says nothing about nationality or ethnicity of a worker?

Are you seriously saying a climate change denier is as bad as a Holocaust denier? A climate change denier is someone with a shit grasp of science of which there are many people like that. A Holocaust denier is someone denying the murder of 6million Jews and an attempt at racial cleansing to suit whatever fucked up agenda he has.

Ah fair enough. 9.5% and 7.8% are hardly bad figures. It hardly cries 'Aussies have no jobs stop foreigners so we dont get crippled by unemployment'

If both parties are happy with the wages, and its above minimum wage, is it really exploitation? If anything its a better allocation of resources which may increase productivity.

Interesting last point and I see your logic there but I disagree with it. Those things all have political basis and based on where you live/born etc. But if someone is willing to come to Australia and willing to contribute to Australian society, why should we make it harder for them?

This morning, the Australian Senate voted against an amendment recognising same-sex marriages performed overseas, in countries far more enlightened than ours.

The vote was 28-44. Overwhelming.

And one of the most mean-spirited votes I’ve seen. If ever there was a vote that showcased spite and prejudice, this was one.

The prejudice was easy to see. All the usual arguments – marriage is between a man and a woman, ‘twas ever thus, talk fast and loud and make sure no one realises we only defined it as such in 1984 – with a hefty dollop of pseudo-Christian jingoism. Yes, pseudo-Christian. When more and more Christians are supporting marriage equality, when queer clergy are ordained, when church spokespersons acknowledge they cannot dictate to those not of their faith, appeals to the idea that Australia is a quasi-theocracy are revealed for what they really are – convenient rubbish.

We’re a secular country. We always have been. We even have Constitutional provisions to prevent us from becoming ruled by any given religion. That’s a good, and necessary thing – and it doesn’t only protect those who hold no religious belief. It protects everyone.

But this is an old argument. Any time someone dares to suggest that marriage equality in any form is desirable, the religious argument is trotted out, looking increasingly tattered. In today’s debate, the most objectionable comments came from West Australian Liberal Senator Dr Chris Back.

He asserted that the only reason – the only reason – this debate was occurring, was in order to prevent the Opposition from thoroughly debating ‘important’ legislation. Important. Talk about a slap in the face.

Just what was this important legislation? Well, he mentioned the education reforms – and those are important, sure. The claim that debating recognition of same-sex marriages made overseas would significantly harm debate on education, however, simply does not follow. For Senator Back, though, it was undeniable.

As if attempting to reduce the issue to a mere annoyance wasn’t enough, Back apparently decided that mockery would be a fine way to argue, and invited the Chamber to join him. He painted a picture of two (presumably) lesbians in their wedding dresses crying as their Parisian marriage was ignored by Australian law – as though that was something funny.

He also made the utterly ridiculous argument that we wouldn’t deny women the vote just because Saudi Arabia does, or do away with speeding laws because European autobahns don’t have speed limits.

And then he had the audacity to accuse supporters of the amendment of engaging in propaganda – scare tactics, emotive argument, ad hominem argument, and mindless repetition.

Uh, Senator Back? You just described your own side’s tactics. Oh, except you forgot the lies. Lies about the Marriage Act, lies about the effect of same-sex marriage on children, lies about virtually everything in this debate – including the increasing number of Australians who support marriage equality.

Perhaps the result of the final vote shouldn’t have come as a surprise. With Labor allowing a conscience vote, and the Opposition firmly against, the only way it could have succeeded was if a significant number of Liberals crossed the floor.

I would, however, like to congratulate Senator Sue Boyce, who defied her party both on this amendment, and on an amendment to end discrimination against LGBTI people (especially couples) in aged-care facilities.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t change the fact that the result of this vote was, as I wrote earlier, entirely mean-spirited.

Think about it. If the amendment had passed, who would have been hurt?

Heterosexual couples? Hardly. They wouldn’t even have to compete for a date with a marriage celebrant.

Children? How? If they’re the kids of a same-sex union, then their parents are just as married as the next kid at school.

Society? Please. More committed, legally recognised marriages with all the obligations and protections of those solemnised in Australia actually stabilise social groups.

Oh, wait. I know how recognising a same-sex marriage made overseas might be harmful.

Our kids might ask awkward questions.

‘Mum, if Johnny’s Dads got married in New Zealand, how come they’re not married here?’

‘Say, Dad, did you know Angie’s Mums are married, but only in some countries? How weird is that?’

‘Mum, you know how you and Dad and Aunty Jess and Aunty Jan got married on holiday? Why are you allowed to be married here, but not them?’

That’s what this comes down to – a fear that, if we do recognise the marriages made overseas between same-sex couples, that even more people will start to question the utterly arbitrary laws that discriminate against marriage equality in general. Currently well over 60% of Australians support equality, and that number is only rising.

Heaven forfend.

This is a shameful day for Australia. Extending our recognition of marriages made overseas would be such a simple thing. It would hurt no one; in fact, it would only increase both happiness and social stability. It would show us to be a nation that is both compassionate and fair-minded, able to extend our congratulations to even more of our citizens for choosing to formalise their loving commitment to each other.

Instead, our elected representatives showed themselves – yet again – to be narrow-minded, prejudiced, manipulative and hard-hearted.

Australia falls further and further behind the rest of the world every day when it comes to social justice. Today was one more example.

What happened in the Senate today probably won’t even make the evening news broadcasts, which in itself is disgraceful. And the majority of those who voted to deny same-sex couples even this most basic of recognition probably won’t have any trouble sleeping tonight.

They should. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. And they should be made aware of just how badly their blithe politicking affects the very people they claim to represent.