As I understand the workers coming into Australia would be paid maybe less than an Aussie would but still on or above minimum wage

Its promoting the idea that someone is 'better' (in this case a better candidate and more deserving of a job) than someone else based on where they are from.

Some People Who Have Screwed the Labor Party, Including Some People From the Labor Party

By Carly Learson

On the ABC's Q&A last Monday the Trade Minister Craig Emerson responded to attacks on the Gillard Government by asking 'what could we have done better?' The answer he received was that Labor could have done a better job at selling. Is it fair that we judge a Government on their ability to tell us what they're doing, rather than on what they actually do?

A look at the history of this Government shows that it has a track record of success in getting things done, but a propensity to distract voters from those achievements through a lack of discipline and some terrible PR decisions. The Rudd and Gillard Governments have made substantial changes to this country – the economy has grown by 13%, while other economies have shrunk. Interest rates are lower than ever. There are almost 1 million new jobs, with higher wages. Taxes are lower. Nearly 200,000 more kids are in university. There's free dental care for low-income adults and all children. Work Choices is gone, and workplace disputes are a third of what they were when John Howard was Prime Minister. The NBN will mean everyone gets high-speed internet. Care for people with disabilities is now affordable for all. Pensioners receive around $500 a year more.

Despite all this success, the Australian electorate is going to vote in Tony Abbott – someone who was a supporter of Work Choices, who served as a minister in John Howard's Government, who opposes abortion and who hasn't even released any policies which voters can base their decision on, apart from an NBN policy that would see us get slower internet and a promise to 'turn back the boats'. It's hard to fathom, and it's unclear what people expect will change for the better under Tony Abbott. Why is this happening?

Wayne Swan:

Swan's monumental blunders have made it appear that the economy recovered despite the Government's interventions, not because of them. When he announced the mining tax in 2010 he claimed it would raise $12 billion but it raised a fraction of that. He predicted a surplus, but we got a deficit. Both of these outcomes make sense – the mining tax was watered down and mining companies reinvested all their profits in their companies. But it looks like the country's chief money counter simply can't count. He announced the original mining tax without sufficient consultation, alienating the mining companies and provoking an advertising campaign against the Government. The Opposition didn't have to do a thing – the mining companies did all the work for them. He also promised tax cuts and welfare payment increases in one budget, and took it back in the next. It's hard to believe he and his department could get it so wrong, and it overshadows the good news about the economy that would finally show voters that interest rates can be lower under Labor and that a Labor Government can be trusted with managing the economy.

Stephen Conroy:

Just when Julia Gillard was able to announce that unemployment was at its lowest rate ever, Stephen Conroy decided to introduce disastrous media reforms, essentially declaring war on the sector they rely on to get their stories out. The media spotlight swiftly left the good news and media bosses openly campaigned against the government. Again, the Opposition did nothing, and again their ratings soared. And for all the destruction in relations with the media, the reforms failed in the parliament.

Kevin Rudd:

'Crush your enemy totally' is one of the rules of power that Julia Gillard forgot about. Whenever Gillard gains traction with voters, Kevin pops up with something destructive to say. Leaders with dignity who are rolled in a party ballot take their place on the backbench and shut up, or leave politics altogether. This should not have been expected of Kevin Rudd. Julia Gillard's biggest mistake was allowing Kevin Rudd to stay in parliament rather than insisting he step aside before the 2010 election. The Opposition again needs to do nothing – Kevin's doing the work for them.

Tim Mathieson:

Tim hasn't done much to help Julia out. The one time he was allowed to go on TV he made inappropriate remarks about prostate exams. He hasn't appeared since. The first man should be someone we can respect, not someone who embarrasses his partner.

Bill Shorten:

Technically an ally, but the sort of ally you want to keep a close eye on, Bill Shorten was responsible for convincing MPs to dump Kevin Rudd in 2010. Kevin won't challenge without his support. All this does is promote the perception that Julia Gillard isn't in charge of her own party.

Peter Slipper:

In a sneaky attempt to deprive the Opposition of a vote, Labor elected Peter Slipper as Speaker, removing popular Harry Jenkins. Slipper was soon after outed as having texted obscene comments about women's bodies and accused of sexual harassment. He was cleared, but mud sticks.

Craig Thomson:

Expelled from the party after it was revealed he'd used a union credit card to pay for prostitutes. A perception existed that unions, Labor's backbone, were dodgy – Thomson proved it.

John McTiernan:

Julia Gillard's chief spin doctor has proven divisive and often incompetent. While Gillard herself has to be blamed for taking his advice, it doesn't help to have someone in your team who causes more problems than he solves. It was reportedly his idea to go hard on 457 visa holders, a decision which turned bleeding heart lefties against the PM; he forgot that he was on one himself. He should never have allowed a video of the PM talking about abortion to go to the media, but it did and it's alienated a significant sector of the electorate and many of her MPs – not what you want when you're facing a likely leadership challenge.

Alan Jones:

Readers from Sydney will know that Alan Jones has done more to help the Opposition than anyone else. His radio show is listened to by voters in marginal Western Sydney seats, and he is relentless in attacking the Prime Minister. From mocking her father's death to accusing her of being a 'lying bitch', he exploits his position of power to bring the debate down to the lowest common denominator. His view, that 'women are wrecking the joint', resonates with male listeners who are afraid of change.

(And in case you thought it was actually the opposite, that it's men wrecking the joint, we can't forget Jenny Macklin's claim that she could easily live on the dole, a claim that was audible to everyone who heard the interview but was erased from the transcript circulated afterward.)

Boat people:

Those pesky boat people keep arriving, and a lot of Australians still believe they're going to take our jobs and rape our women. Maybe because people like Alan Jones keep telling them that (he has said they are ''vermin'' who ''infest our shores'' and ''rape and pillage our nation''). A slight easing of John Howard's policy on asylum seekers combined with factors beyond the control of the Australian Government has meant more people are trying to get here on boats. Far fewer than the number that come on planes, but those are far less visible, and usually more white. Tony Abbott says he'll stop the boats. This is enough for most people, as unlikely as it is.

Julia Gillard:

Of course the Prime Minister has done things which haven't helped her case. Breaking the promise that there wouldn't be a carbon tax is probably a decision that annoys people more than the higher electricity bills do. Being unmarried is a personal choice, being an atheist is a personal choice. However, were she married and were she to go to church every now and then, she would have a much easier time of it. Barack Obama is probably an atheist, but he pretends he's not. Being married and referring to God every now and then wouldn't lose the votes of unmarried atheists around the country, but being unmarried and a declared atheist is enough to turn traditional Labor voters who are conservative and religious against you.

Australians should be able to accept a female, unmarried, atheist Prime Minister. But there have been too many inexcusable blunders, and too many promises broken. According to research firm IPSOS, a significant proportion of voters would prefer not to vote in either party, and most of those who are going to vote for Tony Abbott would prefer Malcolm Turnbull. The sentiment was summarised by a respondent who said: 'Just to round it up, yes there will be a change, yes they all talk bullshit and no, it will virtually stay the same there will just be a change of government'. This election is not about voting in someone who will do a better job, it's about punishing Labor for treating them like fools.

http://www.vice.com/en_au/read/some-people-who-have-screwed-the-labor-party-including-some-people-from-the-labor-party?utm_source=vicefb

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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,

no aussies prepared to work hard to pick fruit

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.................