Just out of interest, are there actually people out there who think these 'correct pathways' are available to these people?

If so..... Just how...? :oops: don't even know how to word this... How is it possible to not get that most of the time, these correct channels don't exist to the citizens who actually need them most.

It's not unlawful dismissal to fire a worker that isn't performing to the expected standard after written performance or behavioural warnings.

It sounds like you don't know the legislation very well.

The "correct pathway" is to go to an asylum safe country (safely) and register at a UN office, be assessed for refugee status or refugee camp and wait for eventual resettlement. You can't pick and choose your country of resettlement based on your lifestyle needs, all the convention guarantees is subsistence and shelter, those basic needs can be met in a refugee camp or even a detention centre. Most people get that that is not the kind of life they want, but the problem is so vast that our power to help is quite limited, all we can budget for is currently 20,000 per annum (second highest per capita in the world). So the current status quo of people smugglers deciding who should get visas should be replaced by a fairer system whereby those who are in the greatest need of resettlement are given priority.

Is that the process you would follow if you and your family were fleeing persecution?

I'd take the best option that was available to me, which would rule out the return boat journey to Indonesia.

condescending much....

i would suggest i know the legislation far better than you having been dealing with it on a first hand basis for many years....

it's obvious you haven't come across professional bludgers and union bullies.....

If it's unfair for PPL to not pay higher amounts to higher income workers, why should it be capped at all?

If a company CEO takes annual leave, she gets paid her full salary. So if she takes PPL, shouldn't she still get her full salary rather than just the equivalent to $150k?


The Labor policy, right or wrong, at least makes sense... it says that if you take time off to have a child you will receive a subsidy equivalent to working on the minimum wage, and the government will pay for that. IF you happen to have a better arrangement with your employer then that's cool too you're lucky.

Liberals policy is to pay more to higher earners, but why would they need it? If you're a high earner, you can most likely afford to have your child even without six months of salary. That's just a reality that those at the lower end sometimes need support, but those in the middle need to make ends meet themselves. And I still don't understand why if you think someone on $150k a year should get full compensation, why shouldn't someone on $500k a year?

:lol: Condescending much?

I would suggest you don't know the legislation as well as you think if you don't know how to apply it to relieve inadequate employees of their position.

KPI's, monthly performance reviews, time and attendance issues and customer relations are all plenty adequate reasons to give written warnings cumulatively allowing you to fire a person.

So if you're in a position where you've got issues with "professional bludgers" and "union bullies" working for you, perhaps you A) need to look at your inadequate recruitment, and B) re-learn workplace dismissal laws.

Also, from the cases of unfair dismissal I've seen (I dealt with a few while I was at the Casino and IIRC the results of cases are readily available online) unless there's a fairly egregious aberration by the employer, the commission generally side with them.

I watched the interview that Clive Palmer gave with The Project last night and it was actually quite reasonable. Obviously he's found a new campaign manager because there was no sign of the delusions that have plagued his tv advertising campaign. I still wouldn't vote for him if you paid me, but I can see him garnering a lot more votes over the coming years. That's worrying but it might scare some action out of one or both of the major parties.

He also challenged Rudd and Abbott to a "twerk-off" (make your own jerk-off jokes). I guess he feels a bit left out not being invited to their debates.

Honestly, if Abbott put on his budgie smugglers and 'twerked' on national television, I'd vote for him. I could swallow my pride for the next three years to see what other ridiculous shit he'd do for approval. He could be our very own Boris Johnson. But you know...bond-villain insane instead of just lovably loopy.

mate the unlawfull dismissal laws coupled with the construction industries regulations are a far cry from some gump working at star casino.....

the construction industry is riddled with court cases from unlawful dismissal so it's obviously easier in an admin / office enviroment as opposed to our industry............

At higher than $150k the cost outweighs the benefits. This isn't a welfare payment, it's not designed to help ease the cost of raising a baby. It's a "stimulus payment" to encourage more moderate and higher income earners to commit to having families, to increase population growth and encourage more women to stay in the workforce, thereby increasing productivity.

Labor policy doesn't make sense at all. You want families to take a significant pay cut to cope with the increased cost of having a baby. It's "fairer" in a superficial sense but as it's really just a welfare payment delivers no tangible economic benefits. Seriously if every other country is doing like this it must have something going for it.

"Some gump" working for the casino is still protected by the same laws.

The construction industry might be riddled with court cases, but you've got to consider the number of successful plaintiffs. The average is 34% of cases that make it to the commission found in favour of the employer.

34% is a disaster....](*,) ](*,) so 66% of cases are in unlawful....LOL

whenyou get to the court the vast majority of judges are ex ACTU and unionists..........LOL](*,) ](*,)

If they can't afford to have a baby when the mother is making 150k (not to mention whatever the father is on) and they have the notice that comes with either having a baby or planning on having one, then they shouldn't have a fucking baby at all because they are financially illiterate and will be passing down idiot genes.

A family with a parent making 150k shouldn't get any welfare at all. FMD, $150,000 is the equivalent of an $83 an hour wage. That is worth more in a day than most people make in an entire week and slightly less than a fortnight's old age pension.

IF the aim is to increase birth rates particularly in higher economic brackets, then yes the Liberal policy makes sense.

BUT in a time of "budget crisis" is it a great idea to increase tax on big business and devote a significant chunk of other government savings to a policy aimed at increasing the birth rate? There are definite long-term benefits to the Liberal PPL scheme, but it's expensive and will have a long and ambiguous pay-back period.


The Labor policy on the other hand is, to me, genuinely just a welfare scheme aimed at easing the burden of starting a family... particularly for low-income families where you have 2 parents both working on low wages to try and make ends meet. It is welfare, and if you don't like welfare then you probably won't like it - but hey that's why you wouldn't vote Labor anyway.



To argue that Labor's welfare PPL is unfair is, for me, wrong because welfare by default intended to most benefit those who most need it.

To argue that Liberal's stimulus PPL is fair is, for me, wrong because it's not universally fair - it's only fair to a cap of someone earning $150,000.

To argue that Liberal's stimulus PPL is economically beneficial and something that can successfully increase the birth rate particularly in higher-income families, I can accept that. BUT by the Liberal party's own position, surely in a time of "budget crisis" it's te wrong time for any stimulus spending that doesn't have a quick pay-back for the government.

If someone on a low income can't afford a baby then they shouldn't have one either.

The Government shouldn't be paying anyone to have a baby, but if they are, then everyone should get the same rate.

The Government shouldn't be classing babies as worth more than other babies just because their mother is some rich millionaire's wife and is listed in one of her husbands companies as a 'director' and thus entitled to a free money from the Government.

By choice.

Nobody is forcing them to live in the million dollar apartment, have the yacht and drive the AMG Merc to work.

-PB

So if they can afford 20k to get on a boat and have papers then why can't they catch a plane?

-PB

LOL

Can guarantee you now that there aren't "gumps" working at Casinos. Maybe in the building industry under poor managers like you, but definitely not in gambling institutions.

-PB

Of course not. Nobody is also forcing them to go out to dinner every second night, drink fine wine, hire gardeners, have massages, pay for dog walkers or use travel agents every year.

I guess that's where you and I ideologically differ.

I'll continue - run businesses, regularly renovate those expensive houses, all the while paying so much more tax than the average earner.

I'm all against the "averaging" of Australia, we will only lose.

The 1.5% levy on big business is offset by the 1.5 reduction in corporate tax. Also big business no longer have to fund (independently) their own parental leave schemes, so there are immediate savings for big and small business.

It's expensive but less expensive than NDIS and no one raised an eye brow about that. You just can't on a profligate spending spree on programs like NDIS without a plan to grow the economy to fund these extremely expensive programs long term.



Again businesses are going to be better off on this policy. Given Labor have had their go at education, environmental and disability reform you can't just expect Liberals to spend the next three years paying off Labors debt. Liberal party members are ideological too, they want to introduce programs and polices that increase productivity and grow our economy and make us fiscally stronger and more competitive. You're definitely going to get spending from the Libs, lots of cuts but spending as well, it might be the job for future Labor governments to reign in their habitual spending and think about some cuts as well.

Construction isn't special as an industry. All workers have expectations, and if a worker is not meeting expectations it's entirely lawful to transition them out of your business.

It just sounds like you are demanding changes in legislation to cover for poor management practice.

Exactly.

So why the need to pay them so much to raise a kid?

-PB

So they can continue the lifestyle that pays the living of so many people.

I am reading a lot about how we shouldn't be having babies if we can't afford them. Well if you would all look back to the population growth figures of the pre Howard and Howard era's you'll see that our actual population was shrinking. The reason we had to introduce schemes like the baby bonus and paid parental leave was because we needed to convince hard working Australians to have more children. Remember 1 for mum 1 for dad and 1 for Australia.

We have an aging population that we can't replace and therefor forcing retirees to work further into their future to assist in reducing the burden on the Aged Pension.

The Government told us to breed and now you're complaining about it! FMD!

The labour scheme is good enough, no one needs to be paid their actual wage whilst off on Mat/Pat leave as your cost of living is well down. If you are so dumb as to not prepare in the 9 months and months prior to ensure you have savings to cover Credit cards, mortgage payments, food bills and what ever else you waste money on then you deserve your destitution.

As Batfink stated those before the Baby bonus didn't get government handouts to assist with newborns, They just had to do it.

What is more worrying is O'Farrell wanting to cut funding to Pre-Schools for 3 year olds because he thinks that there are not enough 4 year olds in them ironically the industry says that they fill vacancies with 3 year olds because they cannot find enough 4 year olds to fill these places.

So where does the money to pay for the tax cut to every other business except the top 3000 who pay the PPL levy come from? You can't cut tax for everyone, then re-tax a small fraction of that, and make money. That's just basic math.



Last time I checked, very few people choose to become physically handicapped or mentally disabled.

Well if you have a narrow, shortsighted view like do, you can't make money. But if broaden your view you see that a 1.5% cut is revenue better spent in the hands of business operators to create jobs and boost investment than in the hands of bureaucrats with no wealth creation skills.



So? You still need to grow the economy to fund these programs long term. If you spend all the money on the vulnerable and needy eventually you'lll run out.

Well if this is the case... why doesn't the Liberal party actually debate policy and ideology, rather than constantly scare-mongering about the state of the economy?

I'm not a Labor supporter... I'd probably vote for the Liberal Party at this election EXCEPT for the fact that they won't actually put forward a proper reason for anyone to vote for them. I don't consider "because Labor is crap" to be a good enough reason to vote Liberal.

If the Liberals want to sell this as something that is going to grow the economy and secure the future of Australia and part of a wider plan for social reform, they should do that.

At the moment they're selling it as, "Look we don't hate women... we're giving them money, see!" And at the same time bleating about how little money we have. Those business savings you mention won't go to the budget bottom dollar and the fact that the levy on big business is being offset by the corporate tax reduction just makes it WORSE because that's LESS money coming in to fix the "crisis".

If Tony Abbott chose the word "crisis". That's as in, "We have to do something and do it RIGHT NOW or we'll be up shit creek without a paddle". A 5-year transition of returning confidence to business to eventually pick up extra tax revenue off an increased GDP isn't a solution to a "crisis".





What annoys me about this is that we have an aging population and a shrinking population, but most right-wingers also want to restrict immigration. Basically it's saying, "We want the population to get bigger - but we only want people born in Australia to increase it." It's not quite racist or xenophobic, but it's very borderline!