The Australian Politics thread: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese


The Australian Politics thread: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Author
Message
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
[size=7]Reviving Wind Turbine Syndrome is just what you’d expect from a PM without a Science Minister[/size]

Quote:
So it appears we are to be treated to another pointless examination of a manufactured controversy in the name of health science. One can only guess at the motivations for the Federal Government announcing a NHMRC-led review of the science around the purported health effects of wind farms, but you can be sure it’s not being driven by scientific curiosity.

In fact this review is probably the most futile bit of spending yet announced in the term of the Abbott administration and is exactly the sort of tomfoolery you might expect of a cabinet which has no room for science. Why? Because there is no controversy about the so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome. It doesn’t exist as a thing. It has not, as the philosophers might say, been reified.

Wind turbines have no health effects on the surrounding populations. That’s not just my personal opinion. It’s the overwhelming scientific consensus. The book is closed, the story is written, the circus has folded its tents and moved on.

It would, however, potentially suit the Abbott Government politically to keep this manufactroversy going. The conservative side of politics in this country has a well-documented preference for fossil fuel production, largely based on economic arguments and the hope of carbon capture technology to reduce carbon emissions from current coal-fired power stations. Using fringe science to advance political ends is nothing new, but this is not a political comment column so I don’t propose to stray too far from discussing that science.

The proverbial musty tomes of medical history are full of such exotic diagnoses as Railway Spine or the Vapours) not to mention Fan Death in South Korea. Why not investigate those as well? After all, it has been a long time since the NHMRC had a look at them as well.

This facetious rhetorical question has a serious answer. Why does it seem ridiculous to have a Government enquiry into Fan Death, which is after all reported as the 5th most common cause of serious injury during summer in Korea, according to the Korean Consumer Protection Board?

I submit that there is no scientific justification for any further investigation of ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ just as there is no reason to investigate Fan Death or Railway Spine, because they are not real diagnoses. They are cultural responses to new or unfamiliar technology. I would support an academic investigation into the sociological aspects of the phenomenon as it may help us understand how to prevent useful and essential renewable energy technology from being hindered by groups of sincerely deluded activists. But a scientific investigation? A complete and utter waste of my tax dollars, as it will not alter either the scientific consensus or the tiny, one-track minds of the denialists.

And as for the Chief Scientist’s report on assessing the ‘evidence’ supporting homeopathy and other implausible treatments, don’t get me started. The UK parliament produced the defintive smackdown on homeopathy in 2010, but for some reason the Government is stalling the report which many (including myself) hope will stop these treatment being paid for with funds from the 30% Private Health Rebate (ie tax dollars). The delay in implementation is meant to allow for more ‘consultation with industry’. Again, it’s certainly not to allow for any more scientific input, as the supporting evidence consisted of tumbleweeds 2 years ago when it started, and it’s tumbleweeds all the way down still.

The most unsavoury aspect of this announcement is more subtle. The younger Bush administration in the USA became notorious for its disregard for the scientific process. They forced policy to drive evidence, rather than the other way around. They purportedly dictated the preferred outcomes of major environmental studies using funding threats to hold the scientists hostage. They cut funding from scientific programs that seemed ‘pointless’ to scientifically illiterate pollies and bureaucrats. The ideologically-driven ban on stem-cell research by the Bush administration set the USA back a decade in major biotech research, which also meant that the industry created by this innovation left their shores.

Mr Abbott clearly signalled his intentions prior to the election to curb free enquiry and direct research funds to ‘useful’ areas. Now he has commissioned a large scientifically futile project at his own behest, so we would be naive not to expect more of the same.

Australia cannot afford the luxury of a scientifcally illiterate body politic for very long. From the stump-jump plough and Coolgardie safe to the invention of WiFi, we have had to use technological solutions to the difficulties of living in this country. We have punched well above our weight for a very long time thanks to our outstanding record of scientific innovation, which has been enabled by solid support from Governments which have always judged it (rightly in my view) to be a critical path to keeping and improving our quality of life.

Until now, it seems. When junk science can be used as a prop in a political debate, and jobs in outdated and harmful industries are valued more highly than jobs in the industries of the future. It’s not too late for the PM to reverse this apparent willingness to use bad science as a political tool, and to unwind his Government’s disregard for the proud track record of Australian scientific innovation but until then we will pay the price for his War on Smart.



Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
BETHFC
BETHFC
World Class
World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K, Visits: 0
Can't they be smart and find areas which have previously been logged already and replant with Pine? NZ has some genetically modified trees which only have branches from about 2m off the ground and grow incredibly fast. Tasmania is a similar climate also.

Edited by benelsmore: 29/1/2014 09:39:27 AM
Edited
9 Years Ago by BETHFC
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/23/tasmania-forest-heritage-listing-comes-under-threat-from-coalition

Quote:
Tasmania forest heritage listing comes under threat from Coalition
Plan to roll back hard-won protection branded 'fundamentally irresponsible' by Wilderness Society

The federal government has decided to push ahead with a plan to remove world heritage listing from a swath of Tasmanian forest, potentially reopening bitter divisions over the state’s timber industry.

Richard Colbeck, parliamentary secretary for agriculture, said the government would write to Unesco’s world heritage committee to ask it to peel away about 170,000 hectares of forest from the protected region.

Colbeck told the Australian the protected listing was a “sham” because it locked up areas of plantation timber, as well as pristine old-growth forest. The Coalition has argued the listing threatens jobs and investment in a region that suffers from relatively high unemployment.

The extension to Tasmania’s world heritage region, which includes areas such as the Styx and Florentine, was approved by then environment minister Tony Burke earlier this year.

The decision to ask the world heritage committee to unwind its listing is opposed by conservationists and the timber industry itself, which has stated it supports the extension as part of the peace deal that promises to end decades of dispute over the use of Tasmania’s forests.

Glenn Walker, national campaigner at the Wilderness Society, told Guardian Australia he was “surprised and fearful” over the government’s move to delist the extension.

“There is a hell of a lot at risk here – not only the beautiful forests but also the ground-breaking agreement between environmentalists, industry and unions,” he said. “The federal Liberals are risking peace in the forests, seemingly for ideological reasons.”

Walker said there were fewer than 100 hectares, out of a total of 170,000 hectares, that were plantation forest, and they were included in the listing to provide vital habitat corridors for wildlife.

“The vast majority is spectacular, tall, old-growth Tasmanian forest,” he said. “We don’t know of any timber industry players interested in extracting wood from a heritage area because they know the future is sustainable, conflict-free timber. Tearing up this peace deal is a fundamentally irresponsible move by the government.”

Only two places – Oman and Dresden, in Germany – have previously had their world heritage listing stripped, neither at the behest of their respective governments.

“The world heritage committee will never have been confronted by this situation before,” said Walker. “The Abbott government will be in for a tough fight because there is a reason why we protect the most beautiful places on Earth. This is akin to removing part of the Great Barrier Reef’s protection for oil exploration.”

The Tasmanian government is also critical of the move, with the state environment minister, Brian Wightman, claiming the Coalition has a “lack of concern” for the Tasmanian forest industry.

"The Tasmanian forest agreement is paving the way for the establishment of a sustainable, long-term and successful forest industry,” he said. "But the federal and state Liberal parties are hell-bent on taking the industry backwards and removing any chance for Tasmania to market its products.

“Attempting to delist a world heritage area would undoubtedly bring Australia into disrepute,” he said.

Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
paulbagzFC
paulbagzFC
Legend
Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K, Visits: 0
Manus Island raging hard @ PNG and Australia over those deals for the detention centers lol.

-PB

https://i.imgur.com/batge7K.jpg

Edited
9 Years Ago by paulbagzFC
paladisious
paladisious
Legend
Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K, Visits: 0
imonfourfourtwo wrote:
Peter Cosgrove officially announced as the next Governor-General. Not surprised and not particularly fussed with the appointment.

Good appointment, not a surprise at all.
Edited
9 Years Ago by paladisious
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
benelsmore wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
Quote:
Would you have such a problem with it if their "wage" increased to say $17/hour and they had meal and travel expenses paid?

But now in more than tripling the expenses that the government would have, you've defeated the purpose of your point about cutting the welfare bill for this country.


True. Seems like instead of paying them more that money should go to tertiary education.

I agree. The money would be far better served being invested in education and training. But what Liberal government would agree with that 'socialist' ideal when they can get cheap labour instead?
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
paulbagzFC wrote:
This construction industry corruption stuff is juicy.

-PB


Looking forward to the Royal Commission.
Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
paulbagzFC
paulbagzFC
Legend
Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K, Visits: 0
This construction industry corruption stuff is juicy.

-PB

https://i.imgur.com/batge7K.jpg

Edited
9 Years Ago by paulbagzFC
BETHFC
BETHFC
World Class
World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
Quote:
Would you have such a problem with it if their "wage" increased to say $17/hour and they had meal and travel expenses paid?

But now in more than tripling the expenses that the government would have, you've defeated the purpose of your point about cutting the welfare bill for this country.


True. Seems like instead of paying them more that money should go to tertiary education.
Edited
9 Years Ago by BETHFC
imonfourfourtwo
imonfourfourtwo
Pro
Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)Pro (2.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.9K, Visits: 0
Peter Cosgrove officially announced as the next Governor-General. Not surprised and not particularly fussed with the appointment.
Edited
9 Years Ago by imonfourfourtwo
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
Quote:
Would you have such a problem with it if their "wage" increased to say $17/hour and they had meal and travel expenses paid?

But now in more than tripling the expenses that the government would have, you've defeated the purpose of your point about cutting the welfare bill for this country.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
BETHFC
BETHFC
World Class
World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
benelsmore wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
benelsmore wrote:
If they're going to go down this road of WFD, surely minimal hours and flexible hours would be necessary.

What does that achieve though? You've failed to acknowledge my point that the number of people on long-term benefits INCREASED under the previous attempt at a WFD system.

People aren't learning anything useful in the real world by working in these organisations. It prevents them from getting more established work. It increases their expenses.

It's about nothing more than cheap labor for government funded organisations in order to allow the government to cut funding to them.


What? Nortorganic brought it up and I responded to that :-s

People don't learn anything useful anyway. What's your point?

So then we're brought back to it literally being done for nothing more than cheap labour. Morally reprehensible.


It's a step in the right direction i still think. A step towards keeping people ready for work (and a big f*ck you to all the bludgers). Obviously it's an idea that needs a lot of refining ie. what kind of work they do, how many hours, whether they get paid more for the expenses incurred taking up this work etc.

Would you have such a problem with it if their "wage" increased to say $17/hour and they had meal and travel expenses paid?
Edited
9 Years Ago by BETHFC
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
benelsmore wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
benelsmore wrote:
If they're going to go down this road of WFD, surely minimal hours and flexible hours would be necessary.

What does that achieve though? You've failed to acknowledge my point that the number of people on long-term benefits INCREASED under the previous attempt at a WFD system.

People aren't learning anything useful in the real world by working in these organisations. It prevents them from getting more established work. It increases their expenses.

It's about nothing more than cheap labor for government funded organisations in order to allow the government to cut funding to them.


What? Nortorganic brought it up and I responded to that :-s

People don't learn anything useful anyway. What's your point?

So then we're brought back to it literally being done for nothing more than cheap labour. Morally reprehensible.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
BETHFC
BETHFC
World Class
World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
benelsmore wrote:
If they're going to go down this road of WFD, surely minimal hours and flexible hours would be necessary.

What does that achieve though? You've failed to acknowledge my point that the number of people on long-term benefits INCREASED under the previous attempt at a WFD system.

People aren't learning anything useful in the real world by working in these organisations. It prevents them from getting more established work. It increases their expenses.

It's about nothing more than cheap labor for government funded organisations in order to allow the government to cut funding to them.


What? Nortorganic brought it up and I responded to that :-s

People don't learn anything useful anyway. What's your point?
Edited
9 Years Ago by BETHFC
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
Abbott’s Davos disaster

Quote:
What has the world learned about Australia from Abbott’s keynote address to the World Economic Forum? Alan Austin reports from France.

AUSTRALIANS WATCHED TONY ABBOTT fly off to Switzerland this week to deliver an important speech to world leaders with muted anticipation. Commentary in advance ranged between frank pessimism and outright dismay.

It is clear now the PM failed to live up to those expectations.

Fortunately, the damage done to Australia’s reputation was limited by most media declining even to mention the Abbott embarrassment.

The New York Times has extensive coverage of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, with a dedicated web page and many feature articles exploring the key themes and major players. None mentions Abbott — who, by virtue of the high regard for his predecessor, finds himself the accidental president of the G20 for 2014.

Le Télégramme, L'Humanité and Le Parisien in France published stories from the WEF but completely ignored Abbott. L’Agence France-Presse filed multiple reports profiling the contributors, but excluding Abbott.

Le Figaro focussed on the speech by International Monetary Fund director Christine Lagarde who addressed constructively the new dangers – nouveaux risques – threatening global recovery. These are, she said, deflation in Europe, tapering of US monetary policy and distortions in global financial markets.

With an embarrassed cough, Le Figaro noted Abbott’s address as a footnote, quoting him as calling for more free trade, an idea that was a long way from the agenda – très loin de la thématique – of earlier gatherings.

Les Echos did mention the keynote speech, reporting that the thrust of Australia’s G20 presidency will be free trade. It noted it was odd Abbott didn’t mention the World Trade Organisation.

The Guardian in Britain headlined its piece “Does Tony Abbott always make the same speech?” and reported that it “struck a familiar tone and was criticised for being inappropriately partisan.”

Indeed, Abbott’s reputation as a buffoon appears to have preceded him to Davos.

[youtube]WGMeXeFfZRw[/youtube]

The Financial Times UK’s economics editor, Chris Giles, tweeted:
Quote:
'Sign of the times. [Iran's President Hassan]Rouhani packed out the hall. Everyone is leaving before Tony Abbott explains Australia’s ambitions for the G20 in 2014.'


Abbott’s speech confirmed the nagging suspicions many have had since he assumed the prime ministership, following one of the most manipulated media campaigns in any democracy in living memory.

It repeated all the trite slogans that worked in Western Sydney:
Quote:
“You can’t spend what you haven’t got.”

“Markets are the proven answer to the problem of scarcity.”

“No country has ever taxed or subsidised its way to prosperity.”

“People trade with each other because it’s in their interest to do so.”

“Progress usually comes one step at a time.”


Unfortunately, I am not making this up.

Riddled with indicators of ignorance, the speech confirmed Abbott knows little about contemporary economics.

He quoted, for example, statistical measures from China:
Quote:
“China’s growth is moderating, but likely to remain over seven per cent.”

He seems quite unaware that economists no longer trust statistics from China.

[youtube]-BN9hTULtmA[/youtube]

All economies today use strategic borrowings, at different levels, from different sources and for different purposes. Managing borrowings is a major challenge. Abbott’s glib admonition “You don’t address debt and deficit with yet more debt and deficit” displayed a dismissive attitude to this complex reality.

There was no sense of understanding the challenges the WEF faces in 2014, let alone having insights into ways forward.

What little strategy Abbott advocated seemed contradictory. He asserted that the global financial crisis (GFC) “was not a crisis of markets but one of governance.”

And then boasted of Australia,
Quote:
“To boost private sector growth and employment, the new government is cutting red tape ...”


Okay. That makes sense.

The prize blunders arrived, however, when Abbott directly attacked the stimulus packages of the Rudd/Gillard administrations:
Quote:
“In the decade prior to the Crisis, consistent surpluses and a preference for business helped my country, Australia, to become one of the world’s best-performing economies.”

Partly correct.

In 1996, Australia was the 6th-ranked economy in the world. But by 2007, after 11 years of a Coalition government, it had slipped back to 10th place. Still, that is one of the best.

Abbott continued:
Quote:
“Then, a subsequent government decided that the Crisis had changed the rules and that we should spend our way to prosperity. The reason for spending soon passed but the spending didn’t stop because, when it comes to spending, governments can be like addicts in search of a fix. But after the recent election, Australia is under new management and open for business.”


Two stupidities.

First, it was precisely that extensive rapid spending through the GFC which saw Australia rise from 10th-ranked economy in 2007 to the world's top ranking by 2012, a reality all those present with an awareness of the G20 economies would have known.

Secondly, attacks on domestic opponents are never acceptable abroad.

In New York last October, Abbott was roundly condemned for a political attack on Kevin Rudd.

American Academic Clinton Fernandes said he created an image of
Quote:
“... coarseness, amateurishness and viciousness."


Political scientist Norman Ornstein surmised:
Quote:
“Perhaps you can chalk it up to a rookie mistake. But it is a pretty big one."


Clearly, Abbott has learned nothing from that humiliation three months ago.

Abbott then continued to spruik domestic politics — the commission of audit, paid parental leave, cutting the numbers of pensioners, and infrastructure, especially roads:
Quote:
“... because time spent in traffic jams is time lost from work and family.”


He concluded with a final hypocrisy — following his attack on Labor for spending so much on infrastructure during the GFC.

He gobsmacked anyone still listening with this:
Quote:
“Then, there’s the worldwide 'infrastructure deficit', with the OECD estimating that over 50 trillion dollars in infrastructure investment is needed by 2030.”


[youtube]73f_UHTH4VU[/youtube]

Several questions arise.

Why such an appalling performance? Where are his advisers? Does he think he needs no advice? Or is the whole Coalition this amateurish and oafish — or worse?

And why, as ABC News highlighted, is he still battling Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard?

Does this reflect self-doubt about his capacity in the role? They had a vision for the nation; he does not. They had plans to improve the prospects for pensioners, students and people with disabilities; he does not. They nurtured the economy; he cannot. They had character, integrity and authority; he simply does not.

Perhaps it confirms that Abbott knows deep down that the 2013 ‘win’ was illegitimate — that it was secured only by deception and dishonesty.

Perhaps it is time for his party to consider the matter of leader.

Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
notorganic wrote:
benelsmore wrote:
single mothers who have all these kids they can't pay for.


Perhaps more public spending on contraception and access to abortion is the answer, then.

Maybe the Chinese had it right with their populace sterilization.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
benelsmore wrote:
single mothers who have all these kids they can't pay for.


Perhaps more public spending on contraception and access to abortion is the answer, then.
Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
benelsmore wrote:
If they're going to go down this road of WFD, surely minimal hours and flexible hours would be necessary.

What does that achieve though? You've failed to acknowledge my point that the number of people on long-term benefits INCREASED under the previous attempt at a WFD system.

People aren't learning anything useful in the real world by working in these organisations. It prevents them from getting more established work. It increases their expenses.

It's about nothing more than cheap labor for government funded organisations in order to allow the government to cut funding to them.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
Carlito
Carlito
Legend
Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K, Visits: 0
Sadly that won't happen. This government is going to make those on benefits pariahs .
Edited
9 Years Ago by MvFCArsenal16.8
BETHFC
BETHFC
World Class
World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
Quote:
800,000 x $509/fortnight is $407,200,000/fortnight. Can you see why people like me want something done. That's a hospital like the one built here on the GC every 2 months in welfare. That's why something needs to happen to reduce that number and to get those on it trained and job ready.

That's 800,000 TOTAL on welfare, that includes those who are employed but receive income assistance, those who are on carer's benefits, etc.

Furthermore that the number went UP with the previous WFD scheme. The reality is that they're willing to spend more money on welfare so that they can cut funding to local governments and organisations. They'd rather have someone on WFD doing the work and costing them $13,000/year instead of the $30k/year they have to pay a government employee on minimum wage.

It's got nothing to do with getting people off welfare and into real jobs. If they wanted to do that they'd invest more money in tertiary education. No, it's about cheap labour.

Plus, if you're forced to do WFD, how can you get your foot in the door with casual or part time work? Isn't it better that people are working part time and getting paid less welfare than forced to work on the dole and be unable to find legitimate income?


Yes 800k total but many of them probably get more than $509 a week, especially single mothers who have all these kids they can't pay for.

You're probably right but i'm sure as a tax payer you'd like to see some return for your taxes? Why should we work for to pay them?

If they're going to go down this road of WFD, surely minimal hours and flexible hours would be necessary.
Edited
9 Years Ago by BETHFC
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
Quote:
800,000 x $509/fortnight is $407,200,000/fortnight. Can you see why people like me want something done. That's a hospital like the one built here on the GC every 2 months in welfare. That's why something needs to happen to reduce that number and to get those on it trained and job ready.

That's 800,000 TOTAL on welfare, that includes those who are employed but receive income assistance, those who are on carer's benefits, etc.

Furthermore that the number went UP with the previous WFD scheme. The reality is that they're willing to spend more money on welfare so that they can cut funding to local governments and organisations. They'd rather have someone on WFD doing the work and costing them $13,000/year instead of the $30k/year they have to pay a government employee on minimum wage.

It's got nothing to do with getting people off welfare and into real jobs. If they wanted to do that they'd invest more money in tertiary education. No, it's about cheap labour.

Plus, if you're forced to do WFD, how can you get your foot in the door with casual or part time work? Isn't it better that people are working part time and getting paid less welfare than forced to work on the dole and be unable to find legitimate income?
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
BETHFC
BETHFC
World Class
World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
benelsmore wrote:
notorganic wrote:
benelsmore wrote:
notorganic wrote:
Work for the dole under Howard was an overwhelming failure.

It left unemployed people depressed, unmotivated and reduced the amount of time available to find employment. People forced onto WFTD ended up unemployed, and therefore a larger burden on taxpayers, for longer than non-WFTD unemployment welfare recipients.


Something needs to happen. They need a tea-spoon of cement if having to work for their charity hurts their delicate feelings. The rest of Australia has to work to provide for their families as well as their own.

Maybe if they worked for 4 hours a day. Its still a contribution that would likely remove a lot of the hatred angled at welfare recipients. They can use the rest of the day to look for alternative employment.


If that "something" happening demonstrably makes things worse, it probably doesn't need to happen.


True but any idea is encouraging and much better than writing blank cheques.

It's not a blank cheque. Since when is $509 a fortnight a "blank cheque"? That wouldn't even cover my rent!

Currently there are some 800,000 Australians on welfare of some description, 220,000 of those have been on welfare for more than 12 months. Under the previous WFD scheme that number of "long term recipients" was up over 500,000. That should tell you pretty clearly that the system doesn't work.


It's charity. The best thing it does is on a local economic level which is circulating money. There is no return for that money is more the point i'm trying to make. It is meant to help people temporarily on hard times. I know people who've been on it and they were very thankful for the assistance.

800,000 x $509/fortnight is $407,200,000/fortnight. Can you see why people like me want something done. That's a hospital like the one built here on the GC every 2 months in welfare. That's why something needs to happen to reduce that number and to get those on it trained and job ready.
Edited
9 Years Ago by BETHFC
Carlito
Carlito
Legend
Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)Legend (28K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K, Visits: 0
I was on wfd ages ago. They used to hassle me when I was working casual work . Told them I was working but got told I had to actively look for work and go to appointments . I gave up and worked casually and stop the wfd . It was hard but I rather work from pay check to pay check then deal with red tape
Edited
9 Years Ago by MvFCArsenal16.8
BETHFC
BETHFC
World Class
World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
benelsmore wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
notorganic wrote:
Work for the dole under Howard was an overwhelming failure.

It left unemployed people depressed, unmotivated and reduced the amount of time available to find employment. People forced onto WFTD ended up unemployed, and therefore a larger burden on taxpayers, for longer than non-WFTD unemployment welfare recipients.

WFD puts people on centerlink on less than half minimum wage (It works out at $6.36/hour, which is disgusting), so they can hardly afford to live. Then they've got less time to actively look for work, since not showing up for a WFD shift means they lose their benefits so they can't interview for other positions. They call it "an attempt to get people off benefits and working" when all it does is trap people on benefits.


Make them work for half the day. Then they're on 12.72/hour. If this scheme is put into action, perhaps they could increase the dole and have them carry out civil works like maintaining parks and what not. Then everyone benefits.

They don't want them working half the day. They want them 30-40 hours a week.
Quote:
It's about time people were encouraged to work. Welfare is not a hand out. Hopefully if forced to work and if they work well, they can use the experience to find a job better suited to their liking.

What can you possibly learn from working for a charity? What skills do you develop folding and sorting clothes for the Brotherhood of St Lawrence or picking up rubbish for the local council? Furthermore why would they bother to train someone in the detailed workings of the organisation when they're forced to replace that person after 3 months?

Furthermore you're talking about people who barely learned anything in 13 years of 6 hours a day schooling, I don't think they're going to learn much from petulantly being forced to pick up rubbish on the side of the road.


Making them work full time only gives them excuses to bitch and wouldn't be wise. If they still have half a day to job search they have no excuse. They're not meant to like the job, that's the point! If they hate their charity job so much go and find a better one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd be willing to increase the dole but put the increase into TAFE type courses to give the unemployed a better chance of securing work. Welfare is a large and pointless burden on my levels. Stream-lining the system to reduce dependence for the future is surely worth an investment.
Edited
9 Years Ago by BETHFC
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
benelsmore wrote:
notorganic wrote:
benelsmore wrote:
notorganic wrote:
Work for the dole under Howard was an overwhelming failure.

It left unemployed people depressed, unmotivated and reduced the amount of time available to find employment. People forced onto WFTD ended up unemployed, and therefore a larger burden on taxpayers, for longer than non-WFTD unemployment welfare recipients.


Something needs to happen. They need a tea-spoon of cement if having to work for their charity hurts their delicate feelings. The rest of Australia has to work to provide for their families as well as their own.

Maybe if they worked for 4 hours a day. Its still a contribution that would likely remove a lot of the hatred angled at welfare recipients. They can use the rest of the day to look for alternative employment.


If that "something" happening demonstrably makes things worse, it probably doesn't need to happen.


True but any idea is encouraging and much better than writing blank cheques.

It's not a blank cheque. Since when is $509 a fortnight a "blank cheque"? That wouldn't even cover my rent!

Currently there are some 800,000 Australians on welfare of some description, 220,000 of those have been on welfare for more than 12 months. Under the previous WFD scheme that number of "long term recipients" was up over 500,000. That should tell you pretty clearly that the system doesn't work.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
Abbott government will go ahead with new wind farm study on health

Quote:
The federal government will press ahead with "an independent program" to study the health effects of wind farms even though a survey of global research on the issue by a leading Australian medical body is yet to be made public.

The National Health and Medical Research Council began its review of so-called ''wind-turbine syndrome'' in September 2012 and the results are expected to be released in ''coming months''. Prime Minister Tony Abbott told commercial radio this month that research should be refreshed "from time to time" to consider whether there were "new facts that impact on old judgments". "It is some years since the NHMRC last looked at this issue - why not do it again?" Mr Abbott said. A "rapid review" of the evidence by the council in 2010 found "renewable energy generation is associated with few adverse health effects''.

The Victorian government will contribute $100,000 to the extra wind farm health study by the council or other designated body.

Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at Sydney University, said Mr Abbott appeared to be swayed by a tiny group of anti-wind farm campaigners, such as the Waubra Foundation. "We all need to be concerned about whether he's being influenced by little more than a cult."

Sarah Laurie, chief executive of the Waubra Foundation, supports the extra study.


So, a quarter of a million signatures on the NBN are ignored because "we have a mandate", but the government is happy to keep commissioning studies into conspiracy science until they get the evidence (that doesn't exist) that they need because of a tiny band of anti-science woo-tards.

GG Abbott Government.
Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
benelsmore wrote:
notorganic wrote:
benelsmore wrote:
notorganic wrote:
Work for the dole under Howard was an overwhelming failure.

It left unemployed people depressed, unmotivated and reduced the amount of time available to find employment. People forced onto WFTD ended up unemployed, and therefore a larger burden on taxpayers, for longer than non-WFTD unemployment welfare recipients.


Something needs to happen. They need a tea-spoon of cement if having to work for their charity hurts their delicate feelings. The rest of Australia has to work to provide for their families as well as their own.

Maybe if they worked for 4 hours a day. Its still a contribution that would likely remove a lot of the hatred angled at welfare recipients. They can use the rest of the day to look for alternative employment.


If that "something" happening demonstrably makes things worse, it probably doesn't need to happen.


True but any idea is encouraging and much better than writing blank cheques.


Newstart is not a blank cheque. It has very strict guidelines, appointments and checks to make sure that jobseekers are actively seeking work and accepting any work offered.
Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
BETHFC
BETHFC
World Class
World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K, Visits: 0
notorganic wrote:
benelsmore wrote:
notorganic wrote:
Work for the dole under Howard was an overwhelming failure.

It left unemployed people depressed, unmotivated and reduced the amount of time available to find employment. People forced onto WFTD ended up unemployed, and therefore a larger burden on taxpayers, for longer than non-WFTD unemployment welfare recipients.


Something needs to happen. They need a tea-spoon of cement if having to work for their charity hurts their delicate feelings. The rest of Australia has to work to provide for their families as well as their own.

Maybe if they worked for 4 hours a day. Its still a contribution that would likely remove a lot of the hatred angled at welfare recipients. They can use the rest of the day to look for alternative employment.


If that "something" happening demonstrably makes things worse, it probably doesn't need to happen.


True but any idea is encouraging and much better than writing blank cheques.
Edited
9 Years Ago by BETHFC
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
benelsmore wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
notorganic wrote:
Work for the dole under Howard was an overwhelming failure.

It left unemployed people depressed, unmotivated and reduced the amount of time available to find employment. People forced onto WFTD ended up unemployed, and therefore a larger burden on taxpayers, for longer than non-WFTD unemployment welfare recipients.

WFD puts people on centerlink on less than half minimum wage (It works out at $6.36/hour, which is disgusting), so they can hardly afford to live. Then they've got less time to actively look for work, since not showing up for a WFD shift means they lose their benefits so they can't interview for other positions. They call it "an attempt to get people off benefits and working" when all it does is trap people on benefits.


Make them work for half the day. Then they're on 12.72/hour. If this scheme is put into action, perhaps they could increase the dole and have them carry out civil works like maintaining parks and what not. Then everyone benefits.

They don't want them working half the day. They want them 30-40 hours a week.
Quote:
It's about time people were encouraged to work. Welfare is not a hand out. Hopefully if forced to work and if they work well, they can use the experience to find a job better suited to their liking.

What can you possibly learn from working for a charity? What skills do you develop folding and sorting clothes for the Brotherhood of St Lawrence or picking up rubbish for the local council? Furthermore why would they bother to train someone in the detailed workings of the organisation when they're forced to replace that person after 3 months?

Furthermore you're talking about people who barely learned anything in 13 years of 6 hours a day schooling, I don't think they're going to learn much from petulantly being forced to pick up rubbish on the side of the road.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
notorganic
notorganic
Legend
Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)Legend (21K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K, Visits: 0
benelsmore wrote:
notorganic wrote:
Work for the dole under Howard was an overwhelming failure.

It left unemployed people depressed, unmotivated and reduced the amount of time available to find employment. People forced onto WFTD ended up unemployed, and therefore a larger burden on taxpayers, for longer than non-WFTD unemployment welfare recipients.


Something needs to happen. They need a tea-spoon of cement if having to work for their charity hurts their delicate feelings. The rest of Australia has to work to provide for their families as well as their own.

Maybe if they worked for 4 hours a day. Its still a contribution that would likely remove a lot of the hatred angled at welfare recipients. They can use the rest of the day to look for alternative employment.


If that "something" happening demonstrably makes things worse, it probably doesn't need to happen.
Edited
9 Years Ago by notorganic
GO


Select a Forum....























Inside Sport


Search