You do realise that ensuring people are:
1. healthy
2. allow disabled people to be independent
3. not destitute when they're out of work and resorting to crime

has a positive effect on the country's productive capacity far greater than a road or a bridge?

I'm happy relatively OK with the senate reshuffle . While Lambie remains and Hanson comes much of the deadwood has been dispelled, Lazarus, Muir and co. I don't mind Xenophon senators, I think it will raise the intellectual standards of policy debate rather than the wrecking ball approach taken by the previous senate. The liberal government is going to have to learn to deal and negotiate with cross bench senators rather than trying to ram through their mandate, which is a lot harder when you have stubborn dullards blocking your legislation.

the majority of spending in most first world countries is on the elderly

does anyone have an update on the likely senate makeup?

so far I have
34 labour+greens
27 libs

7 cross bench (3 NXT, 2 One Nation, 1 hinch, 1 ldp/cdp)
and 8 I don't know about

I had to laugh at this. People seem to think that they should vote for whoever promises the most rather than looking at the bigger picture. Not too relevant to this election but has been relevant in the past.

If Abbott was still in charge the Libs would be wiped out country wide because they screwed the plebs :lol:

Latest prediction for the Senate I have seen is:

Coalition - 27
ALP - 25
Greens - 6
Xenophon - 3
Pauline Hanson - 1
Jacqui Lambie - 1
Undecided - 13

It seems that some seats which were provisionally allocated (eg Hinch) are now back in doubt.

You need 38 votes to block legislation, and 39 to pass it.

Roads and bridges feed this country brah =;

the australian reporting the likely senate make up to be 36 labour+greens to 30 coalition and 3 NXT senators. One nation and ldp/cdp to have 3 between them and hinch has one two. Who are the other two?

I've heard it's likely going to be an additional quota to one of the parties already mentioned.

Regarding One Nation, I think their policy on fathers rights following divorces is important and a topic that needs to be addressed.

It's pretty well established that women are significantly favoured in custody disputes which result in often crippling payments for men (I'm sure not all cases are the same). I saw the FB page 21fathers pop up every now and again. The figures of 21 men committing suicide a week over access to their children/child support. It's something that should be addressed.

Now over to the leftards on here to bitch and moan about racism :lol:

Edited by bethfc: 4/7/2016 02:33:35 PM

Hinch has said he will be pushing for an enquiry into the Family Court.

I have found over the last ten years that this has been slowly changing. The laws favour neither mother or father, but the devil is in the details. Ten years ago going through the courts I still found that legally I had the same "rights", but it seemed that the onus was on me to prove that I "deserved" as much time as the mother. We are going through a similar process now (not at the courts yet) and have found that the process is a lot more balanced now.

The most annoying thing with the whole process I find is that individuals can breach the orders (with little consequence) and can continually challenge the orders (it isn't like a criminal case where new evidence of the like is required, you can put in changes to the orders the day after a court just decided on some). Individuals can use this to "win" through attrition (the court process is very stressful on your health, finances, work, other relationships) or in some cases I have read that the other party does it hoping the financial costs add up to too much for the other party.

The process was designed to ensure that a proper court structure wasn't required (and the idea is to try and an address the issues before reaching a court ... as it takes over 12 months to get to court unless abuse / drugs etc. involved). Which I think ws great in principle, the problem has been those that abuse such a system.

Looks like Pauline is still firm on her anti Asian policy...:lol:
Apparently she said "just look at places like Hurstville" lol

I was waiting for Her to deliver a punchline on what threat the Asians posed in Hurstville...
Sadly she couldn't deliver :lol:

Edited by Socawho: 4/7/2016 02:45:00 PM

I think it is a leap to say it is "pretty well established that women are significantly favoured in custody disputes which result in often crippling payments for men".

Certainly there are many men unhappy with their arrangements. But it is a massively complex issue, and one person's "unfair treatment" is another person's fair treatment.

Anecdotal evidence is all I have seen - never seen any detailed studies.

Yes, i do.

Do YOU realise that welfare is now no longer a safety net for those things but a viable lifestyle choice?

That people reject jobs because "after me centrelink gets cut, and the tax I have to pay, its not worth it?

My neighbour has had to sell the family home after his mrs cheated on him and then decided to divorce him. She got the kids and it's stuffed him financially trying to straighten everything out.

I don't know details of the system but where the statistics on the Australian Brotherhood of Fathers website are pretty grim.

And you never will because the Family Court suppresses public knowledge of its decisions.

You do realise that there families out there have been on welfare for as many as 3 generations?
About time those types of people get a job don't you think ?:lol:

No doubt it'd be something about Australian culture being destroyed :lol:

I have found looking through family law forums of late, that there are plenty of mothers who similarly fell disillusioned with the system.

Then on the other shoe, my wife gets stories at school where other mothers are appalled that fathers "deserve" shared responsibility, she reminds them that I am "one of those fathers" (and those same mums always tell her how good I am with all the children).

I think a lot of stereotypes still exist in this theatre, and it is hard to see the forest from the trees.

Because in the circumstances, its the only way to get someone to pay for the upbringing of the kids other than the taxpayer.

Yes, it comes down to money, under the guise of the "best interests of the child".

I'm in my mid 20's and of all the married young couples from my school who have divorced and have gone to court, none of the male partners have custody and only visiting rights. But like you say, anecdotal.

I don't know where to look for the statistics on this one. As per my post in response to Sokorny above, the neighbour has had to sell him house to pay for his family court hearings.

There's no argument from me on unfair treatment until the treatment appears to be based on gender rather than a parents ability to support their children. Pages like 21fathers do not come from nothing and do not get national attention for nothing.

Any evidence supporting this rubbish claim? Do you even know what people on centrelink get?

You do realise that the majority of welfare payments in Australia goes to pensioners????

2015-16 Welfare bill was $154 billion
Aged pension - $60.7 billion
Disability - $29.5 billion
Family - $38.1 billion
Unemployed - $11.5 billion
Indigenous - $2.1 billion
Veterans - $6.5 billion
Other - $1.5 billion
Administration - $3.8 billion

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/WelfareSpend

Kind of find it a contradiction if that's her argument...considering she was months ago applauding the Vietnamese lady that bought her old fish and chip shop to keep it going. Saying that people here coming out here to have a go and work hard are the type of people we need
She obviously doesn't realise Asians work a lot harder and for less than the average Aussie ....
I mean who's going to pay for her retirement :lol:

I also can't stand the line that some Aussies use to say , well my grandfather fought for this country blah blah blah...and I'm thinking so what ? Did you ?...does that give you an excuse to think you own the joint

Edited by Socawho: 4/7/2016 02:58:58 PM

Of course he doesn't. He'd rather whinge than actually look at facts. In a minute he'll tell you that 20% of people pay X amount of taxes and half the population (or more) pay nothing which sure is a shock to those receiving their pay packets every week.

And was infiltrated by "mediators" whose sole purpose was to railroad the father into a quick agreement that saved Court time and money.

Howard tried to introduce a presumption of shared care in 2006 ie both parents start at 50/50, and it would be up to either of them to argue why it shouldn't happen. Stot Despoja was instrumental in having that watered down. I think thats been watered down further since.

Give this mob a call. Plenty of 65 year olds there that will take your side.

Verily 'tis an echo chamber of the highest order.
http://www.2gb.com/shows/ray-hadley-morning-show

You can represent yourself in Family Court, which I did after an initial consultation and hearing with a lawyer (I couldn't afford them at $300 an hour and their costs for paper on top of that). However I listened to the language they used, and the language they used to write orders and was able to proceed from there. Saved me a small fortune, especially as I was able to organise a "deal" at the 11th hour to avoid the court being left with the decision to make.

That she cheated on him and divorced him has no bearing on the Family Court, their concern is the children and trying to ensure an effective relationship between the kids and parents (unfortunately parents need to put their personal issues aside for the children, which is very hard to do!!). The other misnomer is that shared parental responsibility equates to equal time. It does not, and is highly unlikely unless there is minimal disturbance to the child's routine each week. I am lucky and have almost equal time, however we live about 5 minutes away from each other which means our child can have a similar experience at both homes.

The child custody payments (which are separate from Family Court) similarly have become a lot fairer of late. I still don't agree with them (why should I have to pay for expenses at my ex's when I have almost 50% care and provide everything for them at my house?)

Do you realise that many on disability payments get it for trivial things?

See that $38 billion in families, what do think that is?

Do you realise there are families of four on close to $1500 per week clear from centrelink?

even that understates it since seniors take up the bulk of public medical payments and can get rent assistance and some are eligible for disability others get government housing. Super employee contributions are also a transfer to the elderly. Add it all up and its a massive percentage of our welfare sytem

Fucking lifestyle choice. You are a cock.

Let's see you live on $527.60 a fortnight.

Take out $300 for rent a fortnight (would likely be more) and you're left with about $115 a week.

As if anyone could live on that and enjoy it.

Wanker.