Monday, 7 August 2017

Delaying marriage equality keeps it on the agenda.

I'm sure the LNP government is uncomfortable with marriage equality they have done everything possible to foil it since 2004. The plebiscite was a way of not dealing with the issue for Tony Abbott in 2014. It is religious grounds that are the basis for opposition although they won't openly admit it. By not dealing with it, they keep it on the agenda. It can be used to distract us from other significant issues as required.

Things like water theft in NSW. Homelessness across the nation. The failing NBN. The s44(i-v) scandal. The Parkinson report into the Sussan Ley scandal and the failure to deal with the asylum seeker detention issue.

Marriage equality is a significant issue to many people but it isn't the life or death issue that it often runs cover for. I hope the public is aware they have been with this issue. Even some of the media are finally rolling their eyes at the way this issue is being played out.

In 2004 John Howard altered the marriage act to the detriment of #SSM. It was a deliberate move in parliament to stop marriage equality. As is the talk of a plebiscite today.



Sunday, 30 July 2017

Why s44(i-v) exists & is important.

Part of the requirements of becoming a federal politician is making a declaration to the AEC. There is one question that is asked of all candidates. It asks if you are compliant with s44(i-v) of the Australian Constitution. A seemingly innocuous question on a bureaucratic form. The link below is a sample copy of a HOR candidates form. The Senate version is very similar. http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/files/60-60b-single-regofficer-sample.pdf


The point of the law is to ensure all political candidates are loyal to this nation. That they are not compromised by their investments when making legislation. That they are honest. Apart from gathering signatures of eligible voters and the fee, it costs to run for parliament s44(i-v) is the only thing asked of a candidate. Many people get angry about s44(i) as it prohibits dual citizens from running for parliament. People who advocate for compliance are often referred to as birthers. They think that the law is racially motivated. In actual fact this argument is ludicrous. It is very possible for an Australian born person to become a dual citizen. The legal requirement is to ensure allegiance to The Commonwealth Of Australia.

The recent events in Canberra with MPs & Senators being questioned, resignations & at least one matter being referred to the High Court have happened because this law has never been audited. While it has a serious warning after it on the nomination forms. There is no enforcement. A breach of s44(i-v) Constitution does mean that the candidate is ineligible to be in Parliament. Knowingly making a false declaration is a breach of the Criminal Code Act 1995. It carries a maximum punishment of 12 months jail. Of course, once one matter goes unpoliced the fear of penalty diminishes for all who follow.          
Surely we must ask more of people who want to represent Australia in Parliament than we do of the people? Recent events where people on welfare have been issued dubious backdated debts & forced to prove with limited access to information their innocence. Yet politicians become belligerent when asked if they are compliant to this. Some have blocked FOI requests. Many senior MPs on both sides of politics have ignored letters & emails in relation to this law.

Tuesday, 4 July 2017

Internships, what are they good for?

So yesterday Senator Cash & Prime Minister Turnbull were out & about spruiking jobs & growth. It was a bit different though this time they had statistics. Internship trials were run and of 1,200 participants 82 ended with jobs. At first glance good for the 82. That's a success rate of 6.8% or a failure rate of 93.2%. Is this good enough? Turnbull & Cash are talking it up. They announced 10,000 at the top end of retail.
                                                                             
This gives these big businesses a competitive edge over their competitors. It gives them access to subsidised cheap labour while their competitors will be paying award rates or more. Will these 10,000 interns replace existing workers? If so what good is it? If not how will the government know? If you get free labour it must give increased profits. Why do these businesses get such a leg up? What is their relationship with government? Are they political donors?

The retail sector has an EBA that was negotiated & signed off or ratified by SDA{a union of sorts} & FWC This internship plan undermines the conditions in this agreement. It was already a pretty shabby deal for workers. Now, this on top. How many casual workers will be impacted by the influx of Interns? How can workers be asked to bargain in good faith & then have a government come over the top with a plan that impacts the deal?

Apart from giving work experience without the benefits, I see little benefit in this plan for the participants. I see no benefit to existing workers with variable or casual employment. I see great benefit to the shareholders & executives via increased profits.

Monday, 15 May 2017

Testing the waters the grossest invasion of privacy yet.

 I was only slightly shocked when told this government was going to test the sewers around Australia. All this to work out where they should drug test people on social security they refer to as 'dole bludgers'. I knew something nasty was coming for these people as the propaganda leading up to the budget mentioned this minority at every opportunity. I think the sewer testing is just about the silliest thing this government has suggested, after the knighthood of Prince Phillip. Are the government suggesting that drug addiction is solely the domain of our unemployed? Or are they suggesting unemployed people have access to exclusive sewers? This aside it troubles me that people who are already struggling, are being targeted as a sport. This policy is blatant discrimination based on irrational generalisations. All this on top of the not my debt fiasco in the lead up to Christmas 2016. When welfare recipients were issued with debts from years back, with dodgy data matching & bullied by third party debt collectors. While Centrelink phones were unresponsive & the Ministers responsible were just pig ignorant.
                                                         
I have no doubt there are people with drug addictions on welfare but they are also in banking, politics and in sports. Why do we feel the need to target people that are generally less fortunate? The government is ambiguous. It complains about the cost of welfare, then adds another layer to it. They have promised Australia jobs at two elections and are clearly failing to deliver. I think this is why the 'dole bludger' scenarios are being pushed. It distracts us from the government failure.


                                                             

Wednesday, 26 April 2017

#notmydebt distracts from the real issues.

This government has targeted welfare recipients every time they are swamped with performance issues. Issuing backdated debts to welfare recipients is incredibly cruel policy. Doing it knowing that the data cross-referencing is flawed is just depraved. Unless you've experienced welfare you are really poorly qualified to speak on the hardship these people endure. Of our 226 federal politicians, the only person I am aware of to have experienced welfare is Jacqui Lambie. Welfare recipients represent a far greater proportion of Australian society than lawyers do.Lawyers account for less than 1% of the total population yet almost 60% of our politicians are lawyers. As you can see from that welfare recipients are far less represented in parliament. What is a welfare recipient? If a welfare recipient is someone receiving some type of financial remuneration from the government then I would argue almost all of us are. Somebody who's unemployed & single receives Newstart. Somebody who's earning $500,000.00 a year can use things like negative gearing & various other perks to reduce the amounts of tax they pay which is the equivalent of welfare without the indignity.


There is always going to be a disparity in life. People who have luck or are clever generally find a way to thrive. When a government runs on a platform of hope as this LNP government has twice since September 2013, they deserve scrutiny. Abbott promised to create 2 million jobs in 10 years. Turnbull promised jobs & growth using a dubious economic model known as trickle down economics. Since 2013 unemployment has fluctuated from 9.7% (R.Morgan) Sept 2013 to 9.4% Feb 2017 (R.Morgan) Many of the people that are categorised as employed are less than fully employed. This has increased over the last couple of decades in Australia. By any measure, this government is failing to deliver on its promises. People who are seeking the promised jobs are being unfairly branded to avert our eyes from this government's failure.

We need to provide jobs that employ people in the area's they reside. It is near on impossible for a young person to move into town for a minimum wage job the rent alone would fully consume their income. This is one of the primary reasons youth unemployment in regional Australia is so high. Governments need to solve these issues. If they don't have the answers they shouldn't be in parliament.

Monday, 10 April 2017

Complaint to ABC 20/2/2017 no response.

Posted on the 20th February 2017 via their email service. No reply within the 30-day deadline they offer up. Here is a copy of my complaint.





Program: ABC 730 
Program Date: 
ABC Service\Network: ABC Television 
ABC Recipient: 
Subject: Social media censorship & programming diversity. 
Your Comments: Last year I was a federal Senate candidate in Victoria. I have been quite vocal on social media about the appointment of Ms Guthrie and the subsequent glut of IPA members appearing on ABC programs. I have actively highlighted the lack of compliance to the ABC charter. During the final week of the federal election, we were contacted by a producer of the drum to appear on the program as a panellist, in response to a press release from my media manager. This offer was never followed up by the producer. I also some months later discovered I had been blocked on twitter by @abc730 I can only speculate as to the reasoning behind this. It does seem that my twitter account may have been vetted. @bugwannostra is my handle. I make no apologies for the position I have regarding diversity & compliance with the charter. I also think the Guthrie appointment is a deliberate attempt to give the Murdoch empire more control of content. How many of the 1,600 plus candidates did the ABC introduce to the Australian public in the lead-up to the federal election in 2016? None. They had incumbents and people that already were known to Australia via their media profiles. Surely this alone shows how far the ABC is from compliance to the charter? These issues have received a lot of attention on social media in the past 8 months.
Blocking people for being offensive is probably OK. Blocking them because they have an alternative view on one or several issues is not. Messing with somebodies election campaign & trying to quell their following by denying access to social media is just wrong. 

Tuesday, 21 March 2017

We must close the gap.

Politics today seems to be only catering to the corporations, irrespective of who's in government. Whilst they rely on your vote to get elected they rely more on corporations for funding. The other thing that appears to be happening while unmonitored is jobs post politics. Recently we have seen many politicians resign & move into areas they have been involved with while in politics. Corruption is difficult to prove when deals are done secretly and no money changes hands immediately.

How can a government with high unemployment & many people underemployed be targeting welfare for cuts to social security & many of the services that feed this sector of society? In the same breath contemplating giving tax breaks to corporations that already do everything within their power to avoid paying taxes now.

                               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XnihgXhh3c

I recently saw a video of Noam Chomsky talking about the division of wealth in the USA. The link above isn't the link I watched but it is the same topic & runs longer so I imagine it is more comprehensive. It is indisputable that our politician's relationship with the corporate sector is driving this agenda. The focus on growth & profit for corporations to appease shareholders comes at enormous cost to society. Globalisation is designed to destroy the local industrial relations, within nations. To drive the wages of people who do have employment down again, another way of increasing profits. This, of course, is short term gain. The wages of workers are generally what stimulates markets. Putting all the money in the hands of a few is always going to end badly.
                                                                         
We need to find a party in Australia that is prepared to govern solely with the interests of the people. While we blindly follow the status quo the gap in society will continue to grow. Chomsky was talking about this in 1994 at MIT & it is still happening today. People are very slow to react.