I have one friend who has been posting nothing but pro-labor videos and infographics on facebook for months now. I'm honestly kind of scared to check it today, I don't know what state he's going to be in.
Weren't the boundaries redrawn in SA because Labor won government last time even though they received something like 5% less of the 2 party preferred vote? And SA is the only state that has a requirement to review electoral boundaries after every election.
I'm not sure that the two-party preferred polls are terribly reliable at the moment.
I would've thought an extra "Someone else" option needs to be included, unless we can definitely rule out a third party/parties securing a substantial share of the vote.
Like especially since the Libs/Greens killed preference deals.
Now you've at least got to consider the Greens in there, as otherwise a fair number of respondents may be led to answer the survey for a party they won't place a vote for.
TLDR; Pauline Hanson proposes re-classifying Cannabis from schedule 9 (Prohibited substance) to schedule 4, making it a readily-available prescription drug.
There's nothing legally binding in here, this is basically a "we promise we'll discuss this in parliament some time soonish", but its an encouraging sign. I just find it bizarre that Pauline freaking Hanson was the one who raised this.
TLDR; Pauline Hanson proposes re-classifying Cannabis from schedule 9 (Prohibited substance) to schedule 4, making it a readily-available prescription drug.
There's nothing legally binding in here, this is basically a "we promise we'll discuss this in parliament some time soonish", but its an encouraging sign. I just find it bizarre that Pauline freaking Hanson was the one who raised this.
She's been palling around with the libertarian end of the alt-right, and by all accounts she's not hard to manipulate. This seems like an idea from her bright young friends.
I completely missed this but apparently Mathew Guy has fucked over the pair agreement tradition (ie. If an MP can't attend a vote someone else on the opposite side will stand down)
In a sensational break from parliamentary convention, two Liberal MPs asked to be excused from Victoria's Upper House for religious reasons on Good Friday, only to re-emerge for the vote.
Under pair arrangements, two Government MPs left so that the Coalition would not be disadvantaged by numbers in the Upper House.
But when Liberal MPs Bernie Finn and Craig Ondarchie unexpectedly reappeared, it was the Government that came up short, and its controversial fire services bill was defeated.
Opposition Leader Matthew Guy said it was his call for all MPs to return to the chamber.
"It was my decision that all members should be back, pairing or no pairing. I had made it clear that I expected all of them to be back," Mr Guy said.
"I believe the means were justified given the way the Government was treating the Parliament and taking advantage of a member not there.
"The means we were absolutely justified and I stand by it and would do the same tomorrow."
Australian Conservatives MP Rachel Carling-Jenkins was off sick and not in Parliament on Thursday and Friday of last week, giving the Government the advantage of numbers to pass its controversial bill to restructure the Country Fire Authority (CFA).
Dr Carling-Jenkins has been an opponent of the bill, and Mr Guy said the Government used her illness to try to ram through the CFA changes.
Dr Carling-Jenkins told Fairfax Media she would have loved a pair, but accepted that single crossbenchers were not paired.
She said she could not help the timing of her illness.
The bill had been listed for debate weeks in advance.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews condemned the Opposition Leader for ordering his MPs to renege on the agreement.
"He has fessed up to the fact, bragged about it in fact, that he directed people to behave in this way," Mr Andrews said.
"I'll leave him to explain how it is that he thinks it's OK to lie about praying, to lie about going to church, to lie about the fact that you're gripped by your faith and belief only, to then turn up and vote.
"You cannot trust these people."
(I'll note that I don't really know anything about the bill in question so I can't really comment on that)
Now I'll grant that there is an argument that Labor should have extended a pair agreement to the Conservative MP but Guy's argument that a bill scheduled weeks before was being rammed through is utter crap.
More so, if you find yourself lying to parliament and using your religion as a tool to do so you may be the bad guy.
Because as we've seen from America, this can't possibly end badly. No way they can put in clauses that benefit their clients (or themselves).
If you're not wanting to do the job you're hired for, bugger off. What's next? Having the law firms vote on your behalf?
So..
Politicians tend to go to the departments to turn their ideas into working policies.
This is the ultimate result of continued cost-cutting where core government business is being outsourced to cut costs.
So either, the politicians never did this job in the first place they just like to take the credit, or the public service is no longer paid enough to do their jobs.
People really should be quicker to treat people like her with open scorn. They've rode the coattails of "decency" for so long they haven't got the slightest bit of grace about abusing it
We’ve heard evidence of appalling behaviour by Australia’s major banks and financial planners from the past decade, including alleged bribery, forged documents, repeated failure to verify customers’ living expenses before lending them money, and misselling insurance to people who can’t afford it.
In this week’s hearings, AMP admitted to lying to regulators, and the Commonwealth Bank admitted some of its financial planners have been charging fees to clients who have died.
AMP’s chief executive became the first high profile casualty of the commission announcing he was standing down from the company with immediate effect.
TeeMan on
0
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
That's not a casualty, the man walked out the door of his own free will, and can be replaced within a month
+8
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
They never got to revoke it. But they sure as fuck wanted to, and managed to pass the lower house thanks to Palmer in april until november (?) when the senate said fuck off. Im a bit hazy on the timeline.
This Included the clause that financial advisers must always act in the best interests of their clients.
They never got to revoke it. But they sure as fuck wanted to.
Including the clause that financial advisers must always act in the best interests of their clients.
I know that happened in the US, but seriously, what fucking argument can be made, that this is a good thing?
I want to hear ONE conservative politician explain to me how a person you are paying to handle your finances should not be beholden to acting in the best interests of the client paying them. How is this a burdensome fucking regulation? It doesn't say that the FA needs to make the right decisions. It's literally "You can't dick over people who are paying you."
They never got to revoke it. But they sure as fuck wanted to.
Including the clause that financial advisers must always act in the best interests of their clients.
I know that happened in the US, but seriously, what fucking argument can be made, that this is a good thing?
I want to hear ONE conservative politician explain to me how a person you are paying to handle your finances should not be beholden to acting in the best interests of the client paying them. How is this a burdensome fucking regulation? It doesn't say that the FA needs to make the right decisions. It's literally "You can't dick over people who are paying you."
No but see its okay, because the free market means that anyone giving bad financial advice will fail in the long-term anyway.
That ship which was ecposed as being a live export nightmare is about to do it again. Once again our government says "this is awful, if only someone could do something" but do nothing. Even though they could.
They never got to revoke it. But they sure as fuck wanted to.
Including the clause that financial advisers must always act in the best interests of their clients.
I know that happened in the US, but seriously, what fucking argument can be made, that this is a good thing?
I want to hear ONE conservative politician explain to me how a person you are paying to handle your finances should not be beholden to acting in the best interests of the client paying them. How is this a burdensome fucking regulation? It doesn't say that the FA needs to make the right decisions. It's literally "You can't dick over people who are paying you."
The argument? "Best interests is too hard".
Basically Labor put in a checklist that FA must follow, and followed it with "in addition, must act in best interests". LNP wanted to remove the last part because "red tape", "too hard", etc.
NAB's chief customer officer, consumer and wealth, Andrew Hagger continues on the stand to explain the forgery of customer initials by one NAB financial planner and incorrect witnessing of signatures by others.
Later in the day, the commission is scheduled to hear from two client case studies and the Financial Planning Association, although that will depend how long Mr Hagger's grilling by Rowena Orr QC lasts.
My word it's so good we had that Union royal commision first huh. Sure found so much wrong doing there.
It's a good thing they were so inept with the union commision that even with a stacked deck the LNP barely got anything.
This makes a certain kind of sense, the lib's popularity is unlikely to improve much long-term, but they're likely to get a bit of a bounce from the budget since the economy has been surprisingly not-shit for a while. I just hope all the 18-year-olds who signed up for the Plebiscite remember whose fault that fiasco was in the first place...
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Someone at work thought that yesterday's public holiday was for National Penguin Day, and went to go pengiun viewing with her family.
AMP chairwoman Catherine Brenner has resigned following damning evidence at the banking royal commission of misconduct by the company's staff.
Brian Salter, the group general counsel and company secretary, will also be leaving AMP, the company said in a statement.
The banking royal commission heard on Friday that AMP could face criminal penalties for misleading the corporate regulator.
During questioning, AMP's group executive for advice, Anthony 'Jack' Regan, admitted to the commission that the company had misled ASIC by presenting fee-for-no-service as a mistake, when there was a deliberate policy to charge customers fees for 90 days even when they were in a pool that received no advice services.
It also emerged during questioning that the company's board ordered changes to an "independent review" of the fee-for-no-service scandal being performed by law firm Clayton Utz, and that those changes were made.
So, will any of the executives or staff who actually committed fraud face any penalties at all, or is this going to be one of those "company faces no real penalty, staff at company have left, and the directors have no actual responsibility for decisions made, but are paid mmonbeams for some reason, what a shame we can't do anything" type outcomes?
+1
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
Pretty sure nothing will happen besides resignations that silently come with enormous golden handshakes.
Which leave resignations such as this like ashes in my mouth. Well, vote with your money everyone. Is your savings account or mortgage with a big 4 bank or their subsidiaries? Switch to something else, like ING, BankAust or a credit union
+1
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
"It also emerged during questioning that the company's board ordered changes to an "independent review" of the fee-for-no-service scandal being performed by law firm Clayton Utz, and that those changes were made."
Posts
On the bright side Xenaphon completely failed to get even a single seat.
Gerrymandering woot!
I would've thought an extra "Someone else" option needs to be included, unless we can definitely rule out a third party/parties securing a substantial share of the vote.
Perhaps I'm projecting though.
Now you've at least got to consider the Greens in there, as otherwise a fair number of respondents may be led to answer the survey for a party they won't place a vote for.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/b4b40eee-b9bc-4671-b2e8-6156a2730b10/&sid=0162
TLDR; Pauline Hanson proposes re-classifying Cannabis from schedule 9 (Prohibited substance) to schedule 4, making it a readily-available prescription drug.
There's nothing legally binding in here, this is basically a "we promise we'll discuss this in parliament some time soonish", but its an encouraging sign. I just find it bizarre that Pauline freaking Hanson was the one who raised this.
The private sector!
http://www.afr.com/business/legal/treasury-trial-outsources-legal-drafting-20180409-h0yivw
She's been palling around with the libertarian end of the alt-right, and by all accounts she's not hard to manipulate. This seems like an idea from her bright young friends.
If you're not wanting to do the job you're hired for, bugger off. What's next? Having the law firms vote on your behalf?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-03/matthew-guy-opposition-leader-unapologetic-good-friday-vote/9614300
(I'll note that I don't really know anything about the bill in question so I can't really comment on that)
Now I'll grant that there is an argument that Labor should have extended a pair agreement to the Conservative MP but Guy's argument that a bill scheduled weeks before was being rammed through is utter crap.
More so, if you find yourself lying to parliament and using your religion as a tool to do so you may be the bad guy.
So..
Politicians tend to go to the departments to turn their ideas into working policies.
This is the ultimate result of continued cost-cutting where core government business is being outsourced to cut costs.
So either, the politicians never did this job in the first place they just like to take the credit, or the public service is no longer paid enough to do their jobs.
People really should be quicker to treat people like her with open scorn. They've rode the coattails of "decency" for so long they haven't got the slightest bit of grace about abusing it
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/19/commonwealth-bank-charged-fees-to-dead-clients-royal-commission-hears
Man, you always hear financial advice is bogus and not in the interests of the client - but 75% of people getting dishonest advice!? Bloody hell!
Good recap of what's been uncovered so far here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/20/banking-royal-commission-all-you-need-to-know-so-far
I bet he got a fat golden parachute on his way out, too.
A bit disappointed no-one is taking them to task over that.
Is it likely there will be a 'This law worked until it was revoked; Put it back' recommendation?
This Included the clause that financial advisers must always act in the best interests of their clients.
I want to hear ONE conservative politician explain to me how a person you are paying to handle your finances should not be beholden to acting in the best interests of the client paying them. How is this a burdensome fucking regulation? It doesn't say that the FA needs to make the right decisions. It's literally "You can't dick over people who are paying you."
No but see its okay, because the free market means that anyone giving bad financial advice will fail in the long-term anyway.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-04-24/maritime-authorities-allow-awassi-express-to-carry-livestock/9690502
That ship which was ecposed as being a live export nightmare is about to do it again. Once again our government says "this is awful, if only someone could do something" but do nothing. Even though they could.
Must be Labor's fault.
The argument? "Best interests is too hard".
Basically Labor put in a checklist that FA must follow, and followed it with "in addition, must act in best interests". LNP wanted to remove the last part because "red tape", "too hard", etc.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-24/banking-royal-commission-improper-financial-planning-conduct/9690988
My word it's so good we had that Union royal commision first huh. Sure found so much wrong doing there.
It's a good thing they were so inept with the union commision that even with a stacked deck the LNP barely got anything.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2018/04/23/early-federal-election-july-august/
This makes a certain kind of sense, the lib's popularity is unlikely to improve much long-term, but they're likely to get a bit of a bounce from the budget since the economy has been surprisingly not-shit for a while. I just hope all the 18-year-olds who signed up for the Plebiscite remember whose fault that fiasco was in the first place...
Apparently it was quite busy.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU1704/S00351/happily-ever-after-on-world-penguin-day-in-new-zealand.htm
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
This is fine
Are you fucking kidding me
Sounds like a government fundraising initiative to me.