Melbourne Chat

Quote:Agree with this opinion. The panel found a loophole to cut the workers' wages, and ALP really should have the foresight to know the LNP will be despicable enough to do this.

 

They should have set up the charter to not cut rates. The FWC should stick to a charter to not cut rates, any rate cuts should be debated in parliament, but 0 or positive rate increase can be handled by the FWC (at least this takes away partial paper work away from government).

 

Not do policy stuffs like aligning Sunday to Saturdays wages. This is an issue that is too big to not be debated by our MPs.

 

What needs to happen is the FWC shouldn't be receiving any submissions from any party in parliament either directly or through a third party. Parliamentary submissions on anything are distorted by political beliefs.

 

FWC needs to be totally independent just like the reserve bank was made so under the Hawke Govt.

 

How many people blamed the Hawke Govt for all those 10 interest rate rises that happened in 2007/08?

 

Answer: Zero. Because it makes no sense. Idiots blaming the ALP for penalty rate reductions also makes no sense.

 

Because it was the Abbott govt in 2014 who sent a submission via the productivity commission to reduce Sunday rates and that's exactly what has happened. The FWC even said it like that in their speech.

 

Workers will lose out because of Tony Abbott's imbecilic idea that low paid workers are earning too much money.

 

Malcolm Turnbull and other LNP figures are only now starting to realise that this really is their problem which is why they're now talking about grandfathering or delaying the pay cuts or whatever other deflection they can come up with.

 

Taking income off workers has always been a Liberal thing. It's a gene mutation in their DNA. They get a stiffy out of it.

Quote:Agree with this opinion. The panel found a loophole to cut the workers' wages, and ALP really should have the foresight to know the LNP will be despicable enough to do this.

 

They should have set up the charter to not cut rates. The FWC should stick to a charter to not cut rates, any rate cuts should be debated in parliament, but 0 or positive rate increase can be handled by the FWC (at least this takes away partial paper work away from government).

 

Not do policy stuffs like aligning Sunday to Saturdays wages. This is an issue that is too big to not be debated by our MPs. 

 

 

 

There you go - again the LNP had nothing to do with it - the facts say so.

 

It's all an ALP issue and people that can believe their particular lies about who is to blame are either hugely biased or stupid.

 

Your choice!!!

Quote: 

What needs to happen is the FWC shouldn't be receiving any submissions from any party in parliament either directly or through a third party. Parliamentary submissions on anything are distorted by political beliefs.

 

FWC needs to be totally independent just like the reserve bank was made so under the Hawke Govt.

 

How many people blamed the Hawke Govt for all those 10 interest rate rises that happened in 2007/08?

 

Answer: Zero. Because it makes no sense. Idiots blaming the ALP for penalty rate reductions also makes no sense.

 

Because it was the Abbott govt in 2014 who sent a submission via the productivity commission to reduce Sunday rates and that's exactly what has happened. The FWC even said it like that in their speech.

 

Workers will lose out because of Tony Abbott's imbecilic idea that low paid workers are earning too much money.

 

Malcolm Turnbull and other LNP figures are only now starting to realise that this really is their problem which is why they're now talking about grandfathering or delaying the pay cuts or whatever other deflection they can come up with.

 

Taking income off workers has always been a Liberal thing. It's a gene mutation in their DNA. They get a stiffy out of it.

 

 

 

Heh HEh a FWC that can only get submissions from unions and employers???

 

Hello where do the rest of the australian population fit in with your scenario?

 

They don't get a say?

Only ALP pollies get a say?

Shorten did not mandate 4 yearly penalty rate reviews?

ALP did not set up FWC - with the right of government to make submissions?

 

 

Your pathetic attempts to move blame to the present government are laughable :laugh:  :laugh:  :LMAO:  :LMAO:

Quote:Heh HEh a FWC that can only get submissions from unions and employers???

I don't have a problem with that. They represent people directly affected by penalty rate changes.


Parties in parliament are only in it for political mileage.


 

Quote:Hello where do the rest of the australian population fit in with your scenario?

Hello and thank you for asking. The majority of the Australian population don't agree with penalty rate reductions.


So they fit in with my scenario very nicely. What about yours?


 

Quote:They don't get a say?

They do get a say. Anyone could have submitted to the FWC and many did.


 

Quote:Only ALP pollies get a say?

No they are in parliament.


 

Quote:Shorten did not mandate 4 yearly penalty rate reviews?

ALP did not set up FWC - with the right of government to make submissions?

ALP did not create a policy of penalty rate reductions. The Coalition did.

 

 

Quote:Your attempts to move blame to the present government are...

It's a policy created by the Abbott Government and defended by the present Government.


People that can believe their particular lies about who is to blame are either hugely biased or stupid.


Your words!!! :laugh: :laugh: :LMAO: :LMAO:

Quote:I don't have a problem with that. They represent people directly affected by penalty rate changes.


Parties in parliament are only in it for political mileage.


 

Hello and thank you for asking. The majority of the Australian population don't agree with penalty rate reductions.


So they fit in with my scenario very nicely. What about yours?


 

They do get a say. Anyone could have submitted to the FWC and many did.


 

No they are in parliament.


 

ALP did not create a policy of penalty rate reductions. The Coalition did.

 

 

...accurate.

It's a policy created by the Abbott Government and defended by the present Government.


People that can believe their particular lies about who is to blame are either hugely biased or stupid.


Your words!!! :laugh: :laugh: :LMAO: :LMAO:

 

 

 

Better start trying to understand democracy PZ.

 

The people vote for Parliamentary representation not for Union leaders.

 

Anyone who believes that the people should not get a say in how their country is run need to pause and consider.

 

You can continue to repeat the lies about who is to blame for this penalty rate thingy but they are indeed lies and no amount of repetition will change that. History, if you care to check it out, absolutely refutes these blatant untruths.

 

My interest is selfless I don't get or not get penalty rates, I am however interested in truth, as we should all be.

Better start trying to understand independence Aloy.


The Fairwork commission is supposed to be independent, just like the reserve bank. There is no point in having an independent tribunal if it's allowed to be governed by political parties with an ulterior motive that is contrary to the purpose of balance.

 

If you're saying the FWC is not, or shouldn't be completely independent of Government then reluctantly or not you are merely confirming my view that this penalty rate decision has been compromised.

 

Therefore you can't accuse me or anyone else of repeating lies... particularly when I have already supplied proof to back up my statements, some of which were made long before the decision from the FWC.

 

My comment stands: The process of penalty rate reduction was started by Tony Abbott in 2014 and I have quoted him on that and other statements since.

 

You may not care about penalty rates, but people do, which is why we have them. They are supported by the overwhelming majority of the Australian population. You have already quoted a poll in this thread which states that if penalty rates are reduced, it will cost the Coalition around 4 marginal seats if the election was held now.

 

Also noticed that silly One Neuron leader doesn't agree with penalty rates either. That's good, because it'll probably cost her party some votes as well.

 

BTW,

I've noticed you've shifted your argument from "unions and employers" to just "Union leaders". Bias much? In any case it's incorrect. Union leaders are subject to the voting process and the renewal thereof. That's democracy.


Speaking of democracy, well yeah.... I reckon I know more about it than you do. 

Quote:If the electorate want him [Bill Shorten] as a PM then they will regret their lack of wisdom , so would I!

Statements like that show a lack of understanding of the democratic process, but thanx anyway

Quote:Well with all due respect, what you are discussing is way down the list of important items for the various goverments to fix.

The biggest issue facing all Australians right now is the unprecedented outrage of energy pricing.

Not one government is acting for it's people.

The federal government needs to step in and grab the avaricious energy companies by the throat, alas it will not.

Check the BS the Victorian energy minister has to say. (After it was shown that Victorian farmers ARE being hit with 43% electricity hike before even the Hazelwood plant shuts at the end of March).


She says electricity prices will reduce in 2018 2019 due to more renewable coming on line!

What BS.

She does not know her ares from her elbow.

Are you concerned about energy security or prices? Presumably both but I remember you were advocating for Nuclear Power some time back.

In Australia it's probably the most expensive power you can get, and elsewhere they are frequently offline with various issues.

Female traffic light signals to go up at pedestrian crossing as Committee for Melbourne tackles 'unconscious bias'

 



 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-07/fe...ng/8330560

 

Like Whaaaa? Is she walking barefoot?

They're using the wrong place for a start, They should have trialed this in the St Kilda red light district. lol

Quote:Better start trying to understand independence Aloy.


The Fairwork commission is supposed to be independent, just like the reserve bank. There is no point in having an independent tribunal if it's allowed to be governed by political parties with an ulterior motive that is contrary to the purpose of balance.

 

If you're saying the FWC is not, or shouldn't be completely independent of Government then reluctantly or not you are merely confirming my view that this penalty rate decision has been compromised.

 

Therefore you can't accuse me or anyone else of repeating lies... particularly when I have already supplied proof to back up my statements, some of which were made long before the decision from the FWC.

 

My comment stands: The process of penalty rate reduction was started by Tony Abbott in 2014 and I have quoted him on that and other statements since.

 

You may not care about penalty rates, but people do, which is why we have them. They are supported by the overwhelming majority of the Australian population. You have already quoted a poll in this thread which states that if penalty rates are reduced, it will cost the Coalition around 4 marginal seats if the election was held now.

 

Also noticed that silly One Neuron leader doesn't agree with penalty rates either. That's good, because it'll probably cost her party some votes as well.

 

BTW,

I've noticed you've shifted your argument from "unions and employers" to just "Union leaders". Bias much? In any case it's incorrect. Union leaders are subject to the voting process and the renewal thereof. That's democracy.


Speaking of democracy, well yeah.... I reckon I know more about it than you do. 

Statements like that show a lack of understanding of the democratic process, but thanx anyway

 

 

 

Please don't put words in my mouth then demolish your own invention.

 

The FWC is independent that means independent!

 

That also means it independently takes submissions from interested parties.

 

The Australian voters interest is rightly presented by their elected politicians - that's the system and a good system it is.

 

You make a step to far when you allege that a government submission is interference in the FWC.

 

The FWC is independent and takes submissions in good faith then makes it's decision in good faith.

 

Your allegations of inappropriate government interference is a slur on the FWC - they should be withdrawn.

 

Clearly my understanding of independence is different to yours, you claim a greater understanding but fail to demonstrate anything remotely like it.

 

I guess others can be the judge of that.

 

 

And yes you do continue to reiterate proven lies from your heroes.

 

You have that right!

Others have the right to challenge those statements.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national...51c4e5e8fd

 


<p class="">"Premier Daniel Andrews has told disgraced former deputy speaker Don Nardella to resign from the Labor Party after the MP refused to pay back more than $100,000 of taxpayer funds for living outside his electorate.


<p class="" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:19px;">Mr Andrews said he had met with Mr Nardella this morning and asked him to repay the money.

<p class="" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:19px;">“Mr Nardella indicated he would not repay the money, so I asked for his resignation from the Victorian Parliamentary Labor Party and he provided it,” Mr Andrews said."

<p class="" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:19px;"> 

<p class="" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:19px;"> 

<p class="" style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:19px;">Well done Mr Andrews!

Quote: 

 

Heh Heh and then insist that transgender folks can use either!!!

 

 

Actually the new sign could be declared sexist, many females wear jeans, trousers, shorts.

 

Not a lot of males wear skirts. 

Quote:Please don't put words in my mouth then demolish your own invention. 

The FWC is independent that means independent! 

That also means it independently takes submissions from interested parties. 

The Australian voters interest is rightly presented by their elected politicians - that's the system and a good system it is.

You make a step to far when you allege that a government submission is interference in the FWC.

The FWC is independent and takes submissions in good faith then makes it's decision in good faith.

Your allegations of inappropriate government interference is a slur on the FWC - they should be withdrawn.

 

Clearly my understanding of independence is different to yours, you claim a greater understanding but fail to demonstrate anything remotely like it.

 

I guess others can be the judge of that.

 

 

And yes you do continue to reiterate proven lies from your heroes. 

You have that right!

Others have the right to challenge those statements.

I also have the right to challenge your false assertion of repeating lies.

Ignoring the proof that I've provided doesn't add any weight to your allegations, it does the opposite.

 

It reduces your credibility to anyone with higher IQ than a Workchoices supporter

 

The reserve bank doesn't take submissions from parliament, if they did, it would always be Labor's fault.

Is that remote enough for you?

 

The FWC DOES take submissions from parliament so it's not as independent as you pretend it to be.

 

The submission from the Abbott Govt via the productivity commission was declared as quote "very significant".

Furthermore the commissioner in his statement made it very clear they were leaning towards that very submission.

 

You are avoiding these two events for the purpose of defending an atrocious Govt with a long proven history of legalised wage theft from shift workers. A good system? Only for those who like watching people lose money.

 

As for putting words in mouths, where exactly did I claim to have a greater understanding of independence than you?

 

For the record: As previously stated most voters don't agree with cutting penalty rates.

 

Last polling has 56% against cutting rates versus 32% who support greed instead.

 

57% said businesses would make bigger profits. 24% said more people would be employed.

 

Presumably Australian voters are rightly presented by their own opinions. Or do they all have heroes too?

Quote: 

 

Actually the new sign could be declared sexist, many females wear jeans, trousers, shorts.

 

Not a lot of males wear skirts. 

 

 Except on Tartan Day

Nuclear would be too expensive here though. Nuclear power could only compete with coal if Carbon credits were imposed, which is why the Howard Govt took an ETS to the 2007 election

 

 
"it is as green as it gets without using grass" -


Not really. Increased mining = more greenhouse gas + disposal of radioactive waste. It's actually quite dirty.

LOL. The process of mining uranium is far more Co2 dirty than just about any other process you can think of.

 

Except maybe the process of decommissioning a dead nuclear site.

 

Not even Tony Abbott could liberate that level of dirty air.

 

Solar panels are made of mostly recyclable material.

 

We won't be getting Nuclear because we don't need it. It's too expensive.

 

Better off with pumped hydro IMO. It works. We have 3 sites online already.

Some data to help understand uranium power generation emissions and the whole cycle emissions.

 

www.aphref.aph.gov.au-house-committee-isr-uranium-report-chapter4%20(2).pdf

 

Key messages —

Electricity generation is the largest and fastest growing contributor to global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, responsible for 40 per cent of global emissions in 2003—10 billion tonnes of CO2. Emissions from electricity are projected to contribute approximately 50 per cent of the increase in global CO2 emissions to 2030.

Nuclear power is a CO2-free energy source at point of generation.

Over the whole fuel cycle, nuclear power emits only 2–6 grams of carbon (or up to 20 grams of CO2) per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced. This is two orders of magnitude less than coal, oil and natural gas, and is comparable to emissions from wind and solar power.

A single nuclear power plant of one gigawatt capacity offsets the emission of some 7–8 million tonnes of CO2 each year if it displaces coal. A nuclear plant will also offset the emission of sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and particulates, thereby contributing significantly to air quality.

Nuclear power currently avoids the emission of 600 million tonnes of carbon per year. If the world were not using nuclear power, CO2 emissions from electricity generation would be at least 17 per cent higher and 8 per cent higher for the energy sector overall. By 2030, the cumulative carbon emissions saved due to the use of nuclear power could exceed 25 billion tonnes.

Australia’s uranium exports currently displace at least 395 million tonnes of CO2 per year, relative to use of black coal. This is equivalent to 70 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions for 2003. Australia’s total low cost uranium reserves could displace nearly 40 000 million tonnes of CO2 if it replaced black coal electricity generation.

More data:

 

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebH...clearPower

 


Greenhouse Emissions of Nuclear Power
<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Lucida Grande', verdana, lucida, helvetica, sans-serif;font-sizemall;">There is world-wide concern over the prospect of Global Warming primarily caused by the emission of Carbon Dioxide gas (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels. Although the processes of running a Nuclear Power plant generates no CO2, some CO2 emissions arise from the construction of the plant, the mining of the Uranium, the enrichment of the Uranium, its conversion into Nuclear Fuel, its final disposal and the final plant decommissioning. The amount of CO2 generated by these secondary processes primarily depends on the method used to enrich the Uranium (the gaseous diffusion enrichment process uses about 50 times more electricity than the gaseous centrifuge method) and the source of electricity used for the enrichment process. It has been the subject of some controversy. To estimate the total CO2 emissions from Nuclear Power we take the work of the Swedish Energy Utility, Vattenfall, which produces electricity via Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind energy sources and has produced credited Environment Product Declarations for all these processes.

<p style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Lucida Grande', verdana, lucida, helvetica, sans-serif;font-sizemall;">Vattenfall finds that averaged over the entire lifecycle of their Nuclear Plant including Uranium mining, milling, enrichment, plant construction, operating, decommissioning and waste disposal, the total amount CO2 emitted per KW-Hr of electricity produced is 3.3 grams per KW-Hr of produced power. Vattenfall measures its CO2 output from Natural Gas to be 400 grams per KW-Hr and from coal to be 700 grams per KW-Hr. Thus nuclear power generated by Vattenfall, which may constitute World's best practice, emits less than one hundredth the CO2 of Fossil-Fuel based generation. In fact Vattenfall finds its Nuclear Plants to emit <b>less CO2 than any of its other energy production mechanisms</b> including Hydro, Wind, Solar and Biomass although all of these processes emit much less than fossil fuel generation of electricity. 

Pumped hydro isn't on that list but it's the way we should go in my view.

 

Base load power with zero emissions. They're looking at setting it up in S.A. as we speak.