Party, party, party! - Politics superthread 2014

[chasej]

In an attempt to get their budget measures passed, the Libs have split up their budget into multiple chunks in the hope the chunks have more success.

A few days ago, in tandem with the ALP, these following cuts and changes were passed:

1. -  Family Tax Benefit (part B) threshold lowering the upper income limit of the primary earner to $100,000 rather the current $150,000 cutoff.
2. -  Students who move from one city to another to attend university will no longer receive relocation scholarships [The move means students who move from cities such as Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong or the Gold Coast to study at a state capital will be about $6000 worse off over a three-year degree. The scholarships – worth $4145 in the first year of study and $1036 for each subsequent year – will now only be available to those moving to or from rural and regional areas.]
3. -  Limiting the FTB-A large family supplement to families with four or more children
4. -  Reviewing disability support pension recipients under 35 to see whether they have some capacity to work.

1. Sounds reasonable, I doubt anyone earning >100k is going to starve after losing a small amount of benefits.

2. I partly agree with that, the taxpayer shouldn't pay for a student to move from one capital city to another to study the exact same course at a similar uni. The cuts on moving from the more regional areas is a bit more controversial so I would have preferred if the law stopped it just for students moving from a capital city or perhaps imposing some sort of location test like only receiving the benefit if you lived further than say, 40km from a GO8 uni.

3. Reasonable, I wouldn't call a family with 2 or 3 children a large family these days.

4. It's always good to encourage people to work and feel productive instead of them feeling confined to a life of welfare. If people want more inclusivity of all parts of society than they should encourage policies designed to encourage such inclusion.


---

Another interesting topic: The incoming Swedish PM announcing his intention to recognise Palestine as an independent state. Personally I think it's meaningless, I support a two-state solution, but it's merely symbolic to recognise a state which doesn't even exist and a third party to a negotiation declaring an outcome limits the negotiation, like a two-state solution seems the way to go but there really is no reason why Palestinians in the West Bank couldn't become part of Jordan again, as Jordan is already primarily Palestinian and has maintained a growing and peaceful relationship with Israel for 20 years, while being capable of controlling Islamist militant groups which are riff in Palestinian society. I believe it's more productive to actually get the two parties to meet and negotiate instead of the Palestinian "leadership" pursuing merely symbolic measures as they have been, but in general I have little faith in the Palestinian leadership's desire to agree on a viable peace initiative which doesn't involve Israel committing national suicide.

Whether Sweden actually ends up passing the measure remains to be seen however, they planned a similar thing in 2012 and it never happened, and also the growing far-right in Sweden, is staunchly pro-Israel (probably because they're anti-Arab more than anything) so would protest such a recognition of Palestine, while the Swedish government is a minority government as is.

[Reus]

Putting the budget aside, what are you thoughts on ASIO's new regulation laws?

[slothpomba]

1. Sounds reasonable, I doubt anyone earning >100k is going to starve after losing a small amount of benefits.

Don't think whether someone will starve is the best measure though hey :p ?

If it was family income, $100,000 - $150,000 isn't honestly that much, especially towards the lower end. It's less bad that its the income of the primary income earner but it poses an interesting problem. My interpretation is this: If the highest income in the house if over $100,000 you get cut off.  IF you and your partner both make $99,000 you will be fine (combined $198,000). If you make $101,000 and your partner zero, you will not get any payment (combined $101,000). In either case, i  dont think either of them really need the payment but its a bit of an odd loophole.

2. I partly agree with that, the taxpayer shouldn't pay for a student to move from one capital city to another to study the exact same course at a similar uni. The cuts on moving from the more regional areas is a bit more controversial so I would have preferred if the law stopped it just for students moving from a capital city or perhaps imposing some sort of location test like only receiving the benefit if you lived further than say, 40km from a GO8 uni.

Australia actually has incredibly low student mobility. In the USA and other nations, it's very common to move out of home and move states to go to university. It doesn't happen much at all here. It's even less common to go overseas to study a full degree. I think its a good idea to enhance student mobility. A fair few people here moved to ANU for example. Money shouldn't be a factor deciding whether you get the education you want or not. I would prefer rather than outright scrapping it, it was either: (A) converted to a HECs loan and you can choose to take it up OR (b) Tested by parental income.

3. No problem

4. It's always good to encourage people to work and feel productive instead of them feeling confined to a life of welfare. If people want more inclusivity of all parts of society than they should encourage policies designed to encourage such inclusion.

Hopefully they are supported and its not motivated to push off people who really shouldn't be pushed off this payment. The age component is odd. Why 35? It seems this government is really going after the young here. Same with their dole changes only affecting younger people.


---

Personally I think it's meaningless, I support a two-state solution, but it's merely symbolic to recognise a state which doesn't even exist

Is it really true to say it doesn't exist though? I mean i guess it doesn't exist as a legal entity (half of that is because the world doesn't recognise them) but for all intents and purposes, dont they govern chunks of territory? It exists in a functional sense and as a movement and idea lot of people are pushing for.

but there really is no reason why Palestinians in the West Bank couldn't become part of Jordan again,

Does Jordan really want them back? Plus, just in terms of idealism and face, Palestine is something a huge chunk of the world has been pushing for (certainly the Arab World).

I believe it's more productive to actually get the two parties to meet and negotiate instead of the Palestinian "leadership" pursuing merely symbolic measures as they have been, but in general I have little faith in the Palestinian leadership's desire to agree on a viable peace initiative which doesn't involve Israel committing national suicide.

What counts as national suicide?

[slothpomba]

Putting the budget aside, what are you thoughts on ASIO's new regulation laws?

Expressed my opinion in the other thread in this forum (yes, so outraged i thought it deserved its own thread). Government's counter-terrorism laws a step too far with little scrutiny

Totally unwarranted but more personally, i'm shocked how easily the ALP rolled over. I read a joke the other day - The ALP gains comfort by pretending to be in government by acting exactly like the government. Some of more internalish ALP forums have speculated it might be a strategic thing. Shorten has been pursuing a small target strategy, letting Abbott's failures speak for themselves rather than actually doing much. Another one i've heard is the media enviroment is hostile and would eat him alive if he rejected it. I think both of these are really shitty arguments/reasons. If the ALP movement is just reduced to what makes it look good in the media and what allows it to win the next election without any ideals, the whole thing is finished for me (i joined The Greens last week).

---------------
State election is coming up, a lot of interesting decisions to be made there too:

- The ALP will remove 50 level crossings around the state and have 24 hour trains on the weekend
- The Liberals will build the East-West link
- The ALP will make grand-final day a public holiday
- The ALP will look into making medical cannabis legal for very exceptional circumstances
- Regardless of who wins:
            * Flagstaff station will be open on weekends
            * A Zone 1 + 2 fare will now cost about as much as a Zone 2 fair (about ~50% off)

I'll add some more later but here are some links for the major parties:

• ALP: http://www.danielandrews.com.au/policies/
• Liberals: http://vic.liberal.org.au/#Policies
• Greens: http://greens.org.au/vic/policies

[chasej]

Don't think whether someone will starve is the best measure though hey :p ?

If it was family income, $100,000 - $150,000 isn't honestly that much, especially towards the lower end. It's less bad that its the income of the primary income earner but it poses an interesting problem. My interpretation is this: If the highest income in the house if over $100,000 you get cut off.  IF you and your partner both make $99,000 you will be fine (combined $198,000). If you make $101,000 and your partner zero, you will not get any payment (combined $101,000). In either case, i  dont think either of them really need the payment but its a bit of an odd loophole.

That's true, it is strange.

Australia actually has incredibly low student mobility. In the USA and other nations, it's very common to move out of home and move states to go to university. It doesn't happen much at all here. It's even less common to go overseas to study a full degree. I think its a good idea to enhance student mobility. A fair few people here moved to ANU for example. Money shouldn't be a factor deciding whether you get the education you want or not. I would prefer rather than outright scrapping it, it was either: (A) converted to a HECs loan and you can choose to take it up OR (b) Tested by parental income.

hmm, that's an interesting take on it and I know there is little student mobility here relative to other places but I still don't see a reason for others to pay for someone to move, the fact many students move in the US is a large reason that uni costs so much over there as moving brings the added cost of food and board etc. but yeh, perhaps a loan scheme or income test would have been a way to find a place in the middle between having it for everyone and scraping it fully.

Hopefully they are supported and its not motivated to push off people who really shouldn't be pushed off this payment. The age component is odd. Why 35? It seems this government is really going after the young here. Same with their dole changes only affecting younger people.

Agree, getting people to work when it is inappropriate or too much for them isn't good. The government probably is targeting younger people as their voter base is likely to be lower in that age bracket. Older people still haven't been completely scot free though, with the rising of the retirement age among other measures.


---

Is it really true to say it doesn't exist though? I mean i guess it doesn't exist as a legal entity (half of that is because the world doesn't recognise them) but for all intents and purposes, dont they govern chunks of territory? It exists in a functional sense and as a movement and idea lot of people are pushing for.

True, there is a Palestinian leadership institution but they aren't a state, it's merely a body set up in agreements with Israel to administer most of the areas where Palestinians live in the occupied territories, it does of course function with the intent it become a state in the future, the PA doesn't really have much control over territory they theoretically are supposed to, the Gaza Strip being a pertinent example.

I read today the Swede's statement was taken out of context and Sweden said they would recognise Palestine in the framework of a two state bilateral agreement which has always been the policy anyway.

Does Jordan really want them back? Plus, just in terms of idealism and face, Palestine is something a huge chunk of the world has been pushing for (certainly the Arab World).

Jordan probably doesn't want the Palestinian people back (the Palestinians have tried to destabilise Jordanian leadership's rule in the past but losing the land in 1967 has always been a point of shame among the Hashemites, if they could get the land without the people they would take it back I reckon, but of course the people are the biggest bone of contention so it probably isn't realistic. And the Arab world has been pushing for the destruction of Israel since it was created but it doesn't necessarily mean they will get what they want, but yeh, I do imagine Israel would eventually withdraw unilaterally from most of the West Bank and assist in unifying Gaza and the West Bank at some point in the future (I don't have much faith in Palestinian leadership to actually agree with anything Israel offers because history has shown they always disappear from negotiations when things get serious).

What counts as national suicide?

Zionism, the idea of a Jewish democratic state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people, which Israel is built on would no longer be able to exist if the state lost a Jewish majority as the state would have to chose between establishing a Jewish non-democracy or a non-Jewish democracy. The Palestinian leadership have never appeared to budge on their "right of return" to their homes in Israel prior to the Arab-Israeli wars, a full right-of-return taken up by the majority of refugees would swamp Israeli demographically destroying the basis of the nation as well as the land Israel is on likely being unable to sustain such an increase in population as well as economic issues, so it would become a massive issue to both Israel as a nation, and also the viability of the land itself. Most of the Palestinians would also be anti-Semitic and many violent towards Jews/Israelis so it wouldn't create good social cohesion and the Palestinian society is soooo different to Israeli society (in views/values etc.) without any of the hate or violence. Even the most "moderate" Arab made peace initiatives have demanded a right of return. (It's worth noting also no 'right of return' actually exists for most of the living Palestinians under international law and most want to remain where they are anyway). To a lesser extent losing Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount in East Jerusalem is not favourable, it's complicated though because the Al-Aqsa mosque is also on the exact same land. [/quote]

edit: This is an interesting article on unilateral recognition of Palestine and the reasons for doing it, very right wing but raises some interesting points http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4766/britain-sweden-palestine

[Reus]

- The ALP will make grand-final day a public holiday
- The ALP will look into making medical cannabis legal for very exceptional circumstances

These two can not be real considerations?!

[Vermilliona]

Wait, chasej, I don't quite get how a right of return = no more Jewish majority? There's 4.1 million people living on Palestinian Territories and there are 8 million people living in Israel, most of them Jewish. And you yourself said most Palestinians would want to remain where they are anyway. Even if the majority did return, 4 million could hardly constitute a majority over the 7.something people of Jewish origin in Israel.

[chasej]

Wait, chasej, I don't quite get how a right of return = no more Jewish majority? There's 4.1 million people living on Palestinian Territories and there are 8 million people living in Israel, most of them Jewish. And you yourself said most Palestinians would want to remain where they are anyway. Even if the majority did return, 4 million could hardly constitute a majority over the 7.something people of Jewish origin in Israel.

There are about 5 million people of Palestinian origin which would be eligible for return under the right of return the Palestinian leadership claims whom live outside of Israeli controlled territory. A limited right of return isn't off the cards though, like I know a few years ago Israel (under a labor government) actually offered a limited intake of refugees, which the Palestinians rejected. I doubt there's going to be anymore bilateral negotiations for a while though unfortunately.

[Professor Polonsky]

Wait, chasej, I don't quite get how a right of return = no more Jewish majority? There's 4.1 million people living on Palestinian Territories and there are 8 million people living in Israel, most of them Jewish. And you yourself said most Palestinians would want to remain where they are anyway. Even if the majority did return, 4 million could hardly constitute a majority over the 7.something people of Jewish origin in Israel.

Those numbers are terribly off. Less than 80% of Israel's population is Jewish.

Repatriation and resettlement in third countries is far more likely at this stage (a la Geneva). Israel allowing a certain stipulated number of refugees in, but it's not really likely to be seen as a victory in the Palestinian street, especially considering its potential for divisiveness.

[slothpomba]

The Palestinian leadership have never appeared to budge on their "right of return" to their homes in Israel prior to the Arab-Israeli wars, a full right-of-return taken up by the majority of refugees would swamp Israeli demographically destroying the basis of the nation as well as the land Israel is on likely being unable to sustain such an increase in population as well as economic issues, so it would become a massive issue to both Israel as a nation, and also the viability of the land itself.

Say Palestine is established as a nation, what about if they just return there? Surely it wouldn't impact what would be classed as Israel all that much then?

To a lesser extent losing Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount in East Jerusalem is not favourable, it's complicated though because the Al-Aqsa mosque is also on the exact same land.

I've seen a few doccos on that, i agree that would be a very sticky situation.

These two can not be real considerations?!

Well...arguably, a lot of people take grand final day off anyway. It's the largest sporting event in the state. I think it would be better to have the day *after* off though (if its not usually held on a Friday?). It does smell a little of cheap vote buying though.

On the second hand, medicinal cannabis does have some uses. Although, after all this pharmacology education, i'd rather it'd be extracted and prepared medicinally as a pill, by proper pharmaceutical scientists and so on. That way you get a constant dose of known quality AND you also have someone pay for the trials (the drug companies). Medicines like these already exist in some nations. I'm not so hot on the idea of people "medicating" themselves by lighting up a raw herb of unknown quality and potency. Eating it is kind of in-between i guess. Either way, it should be heavily medically supervised. In some USA jurisdictions that allow MMJ (medical marijuana) apparently its rather "easy" to get, even if you're not sick. Even then, apparently there isn't heaps of medical oversight associated with it.

[slothpomba]

In recent news:

Abbott government abandons plan to make job seekers apply for 40 jobs a month

Plans to make job seekers apply for 40 jobs a month have been abandoned following an angry backlash.

The federal government had wanted the tougher regime to work alongside another contentious budget measure which would force some young job seekers under 30 to wait six months before receiving the dole.

But Minister for Employment Eric Abetz confirmed on Tuesday the government "has made some changes" to the scheme and will now keep the required number of monthly job applications to the current rate of 20.

Senator Abetz told the ABC the government had listened to the community and accepted forcing the unemployed to apply for 40 positions a month could "diminish" the value of genuine job applications.

"We understand that for business this is a burden," he said.

Speaking in Canberra, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the decision did not constitute a backdown.

"Some people might like to put a pejorative on it. I would like to say isn't this the whole point of consultation? Consultation that can't result in any changes is meaningless.  The consultations that this government has will be fair dinkum".

The government was inundated with negative feedback when the plan was first announced earlier this year.  Most of the 60 submissions it later received were against the proposal.

In July, Senator Abetz said making job seekers apply for 40 positions a month would be the equivalent of "one [application] in the morning" and "one in the afternoon".

Source (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-government-abandons-plan-to-make-job-seekers-apply-for-40-jobs-a-month-20141007-10r46j.html)

I think this was a bad idea from the get-go. Research shows the vast majority of people who go on the income support payments ("dole") will only be on it for a few months at a time, certainly, those on it for year(s) are the minority. It seemed like a misguided attack against the popular myth of a dole bludger to me, certainly the fact that they're a pandemic anyway. Even the traditional base of coalition, the business world, didn't like this misguided idea. People could simply (and probably would have) spam applications to meet this requirement. It's total nonsense. I'm in favour of oversight, assistance and encouragement but this whole thing is just misguided.


Great article from the drum about the DSP as well:

One in 20 working-age Australians receive disability support, but it's not helpful to assert without evidence that welfare fraud is driving these numbers, writes Matthew Taylor.

The Daily Telegraph's recent report about websites that allegedly coach welfare fraudsters on how to claim the Disability Support Pension (DSP) highlights some of the challenges the Government faces in ensuring that the $16 billion spent annually on DSP goes to those who need it.

DSP is more complicated than other pensions. The reason we never hear about age pension "rorters" is that it is easy for the Government to verify whether a claimant has reached the eligibility age. But not all disabilities are "manifest" in this same way.

There are many on DSP who genuinely have very little capacity to work but do not have disabilities that are immediately visible, just as there are many with obvious disabilities who can - and desperately want to - work.

Source (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-07/taylor-the-bludger-mantra-wont-help-us-improve-dsp/5793152)

[Professor Polonsky]

kp, much of the point of signing a peace deal is that Palestinian refugees from around the Arab world will return to Palestine. It's actually one of the main incentives for Arab States to support a peace deal.

I disagree though that there is any real issue with Israel relinquishing its sovereignty over the Temple Mount Complex. There will likely be some form of special arrangements for the entirety of the Old City, even if a border is drawn through it - and further to that, explicit provisions in the agreement that protect religious sites. There was no sovereignty or even Jewish ownership over that area for a long time.

Generally, Jerusalem is actually one of the easier issues to resolve - it's more technically difficult (you go ahead drawing a border through a city which hasn't had one for decades) than politically contentious. Two Israeli PMs (Barak and Olmert) have made offers based on the Clinton Parameters, which follow the maxim of "Jewish neighbourhoods to Israel, Arab neighbourhoods to Palestine."

[chasej]

The supposed attack by the IDF on young boys playing on the Gaza beach has just been proven to have been framed by Hamas. http://www.thomaswictor.com/wall-street-journal-confirms-hamas-beach-operation/

[slothpomba]