MisterFrog
@MisterFrog@aussie.zone
- Comment on Gun buyback deadline expires with most states still refusing to sign on 1 day ago:
Thanks for sharing the above, seems pretty robust to the uninitiated. And provided your doing it for work or something else necessary, I sympathise for the annoyance it causes you and other law abiding licence holders.
Though since by your reckoning people clearly don’t bother getting more than 6 because it’s a pain in the arse, is it so terrible to have such a limit?
What more than 6 uses do you really NEED a gun for? Damn right that it should be justified.
I will concede a bit, that perhaps 6 is an arbitrary limit, and could have each additional licence approved on case-by-case basis instead, but I know of people by 1 degree of separation who really should not have had a gun in the first place (and who’s licences were later revoked if my understanding is correct), it makes sense to at least limit how many guns they have on-hand to minimise the real risk to the community.
It’s also my understanding that the Bondi Massacre was perpetrated by 2 people, a licence holder with many guns and the other who wasn’t a licence holder. Having access to multiple guns made the massacre far more deadly. And he literally had it for RECREATIONAL purposes. Sorry, guns for recreation can get fucked.
Call me when other hobbies cause a risk to other people in such a way, and only call if you think that hobby shouldn’t be regulated…
And frankly, none of your business or concern.
Hard disagree. Guns are dangerous, and should be regulated. Yes, it’s an inconvenience for the majority of law abiding gun owners, but sorry, that’s not how society works.
It’s a balance between freedom from and freedom to. Just like major hazard facilities are heavily regulated (my line of work).
The /average/ gun owner doesn’t have 6 now, it’s a pain in the ass.
We don’t want it to be easy. Annoying, for sure, but well worth it to massively reduce mass shootings. gl;hf trying to convince the average Australian otherwise when the counter-example is very prominent (USA)
In conclusion, we just have a difference of opinion. Mine is that a max of 6 isn’t very restrictive. I also think it’s insane that recreation is still allowed.
Guns are necessary for work and wildlife/feral animal management (and other legitimate things).
Guns for fun are unnecessary and I don’t care if it’s people’s hobby. Get a new hobby.
Thanks for your time, and apologies for my unpleasantness.
- Comment on Gun buyback deadline expires with most states still refusing to sign on 2 days ago:
This is bait.
It’s just my opinion. I just don’t see what the fuss about a 6 gun limit could possibly be (iirc that’s the limit sought by the federal government).
But I’m not requiring you to answer it
- Comment on Gun buyback deadline expires with most states still refusing to sign on 2 days ago:
You’ve left out a fourth group who is probably much bigger than the first 2, as a subset of the the 3rd.
People who generally think uncessary access to guns is not desirable. Farming, military, land management, and only in numbers that are actually needed.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the average person looks at the US and thinks: yeah, that’s dumb.
Ask the average person on the street what they think of the buyback after port Arthur. It’s overwhelmingly: yeah, obviously good.
I’m willing to be they feel the same about this buy back back, but with everything going on, it’s not exactly top of mind.
I think you woefully underestimate how anti-gun the majority of the population is. Even if most people don’t have much time to really engage with it.
The amount of money it’ll cost is pennies in the grand scheme of things. Hence why we all aren’t even paying attention.
- Comment on Albanese government rejects all UN recommendations on improving LGBTQIA+ rights 3 days ago:
Had to go looking, you mean this?
we should undermine the democratic process and state government powers because I don’t like it when the state government doesn’t lean the way I personally want
A very dangerous road to walk
I never thought I’d be defending the coalition but imagine if the coalition federal government (who historically avoid/prevent federal overrides) did this for issues like abortion
This is a cop out, because certain issues should be legislated for the whole country (opinions, and constitutionally where the power lies, varies)
Nek minnit you’ll be telling me the states should take back their right to legislate workers rights (which they used to).
It absolutely makes sense for it to be uniform across the country. This isn’t the USA, most people don’t believe in states rights. Depending on the topic, opinions will vary on what should and should not be prerogative of federal vs state.
What is true is that devolving too many things creates a mess. Engineering registrations are hodge-podge even though we regularly work between jurisdictions. Chemical regs are also not harmonised, meaning you a nation-wide company has to follow different rules for every state… (taking examples from my industry, but you get the point).
Transport infrastructure makes sense to be state by state, since we’re such a big country with a relatively sparse population.
Unless you just want to be rid of the federal government entirely, what exactly do you think is the point of the federal government?
In conclusion, federal Labor absolutely should and importantly could have implemented at least some of the recommendations… and you saying “oh it’s dangerous!” seems unconvincing to me.
- Comment on Albanese government rejects all UN recommendations on improving LGBTQIA+ rights 3 days ago:
Federal lawcouncil.au/…/anti-discrimination-laws
And federal supremacy clause en.wikipedia.org/…/Section_109_of_the_Constitutio…
So, yeah, the states can legislate for discrimination, but if there’s any conflict, federal takes president.
I am not a lawyer, and freely admit I am not an expert on this, but it feels like you’re pretending like the federal government doesn’t have these powers as an excuse for why they ignored all the recommendations. But they DO legislate on matters of discrimination, that is simply true.
And unless you’ve got something extra up your sleeve, I think you’re making excuses.
It’s okay to disagree with the Party you support, provided you agree with the majority of their positions. It’s a bit annoying if you make excuses for them though.
- Comment on Albanese government rejects all UN recommendations on improving LGBTQIA+ rights 3 days ago:
I am definitely not stretching it on the point of discrimination and employment law.
That is super-duper squarely federal.
- Comment on Pam Showdown With The Feds 3 days ago:
National treasure of course
- Comment on Albanese government rejects all UN recommendations on improving LGBTQIA+ rights 4 days ago:
Removing the exemptions that allow religious schools to legally discriminate against LGBTQIA+ students and staff
This at a minimum comes under employment law, which is a federal responsibility.
Eliminating legal exemptions that allow discrimination against trans, gender-diverse and intersex people
Pretty sure discrimination laws come under federal law
Delivering public education campaigns to reduce stigma and discrimination against the queer community
This could be done by anyone
Introducing a national ban on conversion practices
Some states already done this, federal could?
Banning unnecessary surgeries on intersex children
This one I’m unclear on
Improving systems to allow trans and gender-diverse people to legally change their gender without intrusive requirements
I’m also unclear on how births deaths and marriages is divided.
But in conclusion, kinda feels like you’re making excuses for the Labor government
- Comment on Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender launch new party aimed at political centre, promising ‘reason over rage’ 2 weeks ago:
I’m glad they’re doing this. Despite me disagreeing that Allegra Spender is “centrist”. She consistently votes against improvements to workers rights.
She just happens to believe in climate change and that queer people deserve rights.
At a minimum, she’s right wing on economic and class questions.
- Comment on Union claims Macquarie University illegally targeted staff for redundancy in Fair Work claim 2 weeks ago:
Redundancy legislation/regulation is already massively stacked in favour of the employer.
There is no formalised process they’re supposed to do, as far as I’m aware. They’re just supposed to do a process. It seems largely determined by case law…
Also it’s only 3 MONTHS before they can hire people again for the same role, and that again is not legislated/regulated. Just seems to be the rule of thumb/case law. (I am not a lawyer).
Meaning 1. you have to know they’ve rehired someone and 2. You need to take them to court for unfair dismissal.
Absolute joke.
Reminder to all that the Labor party is pretty weak on workers rights, it’s just they’re km ahead of the LNP and One Nation.
Hope these two workers get a just outcome.
- Comment on Fears doctors criticising Israel may be silenced as health watchdog adopts contested antisemitism definition 2 weeks ago:
It’s sad at how obvious it is, and how few people are engaged enough to want to do something about it :(
On a positive note, Vic Socialists/Aus Socialists has grown massively recently.
Still a small party though.
Next biggest after the Greens I’d guess though. Pretty much all other parties are tiny outside of Labor/LNP/One Nation/Greens
- Comment on Greens Launch 'Trans Insurgency' Campaign In Response To Pauline Hanson Press Club Speech 2 weeks ago:
Timestamped to jump to where Pauline Hanson starts talking about the “transgender insurgency” in Australia.
The campaign linked by OP is The Greens mocking her
- Comment on Stop Victoria's fake party rort !! 3 weeks ago:
I’d the Labor party don’t fix this, it’d be a travesty.
They were very keen to pass unconstitutional laws to give them an unfair electoral advantage, (along with the LNP).
- Comment on As voter disillusionment grows, why aren't voters flocking to the Greens in Australia? 3 weeks ago:
I feel like we’ve had this discussion before. But to me all religions are nonsense, and singling out Islam seems odd to me.
The Greens aren’t a “pro-islam” party, they’re anti-discrimination, and pro-palestine. Which any person who’s anti-genocide is at least not pro-israel (disclaimer, I don’t like the Greens, but for other reasons).
The greens are a party that believes you can manage, reform and tax capitalism into something acceptable, and believe parliament is where power is and should be. They, like all the bigger parties, elect leaders from within the parliamentary party, and don’t really let regular members vote on policy (something I believe Labor does, but just ignores? I’m not as familiar with their internal party politics).
I’d argue why they’re unappealing, is that they don’t focus enough on the core issue: class struggle. Too many tree Tories in the party. Too many people who think if only we could get enough “good people” into parliament everything will be fixed.
The last election their headline policy was dental into Medicare. Good, sure, but they don’t talk about ablishing Medicare and replacing it with a truly public system, one where out of pocket costs can’t just come back every couple of years. They don’t talk about scrapping the stupid Union Accords Labor brought in decades ago which absolutely knee-capped union power by severely restricting the right to strike.
I just think your fixation on Islam is troubling.
All religions are dumb, in my opinion, but I’ll speak up against discrimination of all kinds.
- Comment on AFP begins inquiry into allegations Israeli forces assaulted flotilla activists 3 weeks ago:
I will be shocked if anything beyond telling Israel that Australia has “deep concerns” is actually done.
The Labor party is piss weak on this.
- Comment on Labor MPs have been handed new talking points – revealing a growing concern about One Nation 3 weeks ago:
One Nation are basically Reform UK, I’d say
- Comment on Seems very topical with the rise of One Nation 4 weeks ago:
In the case of Melbourne, the enemy likes to arrives to the F1 and the Melbourne Cup by Helicopter.
- Submitted 4 weeks ago to australianpolitics@aussie.zone | 8 comments
- Comment on Discussion/change my mind: There are almost no examples where privatisation has been a net good* 4 weeks ago:
Ah yes, I missed the facetiousness 😅
Yeah, the system is
broken and needs to be fixrdworking exactly as intended and needs to be broken. - Comment on Melbourne trains finally arrive in the Myki-less era with tap-and-go payments, almost a decade after Sydney 4 weeks ago:
A hunch, but I reckon this may have something to do with it:
US-based firm Conduent was awarded a $1.7bn 15-year contract in 2023 to upgrade the Myki system to allow contactless payments via a debit or credit card, smartphone or smartwatch.
God forbid we develop home-grown capability to implement projects.
Privatisation is a scam.
- Comment on Discussion/change my mind: There are almost no examples where privatisation has been a net good* 4 weeks ago:
Could you expand on this a little? You didn’t really elaborate on examples or the logic of why you think privatisation is good for society.
Or have I misunderstood your comment?
- Comment on Discussion/change my mind: There are almost no examples where privatisation has been a net good* 4 weeks ago:
Yeah, perhaps I should have added the caveat that I think privatisation is worse than having it be publicly run.
Instead of the rail companies making bank from all that transit oriented development sales, could have been the people.
- Comment on Discussion/change my mind: There are almost no examples where privatisation has been a net good* 4 weeks ago:
I’ll still award you points for this one. At least someone is providing public transport. So many US governments are so poorly managed, it seems to me.
Though, I still believe if they could have it be publically run, without being knee-capped like they do with Amtrak, it would be better for society, and people’s wallets, overall.
- Comment on Discussion/change my mind: There are almost no examples where privatisation has been a net good* 4 weeks ago:
What do we actually get from having a private company run the service though (in the case of Metro Trains), instead of just employing everyone directly?
What exactly do we get by having private companies do the retail side of the NBN? Instead of just having the NBN provide the service at cost (which they’re already doing, and it’s just being sold on to us by private companies who repackage the bandwidth and usage in different ways). Same logic for gas and electricity (in Victoria, not all states do this). What are we actually getting by having it repackaged and sold on to us with a markup?
Seems to me were unnecessarily paying an extra margin to account for profit. We could just employ those permanent workers directly.
Water (in Victoria) corporations are actually government-owned corporatised water authorities. Which again makes no sense and we get nothing from having them being administered separately.
Here’s an interesting video on the initial privatisation of the metropolitan trains and trams under Kennett, which was an absolute disaster: youtube.com/watch?v=34fGlurh42A
- Submitted 5 weeks ago to australianpolitics@aussie.zone | 15 comments
- Comment on Former prime minister Tony Abbott elected unopposed as Liberal Party president 5 weeks ago:
This is a false dichotomy in my opinion, and presupposes that parties that be are static, that no new challengers are possible and that Labor is the “sole party of governance” (which is a pretty undemocratic notion). It also pretends that people will continue to vote Labor indefinitely just because the LNP doesn’t exist.
The Greens, to some degree, purposefully position themselves as the party to “work with” the Labor party, and extract concessions from them. Which historically has been pretty meh if you ask me (they royally dicked around with the ETS and called that a victory, for example). They’re also barely a left wing party: they talk about workers rights, yet don’t push to undo the Accords (which means striking is illegal except for protected industrial action, thanks Labor!), they want dental into Medicare, but see no reason to campaign for abolishing our system and replacing it with actual universal healthcare (we have a private subsidy model, with a bit of public healthcare sprinkled in). Their party is one who want to manage capitalism better and tax companies and the wealthy some more - not abolish the power structures that allow the wealthy to retain the monopoly on decision making in society, and put agency in the hands of the workers (i.e. socialism). They think the solution to our problems is to get “good people” to the levers of power. They’re quite fine with capitalism. That’s not very left wing, if you ask me.
Moving politics left isn’t about moving the Labor party left. The Labor party has and continues to move to the right. They are a lost cause and anyone who’s still a member, despite it all, is on board with that.
The only semi-realistic threat right now is a far right cooker party in One Nation and Labor doesn’t need to move left to combat them either.
Exactly my point. Having a “strong opposition” of a right wing party does nothing to move politics further left. And anchors the average opinion further right.
Do we really think the Labor party would have changed capital gains the way they did if right wing politics in Australia weren’t in shambles (yeah, One Nation is rising, but they’re so far much less effective in convincing wealthy people about much of anything).
In conclusion, yeah, can’t wait for the LNP to die. Not that I think that’ll be enough to usher in meaningful change. That will only come from grassroots organising.
- Comment on Former prime minister Tony Abbott elected unopposed as Liberal Party president 1 month ago:
I personally don’t think that “extreme left” equals a single party state.
I think extreme left is abolishing private control of capital, not necessarily something like stalinism.
To me, socialism necessarily means democratic control of society by and for the workers and people. Authoritarian states (current and past), in my opinion, cannot be considered socialist because they are/were authoritarian and created a new ruling class - just based on party position rather than wealth.
I think the notion of people ever 100% agreeing is absurd, so there’ll always be different parties/factions/groups - provided you’re actually committed to democracy, which any true socialist is.
The “far left” quality of a party, under my worldview, is concerned with what you think about the control of capital, rather than what you think about how decisions should get made (through democracy or dictatorship).
Though, I will also admit that I am very biased, that I believe a truly democratic far right society is impossible, because of the influence of concentrations of money over politics.
I actually prefer mixed member proportionality with a concentrated left leaning bias.
I encourage people to think beyond tinkering with how we vote for our representatives, to notice that even with our representatives being elected, they’re only beholden to us ever 3/4 years (or 6 in the case of senators), and in the meantime they’re able to scratch backs and get sweet cushy jobs after they’re done, and/or a sweet parliamentary pension.
Community organisations mostly have a right of recall over their elected positions, based on varying thresholds depending on their org’s rules. It’s wild that we don’t have this ability at a federal or state level.
Though, I also agree we should still tinker with the voting system in the meantime. I would love lower house seats to be MMP as you suggest. My pet idea is to increase the number of lower house seats by 50%, and then send 3 members from 75 electorates (combine current electorates in 2s).
Retains the local nature of the candidates (and they should try spread themselves out across the electorate), while providing better representation in the lower house.
Thanks for engaging with me on this!
- Comment on Former prime minister Tony Abbott elected unopposed as Liberal Party president 1 month ago:
As a vehemently left winger
I like a stronger centre right to keep the left wing in check too
Wat.
I don’t think those two positions work together.
We want the right to crumble so politics moves further left, no?
- Comment on ‘Extremely Concerning’: Chris Minns Slammed Over Trump-Like ‘Biological Differences’ Comments 1 month ago:
Painful?
- Comment on Opposition Leader Angus Taylor proposes migration cap tied to housing construction 1 month ago:
Shhhhhhhh don’t let the plebs hear you! Else they might realise that capitalism and piling investor money into housing is actually causing high prices!
Line must go up 📈📈📈
