MisterFrog
@MisterFrog@aussie.zone
- Submitted 1 day ago to melbourne@aussie.zone | 0 comments
- Comment on Leggo's, Coles and Aldi selling Chinese tomatoes as 'Australian' and 'Italian' in products, forensic testing finds 2 days ago:
Absolutely. Though I don’t believe that particular legal precedent exists in Australia (I am not a lawyer).
Completely agree though, that these consequences are too lax, and are just the cost of doing business…
- Comment on Does Albanese's idea for more Australian oil supplies stack up? 4 days ago:
If only we hadn’t bloody allowed the ones we already had to be closed… They should have been forcibly nationalised at a fair (low) price if they wanted to close up shop.
Especially the refinery owned by Viva Energy in Geelong should have been nationalised, not had their profits guaranteed…
I say all this as someone who doesn’t drive, and I thinks we should get off oil ASAP. We can’t just flip the switch and have everything grind to a halt.
But building a NEW refinery? Are you serious?
- Comment on Leggo's, Coles and Aldi selling Chinese tomatoes as 'Australian' and 'Italian' in products, forensic testing finds 5 days ago:
In my opinion, the maximum fines courts can impose are too low, and even then, judges too often don’t award the maximum fines :(
If a company has a net worth over a certain amount, I reckon a jury should get final say. The class interests of judges are too different to the common person in our current society
- Comment on Beaten, robbed and driven out: violent demonstrations target immigrants in South Africa 6 days ago:
The common denominator is capitalism and growing inequality.
- Comment on Can the Liberal Party recover? | 7.30 1 week ago:
Even if we don’t get rid of capitalism (my preference), I honestly think if we at least reverted to: infrasture should be publically owned, constructed (with direct employment, not private contracts), and maintained, we’d save a bunch of money, have better quality infrastructure, and provide stable employment to a bunch more people.
Though, there is serious restructuring to do to government departments. My suggestion? Make department leadership elected by the workers (they’d still be beholden to the government, but it means that you’d have fewer “manager” types at the reigns who don’t actually have a clue).
And, as forementioned, the route problem here is capitalism.
- Comment on Can the Liberal Party recover? | 7.30 1 week ago:
Yes Angus, I agree we should stop corporate handouts.
Where you’re bring very disingenuous is your plan for “small” government.
- There’s no such thing, you only will have an outsourced government
- A small government only results in privatisation, increasing the cost to the community in having to pay for profits
I mean, look me in the eye and saying transurban hasn’t caused massive loss for motorists and businesses, rather than paying tolls to the state.
Tell me that paying private energy retailers profits is better than what we had with the Victorian SEC.
Tell me that shopping around for private healthcare, private disability care, is good for the people?
Utter bullshit, but yes I agree, go let private businesses be private. We shouldn’t be giving them any public money.
Not that you believe that, given that we are no change to corporate handouts under LNP governments.
- Comment on Reports that Victoria is set to Abolish Group Voting Tickets 2 weeks ago:
Just wanted to reply here also that I didn’t vote based on THEIR party name, but rather (in addition to their policies on their website) them preferencing another party, with a name which makes it incredibly clear I would not want them in government.
In addition to them (the incumbents) already putting a moratorium on new bike lanes when they gained power, preferercing that party made their position even more clear.
Voting FOR a party based on name is silly. Voting against a party with a name like “rip up the bike lanes” is not a silly choice, provided you look into the other parties available.
- Comment on Reports that Victoria is set to Abolish Group Voting Tickets 2 weeks ago:
Oh 100%, it was rather when I was looking into each of the parties, I also looked up their preferences.
And they were very much telling on themselves by highly preferencing a party with a name which I think is terrible urban planning.
This was for a council election, and that’s all by post in Victoria.
- Comment on The Victorian Greens are taking a page from Mamdani’s policy playbook. Can they combat rising rightwing populism? 2 weeks ago:
I’m not a greens supporter (they’re not anti-capitalist), but they do have well-documented policies, so not really sure what you mean by “if they actually came with policy”.
They obviously can’t implement them because they don’t meaningfully hold the balance of power (and even when they have, they haven’t done a great job - the ETS comes to mind).
Still better than the LNP and Labor though :/
- Comment on The Victorian Greens are taking a page from Mamdani’s policy playbook. Can they combat rising rightwing populism? 2 weeks ago:
Thanks for sharing. Not a greens supporter, but we absolutely should replace stamp duty with a land value tax.
Stamp duty penalises people for moving/downsizing, and is also (obviously) a tax.
- Comment on Reports that Victoria is set to Abolish Group Voting Tickets 2 weeks ago:
Thank god, group voting tickets was so dumb.
Personally I do think there should be a minimum number of preferences you need to fill out. It forces parties to be clear on who they would like you to preference on their how-to-vote cards. Which is one extra piece of information voters can use.
In a Melbourne Council election, the incumbent party preferenced a party called “rip up the bike lanes”, so I could immediately decide not to vote for either of them without even needing to discover news articles or policy on the topic.
If you’re preferencing a party like that, then I know you’re stupid and don’t deserve my vote.
- Comment on Gun buyback deadline expires with most states still refusing to sign on 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 weeks 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 weeks 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 weeks 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 weeks ago:
National treasure of course
- Comment on Albanese government rejects all UN recommendations on improving LGBTQIA+ rights 3 weeks 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’ 5 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 5 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 5 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 1 month 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 !! 1 month 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? 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month ago:
One Nation are basically Reform UK, I’d say
- Comment on Seems very topical with the rise of One Nation 1 month ago:
In the case of Melbourne, the enemy likes to arrives to the F1 and the Melbourne Cup by Helicopter.
- Submitted 1 month ago to australianpolitics@aussie.zone | 8 comments
