Wednesday 31 December 2014

Let's stop those welfare bludgers from breeding or Eugenics 101!

Let's stop those welfare bludgers from breeding or Eugenics 101!

Let’s stop those welfare bludgers from breeding or Eugenics 101!








 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Vote

no pregnancyThe
topic of conversation across many pages on Facebook, across newspaper
forums and even current affairs shows has been a statement from ex-ALP
Minister Gary Johns



Former Labor Minister Gary Johns suggests linking the dole to contraception.”

The comments from a wide and diverse range of people regarding this topic has certainly been an eye opener.


Firstly, I need to get something off my chest….. I find it absolutely remarkable, that an overtly sexist comment from an “Ex-ALP Minister” hits the headlines three days after the polls screamed loudly that Tony Abbott is falling out of favour with women.
 Now call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but I do find that
linking an extremely sexist and controversial statement to the ALP
three days after polling highlighted that women would rather #putyourironout rather than vote for Abbott again, an attempt at political strategy by the right. #diversion.



John’s originally wrote his article as opinion for The Australian and
they labelled John’s as an ‘ex-ALP’ Minister whereas the Australian
Newspaper could have labelled him either senior fellow at the Institute
of Public Affairs (IPA)  (Abbott linked right-wing think tank) or
the Associate Commissioner of the Commonwealth Productivity Commission
from 2002 – 2004 under the Howard Government.   I find it interesting
that the Murdoch press chose to link John’s to the ALP instead, although
he hasn’t been a Minister of the ALP and has been critical of the ALP
since at least 1996.  The Australian may as well have gone onto social
media and asked some random their sexist opinions on welfare and
contraception.



Which takes me to my next point. I have taken a selection of comments
via Facebook, across various pages and groups.  This is just a small
sample and if you could quantify the negative comments supporting this
argument, I would estimate it was approximately 70% (in favour) 30% (not
in favour) across the board.   The narrative in this country is
something that we need to look at a lot more closely.



Some of the themes from those on social media go something like this (hit it)


Only the rich should breed (or why I shouldn’t exist)


Facebook Comment: “Still
my point is valid…. There are other ways to prevent people from having
children! Sterilisation is a good one! Some people have children
completely dependant (sic) on the government… Those people need to be
told NO!”



According to this Facebook User (and many like this person) I should
not exist.  You see, my father was an invalid pensioner (completely
dependent on the Government) and my mother on the wife’s (carer’s)
pension.  So going by what this person is saying, because my father had a
disability and mum looked after him, she should have been sterilized.
 This is the type of person who would vote for a Government to forcibly
sterilize a woman because that woman is not ‘their ideal woman who
should be breeding.’   But give her a job and she will be Mother of the
freaking year!



In fact, with this line of thinking, I should not exist and neither
should my two sisters or three brothers.  Why? Because we are not the
product of a ‘born to rule’ ideology that salivates at the thought of
social cleansing, where only those ‘not in need’ have a space in
society? This person and many commenting like this person, obviously
dream of a society, where the ‘undesirables’ (aka those on welfare) are
left to rot or be eliminated altogether.



What these sort of people don’t understand is when you
have kids and you are on welfare, it is usually the mother who goes
without to accommodate the needs of the children.  People just make do
with what they have. They don’t scream and ask for more to live a
wealthy lifestyle.

Bludgers and deadshits (Or how those with privilege seek to label the disadvantaged)


Facebook Comment:  How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me. Bums breeding more bums! And so the cycle will continue.


and this gem


Facebook comment: What about the rights of children not to be born to deadshit parents?


According to this Facebook user all children of welfare recipients
should be cast aside as ‘Bums’ before they are even given a chance in
society.   In my own lived experience as a child of welfare, every
single one of us has gone on to achieve a full and productive life.   I
have worked in Management across private, public, community, vocational
and higher education sectors. I have gone on to postgraduate education
and also have a partially completed PhD which may or may not ever get
finished.  My brothers and sisters have all worked in either a
professional capacity or in management.   We all have families and
children.   My family is not a unique example. Many great leaders have
also come from very poor backgrounds.   To deny a child a life, because
others seek to cleanse society of children not born to “Women of
Calibre” is beyond the sickest ways of thinking.



What people like this do not understand, is that there is more to
life than money.  Sure, we lived in commission, didn’t eat fancy meals,
but the values that our parents instilled in us, cannot be bought with
money.  How one parents is not governed by how much money someone has.
In fact, there was more love in my home growing up, than what I had
witnessed in some of my much better off friends homes growing up.   Turn
to any Youth Agency and you will also see that young people who need
assistance come from a wide and diverse background. Not just welfare.



This type of person believes that people born into welfare are Bums
or their parents are ‘deadshits’ and have nothing to contribute. Please
tell that to Oprah Winfrey and J.K. Rowling, just two successful
women with links to welfare.



Culling of Humans (or Eugenics and the sick mind in favour of it)


Facebook Comment: Besides
there needs to be a cull of the human race anyway. Weeding out bottom
feeders bogans just plain right pieces of crap from society.   
This
is why we have such a f u ked (sic) up society because of all the
bottom feeders who have kids that dont (sic) bring them up with morals
and values respect this is why there is alot  (sic) of kids on the dole
its (sic) all they know 
(Just imagine the punctuation is there. You can do it!).



and this gem


Facebook Comment: Agreed. The rats have a screw and produce a rat might be different size whatever u still breed a rat a bottom feeder (Once again, use your magical powers so this makes freaking sense!)


Once again, we have the mentality that thinks Eugenics are a fine
thing to implement in society.  Do these people really believe that only
a certain ‘type’ of person should be allowed to have children?  Do they
really believe that the Government should have the right to stop the
bloodline of those that are in need of social supports?



The rat comment is also even more chilling, as the Jews were referred
to as rats during the Holocaust, a time where there were those that
thought a blond haired blue eyed race was the only race that should
exist.



What these people do not realise is, if Eugenics, Social
cleansing or the likes were adopted, there will always be someone ‘at
the bottom of society’ and that person could very well be you.

Then we move on to the ‘related topics’ that show how people’s mind link other negative societal behaviors to those on welfare.


Those drug-addled welfare recipients (or how to stigmatised those already stigmatised through negative association)


Facebook Comment: Totally agree and don’t forget to drug test as well


This comment is actually from a person who is well known in a certain
town and aspires to be a Lord Mayor. You know – making decisions about
people and their lives in an entire region/community.  As Keating said,
“God help us….God help us.”



This type of (let’s face it) brainless idiot, touts this sort of
rubbish, because it gives them a sense of self-importance. The problem
is it only feeds the ego and not the brain, as statistics on drug use
are completely contrary to what this person is implying.  This type of
person seeks to further stigmatise the already stigmatised in society,
as it makes them feel so much above everyone else when in reality, they
are the lowest of the low.



I won’t go any further into this one, as I have already published two articles on this topic of welfare and drug testing.


Drug Testing and the LNP’s Ongoing Stigmatization of the Poor  and The LNP’s agenda for welfare. A clarification of what drug testing really means


Those heathen young girls who have babies (or how to slut-shame women because you are a judgemental moron)


Facebook comment: Dude
it’s what is happening. It’s not only adults popping kids out now a
days it’s teenagers. You walk in to centrelink and there’s 16 year olds
sitting every where with kids on there hip



It always fascinates me how people specifically target young women
who are mothers as the primary burden, almost a parasitic burden on
society. It also fascinates me that although we now have Google and no
longer need to trawl through the Funk and Wagnells, people just can’t be
bothered checking facts before they open their bigoted mouths.



Only 10% of lone mothers are aged 15 – 24 and the peak group for lone
mothers is age 35-44 years of age and the major contributor to sole
parenting is the break down of marriage. 12% of sole parents are men,
and are usually over 35. Doesn’t this indicate to people that if a
relationship breaks down for a younger woman, that it is the younger
woman who is most likely left to care for the baby? Let’s not target and
label bright, young enthusiastic women, because they have the extra
responsibility of sole motherhood. They have much to contribute to
society.



Having a child out of wedlock is not a crime and the only people who are bastards are the people who think this way.

After reading comments across so many different forums yesterday; it
is quite evident that the Australian narrative needs to be scrutinised
further and Australians themselves need to be openly challenged in their
thinking.  If we did not have the safety net of unemployment benefit,
what impact would this have on the economy? It could be assumed that
most people would keep spending to a minimum so they could support
themselves in the event of job loss.   So many people are so
judgemental, yet, never question the tax payer funded benefits of big
business, but feel it is just and moral to kick the boot in to the
already disadvantaged. The derogatory vilification of people in dire
circumstances, simply needs to stop. To quote my most favourite
politician Anthony Albenese:



It’s time for a more serious debate on welfare – one that goes beyond dog whistling and demonisation of the poor

One theme very evident through all the comments, is that taxpayers
feel they have some type of ‘ownership’ over the lives of those on
welfare. Kind of like the Master / Slave mentality. It is quite
appalling really, that these people think they can dictate to others how
they can live their lives.  Most people who are on welfare at one point
in their lives, have contributed to a tax system, which is used to pay
for welfare.  For those that never have and never will pay, it is the
duty of the Government of this country to ensure that these people are
supported and they simply do not deserve the disrespect dished out to
them.



(taken from a Facebook user on the Sunrise thread) I will end with this post with his comment:


Facebook Comment: Some of you seem to think that unemployment
benefit isn’t a right… well, you are not correct. It’s right there in
Hansard.



Max Tivey's photo.


(He sounds NOTHING like the Liberals of today – who are these people?)


Share this:

Tuesday 30 December 2014

Murdoch prepares Bishop for Libspill - The AIM Network

Murdoch prepares Bishop for Libspill - The AIM Network



RUPERT MURDOCH aka LORD VOLDEMORT AND HIS DEATH EATERS.

HAS A NEW LAPDOG IN THE LNP




Murdoch prepares Bishop for Libspill








JulieBishop

Abbott must be having a horrible Christmas break. He can’t have missed
that his old buddy, his mentor Rupert has completely dropped him and in
doing so, has given permission for his newspapers to admit that PM
Abbott is a dud. They’re still not yet ready to admit he’s always been a
dud and that they were stupid to support him in the first place (as if
they’ll ever be ready for this sort of atonement), but they’re willing
to go as far as actually reporting his poll numbers, which speak for
themselves, and saying that if only he could get his ‘message’ right,
their neoliberal Tea-Party agenda would be gratefully accepted by the
electorate instead of wholeheartedly rejected. It’s fascinating to watch
an entire news organisation finally coming round to the fact that the
public knows better than they do whether someone is a good PM or not. I
thought the whole definition of ‘news’ was telling us all something we
didn’t know, and being first to the story? Abbott’s incompetence is old
news, and News Ltd coming to this realisation last is really the only
thing you need to know about the incompetence of News Ltd. ‘Oh Abbott’s
polls are bad!’ they all cry in unison! ‘We totally didn’t see that
coming!’.


So what are News Ltd going to do now that their favourite son has
spectacularly failed? If you’ve been paying attention to the number of
puff pieces being written at News Ltd about their chosen successor,
Julie Bishop, you will see that a Libspill is clearly being planned.


As soon as I realised that Julie Bishop was being put forward as the
most likely replacement for Abbott, I realised just how screwed the
Abbott government is. Because if Bishop is deemed as the ‘best
performer’, it shows just how badly the rest of them have performed.
Think about it for a second. What exactly has Bishop done which is so
high performing? Perhaps if the definition of high performing is ‘not
stuffing up as badly as the rest of the Abbott ministry and being
protected by News Ltd so even if you did stuff up the public never heard
about it’, then Bishop has been high performing. But all I’ve seen is
very basic
no-more-competent-than-you’d-expect-of-an-average-politician-statements
from her in response to international tragedies, such as disease,
terrorism and plane crashes, and of course I’ve seen her slashing the
Foreign Aid budget, making Australia the stingiest rich country in the
world, bar none. I can see that News Ltd are clearly happy about this,
but as I’ve said previously, News Ltd’s opinion and the general public’s
opinion do not match and are increasingly at complete odds so News Ltd
being happy about something more than likely works against Bishop in the
long term.


But even more interesting than the claim that Bishop is ‘high
performing’, is News Ltd’s strategy of backing a female Prime Minister,
after systematically mauling our first female Prime Minister, Julia
Gillard, with a sexist, low-life, scum-filled campaign of hateful lies
and misinformation. Just to remind you all, Julia Gillard was the most
successful Prime Minister this country has ever had. You won’t ever see
any such analysis done in News Ltd papers, but this Guardian article has run the figures showing Gillard as the winner.
So keeping this in mind, and keeping News Ltd’s vile anti-Gilllard
campaign in mind, how are News Ltd going to position Bishop, a female,
unmarried, childless ex-South Australian lawyer as PM material, when
they so blatantly positioned Gillard as unfit, whilst appealing to the
scum who read their newspapers, who were only too happy to agree? They
built the anti-female-leader narrative, so how are they going to tear it
down in support for Bishop?


So far, I have seen three strategies at work.

The first is to dress Julie Bishop up in her favourite ridiculously expensive clothes, to do a bit of airbrushing and to photograph her looking relaxed and feminine
as if she doesn’t have a care in the world (or an office, or a desk,
or, for that matter, a job. Notice how male politicians are never
photographed posing as if they’re in a fashion magazine?). It’s also
worth noting at this point that when Gillard posed for a Women’s Weekly
photo shoot in 2007, Bishop was reported as saying:


“I don’t think it’s necessary to get dressed up in
designer clothing and borrow clothing and make-up to grace the cover of
magazines… You’re not a celebrity, you’re an elected representative,
you’re a member of parliament. You’re not Hollywood and I think that
when people overstep that line they miss the whole point of that public
role.”

Clearly Bishop thinks she is Hollywood and is a celebrity and that’s the end of that.

The second strategy to ready Bishop for the position as Australia’s
second female Prime Minister is for her to paint herself as not a
feminist, and not as having benefited from feminism to get where she is.
It was all her, apparently. And women who think they need
feminism to get ahead need to stop complaining and get on with it,
apparently. I feel that Bishop claiming she’s got where she is without
the help of the feminist movement is akin to the captain of a football
team being presented with the Grand Final cup and saying ‘thanks so much
for all the applause. Clearly I played really well and that’s why the
team won. I don’t know what all those other guys on my team were doing,
but without my individual effort, the Grand Final cup would not be mine
today’. Feminists have every right to be offended by Bishop’s suggestion
that their hard fought battles are just a campaign of whinging. And of
course they have every reason to laugh at Bishop, who is one of two
women in Abbott’s cabinet, after being the only one for the first year,
presumably because all the other Liberal women of merit were too busy
complaining instead of being merit selected in a cabinet that is full of
un-merit-worthy men. You’ve got to laugh so you don’t cry!


Finally, the last strategy to prepare Bishop for a leadership
challenge is for News Ltd to claim that she is nothing like Gillard, and
so should never be compared. Please look away now if you don’t feel
like being angry for at least the next month over the following
statement that was made in this Courier Mail Julie Bishop-fan-mail-puff-piece. Or do what I do and try to turn your anger into productive rage:


‘Dignified yet determined, Ms Bishop has succeeded
where Julia Gillard failed, by showing that women can perform at the
highest levels of political office without either hiding behind their
gender or sacrificing their femininity. A passionate advocate of women,
Ms Bishop believes in merit-based promotion, and her own hard work is
now reaping rewards, both on the international stage and in domestic
polls. And the damage done by Ms Gillard to the public perception of
women in leadership roles is slowly being healed as voters regain
confidence that a female politician can deliver’.

So this is the campaign and it’s well underway. There’s no sign yet as to how News Ltd will deal with Bishop’s embarrassing past of plagiarism, or her seedy career as a lawyer fighting against asbestos victims, and apparently once asking
‘why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they
were dying’. But we will watch and see as News Ltd comes up with new
techniques of dishonesty to repel any criticism of their
new-found-favourite candidate. And of course, it will be fascinating to
see how such a leadership spill could possibly be orchestrated without
use of the words ‘blood’ and ‘stab’ littered throughout the reportage.
No doubt that’s the last piece of the puzzle that needs to be worked out
before we wake up to find Abbott gone, and PM
anti-feminist-pro-Armani-asbestos-Julie in his place.



Monday 29 December 2014

Can Catholics Still Use The Rhythm Method Or Would That Be Too Off-Beat For Centrelink? - The AIM Network

Can Catholics Still Use The Rhythm Method Or Would That Be Too Off-Beat For Centrelink? - The AIM Network



Can Catholics Still Use The Rhythm Method Or Would That Be Too Off-Beat For Centrelink?














There’s an article in The Australian
from a former Labor Minister so the Liberals can’t blamed for this
(yet?) – which suggests that contraception be compulsory for people on
welfare. It won’t let me link it directly but you can find it easily
enough by searching for Gary Johns, “No Contraception, No Dole” or read a
summary here.



It begins:


IF a person’s sole source of income is the
taxpayer, the person, as a condition of benefit, must have
contraception. No contraception, no benefit.
Of course it does go on to say:


“And so it was that taxpayers were confronted
with two cases over Christmas. Both happened to be indigenous, but of
course, many non-indigenous cases abound.”



Now, I could go on with some of the things in the article which sound
just a wee bit racist. (Can one be “a wee bit racist”, or is it like
being slightly pregnant?) However, because I’m sure that plenty of other
people will do that, I prefer to consider the proposal seriously and
look at the practicalities of introducing such a scheme.



A number of questions occur to me.


  1. Would it apply to all welfare recipients and therefore include those on a disability pension?
  2. Would Catholics be exempt from using the contraception methods that
    are forbidden by the Pope and be allowed to simply use the rhythm
    method?
  3. Would age pensioners be exempt on the grounds that they were past the childbearing age, or would that be discriminatory?
  4. If you used contraception for, say, five months before getting pregnant, would you be required to repay your benefits?
  5. Would you be responsible for your own contraception or would be supplied to you at interviews with your employment provider?
  6. If you skipped a day on the Pill, would you be obliged to report it to Centrelink?
  7. Would inspectors be required to check that you were actually using the condoms?
I’m sure that there are other questions that need to be answered, but
I won’t worry too much because I suspect that this proposal is too
wacky, even for our current government.



Although, I have just heard about an aged pensioner who received a
text message from Centrelink telling them that they’d have to report
every fortnight. One presumes that it’s a mistake. Surely!



Footnote: From Wikipedia on Gary Johns


“Since his defeat, Johns has drifted from the ALP and has
been critical of his old party. Johns told Brett Evans that he might
still be a member of the ALP but Evans says that in Johns’ heart he has
moved on from the ALP. [2]



From 1997 to 2006, he was a senior fellow at the neo-liberal/conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).”













Saturday 27 December 2014

Christmas Gift Ideas By Senator Leyonhjelm | The Sauce

Christmas Gift Ideas By Senator Leyonhjelm | The Sauce



Christmas Gift Ideas By Senator Leyonhjelm









 3
 0
 



christmas_gun


In the wake of the shocking Sydney Lindt Hostage situation our brave
libertarian Senator Leyonhjelm struck straight to the heart of the real
cause of the events and hinted at a foolproof solution. He pointed out
that we are a ‘nation of victims’ and need to have access to guns to
solve our problems, because it has worked so well in the USA.



His nuanced dissection of the events is a breath of fresh air. This
was definitely not an issue of a man with a violent criminal history,
nor his lack of treatment for mental health issues, nor about issues
surrounding bail in our justice system, nor about racial and religious
tensions in Australia. Nope, this was all about not being able to shoot
people you have a problem with.



We should be thanking Senator Leyonhjelm and his fellow libertarians
with gifts, which is appropriate timing leading into the Festive Season
and our desperate need to stimulate the free market. So make Joe Hockey
proud and buy some libertarian gifts.



 
atlas


Gift Idea 1: Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, with foreword written by Rand whilst on welfare.


Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged is a must have for all libertarians. The
all-new edition has a foreword written by Rand in the 1970s explaining
her principles and complaints about how small her welfare checks were.



 
smoker1


Gift Idea 2: Smokers lungs desk ornament, with bonus lungs of their children who rode in the car with them while they smoked.


This is a great gift for libertarians as it acts as a conversation piece to allow them to discuss how over-taxed smokers are.


 
man_gun


Gift Idea 3: Bushmaster AR15 semi-automatic rifle chambered in .223-caliber.


The Bushmaster is the freedom weapon of choice and a must have for
defending your rights. Comes as a box set of the rifle, one thousand
rounds of ammunition, and paper targets of school children.



 
goggles


Gift Idea 4: Environmental Goggles that immediately darken and block the sight of disasters.


You can’t have the environment get in the way of the economy, so
these goggles help libertarians conveniently fail to see the degradation
and destruction of climate change, pollution, and the future.
















Tyson Adams is a writer who's previous works include the one you just read.

Tuesday 23 December 2014

Employer push to cut penalty rates before Christmas

Employer push to cut penalty rates before Christmas


Employer push to cut penalty rates before Christmas





23 December 2014




By ACTU
















An attempt by employers to cut penalty rates for millions
of Australian workers has kicked off just before Christmas, said the
ACTU.



141223-chess-game600pxwACTU
President Ged Kearney said employer groups have outlined the industries
they will target under a review of the award system at a hearing in the
Fair Work Commission.



"If employer groups have their way, this could be the last year
millions of Australian workers will be paid existing penalty rates for
working weekends, late nights and public holidays - including
Christmas," said Ms Kearney.



Workers at risk of losing their current penalty rates under the Fair
Work Commission review of modern awards include retail, hospitality,
pharmacy, hair and beauty, fast food, dry cleaning and laundry, as well
as amusement and events.



Ms Kearney said the irony should not be lost that the case to cut
penalty rates has begun right before the busy Christmas period when many
Australians have no choice but to work on public holidays.



"While many of us are winding down to enjoy the holidays, millions of
Australian workers will give up this special time with family and
friends to work. They work weekends, nights and other unsociable hours
and should be paid for that.



The move comes as the Abbott Government announced on Friday the terms
of reference for a Productivity Commission review into the Fair Work
Act, which covers all workplace laws.



Ms Kearney said wages, conditions and penalty rates are under attack on two fronts.


"The employers are going after them in the Fair Work Commission while
the Abbott Government is using the Productivity Commission to do the
same."



Ms Kearney said despite the claims by employer groups, there is no
evidence linking productivity or employment levels with penalty rates, a
finding confirmed by the Fair Work Commission.



"The business community justifies its push to get rid of penalty
rates by saying they are making it unaffordable to hire workers. The
truth is that the share of business income going to wages in several key
sectors has been falling in recent years,"



Total wages share in food and accommodation was 78 per cent in 2013-14, down from a peak of 87 per cent in 1997-98.


In retail, the wages share has fallen from a peak of 79 per cent in 1997-98 to just 73 per cent in 2013-14.


Ms Kearney also urged workers to check their pay rates and entitlements for the Christmas and New Year period.


"Workers can go to www.checkyourpay.org.au
or call our Australian Unions helpline on 1300 4 UNION (1300 486 466)
to get expert advice on what you should be paid – and what you should do
if your pay is incorrect."



Media contact: Kara Douglas, 0418 793 885









Contact Details
Name:
Linda White, ASU Assistant National Secretary
Telephone:
03 9342 1400
Email:
lwhite@asu.asn.au

The LNP's new talent - How to disable people with a disability.

The LNP's new talent - How to disable people with a disability.

The LNP’s new talent – How to disable people with a disability.








 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Vote



abbott disabilityKevin Andrews has announced that anyone seeking to access the disability support pension, will now be required to see an independent doctor prescribed by the Government, and recommendations from family doctors will no longer be allowed to assess people for the disability pension.



The
LNP has effectively taken away the right of choice for people with a
disability.  All Australians expect a fair go, a right to choose.
However, this is now no longer the case if you have a disability.
Someone will make this choice for you. For those with a disability who
do not need an advocate; who can make their own decisions.  For those
who need an advocate, this is taking away the right to choose, through
denying the choices that the advocate can make on their behalf.  This is
a blatantly disabling people with a disability, rather than enabling
them.



This
also strikes me as so raw and so insensitive not even a week after the
passing of Stella Young. Stella Young, if anything, taught us that we
should treat all people with disabilities as human beings. Taking away
someone’s right to choose does not treat a person as a full human being.
Kevin Andrews (as all neo-liberals do) is purely focused on money and
not the welfare of the person, nor is he focused on client outcomes for a
person seeking the disability pension.  Scott Morrison inheriting this
portfolio, will contribute a ‘show no mercy’ approach to this situation.



In plain Australian English: The LNP does not give a stuff about people with a disability and how they should be treated.

One
of the most concerning risks is that if the correct outcome for a
person with a disability is not achieved, this will result in that
person being moved to Newstart.  This person will then receive less
money and will further exclude a person with a disability from accessing
social inclusion activities, transport and even better choice of
housing to name a few.  Once again, the underlying message of the
Government for welfare recipients is “they are liars and cheats and we
must stop them.”



Through
this agenda of stigmatization and segregation of welfare recipients,
the LNP Government aims to use this stigma and marginalization, so major
cuts to welfare and even full closure of some services will result in
little resistance from voters.   Everything about the LNP is underpinned
by cuts, cuts and more cuts, as demonstrated even more today with cuts
to housing advocacy and homeless programs, programs for the blind, deaf and acquired brain injury also losing critical funding.



Lisa
Gunder’s article, Immoral and un-Australian: the discursive exclusion
of welfare recipients, discusses the narrative / agenda set by political
leaders since Howard.  The focus on the welfare agenda in the Howard
era, when Abbott was Minister for Employment; set to recontextualise
‘have a go’ and ‘the protestant work ethic’ (as part of our national
identity) within the welfare discourse.  In an analysis of Australian
identity, the ‘Australian way of life’ features strong connections with
hard work the middle class and a protestant work ethic.  From Howard to
Abbott, they have used this ‘accepted view of our way of life’ strongly
within speeches and narratives about welfare; to change how Australians
see those who are truly disadvantaged. 



The
other most prominent issue that Gunder raises, is that in Howard and
Abbott’s speeches, they highlight the success of the ‘in-group’
(non-welfare recipients) and mitigate the achievements of the out-group
(welfare recipients).  In simple terms, they purposely avoid
highlighting achievements of welfare recipients and focus on the
negative.  This sets in place an agenda for stigmatization.



It
is through this narrative, that has been used and built on since the
Howard years, which sets the tone for stigmatization and paves the way
for further cuts and punitive measures for welfare recipients.   If you
reflect on the timeline, the progression of this negative narrative has
extended from the unemployed, to the single parent, aged pensioners and
veterans and now the Government believes its narrative has been accepted
sufficiently by the ‘in-group’, that harsh and punitive measures for
those on a disability will be accepted by the ‘in-group’ or mainstream
Australia. In simple terms, the Abbott Government sees punishing people
with a disability as a ‘vote winner.’  As Australians, we should
strongly see this as a failure to our national identity.



It
is simply not good enough for the ALP and Greens and any other party
who opposes these measures and this narrative to simply say ‘it is not OK.’  A
narrative has been built since Howard’s arrival at the podium in 1996;
that has gradually been listened to and accepted by Australians that “it is fine to punish the ‘out-group (aka welfare recipients).'”   



As
‘punitive measures and harsh treatment’ are now the norm within
welfare; the ALP and Greens need to create a very strong narrative and
create a new discourse which places welfare recipients at the heart of
the “A Fair Go” and speak loudly and strongly of not only
achievements, but of compassion and humanity and how and why we should
unequivocally provide assistance for those in need’.  



It
is essential for the progress of Australia to remain silent on any
narrative punishing those on welfare and the disadvantaged and to reject
and refuse to create a welfare out-group through stigmatization.
 



We
must move forward and change the narrative completely to build up the
strength of our people, through true mateship, kindness and a fair go.  
Only then, will we all have freedom of ability, freedom of choice, true
inclusiveness and a greater participation in work and society by all.



Gunders, L 2012, ‘Immoral and un-Australian: the discursive exclusion of welfare recipients’, Critical Discourse Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1-13

Sunday 21 December 2014

Thank You – Giving thanks for the Interim Commissioner’s report into Trade Unions | Wixxyleaks

Thank You – Giving thanks for the Interim Commissioner’s report into Trade Unions | Wixxyleaks







Thank You – Giving thanks for the Interim Commissioner’s report into Trade Unions














Last Friday there must have been a lot of thankful people dishing out a lot of thank you messages.


Last Friday Commissioner John Dyson
Heydon handed over his Interim Report regarding the Trade Union Royal
Commission, the report can be read in full on my HSU resources page.



The report was originally due later in
January but was released earlier for reasons that many have speculated
on. But it is fair to say it was released on a day that shows that the
government thought this Royal Commission had been a failed exercise, why
else dump it out there on the Friday before Xmas?



The most thankful of all would be Kathy
Jackson whose appearance and testimony at the Royal Commission caused
more headlines and front page news stories than any other witness what
with charity shags and claims of ambush. In fact the only witness that received more attention on the day they appeared was former Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the day she was shown at long last to be completely clean, even in the eyes of a right-wing witch hunt like this Commission.



Jackson would be thankful that she has been completely ignored by the Commissioners report. Not even the $250K she took from cancer workers and
threw in a personal bank account to go on a wild spending spree. The
account that was disguised to look legitimate in the HSU books and then
when discovered attempted to be passed off as a slush fund.



Not only did Jackson go on a wild
spending spree but she shared the love and the loot around with
accomplices giving huge sums of money to her ex-husband Jeff and also a chunk in an envelope to her factional ally and standover man Marco Bolano, apparently so he could use the money to illegally fund his own union election campaign.



Still, Commissioner Heydon must have
been asleep at the wheel on those days as it didn’t rate a real mention
only one passing reference. Commissioner Heydon must have also missed
that section of his Counsel Assisting’s report, the one that recommended
Jackson be referred to the Department Of Prosecution for criminal investigation.



Also thankful would be Attorney General
George Brandis and Senator Eric Abetz for saving them the embarrassment
of their Royal Commission pointing out their star witness as the most
corrupt person appearing before the Commission if the allegations are
proven true. Even based on those allegations she has admitted to under
oath during the parts that the Commissioner must have slept through
there has been no other witness appear that has personally acquired such
vast sums of money from their union without the members knowledge, let
alone blessing.



Colonel Klink and Shultz - They see and hear nothing relating to Jackson
Colonel Klink and Shultz – They see and hear nothing relating to Jackson

In fact, there must be a truckload of
Coalition MP’s, including Abbott himself, going “phew” and silently
giving thanks that Commissioner Heydon was happy to sacrifice his own
reputation to save them the embarrassment of pointing out their
unwavering support of an admitted criminal.



However it is the union movement that
should be thankful, particularly the CFMEU who seem to have been the
most targeted in this whole taxpayer-funded charade.



The union movement should be overjoyed
that this report cannot be taken in any way seriously if its 1817 pages
have blatantly missed possibly the most corrupt official to have
appeared before the Commission. This highlights that the whole
commission has been nothing but a very expensive witch hunt done for
political purposes.



But perhaps the most thankful of all
should be the public, after all as the legal fraternity involved rack up
hundreds of thousands of billable hours, it is the public that are
footing the bill.



You may think that’s nothing to be thankful for, but at least we now know exactly what it is we are paying for.


Any doubt that this Commission was
actually about protecting member’s interests rather than a witch hunt
for political purposes has now been shown as wishful thinking.



There is only one certainty in all of
this and that is one of the items on the Royal Commission agenda was the
protection of the Coalitions golden girl Kathy Jackson.



Perhaps a hint for the media was the
departure of the Royal Commission’s Media Director Adrian Kerr
immediately after the report was released. This meant the Commission
basically dropped a bombshell and ensured it could not face media
scrutiny on it.



Kerr had been visibly uncomfortable in
his role on some of the sitting days and was particularly touchy on
matters involving the Commissions integrity. In his email to the press
regarding the release of the Commissioners report, Kerr finished off by
saying this



“This
is my final day with the Commission. Thank you all for a great
professional year on the job.  I’ll keep your contact details for future
reference.”

A strange way of announcing your departure to the countries media, or perhaps strange timing is more appropriate.


Counsel Assisting Stoljar doing his best to refer to the script subtly?
Did you miss this section of my report? Counsel Assisting Stoljar asks the Commissioner




A Royal Commission is considered the
most powerful legal inquiry that this country has in its arsenal, and is
considered by many to be beyond reproach.



An inquiry of this magnitude that is
set up to expose corruption in the union movement so offenders can be
criminally prosecuted that is found to have as part of its agenda the
protection of possibly the most corrupt union official this country has
ever seen, is an inquiry that is itself corrupt to the core.



We should be thankful that at long last that the Royal Commission has shown its true colours.


A corruption inquiry that seeks to
smear the union movement and that selectively ignores allegations of
corruption on a grand scale, I have struggled hard  to think of anything
that could possibly be more corrupt than that, but I have managed to
come up of just one thing.



The government that sets it up.