They gave themselves a pay raise a few months ago and now they are at it again, parents have been thrown off parenting pension (BTW I don't agree with that pension but I would rather parents have the money than these greedy parasites) to save 700 million to get the budget into surplus, the carbon tax (breathing tax) is going to make life harder for everyone but these scumbag politicians compensate themselves for it and everyone else can go to hell. I keep saying that Australia must introduce a Citezens Initiated Referendum system in this country to keep these parasites away from us. _____ Federal MPs to pocket more pay FEDERAL MPs have been handed a $5550 pay rise - just three months after pocketing a $44,000 salary boost. As families struggle with the carbon tax, the 3 per cent increase quietly handed down this week is almost double the annual inflation rate. It has already been derided by one figure as the "pollies' own carbon tax compo". A backbencher will get an extra $106 a week, taking their salary to $190,550. Combined with the pay rise awarded in March it will mean pollies are getting $49,640 - almost $1000 a week - more than a year ago. That comes at the same time the nation's lowest-paid workers receive an extra $17.10 a week - or $890 a year. Prime Minister Julia Gillard's salary increases by $14,430 to $495,430, meaning she is earning $129,064 - or $2482 a week - more than a year ago. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott gets $10,267 extra to take his salary to $352,517. He is $91,834, or $1766 a week, better-off than a year ago. Some MPs are embarrassed about the timing of the rise, believing it is too soon after the March pay deal. It is also just days after they failed to break the asylum seeker policy deadlock and in the same week the carbon tax started. The increase was by the independent Remuneration Tribunal. Kevin Rudd blocked a pay rise in 2008 but MPs voted this year to give away the power to veto increases. Greens leader Christine Milne criticised the decision, saying: "When the government is saying it can't afford to give people struggling on Newstart an extra $50 a week to just get up to liveable levels, and the minimum wage has only gone up $17.10 a week, a $100 a week pay rise for politicians is hardly appropriate. If the nation can afford this, it can certainly afford to help our poorest people." The March rise was given as part of a reform package in which the Gold Pass travel scheme was reformed. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/federal-mps-to-pocket-more-pay/story-e6freuy9-1226416185889
While I do agree entirely with your sentiment here, It must be noted, that this increase (apparently) is an automatic increase, in a set time frame (I believe) at an increase over CPI. It must be also noted that these set increases have been brought to being, at a much earlier time and totally separate from the previously voted raises. However, obviously an agreement between other politicians.
Looks like the politicians (please for the love of god never call them "pollies" as it reeks of affection) have got us all in an abdominal stretch.....??? I wouldnt feed any of the bastards.....
The independant tribunal removed the power of veto that Rudd had in 2008, this year, apparently. I am sure there would be a dichotomy of views on this one!
I agree 100% that a CIR System is the ONLY way to get rid of these parasite politicians once and for all. Once these parasite politicians are gone, the people will finally see who has been bleeding this country dry. I also agree with some views on here in the fact that I also would not offer shelter, food nor water to ANY politician in a crisis situation - I would offer my animals those things over any politician.
CIR does not get rid of politicians. And your claim that you wouldn't give food or water to a starving/dying politician is just stupid, and makes you more worthless than any politician in Australia and probably most of our criminals/rapists/murderers too. So well done culldav, your humanity's shining through once again.
You crack on about my lack of humanity, but conveniently forget to mention the lack of humanity these gutless politicians have displayed - the same ones you would apparently save. They have played a political football with peoples lives, and have watched people die, instead of having the guts to announce ONE POLICY that would instantly STOP: 1) the people smuggler trade 2) the lose of human life 3) the financial burden to Australian tax payers. The policy: Australia will not be processing or accepting anymore asylum seeker who pay people smugglers $10,000 to smuggle them into Australia through the backdoor. Maybe for just once in your life, if you could take off your do-gooder/bleeding heart rose coloured glasses, you would finally see there are other practical humane solutions to problems besides your own stubborn moral imperatives. Your stubbornness is NO different to the political football politicians are playing with peoples lives. When there is a simplistic solution to a crisis, you just want to dig your heals in and have it your way or no way, and your behaviour is no difference to that of politicians.
Do you have any idea what you are rambling on about? You can include whatever you want in a referendum as long as there is support for the idea, tossing out a scum bag politician that has betrayed his electorate can be included in a referendum to throw out said scum bag. e.g Tony Windsor is so hated in his electorate why should he not be fired? Anyone that betrays the company they work for can be dismissed instantly why is it different for parasites? Having a citizen Initiated Referendum systems would make parasites "need not apply" a reality. Oh how I wish we had that in place now, that JuLIAR Gillard would have to tell the truth for a change, now that is something that no one has ever seen!
I know exactly what I'm talking about. CIR does not "get rid of parasite politicians once and for all", and you did not even argue that it does. What you are apparently talking about, is having a general election every time an MP becomes unpopular, and that's about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. But yes you could achieve this with CIR, though it would be horrendously expensive and often probably take longer than simply waiting for the next general election. Making terms shorter would make much more sense, but that's a bad idea too. There is no simplistic solution. Your "solution" is a clear violation of international law as I have already pointed out in another thread, it is therefore no solution at all. If you would refuse a starving dying person food and water, and rather give that food and water to your well fed pet, then yes that says something seriously disturbing about you. You're probably just being alarmist though. Asylum seeker policy is extremely complicated, there are no quick and easy solutions.
This is an example of the frustration that we are faced with... We are stuck with politicians that we dont want, and maybe their replacements couldnt find their arses with both hands either...so what do we do...all we can do is vote them out if we dont want them.....as peasants, thats the only right we have as they write all the rules..... <<< MODERATOR EDIT: INSULT >>>
You have no idea what you are talking about, as a matter of fact you are arguing with total nonsense to keep the status quo, which is exactly what suits the current parasites and future ones too if we don't put a stop to their thievery! 1: Ziggy quote: What you are apparently talking about, is having a general election every time an MP becomes unpopular You are so far off the mark to what I actually said that I must presume you are deliberately lying. I said any issue can be put before a referendum as long as it has support in the community i.e a petition. So in effect the only politicians nee parasites that have anything to worry about are the dishonest ones. 2: Ziggy quote: it would be horrendously expensive Same worn out argument that is losing traction very fast, if the scum can be fired they will have no choice than to act honestly or don't run for office. It is a hell of a lot cheaper to have a referendum every year than to keep dishonest, narcissistic, greedy parasites in office and unable to fire them immediately when they are stuffing their own pockets with tax payers money, doing things opposite for what they were elected to do etc. Here is a clue, wouldn't it have been cheaper to fire the scum bags rather than fork out hundreds of millions in: *school hall fiasco *Freaking ridiculous wind farms because some "end is nigh cult" has got the balance of power in this country *How much has the troops and military equipment that have been in Afghanistan cost us? *How much in parasite pay raises have the tax payer forked out to these useless lying vermin called politician? *How much does it cost us to keep funding these parasitic vermin called politicians for the rest of their lives after they have left office with pensions, staff, offices, telco equipment, air travel etc? Need I go on and on and on? A referendum every year would be a hell of a lot cheaper than not being able to fire LYING THIEVING USELESS PARASITES!
It is the people of the electorate who choose who represents them in parliament. It's completely ridiculous to take that democratic right away from them. Electorates must have representation, your completely undermining the right of representation of individual electorates. You do not have referendums to "fire" individual politicians, it's ridiculous. If politicians do anything illegal, they are subject to the courts. Otherwise, they will serve their term. Lower house only has 3 year terms for god's sake. It's insane, Slipper had allegations made about him years and years ago, was pre selected 9 times, and now suddenly there's a "rush" to get him out of parliament because there are new allegations. There has been years and years of opportunity to get him out of parliament, it's up to the people of his electorate, and they will just have to wait until the next election.
So you think it's OK if your MP is popular within your electorate, but unpopular nationally, that the majority can throw him out of office? That an electorate does not have the right to choose who represents them? Well... okay then.
probably the major part would be 'It is the people of the electorate who choose who represents them in parliament. It's completely ridiculous to take that democratic right away from them' So Ziggy believes that a referendum would eradicate democratic rights? A referendum actually promotes democratic rights of the PEOPLE, The threat of such action would be detrimental for the actions of politicians. The only thing that Ziggy has right is that it would be great expense to actually have one. Then we have this GEM 'If politicians do anything illegal, they are subject to the courts.' only after the government of the day has done with them, as the Craig Thomson Affair shows. Slipper could have been turfed but still at present they are still only allegations. Nothing seems to stick to him, so he is apply named. I don't care who you are, you can not condemn somebody because of previous allegations, I would not have voted for him, but they are still only allegations and he has stood aside until they are heard.
It does not matter what I think about, HOW the particular issue is handled. For me it is not anything so deep as what you are trying to defend, it is the fact that people with the most money would be the only people who would have the say in the country (like it is now) so it is great expense to simply attempt to hold politicians to account that would only play into to the hands of those that benefit the most from having the politicians do as they like. MY problem is the POST.
So explain this to me, my local MP wins his seat with a 80% majority of his electorate (let's say I'm in a rural WA seat), and then some people on the other side of the country decide they don't like him, start a petition, and he loses the national vote 40% to 60% say (and if it's a double majority, WA and Qld for, everyone else against) and he gets thrown out of his seat. You think this is promoting my democratic right to representation in parliament? No, I have no representation in parliament at all. Depends on the nature of the offence. Fair work is obviously underfunded, understaffed and took too long to investigate. Sure, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That's irrelevant to his electorate wanting him out. He has stood down from his position as speaker, he hasn't resigned from parliament.
The problem is none of these independent bodies are really independent, not even the ones with statutory powers. If ever being privy to management level of these entities you'd find that its all about what the Minister wants, unfortunately its not just an ALP thing so I cannot blame them ..... for that. It is wrong though for the ALP to harp on about them being interdependent as an excuse for the rubbish that is going on in these bodies though, because its not quite realistic once you get into those circles to have independence. So just consider that when you hear Julia/Swam et al use that angle to distance themselves from something that smells rotten, then you'll start to get a real picture of how badly the ALP is at running the government as a whole.
Do you even know how a referendum works? It is the purist for of democratic voting. No party preference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia So that would mean if only ONE state does not have a majority, the referendum would fail, As it needs to be a majority in EACH state not just some. What? are you living under a rock? The nature of the offence is FRAUD. The government is trying to slow the process to get through the political term. Has been done before and I am sure it will be done again. just in the defence of the politician in question http://intentious.com/2012/05/18/labors-cynical-political-game/ Just a little bias, against him. innocent until proven guilty? Unlike Thompson, who has been aided in prolonging the Issue (to get to the next election) Slipper has stood down. If his electorate does want him out, that is his problem. However, previous allegations have not been found, for whatever reasons. But he is YOUR example.
Hate to blow your theory out of the water, but “bum-fingers” and “no-nuts” have not represented their electorates in Parliament - they represented their own self-serving best interests. That is why both the cretins are detested and despised in their electorates by the majority of people who voted for them. The people choose, but got betrayed by a couple of mongrels.
