Thinks twice before you vote conserative if you want to protect the rights of disabled Aussies...remembering that you and your loved ones are all a car crash away from joining the ranks of the disabled.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/cassidy-shirking-responsibility-for-the-disabled/4156844?WT.svl=theDrum

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

Thinks twice before you vote conserative if you want to protect the rights of disabled Aussies...remembering that you and your loved ones are all a car crash away from joining the ranks of the disabled. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/cassidy-shirking-responsibility-for-the-disabled/4156844?WT.svl=theDrum

Or a job away from joining the ranks of the disabled under the corrupt illegal free trade corporate torture state economy... :D :P :-[ :'(

Yes - an absolutely disgusting position.  Liberals eh?  What can you say!  Perfect spawn in every way

$1 billion, plus what the states have to kick in, for a trial that only provides up to 20,000 places. That doesn't sound like very good value for money.

$1 billion, plus what the states have to kick in, for a trial that only provides up to 20,000 places. That doesn't sound like very good value for money.

Shane B wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:

$1 billion, plus what the states have to kick in, for a trial that only provides up to 20,000 places. That doesn't sound like very good value for money.

But their lame excuse is that they want to "get it right" - how better than a trial?

SOB

We would tax the rich and make it happen - not talk about it... 8-)

It's having the desired effect for the Libs. I've heard in on the ABC radiio already.....

......why are we spending so much $$$ on boat people......

the libs don't care about the disabled .... 12 years of neglect by Howard has proven it .... anything they can do to interfere with any of Gillards policies they will try ..... funny how all the lib. states said no ...you'd think with the mining boom that now is when they can do it .... 

The truth of it all is that Gillard is promising to invest $1bn worth of taxpayer funds, but only $350m is going to actually be spent on helping disabled people. The other $650m will be spent on setting up yet another huge, wasteful bureaucracy. Does anyone seriously think that spending more than half of the money allocated to this scheme is fiscally responsible? Also, Gillard is harping on about NSW not contributing enough, yet the state government has already contributed hundreds of millions of dollars. Perhaps if Gillard wasn't so busy pandering to the Greens and bothered to actually stop illegal immigrants instead of wasting $1bn+ per year on her failed border protection policy, she'd have more money to spend on this scheme. And finally, I am not the only one who is highly sceptical of the timing of this scheme being earmarked to start - just one month prior to the next scheduled election in July 2013!

Besides all that, Gillard has shown that her government is simply incapable of administering scheme's such as this involving large amounts of money. Look at what happened with pink batts, schools BER and so on. Can anyone blame some state governments for being hesitant to hand over money to a government that has a horrendous track record at running such programs?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:15pm:

Besides all that, Gillard has shown that her government is simply incapable of administering scheme's such as this involving large amounts of money. Look at what happened with pink batts, schools BER and so on. Can anyone blame some state governments for being hesitant to hand over money to a government that has a horrendous track record at running such programs?

did something happen? those things you listed were a success ... they did what they set out to do ....

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:08pm:

the libs don't care about the disabled .... 12 years of neglect by Howard has proven it .... anything they can do to interfere with any of Gillards policies they will try ..... funny how all the lib. states said no ...you'd think with the mining boom that now is when they can do it ....

Blaaaaaaaaaaaaa blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You wankers have had the check book since Rudd.

FriYAY wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:08pm: the libs don't care about the disabled .... 12 years of neglect by Howard has proven it .... anything they can do to interfere with any of Gillards policies they will try ..... funny how all the lib. states said no ...you'd think with the mining boom that now is when they can do it ....  Blaaaaaaaaaaaaa blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa You wankers have had the check book since Rudd.

true - why should labor pay for poor quality lib sperm.  you guys go your own way

FriYAY wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:08pm: the libs don't care about the disabled .... 12 years of neglect by Howard has proven it .... anything they can do to interfere with any of Gillards policies they will try ..... funny how all the lib. states said no ...you'd think with the mining boom that now is when they can do it ....  Blaaaaaaaaaaaaa blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa You wankers have had the check book since Rudd.

yes, and if you'll notice labor has been going through one issue at a time. .. coming up with a policy and then getting it through. ... in a minority govt that actually takes a lot of work and time .... but they got there ... 5 yrs ... that's more than Howard ever did ...in 12 yrs did he ever address the issues regarding the disabled? and he was rushing his policies through before he could finish writing them when it suited him ....

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:19pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:15pm: Besides all that, Gillard has shown that her government is simply incapable of administering scheme's such as this involving large amounts of money. Look at what happened with pink batts, schools BER and so on. Can anyone blame some state governments for being hesitant to hand over money to a government that has a horrendous track record at running such programs? did something happen? those things you listed were a success ... they did what they set out to do ....

If the objective of the pink batts scheme was for every unqualified Tom, Dick and Harry to install pinkkbatts in houses and burn down hundreds of them as well  s kill some young installers, then the objective was met. If the objective of the schools BER scheme was to allow companies to do jobs for ridiculously inflated prices that did not give schools the buildings they wanted (one school canteen built had so many mistakes they couldn't get a fridge in) then the objective was met. Those two programs were unmitigated disasters.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:15pm: Besides all that, Gillard has shown that her government is simply incapable of administering scheme's such as this involving large amounts of money. Look at what happened with pink batts, schools BER and so on. Can anyone blame some state governments for being hesitant to hand over money to a government that has a horrendous track record at running such programs? did something happen? those things you listed were a success ... they did what they set out to do .... If the objective of the pink batts scheme was for every unqualified Tom, Dick and Harry to install pinkkbatts in houses and burn down hundreds of them as well  s kill some young installers, then the objective was met. If the objective of the schools BER scheme was to allow companies to do jobs for ridiculously inflated prices that did not give schools the buildings they wanted (one school canteen built had so many mistakes they couldn't get a fridge in) then the objective was met. Those two programs were unmitigated disasters.

since when is the federal govt. responsible for issueing trade licenses??????  I have several, in 2 states, and never once has the federal govt. had anything to do with my license requirements .

What happened is what you can expect to happen on worksites without union representation ..... health and safety go out the window.

lisa.greek wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:26pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:21pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:08pm: the libs don't care about the disabled .... 12 years of neglect by Howard has proven it .... anything they can do to interfere with any of Gillards policies they will try ..... funny how all the lib. states said no ...you'd think with the mining boom that now is when they can do it ....  Blaaaaaaaaaaaaa blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa You wankers have had the check book since Rudd. true - why should labor pay for poor quality lib sperm.  you guys go your own way

You should have just left it at ....true.... because it is.

Howard didn't do it

Rudd didn't do it

Gillard's set her self up for another fail. There is already so much shite stuck to her and plenty of this will stick as well.

By bugger the ALP are dumb as dog crap.i

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:31pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:29pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:15pm: Besides all that, Gillard has shown that her government is simply incapable of administering scheme's such as this involving large amounts of money. Look at what happened with pink batts, schools BER and so on. Can anyone blame some state governments for being hesitant to hand over money to a government that has a horrendous track record at running such programs? did something happen? those things you listed were a success ... they did what they set out to do .... If the objective of the pink batts scheme was for every unqualified Tom, Dick and Harry to install pinkkbatts in houses and burn down hundreds of them as well  s kill some young installers, then the objective was met. If the objective of the schools BER scheme was to allow companies to do jobs for ridiculously inflated prices that did not give schools the buildings they wanted (one school canteen built had so many mistakes they couldn't get a fridge in) then the objective was met. Those two programs were unmitigated disasters. since when is the federal govt. responsible for issueing trade licenses??????  I have several, in 2 states, and never once has the federal govt. had anything to do with my license requirements . What happened is what you can expect to happen on worksites without union representation ..... health and safety go out the window.

This was a federal scheme. They administered it and set the requirements. For pink batts, all that was required was a short course at first until they had a few deaths on their hands. Your memory is very flaky!

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:21pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:08pm: the libs don't care about the disabled .... 12 years of neglect by Howard has proven it .... anything they can do to interfere with any of Gillards policies they will try ..... funny how all the lib. states said no ...you'd think with the mining boom that now is when they can do it ....  Blaaaaaaaaaaaaa blaaaaaaaaaaaaaa You wankers have had the check book since Rudd. yes, and if you'll notice labor has been going through one issue at a time. .. coming up with a policy and then getting it through. ... in a minority govt that actually takes a lot of work and time .... but they got there ... 5 yrs ... that's more than Howard ever did ...in 12 yrs did he ever address the issues regarding the disabled? and he was rushing his policies through before he could finish writing them when it suited him ....

And now you are going to bugger the whole thing up over a pissy state contribution of a few million.

Just dam do it if it is so important, make the state leaders look like the arseholes.

Oh and by the way Rudd had a majority, he turned it into a minority because the ALP are dumb.

Gillard set a 5pm deadline today for an agreement. Why? The scheme doesn't start until next July! Stop playing politics with disabled people, Juliar!!!

Shane B wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:

$1 billion, plus what the states have to kick in, for a trial that only provides up to 20,000 places. That doesn't sound like very good value for money.

Of that 1 billion only 35 cents in the dollar is to go to the disabled the other 65 cents is all admin. I would think that this would be cause for the States to pause rather than shovel money into such a poor value for money scheme that seems more about creating more public service edifices. 

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 8:04pm:

Shane B wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 6:40pm: $1 billion, plus what the states have to kick in, for a trial that only provides up to 20,000 places. That doesn't sound like very good value for money. Of that 1 billion only 35 cents in the dollar is to go to the disabled the other 65 cents is all admin. I would think that this would be cause for the States to pause rather than shovel money into such a poor value for money scheme that seems more about creating more public service edifices.

Exactly. Labor has a pathetic track record at administration and use of taxpayer funds.

Conservative state govts say stuff the disabled

Why is this a story - it's been the Liberal position since 1944.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:31pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:29pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:15pm: Besides all that, Gillard has shown that her government is simply incapable of administering scheme's such as this involving large amounts of money. Look at what happened with pink batts, schools BER and so on. Can anyone blame some state governments for being hesitant to hand over money to a government that has a horrendous track record at running such programs? did something happen? those things you listed were a success ... they did what they set out to do .... If the objective of the pink batts scheme was for every unqualified Tom, Dick and Harry to install pinkkbatts in houses and burn down hundreds of them as well  s kill some young installers, then the objective was met. If the objective of the schools BER scheme was to allow companies to do jobs for ridiculously inflated prices that did not give schools the buildings they wanted (one school canteen built had so many mistakes they couldn't get a fridge in) then the objective was met. Those two programs were unmitigated disasters. since when is the federal govt. responsible for issueing trade licenses??????  I have several, in 2 states, and never once has the federal govt. had anything to do with my license requirements . What happened is what you can expect to happen on worksites without union representation ..... health and safety go out the window. This was a federal scheme. They administered it and set the requirements. For pink batts, all that was required was a short course at first until they had a few deaths on their hands. Your memory is very flaky!

I don't care who's scheme it was .. the responsibility of issuing and policing trade licenses belongs to the states, that's a fact and you cannot twist it anyway ... the course requirements differ state to state ...  (look at that, a state issue) people died because unscrupulous bosses were sending kids up to do work they were untrained for, and because they were using a product that was never designed to go into those roofs .....

labor just want to build another union fat public service for the princley sum of $650million dollars federally, just to organise a service for 20000 people. Thats without spending any money on those 20000 people. $650million just for public servants.

No wonder the unions call out in public to pull the PM strings. They are in control.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:31pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:29pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:15pm: Besides all that, Gillard has shown that her government is simply incapable of administering scheme's such as this involving large amounts of money. Look at what happened with pink batts, schools BER and so on. Can anyone blame some state governments for being hesitant to hand over money to a government that has a horrendous track record at running such programs? did something happen? those things you listed were a success ... they did what they set out to do .... If the objective of the pink batts scheme was for every unqualified Tom, Dick and Harry to install pinkkbatts in houses and burn down hundreds of them as well  s kill some young installers, then the objective was met. If the objective of the schools BER scheme was to allow companies to do jobs for ridiculously inflated prices that did not give schools the buildings they wanted (one school canteen built had so many mistakes they couldn't get a fridge in) then the objective was met. Those two programs were unmitigated disasters. since when is the federal govt. responsible for issueing trade licenses??????  I have several, in 2 states, and never once has the federal govt. had anything to do with my license requirements . What happened is what you can expect to happen on worksites without union representation ..... health and safety go out the window. This was a federal scheme. They administered it and set the requirements. For pink batts, all that was required was a short course at first until they had a few deaths on their hands. Your memory is very flaky!

if they had used pink batts there would never have been an issue .. the issue arose from those using sheet insultation (designed to go between colorbond roofing and the trusses, not in attics)

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

Thinks twice before you vote conserative if you want to protect the rights of disabled Aussies...remembering that you and your loved ones are all a car crash away from joining the ranks of the disabled. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/cassidy-shirking-responsibility-for-the-disabled/4156844?WT.svl=theDrum

Remember what Hitler did to the disabled?

---

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

Thinks twice before you vote conserative if you want to protect the rights of disabled Aussies...remembering that you and your loved ones are all a car crash away from joining the ranks of the disabled. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/cassidy-shirking-responsibility-for-the-disabled/4156844?WT.svl=theDrum

To whom do we pay a medicare levy?


Quote:

Federal government The Commonwealth (or Australian) Government (also described as the federal government) is based in Canberra and is probably the most visible of the three levels of government. Its responsibilities are written in the Australian Constitution. The Commonwealth handles ‘big picture’ issues. These include:     advertising regulations     broadcasting     currency     defence     immigration     international treaties and policy     marriage     quarantine     telecommunications     trade. When Commonwealth responsibilities overlap with those of state or territory and local governments, the Commonwealth usually takes a national role. For example, it handles:     roads by managing national highways     public health by managing Medicare and drug control     education by funding universities and the National Library     sport by supporting national teams     taxes by collecting income tax and various levies and excise (such as tobacco, alcohol, fuel)     environment by enacting policies regarding large environmental and pollution issues. http://www.actnow.com.au/Tool/Federal_state_localwhos_in_charge_of_what.aspx

salad in wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 9:07pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 6:26pm: Thinks twice before you vote conserative if you want to protect the rights of disabled Aussies...remembering that you and your loved ones are all a car crash away from joining the ranks of the disabled. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/cassidy-shirking-responsibility-for-the-disabled/4156844?WT.svl=theDrum To whom do we pay a medicare levy? Quote: Federal government The Commonwealth (or Australian) Government (also described as the federal government) is based in Canberra and is probably the most visible of the three levels of government. Its responsibilities are written in the Australian Constitution. The Commonwealth handles ‘big picture’ issues. These include:     advertising regulations     broadcasting     currency     defence     immigration     international treaties and policy     marriage     quarantine     telecommunications     trade. When Commonwealth responsibilities overlap with those of state or territory and local governments, the Commonwealth usually takes a national role. For example, it handles:     roads by managing national highways     public health by managing Medicare and drug control     education by funding universities and the National Library     sport by supporting national teams     taxes by collecting income tax and various levies and excise (such as tobacco, alcohol, fuel)     environment by enacting policies regarding large environmental and pollution issues. http://www.actnow.com.au/Tool/Federal_state_localwhos_in_charge_of_what.aspx

I don't see anything there about licensing for tradespeople .... thank you

NSW its Dept. Fair trade
Qld it's Building Services Association

don't know the other states, but if it was federal, NSW and QLD would be the same.

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 8:50pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:35pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:31pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:29pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:15pm: Besides all that, Gillard has shown that her government is simply incapable of administering scheme's such as this involving large amounts of money. Look at what happened with pink batts, schools BER and so on. Can anyone blame some state governments for being hesitant to hand over money to a government that has a horrendous track record at running such programs? did something happen? those things you listed were a success ... they did what they set out to do .... If the objective of the pink batts scheme was for every unqualified Tom, Dick and Harry to install pinkkbatts in houses and burn down hundreds of them as well  s kill some young installers, then the objective was met. If the objective of the schools BER scheme was to allow companies to do jobs for ridiculously inflated prices that did not give schools the buildings they wanted (one school canteen built had so many mistakes they couldn't get a fridge in) then the objective was met. Those two programs were unmitigated disasters. since when is the federal govt. responsible for issueing trade licenses??????  I have several, in 2 states, and never once has the federal govt. had anything to do with my license requirements . What happened is what you can expect to happen on worksites without union representation ..... health and safety go out the window. This was a federal scheme. They administered it and set the requirements. For pink batts, all that was required was a short course at first until they had a few deaths on their hands. Your memory is very flaky! if they had used pink batts there would never have been an issue .. the issue arose from those using sheet insultation (designed to go between colorbond roofing and the trusses, not in attics)

A lot of fires were caused by inexperienced installees placing pink batts on top of light fittings in the roof, causing the pink batts to get so hot they caught fire.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 6:26pm:

Thinks twice before you vote conserative if you want to protect the rights of disabled Aussies...remembering that you and your loved ones are all a car crash away from joining the ranks of the disabled. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/cassidy-shirking-responsibility-for-the-disabled/4156844?WT.svl=theDrum

Why couldn't the bird of paradox divert some of the AUD$43 billion away from the NBN and devote it to the NDIS?

Maybe we could teach those with a disability to use the NBN to talk to each other about their disabilities. How soothing.


Quote:

I have been a vocal critic of the National Broadband Network for a long time and was talking about what a mess it would be way before the mainstream media woke up.  So to further illustrate my point I have put together a list of  areas or ways where I believe the taxpayers $43 billion could be better spent and deliver better outcomes for the Australian people. [...] http://www.shareswatch.com.au/blog/opinion/43-ways-to-spend-the-national-broadband-networks-43-billion/

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

salad in wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:07pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 6:26pm: Thinks twice before you vote conserative if you want to protect the rights of disabled Aussies...remembering that you and your loved ones are all a car crash away from joining the ranks of the disabled. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/cassidy-shirking-responsibility-for-the-disabled/4156844?WT.svl=theDrum To whom do we pay a medicare levy? Quote: Federal government The Commonwealth (or Australian) Government (also described as the federal government) is based in Canberra and is probably the most visible of the three levels of government. Its responsibilities are written in the Australian Constitution. The Commonwealth handles ‘big picture’ issues. These include:     advertising regulations     broadcasting     currency     defence     immigration     international treaties and policy     marriage     quarantine     telecommunications     trade. When Commonwealth responsibilities overlap with those of state or territory and local governments, the Commonwealth usually takes a national role. For example, it handles:     roads by managing national highways     public health by managing Medicare and drug control     education by funding universities and the National Library     sport by supporting national teams     taxes by collecting income tax and various levies and excise (such as tobacco, alcohol, fuel)     environment by enacting policies regarding large environmental and pollution issues. http://www.actnow.com.au/Tool/Federal_state_localwhos_in_charge_of_what.aspx I don't see anything there about licensing for tradespeople .... thank you NSW its Dept. Fair trade Qld it's Building Services Association don't know the other states, but if it was federal, NSW and QLD would be the same.

Federal govt administered the scheme and set the minimum requirements as far as licences, etc were concerned. That's where they screwed up. I never said the federal government issued licences - they just set the criteria that decided who could do the work.

John Smith wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

salad in wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:07pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 6:26pm: Thinks twice before you vote conserative if you want to protect the rights of disabled Aussies...remembering that you and your loved ones are all a car crash away from joining the ranks of the disabled. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/cassidy-shirking-responsibility-for-the-disabled/4156844?WT.svl=theDrum To whom do we pay a medicare levy? Quote: Federal government The Commonwealth (or Australian) Government (also described as the federal government) is based in Canberra and is probably the most visible of the three levels of government. Its responsibilities are written in the Australian Constitution. The Commonwealth handles ‘big picture’ issues. These include:     advertising regulations     broadcasting     currency     defence     immigration     international treaties and policy     marriage     quarantine     telecommunications     trade. When Commonwealth responsibilities overlap with those of state or territory and local governments, the Commonwealth usually takes a national role. For example, it handles:     roads by managing national highways     public health by managing Medicare and drug control     education by funding universities and the National Library     sport by supporting national teams     taxes by collecting income tax and various levies and excise (such as tobacco, alcohol, fuel)     environment by enacting policies regarding large environmental and pollution issues. http://www.actnow.com.au/Tool/Federal_state_localwhos_in_charge_of_what.aspx I don't see anything there about licensing for tradespeople .... thank you NSW its Dept. Fair trade Qld it's Building Services Association don't know the other states, but if it was federal, NSW and QLD would be the same.

"Announcing the insulation program’s cancellation, Garrett blamed “unscrupulous, sometimes illegal and shonky operators” for the problems in the scheme. However, before the program even got fully operational, the government ignored multiple warnings last April by regulatory agencies that people could die and houses burn down, because the rollout would be effectively unregulated, with no-one to carry out safety or quality inspections.
On Friday, Garrett finally released secret legal advice the government had received last April warning that the program could result in house fires and fraud, and might be of little benefit to the environment. Garrett also revealed that audits had shown a risk of dangerous faults in up to 90,000 homes and that poor quality batts were fitted in 180,000 homes, out of the 1.1 million homes insulated. At-risk homes will be inspected at the rate of 400 a week, potentially taking years.
There is no doubt that the government’s scheme demonstrated its callous indifference for the lives and safety of insulation installers and home owners. In the scramble to take advantage of the $1,200 (initially $1,600) on offer for each installation, contractors recruited inexperienced young people for technical and dangerous work, with no regard for health and safety.
The accreditation process for the 7,500 or so employers who rushed into the insulation market was obviously inadequate—it could be completed on the Internet and over the phone. Serious fire hazards were caused when operators installed insulation too close to electric cables, ceiling fans, lights and transformers."

Can I ask what actually are they trying to set up??

whats the purpose of this scheme??

Sorry but I haven't paid any attention to this policy, Sorry

When they talk about setting up a launch site is that going to be like the much fanfare publicised GP super clinics that Roxon crowed about for ages??

What ever happened to them??

Now this insurance scheme whats it supposed to do??? I don't get it??

woof woof wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 10:30pm:

When they talk about setting up a launch site is that going to be like the much fanfare publicised GP super clinics that Roxon crowed about for ages?? What ever happened to them?? Now this insurance scheme whats it supposed to do??? I don't get it??

I think only a handful of those super clinics have materialised, as is the case with anything Labor does...

So your arguing they should have spent more on admin with pink batts to prove they are spending to much on admin with the NDIS?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 10:37pm:

So your arguing they should have spent more on admin with pink batts to prove they are spending to much on admin with the NDIS?

How you come to that conclusion is beyond my comprehension!  :o

I see the thread was hijacked so it was about gillard and "pink batts" instead of libs and disability insurance. I thought Howard thought up that pink batt scheme anyway?

No matter ATM the libs are blocking something they should not be blocking just for political gain. Their excuse is lame and they are going to lose votes over this. It shouldn't even have anything to do with votes. Like the boat ppl thing they should care about the lives.

SOB

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 7:29pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:15pm: Besides all that, Gillard has shown that her government is simply incapable of administering scheme's such as this involving large amounts of money. Look at what happened with pink batts, schools BER and so on. Can anyone blame some state governments for being hesitant to hand over money to a government that has a horrendous track record at running such programs? did something happen? those things you listed were a success ... they did what they set out to do .... If the objective of the pink batts scheme was for every unqualified Tom, Dick and Harry to install pinkkbatts in houses and burn down hundreds of them as well  s kill some young installers, then the objective was met. If the objective of the schools BER scheme was to allow companies to do jobs for ridiculously inflated prices that did not give schools the buildings they wanted (one school canteen built had so many mistakes they couldn't get a fridge in) then the objective was met. Those two programs were unmitigated disasters.

Conservative spin, the lot of it.

Not ONE WORD of those claims is true.

As has been PROVEN and DEMONSTRATED.

Just give up on this, Libs, you are WRONG, as usual.


And you lot have the gall to call Gillard a liar.......?

Kat wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 6:49am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:29pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:19pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 7:15pm: Besides all that, Gillard has shown that her government is simply incapable of administering scheme's such as this involving large amounts of money. Look at what happened with pink batts, schools BER and so on. Can anyone blame some state governments for being hesitant to hand over money to a government that has a horrendous track record at running such programs? did something happen? those things you listed were a success ... they did what they set out to do .... If the objective of the pink batts scheme was for every unqualified Tom, Dick and Harry to install pinkkbatts in houses and burn down hundreds of them as well  s kill some young installers, then the objective was met. If the objective of the schools BER scheme was to allow companies to do jobs for ridiculously inflated prices that did not give schools the buildings they wanted (one school canteen built had so many mistakes they couldn't get a fridge in) then the objective was met. Those two programs were unmitigated disasters. Conservative spin, the lot of it. Not ONE WORD of those claims is true. Tell that to the families who lost young men when they died of heat exhaustion inside house roofs while installing pink batts. Tell that to the people who lost their homes when they burned down due to dodgy installers. As has been PROVEN and DEMONSTRATED. See above. Just give up on this, Libs, you are WRONG, as usual. See above the previous "see above". And you lot have the gall to call Gillard a liar.......? Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 5:13am:

I see the thread was hijacked so it was about gillard and "pink batts" instead of libs and disability insurance. I thought Howard thought up that pink batt scheme anyway? So what if he did? He didn't implement the scheme that cost some young men their lives and nearly cost hundreds of families their lives when their houses burned down. No matter ATM the libs are blocking something they should not be blocking just for political gain. Their excuse is lame and they are going to lose votes over this. It shouldn't even have anything to do with votes. Like the boat ppl thing they should care about the lives. SOB

Conservative state govts say stuff the disabled

................................................................................

What a lot of mean bastards they are.

How on earth do they sleep at night?

The people that vote for them are like minded.....mean to the bone.

Playing politics with the lives of the disabled is a new low even for the Conservatives.
We all know we can afford to make the lives of the disabled and their carers a little easier even if it means diverting a few dollars from pollies overblown super funds and cutting back on spin doctors and consultants.
The Conservative states can easily afford to make the lives of the disabled a little easier and if its beyond them they should all quit.
Whats important in this country?
Pollies and public service fat cats or the disabled and their families?

adelcrow wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 7:36am:

Playing politics with the lives of the disabled is a new low even for the Conservatives. We all know we can afford to make the lives of the disabled and their carers a little easier even if it means diverting a few dollars from pollies overblown super funds and cutting back on spin doctors and consultants. The Conservative states can easily afford to make the lives of the disabled a little easier and if its beyond them they should all quit. Whats important in this country? Pollies and public service fat cats or the disabled and their families?

Well apparently the fed split of the one billion dollars goes 65% to creating a home and funding the former and what scraps are left over goes to the disabled.

But no money will be from pollies of any colour and they don't have a overblown super fund. What they have is a overblown unfunded super liability hence the creation of the future fund by the looting of public assets.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 9:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:12pm: salad in wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:07pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 6:26pm: Thinks twice before you vote conserative if you want to protect the rights of disabled Aussies...remembering that you and your loved ones are all a car crash away from joining the ranks of the disabled. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/cassidy-shirking-responsibility-for-the-disabled/4156844?WT.svl=theDrum To whom do we pay a medicare levy? Quote: Federal government The Commonwealth (or Australian) Government (also described as the federal government) is based in Canberra and is probably the most visible of the three levels of government. Its responsibilities are written in the Australian Constitution. The Commonwealth handles ‘big picture’ issues. These include:     advertising regulations     broadcasting     currency     defence     immigration     international treaties and policy     marriage     quarantine     telecommunications     trade. When Commonwealth responsibilities overlap with those of state or territory and local governments, the Commonwealth usually takes a national role. For example, it handles:     roads by managing national highways     public health by managing Medicare and drug control     education by funding universities and the National Library     sport by supporting national teams     taxes by collecting income tax and various levies and excise (such as tobacco, alcohol, fuel)     environment by enacting policies regarding large environmental and pollution issues. http://www.actnow.com.au/Tool/Federal_state_localwhos_in_charge_of_what.aspx I don't see anything there about licensing for tradespeople .... thank you NSW its Dept. Fair trade Qld it's Building Services Association don't know the other states, but if it was federal, NSW and QLD would be the same. Federal govt administered the scheme and set the minimum requirements as far as licences, etc were concerned. That's where they screwed up. I never said the federal government issued licences - they just set the criteria that decided who could do the work.

no, the states set the criteria ..thats what the whole license system is about ..its about meeting a minimum standard required to do a particular job .... if they were unable to meet that standard they should never have been given a license

John Smith wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 8:34am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:35pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:12pm: salad in wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:07pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 6:26pm: Thinks twice before you vote conserative if you want to protect the rights of disabled Aussies...remembering that you and your loved ones are all a car crash away from joining the ranks of the disabled. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/cassidy-shirking-responsibility-for-the-disabled/4156844?WT.svl=theDrum To whom do we pay a medicare levy? Quote: Federal government The Commonwealth (or Australian) Government (also described as the federal government) is based in Canberra and is probably the most visible of the three levels of government. Its responsibilities are written in the Australian Constitution. The Commonwealth handles ‘big picture’ issues. These include:     advertising regulations     broadcasting     currency     defence     immigration     international treaties and policy     marriage     quarantine     telecommunications     trade. When Commonwealth responsibilities overlap with those of state or territory and local governments, the Commonwealth usually takes a national role. For example, it handles:     roads by managing national highways     public health by managing Medicare and drug control     education by funding universities and the National Library     sport by supporting national teams     taxes by collecting income tax and various levies and excise (such as tobacco, alcohol, fuel)     environment by enacting policies regarding large environmental and pollution issues. http://www.actnow.com.au/Tool/Federal_state_localwhos_in_charge_of_what.aspx I don't see anything there about licensing for tradespeople .... thank you NSW its Dept. Fair trade Qld it's Building Services Association don't know the other states, but if it was federal, NSW and QLD would be the same. Federal govt administered the scheme and set the minimum requirements as far as licences, etc were concerned. That's where they screwed up. I never said the federal government issued licences - they just set the criteria that decided who could do the work. no, the states set the criteria ..thats what the whole license system is about ..its about meeting a minimum standard required to do a particular job .... if they were unable to meet that standard they should never have been given a license

Requirement
"nationally accredited training module for the installation of insulation and we set that underway"
Peter Garrett

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 8:28am:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 7:36am: Playing politics with the lives of the disabled is a new low even for the Conservatives. We all know we can afford to make the lives of the disabled and their carers a little easier even if it means diverting a few dollars from pollies overblown super funds and cutting back on spin doctors and consultants. The Conservative states can easily afford to make the lives of the disabled a little easier and if its beyond them they should all quit. Whats important in this country? Pollies and public service fat cats or the disabled and their families? Well apparently the fed split of the one billion dollars goes 65% to creating a home and funding the former and what scraps are left over goes to the disabled. But no money will be from pollies of any colour and they don't have a overblown super fund. What they have is a overblown unfunded super liability hence the creation of the future fund by the looting of public assets.

The simple solution would be to put them on the same super scheme the rest of the workforce are on not to rip off taxpayers money to prop up their greed
Only a fool would support the future fund over getting rid of pollies overblown taxpayer funded super.
If our super funds fail we lose our money..the pollies should be no different from the rest of society.
The future fund was and is a rip off of our money.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 9:19am:

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 8:28am: adelcrow wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 7:36am: Playing politics with the lives of the disabled is a new low even for the Conservatives. We all know we can afford to make the lives of the disabled and their carers a little easier even if it means diverting a few dollars from pollies overblown super funds and cutting back on spin doctors and consultants. The Conservative states can easily afford to make the lives of the disabled a little easier and if its beyond them they should all quit. Whats important in this country? Pollies and public service fat cats or the disabled and their families? Well apparently the fed split of the one billion dollars goes 65% to creating a home and funding the former and what scraps are left over goes to the disabled. But no money will be from pollies of any colour and they don't have a overblown super fund. What they have is a overblown unfunded super liability hence the creation of the future fund by the looting of public assets. The simple solution would be to put them on the same super scheme the rest of the workforce are on not to rip off taxpayers money to prop up their greed Only a fool would support the future fund over getting rid of pollies overblown taxpayer funded super. If our super funds fail we lose our money..the pollies should be no different from the rest of society. The future fund was and is a rip off of our money.

Agreed...but I think their position is analogous to contractors. They tender for a fixed term knowing they have to reapply. If they do a crap job they get canned at renewal. Does a government contractor get a bucket of cash because their contract was not renewed? They should also be liable for damages as any other contractor where they put themselves forward and do not fulfill their obligations eg Bligh.

Ain't gonna happen though....

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 10:48am:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 9:19am: tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 8:28am: adelcrow wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 7:36am: Playing politics with the lives of the disabled is a new low even for the Conservatives. We all know we can afford to make the lives of the disabled and their carers a little easier even if it means diverting a few dollars from pollies overblown super funds and cutting back on spin doctors and consultants. The Conservative states can easily afford to make the lives of the disabled a little easier and if its beyond them they should all quit. Whats important in this country? Pollies and public service fat cats or the disabled and their families? Well apparently the fed split of the one billion dollars goes 65% to creating a home and funding the former and what scraps are left over goes to the disabled. But no money will be from pollies of any colour and they don't have a overblown super fund. What they have is a overblown unfunded super liability hence the creation of the future fund by the looting of public assets. The simple solution would be to put them on the same super scheme the rest of the workforce are on not to rip off taxpayers money to prop up their greed Only a fool would support the future fund over getting rid of pollies overblown taxpayer funded super. If our super funds fail we lose our money..the pollies should be no different from the rest of society. The future fund was and is a rip off of our money. Agreed...but I think their position is analogous to contractors. They tender for a fixed term knowing they have to reapply. If they do a crap job they get canned at renewal. Does a government contractor get a bucket of cash because their contract was not renewed? They should also be liable for damages as any other contractor where they put themselves forward and do not fulfill their obligations eg Bligh. Ain't gonna happen though....

Like I said..the pollies and public servants super fund was stuffed and like all of us if our super fund is stuffed we lose our money we dont force our neighbours to put in their money to bail us out.
The future fund was unnecessary ..the pollies and public servants lost their super because of bad management..stiff sh!t.
We should have had tax cuts..not the future fund

If Gillard doesn't get this done - Abbott will and take the credit for it....introduce a medicare style levy or lose the day...

Prevailing wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 11:06am:

If Gillard doesn't get this done - Abbott will and take the credit for it....introduce a medicare style levy or lose the day...

Abbott isnt going to help anyone except his billionaire backers The disabled will be wearing rags and begging in the streets along with Australian workers if Abbott ever gets into power.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Prevailing wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 11:06am: If Gillard doesn't get this done - Abbott will and take the credit for it....introduce a medicare style levy or lose the day... Abbott isnt going to help anyone except his billionaire backers The disabled will be wearing rags and begging in the streets along with Australian workers if Abbott ever gets into power.

Nope, they are less ideological than the ALP and more pragmatic when it comes to their legal obligations...

tonegunman1 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 9:07am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 8:34am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:35pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:12pm: salad in wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 9:07pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 26th, 2012 at 6:26pm: Thinks twice before you vote conserative if you want to protect the rights of disabled Aussies...remembering that you and your loved ones are all a car crash away from joining the ranks of the disabled. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-26/cassidy-shirking-responsibility-for-the-disabled/4156844?WT.svl=theDrum To whom do we pay a medicare levy? Quote: Federal government The Commonwealth (or Australian) Government (also described as the federal government) is based in Canberra and is probably the most visible of the three levels of government. Its responsibilities are written in the Australian Constitution. The Commonwealth handles ‘big picture’ issues. These include:     advertising regulations     broadcasting     currency     defence     immigration     international treaties and policy     marriage     quarantine     telecommunications     trade. When Commonwealth responsibilities overlap with those of state or territory and local governments, the Commonwealth usually takes a national role. For example, it handles:     roads by managing national highways     public health by managing Medicare and drug control     education by funding universities and the National Library     sport by supporting national teams     taxes by collecting income tax and various levies and excise (such as tobacco, alcohol, fuel)     environment by enacting policies regarding large environmental and pollution issues. http://www.actnow.com.au/Tool/Federal_state_localwhos_in_charge_of_what.aspx I don't see anything there about licensing for tradespeople .... thank you NSW its Dept. Fair trade Qld it's Building Services Association don't know the other states, but if it was federal, NSW and QLD would be the same. Federal govt administered the scheme and set the minimum requirements as far as licences, etc were concerned. That's where they screwed up. I never said the federal government issued licences - they just set the criteria that decided who could do the work. no, the states set the criteria ..thats what the whole license system is about ..its about meeting a minimum standard required to do a particular job .... if they were unable to meet that standard they should never have been given a license Requirement "nationally accredited training module for the installation of insulation and we set that underway" Peter Garrett

NSW tafe's painter and decorator course is nationally accredited ...that just means its recognised nationally as being acceptable ..if you move to WA you still need to apply to WA licesing body to satisfy them that you meet their minimum standards ...  it does not mean the federal govt. determines and issues licenses ..... if it was a national license I wouldn't have had to reapply for my licenses when I moved interstate ... you have no idea what you are talking about.

Conservative state govts say stuff the disabled

I don't see the problem, anyone voting for a Liberal or coalition government should know up front that this is their position.

If more disabled people were wealthy they would get some consideration from the Liberals so it is really their own fault.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 11:36am:

Conservative state govts say stuff the disabled I don't see the problem, anyone voting for a Liberal or coalition government should know up front that this is their position. If more disabled people were wealthy they would get some consideration from the Liberals so it is really their own fault.

I don't think that is the case at all. The problem is about the acceptability of funding that does not do what it is set up to do to the tune of 65 cents in every dollar going to a bloated public service with plush offices, public credit cards, junkets and a large fleet of cars. Even if it was 35% it is still 350 million plus a similar proportion of state funding that is not spent on disability services. How many of these plum jobs actually go to those people with a disability?...

This is the one reform that the party that gets it right and achieves the most on will get the greatest legacy from.  We all know healthcare matters to Tony Abbott and he will make this happen so Gillard has a very narrow window to cement something for herself here she will be remembered for... :) :)

<<Why couldn't the bird of paradox divert some of the AUD$43 billion away from the NBN and devote it to the NDIS?>>
......................................................................

http://i.imgflash.com/AW.jpg

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 12:56pm:

<<Why couldn't the bird of paradox divert some of the AUD$43 billion away from the NBN and devote it to the NDIS?>> ...................................................................... http://i.imgflash.com/AW.jpg

Because neo cons can only concentrate on one thing at a time
and boat people are the one thing their collective brains are locked onto at the moment.
Interest rates..deerrrrr  petrol prices...dddeeerrrr...NBN...dddeeerrrr...carbon tax..dddeeeerrr   boat people..ddeeerrrrr
Its a good thing they dont have to think and breathe at the same time  ;D

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 12:56pm:

<<Why couldn't the bird of paradox divert some of the AUD$43 billion away from the NBN and devote it to the NDIS?>> ...................................................................... http://i.imgflash.com/AW.jpg

labor likes debt not responsible government.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 27^th, 2012 at 2:39pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jul 27th, 2012 at 12:56pm: <<Why couldn't the bird of paradox divert some of the AUD$43 billion away from the NBN and devote it to the NDIS?>> ...................................................................... http://i.imgflash.com/AW.jpg labor likes debt not responsible government.

The Libs would rather have a long recession just to prove a point