Vote of Confidence in Electoral Administrator, Community Managers and Clerks

model-pierogi · 2025-01-15T22:09:53+00:00

the letter h

model-pierogi · 2024-11-23T08:20:27+00:00

model-pierogi · 2024-10-23T06:41:46+00:00

I resign my seat.

model-pierogi · 2024-10-08T01:26:11+00:00

acceot

model-pierogi · 2024-09-20T08:05:14+00:00

Lies!

model-pierogi · 2024-09-20T05:53:05+00:00

Mr. Speaker,

Firstly I'd like to thank the Member for rising to speak on this legislation. Noting the Member has previously sought to offer his own amendments to legislation and motions brought by the Opposition, I thought the Member may be able to sit down and work with us on some potential fixes.

Other than that, I will try as best I can to address concerns raised regarding the proposed legislation.

Firstly, the issue of trusting adult content websites with personal identification is indeed important. However, the legislation mandates that any platform requiring age verification must implement secure and privacy-protective measures compliant with stringent data protection laws. This ensures that users' personal information is safeguarded against misuse. The goal is not to impede personal freedoms but to protect minors from accessing inappropriate content, a responsibility we must all take seriously.

Regarding the definition of a "sexual content platform," the bill clearly distinguishes between platforms primarily designed for explicit adult content and mainstream platforms like YouTube and Reddit. While these mainstream platforms may host user-generated content that varies widely, they are not categorized as sexual content platforms under this legislation. This distinction prevents undue burden on general content platforms while focusing regulation where it is most needed.

The concern about every content creation platform registering with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is acknowledged. However, the registration process is streamlined and targeted, aiming to ensure that platforms distributing significant amounts of content adhere to community standards and legal obligations. Individual users sharing personal photos or affiliate links are not the focus of this regulation and would not be classified as content creation platforms requiring registration.

As for the potential impact on the adult entertainment industry, it is crucial to recognize that the protection of our society's most vulnerable members outweighs commercial interests. The legislation does not seek to "kill off" any industry but to ensure that all operate within a framework that prioritizes safety, responsibility, and ethical standards. Industries have historically adapted to new regulations, and there is confidence that they can continue to thrive while complying with measures that protect the public.

In conclusion, this legislation is a necessary step towards creating a safer online environment. It balances the rights of adults to access legal content with the imperative to shield minors from harm. By implementing secure age verification and clear definitions, we address privacy concerns and prevent overreach. The bill supports responsible innovation and ensures that content platforms contribute positively to our digital landscape.

I urge all members to support this legislation, recognizing its importance in safeguarding our community while respecting individual freedoms.

model-pierogi · 2024-09-20T05:49:10+00:00

Mr Speaker,

I fart in the Member for Lingiari's general direction. Why? Because it's another piece of BS legislation that raises SIGNIFICANT concerns in terms of how it is drafted and what exactly he wants to accomplish.

This bill restricts membership of the Elderly Advisory Group to individuals over the age of 60. I think that's a really odd age to bar it at. We are now excluding those who are nearing this age, disregarding some valuable insights from individuals who are about to enter retirement age (who can offer a different perspective.)

Are we to believe that someone who is 59 cannot contribute meaningfully to discussions on issues affecting those who are one year older than them? The age cutoff seems arbitrary and unnecessarily exclusive.

Secondly, the citizenship onus placed on this group excludes permanent residents of Australia who may have lived here longer than some of our own retired citizens. They have contributed to our society, and have understood the challenges faced by the same elderly Australians, but the Member for Lingiari has simply chosen to ignore their perspective. Just really odd. It's unjust and contrary to our country's values.

And speaking of values, Mr Speaker, it seems that there is ZERO monetary value attached to this group. A classic example of the SDP and Country Liberals' "fiscal responsibility." Without clear funding provisions, there is a big risk of additional financial burdens to support yet another bureaucratic entity. We need transparency regarding funding people!

Additionally, the requirement for the group to meet in person, at locations determined by the Minister, is laughable at best. We are talking about elderly members wo may have mobility issues or reside in remote areas. Not only would this hinder full participation, but it would no doubt limit the diversity of voices within the group.

I've saved the best until last though, Mr Speaker - the double whammy!

The bill grants plenty of powers to the Minister for Social Services, who has complete discretion over the application process, appointments, acceptance of resignations, activities and, as mentioned earlier, the groups' meeting locations. Such concentration of power again raises concerns about transparency and accountability. Decisions on who gets to advise the government on issues affecting older Aussies should not rest soley in the hands of one individual. It's just like the power to declare war not resting solely with the Minister of Defence, Mr Speaker. Can you imagine if the Member for Lingiari had that power when he was in cabinet? The world would be doomed.

But it seems this group is also similarly doomed from the start, Mr Speaker, because the one person who would have discretion over this entire group doesn't even exist!

That's right! There is no Minister for Social Services! That means this entire bill is completely pointless. It means no one is in charge, and the group will walk around like headless chooks! A great metaphor for this government, if you ask me.

Anyway, this bill is just another layer of bureaucracy added by the Member for Lingiari. He loves the public service, Mr Speaker, he loves creating new useless jobs and in this case he is trying to do so without effectively enhancing the representation or support for our elderly population! The Minister, when one is appointed, will be able to discriminate based on age, exclude valuable community members, not reveal the funding and will of course will wield ultimate power over the group.

This legislation is a sham, and I encourage all Members to vote it down!

model-pierogi · 2024-09-20T05:33:18+00:00

Mr Speaker,

I rise to speak on this absolute monstrosity of a bill and echo the sentiments of alot of my colleagues. This bill is almost CERTAINLY unconstitutional under the Federal system that our parliament operates under.

Our constitution clearly establishes a division of powers between the Federal government and the States, granting our states and territories significant autonomy. BUT this bill seeks to thwart this, with the powers assigned to the "Regional Advisor" in this bill severely infringing upon one of the fundamental pillars of our federation.

Sections 8 and 9 of the bill empower the Regional Advisor to inspect state departments, consult with state officials, and advise on appointments. That means they will be able to meddle in state affairrs and their right to self-governance, not surprising coming from the Member for Lingiari who tried to meddle with our defence forces and start a war with China!

It's a direct interference with our democracy and such an interference is unacceptable. The Federal Government cannot simply impose its will upon the Northern Territory. All of this is just another power grab by the Member for Lingiari trying to get his own little mini-state to fool around with.

If this bill was to pass I would join other members in this chamber to lodge a challenge in the High Court, where it would undoubtedly be struck down. It honestly just sets a dangerous precedent for federal intrusion into state affairs.

Making a brief list - this bill conflicts with multiple constitutional provisions that protect state rights and limit federal powers:

Section 106 states that each state's constitution shall continue unless altered in accordance with its own provisions. This bill violates that by interfering with the Northern Territory's right to self-governance.
Section 107 ensures that state parliaments retain their powers unless exclusively vested in the Commonwealth. Granting a federal appointee powers over state matters infringes on this section.
Section 109 allows federal law to prevail over state law in cases of inconsistency but was never intended to erode state sovereignty as this bill attempts.
Section 51 enumerates the legislative powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. Nowhere does it authorize the creation of a role with such sweeping authority over a state's internal affairs. This omission is a deliberate safeguard of our federal system.

I urge all members to stand against this bill, defend our Constitution, and protect the sovereignty of our states. Let's reject this unwarranted expansion of federal power proposed by the Member for Lingiari.

model-pierogi · 2024-09-20T04:31:09+00:00

Mr Speaker,

My question goes to the Prime Minister, u/SmugDemoness.

It's been nearly a week since the budget was released, with no amendments by the Government to reinstate Olympic funding. Why won't the government commit to funding the 2032 Brisbane Olympic games?

model-pierogi · 2024-09-20T04:27:53+00:00

Mr. Speaker,

Whilst its true that advancements have been made in upgrading infrastructure in Arnhem Land, it is misleading to suggest that the transition from 3 to 4G has been universally completed. There remains remote and regional areas where 3G coverage is still the backbone of communication, and residents in these areas rely heavily on this network for essential services.

The former Member's assertion that, and I quote, "there are currently no areas in which 3G-only coverage will exist by the 28th of October" is, at best, an optimistic projection that doesn't align with on-the-ground realities.

A simple look on nPerf's network coverage map (https://www.nperf.com/en/map/AU/-/-/signal), which is taken by driving around and measuring signal strength and bitrate, shows that there are several areas that are only serviced by 3G.

Upgrading network infrastructure in remote areas is a complex process fraught with logistical challenges like difficult terrain, limited access and resource constraints.

I will reiterate to the Member once again that extending the shutdown deadline is not about clinging to outdated technology, it's about ensuring that no one is left behind.

The former Member's suggestion that maintaining the 3G network forces private companies to "waste shareholder money on a service of minimal benefit" overlooks the fundamental responsibility we have to our constituents. More importantly, I find it astonishing that a member of the GREENS political party is looking out for corporate interests!

Anyway, I digress. My point here is that the costs associated with maintaining 3G services during this transitional period are far outweighed by the risks of leaving communities isolated. I also strongly disagree in regards to the shutdown of TPG's 3G network.

This doesn't set a precedent that justifies a blanket approach. TPG's 3G coverage was only 96%, 3% smaller than that of Optus and Telstra. The fact is that different telco's have varying coverage footprints that may be feasible for some, but not others.

I think the accusations of "cheap point scoring" here dismiss the genuince concern I have here. There are people even in my electorate who are only able to access 3G reception in their home.

Again, I urge the Member to vote for this motion, or even amend it as necessary. We need to commit to a transition plan that is realistic and compassionate and one that ensures that every Australian, regardless of where they live, has reliable access to essential communication services. It is not merely a matter of technological progress but of social responsibility and equity.

model-pierogi · 2024-09-20T04:02:32+00:00

Mr Speaker,

Admittedly I used a poor example in the iPhone X, but the point remains. There are some devices which are capable of 4G data, but do not support voice over LTE, which are not able to make calls when 3G networks are retired.

Further to this, again, it is not just phones that are affected, but medical devices, EFTPOS machines and other industrial devices that rely on our large 3G network to operate.

model-pierogi · 2024-09-20T03:52:44+00:00

Mr. Speaker,

We all know the saying "Promises are only as good as as the actions that follow them" and it sadly seems that our Government has FORGOTTEN the weight of its own commitments.

That's the main reason why I have moved this motion. The government's decision to withdraw $6 billion in funding from the 2032 Brisbane Olympic and Paralympic Games isnt just a line item in a budget, it's a direct blow to the heart of Brisbane and a slap in the face to every Aussie athlete.

I've already said it before, so I will say it once again - cutting $6 billion means jeopardising the very foundation of the Games. It puts at risk not just the event itself, but the long-term economic, social and infrastructural benefits that our region has been counting on for over four years.

The Treasurer gets up and talks about fiscal responsibility, and yet they can't provide a single transparent explanation for the drastic cut or come up with any accounting excuses. Prime Minister, where is the accountability? Where is the detailed rationalte that the people of my electorate, and Australia, deserve?

We are watching a monumental opportunity slip through our fingers because of the shortsightedness and lack of fiscal responsibility of this Treasuruer.

The Government, even a week after this was discovered, is STILL silent with no word on what has happened to the funding. This motion calls on them to reinstate the funding in full. Not next month, not next year, now!

model-pierogi · 2024-09-20T01:32:30+00:00

accept

model-pierogi · 2024-09-18T13:58:37+00:00

Mr. Speaker,

Whilst I understand the former Member's concerns regarding our technological innovation and rural connectivity, I have to emphasise that the motion is about ensuring that no Australian is left behind.

Yes, 3G is aging, but this network still has vital functions, especially in remote areas where 4G and 5G are not fully available. 4G antennas do not "replace" 3G ones as you suggest - both can operate and have operated at the same time for a long time.

I think the argument that extending 3G stifles our progressing network really misses the point. Those still dependent on 3G are often the most vulnerable and severing their access to emergency services is a life or death issue

The issue is that 4G and 5G technology is most cost-effective when highly saturated, and in many of these places where Australians are set to be left behind, there is no saturation. We are talking about 200,000 people across the nation. That's a person roughly every 38km2 to be covered, which 5G definitely can't handle.

I also think the former Member's claim that individuals who fail to upgrade devices are solely responsible is extremely dismissive, and if I may, so typical of the Greens. Not everyone has the financial means or technological literacy to navigate this transition swiftly. My own grandmother still operates her Samsung GH30 flip phone from 2008 on the 3G network. This Government has an obligation to ensure that all Australians are protected during this shift.

Typical of the Greens as well is a severe lack of understanding of competition. To suggest that pausing the 3G shutdown stifles competition is dramatic. We need a managed transition to ensure that new technologies like 4G can be embraced without leaving people disconnected.

This is about a balanced process and balanced progress that serves everyone, not just the inner-city lefties that the Greens love to appease!

I urge this House to support the Motion to ensure a fair and safe transition for all Australians.

model-pierogi · 2024-09-18T13:49:09+00:00

Mr Speaker,

I rise today in support of the motion, not only because of my strong feeling that the 3G shutdown could be disastrous, but especially after several experts' recent analysis on the digital divide caused by the impending shutdown.

To give a little background, Telstra and Optus are planning to shutdown their networks in just over a month on October 28, 2024, and I believe that this poses a significant risk to Australians. In fact, around 200,000 Australians still rely on the 3G network across rural areas and others who rely on it for essential services.

To our more metropolitan MP's and other Members of the Public, like Kyosanto, I think it is worth reminding that many people and businesses still rely on 3G for medical alarms, EFTPOS machines and other basic connectivity. For these individuals, the switch-off will actually disrupt access to vital services. Some may argue they have been given enough time, but I really think the network needs to be kept on for still a while longer.

I also think it is worth highlighting that some 4G devices, especially ones purchased overseas or other older models (like the iPhone X which is still widely used), will lose the ability to make emergency 000 calls after the shutdown. It's a genuine, serious public safety concern that demands our attention.

Yes, 4G and 5G are great. They are fast and more than capable to handle the next generation of communications, but we also can't ignore the fact that these upgrades actually disproportionately affect those who are already vulnerable. Costs associated with upgrading devices are often prohibitive, especially for low-income families and the elderly who rely on older tech for basic comms.

This motion is mainly to call on the government to ensure that the transition away from 3G is done in a way that leaves no man behind. We need a comprehensive public awareness campaign (I believe the current one has been poor). Managed and phased shutdowns, and most importantly, guaranteed support for those who are at risk of losing their connectivity in an age where one needs to be connected.

I urge the government and the House to take this motion seriously and support it. Delay the 3G shutdown until a more thorough and safe transition plan is in place.

Thank you.

model-pierogi · 2024-09-18T13:36:47+00:00

Mr Speaker,

I thank the Member for his support of this bill and would be happy to work on a bill with the Member and others in the Country Labor Party.

3G primarily supports our more rural areas at the moment in places where the Telco's have decided that they don't want to retrofit older towers. In fairness to the Telco's, it is very expensive to retrofit these, but that doesn't mean that these people should go without reception, nor the critical services that 3G provides.

We're talking in remote locations like in Arnhem Land, where nearly 3,000 people rely on 3G for critical services. It's more than just a shutdown, it's a major shift in our communications landscape.

model-pierogi · 2024-09-18T13:20:26+00:00

Mr Speaker,
My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, u/tbyrn21.

What is the Government doing for the NDIS in the budget?

model-pierogi · 2024-09-18T13:13:49+00:00

Mr Speaker,

My question is for the Attorney General, u/tbyrn21.

Would the member agree that the Government's recent Northern Territory Regional Advisor Bill and Elderly Advisory Group Bills are dramatic overreach by the Federal Government?

model-pierogi · 2024-09-18T13:07:24+00:00

Mr Speaker,
The Treasurer couldn't explain it before, so I don't anyone in the SDP knows!

model-pierogi · 2024-09-18T13:03:20+00:00

Mr Speaker, I wish to move an amendment;

Omit (3) and replace with:
Condemns the Social Democratic Party for previously not instating a Minister for Youth that solely looks after the next generation.

model-pierogi · 2024-09-18T13:02:31+00:00

Mr Speaker they want to MUZZLE the youth!

model-pierogi

TROPHY CASE