Lets get one thing straight. Seven Network News Director Peter Meakin is a convicted criminal. He has been three times convicted of putting kids lives in danger through serious drink driving offences. For that he is a first class prick.
But after endorsing then defending the Seven News report on NSW Transport Minister David Campbell, Peter Meakin has attained another unwanted status. He is a Cunt. I don't use that word lightly. But yes, Peter Meakin you are Australia's biggest cunt. Ironic really when you consider that Meakin is also gay.
The Australian media can be wonderfully forgetful. On one day Jason Ackermanis is lambasted for suggesting that gay footballers should stay in the closet because of the treatment they might receive. Just one day later, a gay man is outed and the media go to town on him.
I can see where Acker is coming from. If this is what you would expect to receive from the media, i can understand why some don't choose to announce their sexuality. It shouldn't be that way. And maybe...just maybe Australian society is very accepting.
News limited websites opened up commentary on the David Campbell story. Normally, we would expect a "scandal" type story to be very one sided and very negative towards the person concerned. Particularly when the person involved is a Minister in a very unpopular government.
In this case, the opposite was the case. Many of the comments were questioning the value of the story. It seems that they didn't particularly care whether Campbell was gay or not. Even further, a great many of the comments were incredibly sympathetic to Campbell. That's refreshing and encouraging.
I happened to watch Campbell's doorstop interview the day after the story broke. It was quite seriously one of the best interviews i have seen. Given the circumstances, Campbell handled himself with dignity and grace. Which is more than we can say for Meakin.
David Campbell didn't do anything wrong. He has committed no crime. Unlike the thrice convicted Peter Meakin. Let's keep in mind that Meakin was only "caught" three times. How many more children has Meakin put in danger?
I'll hazard a guess that Meakin may soon be on his way from Network Seven. This incident may just be the final straw. But it doesn't really matter. With all that drinking, Meakin is likely on his way to an early grave. Let's just hope the epitaph on the tombstone is accurate:
"Here lies Peter Meakin, Convicted Criminal and Prize Cunt".
And don't worry, if that's not the inscription - I'll make sure it gets amended.
Warning - Graphic Photo Follows
I'm all for realism in journalism. In fact, i prefer reality to the constant spin and bias that exists in today's media. While the media consistently complain about the barrage of spin coming from modern day governments, they are in fact the greatest purveyors of manipulation. Hey, it sells advertising and that's what matters to them. I get it.
Which is why is is refreshing to see some "real" photos of tragic events played out in other parts of the world. I'm referring in this case to the bloody protests in Bangkok, Thailand. Scores of people have been injured and killed.
Even so, many of the stories have related to how Australians are either holed up in hotels, or have "escaped" back to Australia via plane. As if that's what really matters.
So i open up a story from The Age, and it hits me. A graphic photo of bloody corpses lying in the middle of the road in downtown Bangkok. Id normally not be bothered by such brutal images. Id just like some consistency. Ive previously called for more honest reporting of road crashes and other such preventable tragedies. The photos we usually see of these events are highly sanitised. Not even a skerrick of blood appears.
So no graphic warning accompanied the following story from The Age. Unless they are going to be consistent and show photos of other brutal events, there should be a warning. Perhaps they don't mind showing such photos when these events occur outside of Australia. If that's the case, I'm not at all comfortable with the double standards.
Graphic Story as reported in The Age - no word yet if they have enhanced the color of the blood in the photo. Not that they would ever do such a thing...again...
As part of the Rudd Government 2010 Budget, a new initiative to put medical health records on a portable electronic card will cost $467 million. It is not a compulsory record.
This statement from the Health Investment section of the Rudd Budget "A National Health and Hospitals Network for Australia's future"
The Australian Government is investing $467 million over two years to establish the key national components to introduce a personally controlled electronic health record for every Australian who would like to use one, from July 2012.
Empowering patients
Patients for the first time will be empowered with easy‑to‑access information about their medical history, including medications, test results and allergies, allowing them to make informed choices about their health care.
Patients will control what is stored on their health records and will decide which health professionals can view or add to their files.
Streamlining health care
Personally controlled electronic health records will ensure an individual's health care information is available where and when it is needed. They will also substantially reduce costly medical errors and re‑testing that are common under the paper‑based system.
To achieve this, the introduction of personally controlled electronic health records will be supported by the States' own investments in core health information systems to allow health care providers to connect with the national eHealth system.
The Government will also work with the health sector to ensure the new eHealth infrastructure securely and efficiently connects with current data systems.
The Rudd Government has announced in its 2010 Budget an increase to the Medicare Levy Low Income Threshold.
This from Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan:
To ensure that Australians on low incomes remain exempt from the Medicare Levy, the Government will increase the Medicare Levy low‑income thresholds.
The Medicare Levy low‑income threshold will increase to $18,488 (up from $17,794) for singles, and to $31,196 (up from $30,025) for couples. This means that singles or couples with incomes in the 2009-10 income year below these new thresholds will be exempt from the Medicare Levy.
For families, the additional amount of threshold for each dependent child or student will also be increased to $2,865 (up from $2,757).
The increase in thresholds takes into account movements in the Consumer Price Index reflecting increased costs of living.
The increase in the singles threshold also ensures that a low‑income family member in a family with a combined income above the Medicare Levy Surcharge family threshold, and who does not have appropriate private patient hospital insurance, will not be required to pay the Medicare Levy or Medicare Levy Surcharge.
The Medicare Levy low-income threshold for pensioners below Age Pension age will also be increased.
The threshold will rise to $27,697 (up from $25,299) for the 2009-10 income year. This means that a pensioner below Age Pension age with an income in 2009-10 below this new threshold will be exempt from the Medicare Levy.
This will ensure that pensioners below Age Pension age receive the full benefit of the increase in the pension announced by the Government in the 2009-10 Budget and do not pay the Medicare Levy when they do not have an income tax liability.
This measure has a cost to revenue of $225 million over the forward estimates period.
The Rudd Government understands that cost of living increases hit low-income Australians hardest and these threshold increases will ensure that the Medicare Levy does not add to that cost pressure.
The Rudd Government has increased flexibility for their First Home Saver Accounts.
This statement from Treasurer Wayne Swan:
The Government will help Australians trying to realise the dream of home ownership by allowing First Home Saver Account-holders more flexibility to buy their first home.
First Home Saver (FHS) Accounts provide a simple, tax effective way for Australians to save for their first home through a combination of government contributions and low taxes.
Currently, an FHS Account holder is required to keep their savings in an FHS account for four financial years before they are able to use those savings to buy a home. If the account holder buys a home prior to the end of that four year period, the balance of their FHS Account must be transferred to their superannuation so that it remains in a concessionally taxed environment.
To increase the flexibility of FHS Accounts and help Australians buy their first home sooner, the Government will allow savings in an FSA Account to be paid into an approved mortgage after the end of a minimum qualifying period, rather than requiring it to be paid to a superannuation account.
The Government will release draft amendments for consultation over the coming months.
The changes will apply for houses purchased after Royal Assent of the legislation giving effect to this change.
FHS Accounts will still offer all the existing concessions to help Australians buy their first home:
The Government contributes 17 per cent on the first $5,000 (indexed) of individual contributions made each year. That means an individual who makes a contribution of $5,000 to their FHS Account will be eligible for a Government contribution of $850.
There is a cap of $75,000 (indexed) on the overall FHS Account balance. If an individual reaches the cap, no further individual contributions can be made by the FHS Account-holder. However, the FHS Account interest earnings and outstanding government contributions will still be credited to the FHS Account after this time, allowing the account to continue to grow.
Individuals who are members of a couple will be able to pool their FHS Accounts to purchase a home together.
Earnings are to be taxed at 15 per cent and withdrawals will be tax free where they are used to purchase a first home.
This major improvement to First Home Saver Accounts will help Australians buy their first home sooner.
Australian Personal Income Tax Cuts for 2010/2011
The following is a statement from Treasurer Wayne Swan regarding Personal Income Tax Cuts which will come into effect on July 1, 2010
July 2010 Tax Cuts to Help with Cost of Living Pressures and Strengthen Our Economy
The Rudd Government will deliver its third round of tax cuts from 1 July this year to help millions of Australian families with cost of living pressures and reward their hard work.
This tax relief means the Government has provided tax cuts in each of its three budgets, delivering on its 2007 election commitment in full, despite the pressures placed on the budget by the global recession.
The Rudd Government designed these tax cuts to boost incentives for labour force participation, driving greater economic activity and expanding the capacity of the economy.
Treasury has estimated that the cumulative impact of the Government's three rounds of tax cuts will boost employment by around 85,000 workers in the medium term.
Together with our new business tax reforms, as well as major investments in infrastructure, skills and education and other reforms, these three rounds of personal tax cuts are a key part of the Government's plan to strengthen our economy so we can face the future with confidence.
Combined with the Government's stimulus payments – which were directed largely to low and middle income families – these three rounds of tax cuts have delivered more money in the pockets of Australian workers.
The Government has also delivered an historic increase in the base rate of the pension despite the budget impacts of the global recession, as well as stimulus payments to help older Australians with cost of living pressures.
From 1 July 2010, the increase in the Low Income Tax Offset (LITO) will allow Australians to earn up to $16,000 and not have to pay income tax (up from $11,000 in 2007-08), providing a real benefit to low income and part-time workers.
From 1 July 2010:
•The Low Income Tax Offset will increase from $1,350 to $1,500;
•The 30 per cent threshold will increase from $35,000 to $37,000;
•The 38 per cent marginal tax rate will decrease to 37 per cent; and
•The amount of income a senior Australian eligible for the Senior Australian Tax Offset (SATO) can earn before they pay income tax or the Medicare Levy will increase from $29,867 to $30,685 for singles, and from $25,680 to $26,680 for each member of a couple.
Compared with their income tax liability for 2007-08 (and excluding the Medicare Levy), by 2010‑11:
•A person earning $20,000 will have received an income tax cut of around 56 per cent;
•A person earning $50,000 will have received an income tax cut of around 18 per cent; and
•A person earning $80,000 will have received an income tax cut of around 8 per cent.
For example, these tax cuts will mean that a family with two young children where one person earns $60,000 and their partner earns $27,000 will be $40.38 per week, or around $2,100 a year, better off.
As part of the 2010 Rudd Budget, Australian Personal Income Tax Returns can continue to be submitted using the tax pack, or online. However, a new option of a Standard Deduction will be introduced. It means not having to worry about subitting a tax return at all.
Statement from Wayne Swan from 2010 Budget Speech:
But the families I speak to right around the country don’t just want more financial security; they also want more time with each other.
So we have decided to provide taxpayers the choice of a standard deduction instead of the hassle of shoeboxes full of receipts and the costs of professional assistance.
This means less time with the Tax Pack, more time with loved ones, and for 6.4 million Australians it also means a bigger tax refund.
The standard deduction will be phased in over two years so that $500 will be available to taxpayers from 1 July 2012, increasing to $1,000 from 1 July 2013.
This is a key step towards a ’tick and flick‘ system of pre-filled tax returns that will make life easier for working families at tax time.
Rudd 2010 Budget - 50 Per Cent Discount on First $1000 of Savings in Banks, Building Societys, Credit Unions, Bonds, Debentures and Annuity Products
Statement from Wayne Swan in Budget Speech:
We recognise bank deposits are a preferred savings vehicle for many Australians.
Right now, there is considerable variation in the taxation treatment of alternative savings vehicles.
While interest is taxed at the saver’s marginal rate without any discount, capital gains on assets held longer than a year receive a 50 per cent discount.
We know this particularly disadvantages lower-wealth and older savers who are more likely to hold their non‑superannuation savings in interest-bearing products.
So from 1 July 2011 Australians will be able to obtain a 50 per cent tax discount for the first $1,000 of interest they earn, including interest earned on deposits held in banks, building societies and credit unions, and on bonds, debentures and annuity products.
This change is expected to make interest-bearing products more attractive to savers, which will have positive flow‑on effects for competition in our financial system.
The Rudd Government will bring in a simpler and fairer tax return system. It is claimed that the new system will increase after tax income for more than 6.4 million Australians.
Key Initiative Statement from 2010 Budget:
Easing cost of living and making tax time simpler
Delivering tax relief, including raising the effective tax‑free threshold to $16,000 from 2010‑11
Lower tax on savings — 50 per cent discount on up to $1,000 of interest income
Standard deduction to simplify the tax system and leave more in the pocket for 6.4 million Australians
Rudd Government 2010 Budget Key Points
This responsible Budget further strengthens the economy and secures future growth.
Key elements include:
Setting the highest standards for responsible fiscal management, with the budget returning to surplus in 2012-13, three years ahead of schedule
Easing the cost of living and making tax time simpler by delivering tax relief, a lower tax on savings, and fairer and simpler tax returns that increase after-tax income for 6.4 million Australians
Beginning the task of modernising the tax system, investing in skills and infrastructure, boosting national savings, making new investments in renewable energy; and funding historic reforms to the health system
Initiatives of the Budget:
Easing cost of living and making tax time simpler
Delivering tax relief, including raising the effective tax‑free threshold to $16,000 from 2010‑11
Lower tax on savings — 50 per cent discount on up to $1,000 of interest income
Standard deduction to simplify the tax system and leave more in the pocket for 6.4 million Australians
Skills for sustainable growth and building infrastructure
$661 million for the Skills for Sustainable Growth strategy
$5.6 billion for a new infrastructure fund and $1 billion to renew rail networks
Renewables and energy efficiency
$652 million Renewable Energy Future Fund
Growing the whole economy
Resource Super Profits Tax from 1 July 2012
Company tax rate cut to 29 per cent from 2013‑14 and 28 per cent from 2014‑15
Company tax rate cut to 28 per cent for small business companies from 2012‑13
Instant asset write off for assets under $5,000 for all small businesses from 1 July 2012
Stronger, Fairer Super
Increasing the super guarantee to 12 per cent, assisting 8.4 million Australians
From 1 July 2012, contributing up to $500 to offset contributions tax for those on incomes up to $37,000
From 1 July 2012, allow catch‑up contributions by older workers with super balances less than $500,000
National Health and Hospitals Network
Total new investment of $7.3 billion over five years, and $23 billion over the rest of the decade
Additional $2.2 billion to meet the needs of our modern health system:
$355 million for GP Super Clinics
$417 million to enhance after hours services
$523 million to train our nurses
$467 million to introduce individual electronic health records
So the 2010 UK General Election is all but over. And the winner is? Well i suppose David Cameron can claim to be the winner, but given where the Tories were at 6 months ago, its not a very convincing victory.
So the polling stations in the UK open from 8am to 10pm on a Thursday. That's a whole 4 hours more than our polling booths open. Yet they still couldn't manage to get it right. Thousands of people were likely denied a vote because there weren't enough staff to cope with the increased voter turnout.
It just goes to show that in one of the most advanced countries in the world, conducting an election still comes down to cost. Had they paid more people to staff polling booths or even had more polling booths open, there wouldn't have been an issue. Even democracy has a price tag.
Anyway, you do have to feel a little sorry for Gordon Brown. Sure he had a part to play in the Blair Government, but he was left an almighty mess. And i cant help the feeling that his little "bigot" comment was exactly what many of us think anyway. Just telling it like it is.
I think the whole mess for the Labour Government really started at the disastrous Dunny on the Wold by election a few years back. Total disaster.
I'll admit that seeing women in Burqas is a bit odd for many Australians, including myself. That's not to say that i disagree with them - far from it. It's only odd because it's not a common sight. Its not something we grew up with - anything new and confronting is often cause for undue interest.
But Burqas are yet another thing that elicits extreme "outrage" from people who continually want to intrude on the way other people live their lives.
Lets get a couple of things straight. Women in Burqas in Australia are not going out of their way to conceal bombs under their clothes. They are not about trying to destroy our way of life. They are doing the same thing that the rest of us do - trying to live their lives in a quiet peaceful way. Live and let live i say.
Its like the whole gay marriage debate. So many people are so passionate about denying gay people the right to marry. Why? How does someone else who you don't know, nor will ever know give you cause for concern? What does it matter to you what someone else does with their life?
It's this intrusion into other people's lives that is the real issue. There's this whole group of people in Australia who make it their business to devote untold amounts of energy into things which have no impact on their daily lives.
What happened to the fair go in Australia? Or did it never really exist?
How does someone wearing a burqa affect you? It doesn't. Maybe it would be a whole lot better if white trash so called "christian" families devoted more time to raising their kids instead of letting them run riot on our streets. I dont see too many muslim women in burqas smashing people's heads in on our city streets, stabbing each other at parties or killing their friends in drunken high speed crashes.
As an aside, i note that the burqa issue is one that often unites the women from the left and the ultra conservatives. Go figure.
A great article by Sean Keeble appeared in the Herald Sun recently about the Burqa issue. It was in response to a very disturbing piece by columnist Sally Morrell. Actually it was an inspired piece, so I'm taking a liberty and reproducing it in full.
Burqas are no veiled threat to us Sean Keeble From: Herald Sun April 24, 2010
INTIMIDATION is defined as: To make timid or inspire with fear. I'm intimidated by drunken football fans and drunken football players. I'm intimidated by loud, angry, threatening people, particularly large groups of them, and they don't even have to be armed; I'm intimidated by arrogance, especially in politicians and other people of authority.
No, I am not intimidated by the sight of a woman in a burqa.
Sally Morrell and the apparent hordes who feel as she does need some perspective.
What is there to fear from a simple black cloak and veil? Fashionable Melbourne (at least north of the Yarra, I'm told) has been in black for years.
In Australia's short history of crime and evil deeds, there have been several instances of rich, powerful white Anglo-Saxon men ripping off people financially, ethically and politically.
White men drink, fight, rape and kill, in vast numbers. Male members of non-white backgrounds also have been responsible for vast numbers of awful crimes.
In this country, the criminal antics of Muslim women in burqas extends to nothing much more heinous than shoplifting.
Thousands of other men and women of all races and colours will commit crimes from the trivial to the vicious, and none will cop the anxious bigotry dished up by Ms Morrell.
I'm a 46-year-old single white male, shave-headed and described, generously, as "rough-looking". Where I live, in a "colourful" part of Footscray, blokes who look like me are, at best, unemployed battlers and, at worst, inveterate junkies and halfway house alcoholics. I accept that certain people might be "intimidated" by me (they look away, avoid eye contact, even cross the street or change seats on the train). I'm not thrilled, but I understand.
Where I live, a woman in a burqa is, I'd wager, a far more common sight than in more elite suburbs.
In Footscray, locals would find the likes of me much more "intimidating" than anyone in a burqa. In fact, in and around my neighbourhood, if you see someone in a head covering, with only their eyes showing, you're probably about to be robbed. Intimidating indeed, but it's a million to one your would-be robber's a Muslim woman.
I'm not the most sociable bloke, but generally I'll nod to someone passing in the street, or choosing cereal or coffee next to me in the supermarket. I'll say g'day to the cheerful African girl at the checkout; the lanky Indian student in the post office queue; the gorgeous Asian woman at the bank; those blokes who look like me, even the ones I disturb shooting up in the carpark of my flat.
Usually, I get a nod or a smile in return, even if the nod ends in nodding off, or the smile is only in the eyes of that woman in the burqa whose little boy's ice cream melts near my feet.
I suspect the intimidation Ms Morrell writes of was shaped long before any specific encounters with veiled, black-clad women.
By her logic we should even fear the full-costumed Mickey Mouse and Goofy characters at Disneyland, teens dressed as fast-food chickens or those koala-suited wildlife conservation collectors.
Australia is a great country but a small part of an ever-changing world.
It's not the white picket fence world of the 1950s many seem to want to recreate; this world faces war, famine, poverty, climate exhaustion, environmental devastation, mass human displacement, drought, disease and human frailty in many forms.
Intimidating? These issues are really terrifying, Ms Morrell.
About Just Grumpy
