1. Introduce a "reasonable person" test of vilification decided by a jury, rather than a judge determining whether the plaintiff has been "offended"
2. Provide the standard defenses against a charge, such as public interest, artistic expression, etc.
If that is the way he in fact goes, then it would be hard to object IMO
EDT: Under such a reform it is likely that the odious Bolt would still be found guilty, as he almost certainly would have had existing defamation law been used. That's not because of his "opinions" but because he invented his own "facts" to fit his racist narrative.
Last edited by JohnC; 21-02-2014 at 17:00. Reason: added Bolt
The issue of Medicare is just one part of the larger picture, which will see health and aged care expenditure double over the next 40 years as a share of GDP. The question is: who's going to pay? especially as the working age population is shrinking as a proportion of the total population.
The problem with the co-payment option is that the sickest people, particularly families where someone has a chronic illness, will end up paying more, and those who are both sick and earning in the lowest quartile will be hardest hit. This violates most people's basic sense of fairness.
Now bearing in mind that the existing levy funds less than 20% of Medicare payments, introducing a progressive increase in the levy-- so that those on average incomes would still only pay 1.5% but those earning more than, say, $150,000 would pay 2%, and those earning more than $250,000 would pay 3% -- would start to address the situation.
The Liberals, of course, want to go in the opposite direction and increasingly privatise health. But the fact is that the most free-market health system (the US) has the highest spending (as a proportion of GDP) for pretty much the worst outcomes in the developed world.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!