Australian Politics.

[damian]

Others on this thread (Waldo?) have suggested a new thread on the Australian government. I had considered starting it. Would anyone else want this discussion to take place ?

The structure of our countries government properly belongs elsewhere as some on this thread object to it.

Thoughts ?

[HappyHammer]

Sure why not, as long as it is about the structure and not a bashing.

HH.

[m2c1Iw]

Others on this thread (Waldo?) have suggested a new thread on the Australian government. I had considered starting it. Would anyone else want this discussion to take place ?

The structure of our countries government properly belongs elsewhere as some on this thread object to it.

Thoughts ?

"Oz politics" now that is broad enough that can't complain about being off topic. :D

[Gingermick]

Sure why not, as long as it is about the structure and not a bashing.

HH.

someone mentioned in another thread about swine aviation, I guess a similar response is necessary.

[RETIRED]

Keep it civil and on topic with no vitriol towards any party and it will survive.:D

[kiwigeo]

What about vitriol to ALL parties? :D

[Gingermick]

I advocate the athenian style. Every year 1000 people get chosen at random to govern the country. That's democracy

[Fuzzie]

I advocate the athenian style. Every year 1000 people get chosen at random to govern the country. That's democracy

As long as you weren't in the slave demographic.

[jimbur]

As long as you weren't in the slave demographic.

Or a woman

[HappyHammer]

I advocate the athenian style. Every year 1000 people get chosen at random to govern the country. That's democracy
I like it:2tsup: who does the random choosing, how do we stop choice rigging?:o

HH.

[jimbur]

I like it:2tsup: who does the random choosing, how do we stop choice rigging?:o

HH.

Use the Socratic solution - when you catch them, feed them hemlock:D

[HappyHammer]

I'd prefer feeding them to the Lions....:doh: oh no this is Australia Politics let's make that Crocodiles.

HH.

[damian]

First I'd like to point out I posted this as an entry in the mining tax thread, mods made it a new topic.

Perhaps in order for this to be useful you might list what you think is wrong with the current system, why and how to fix it. You could do this either issue by issue or as a comprehensive statement of reform. I'll type mine up when I get time, brace yourselves it'll be a novel...:)

[kiwigeo]

A few comments off the top of my head:

1. In the days when it took days to get a message from Perth to Canberra a good argument could be put forward for having state governments. These days with communications vastly improved the argument doesn't really hold.
2. Duplication of services by State and Federal (and sometimes also local) governments is straight out wasting of taxpayers dollars. Example: I recently looked at putting in a grey water system....first job would have been obtaining a permit from both my local council as well as my state government authority....$300 blown already paying two groups of people to do the same job twice.
3. Interstate rivalries exist that lead to one state government doing things differently from a neighbouring state purely for the sake of doing it differently.
4. Having seperate state governing/licensing bodies for professions where the standards of service delivery are effectively the same nationwide are another waste of tax payers dollars. Nursing registration is a good example of this. Where differences in standards necessitates state governing/licensing bodies then efforts should be made to bring about nationwide standards that can be managed by a single governing body. A good example of this is driver licensing. How hard would it be to introduce a set of National Road rules?
5. Without sitting down and thinking really hard I cant think of many good reasons to have State and local governments. It's an old institution that might have worked in the past but has long outlived it's usefulness.

Cheers Martin

[HappyHammer]

:whs:
The more money that can be saved by streamlining government the better. The problem is that as we have seen with the Super Profit Tax it's not easy to bring in this type of reform as someone is inevitably impacted in a negative way even if the greater good of the nation is served.

Anyone that thinks the type of reform required in government structure, political red tape and in particular taxes needs to occur with no negative impact anywhere is dreaming.

We also shouldn't forget the Senate, exactly what value are they providing as the third or arguably the fourth tier of government. They are as irrelevant to me as the House of Lords was when I lived in England.

HH.

[damian]

First let me make it clear this is all my opinion. Prefacing every sentence with "I believe" or "in my opinion" is tedious and redundant. Just imagine it's there.

Federal government structure remains as is, but their powers are altered.

Replace state and local governments with shire councils based on federal seats. Each seat has about 85k voters so about 15 councillors per shire would make a ratio of about 5k voters per councillor. Sufficiently high resolution so you know the representative by name and face, not just party. Elected either by concensus vote (senate) or by wards. Personally I prefer wards. I have a preference for no mayor but whatever.

Audit the public service and identify all outward facing services. Determine resources for these then determine a structure to support those front line people. Reappoint from the top down into a monolithic government service owned by the federal government. Existing employees who fail to aquire a position in the new structure are either redeployed to frontline positions qualifications permitting and wage resets in 2 years to the new position (assuming it's lower than the old position) or redundancy and prevented from aquiring a government role for the equivalent of the payout period (so if you get the equivalent of 12 months salary payout you can't get a government job for 12 months). All positions above 1st level manager are 3 year contracts.

Federal government restricted to matters of national importance, customs, defense, arterial roads.

Public service funded by shire councils on all other matters. Councils automatically allocated GST and other revenue on an equal basis, ie 1/130 share of total take. Funding can be withdrawn at any time by councils if bureaucracy does not tow the line. Councils can only borrow from federal government and capped by legislation to 100% GDP of shire (and then only for outstanding circumstances, otherwise 15%).

Councils can caucus against federal parliment, electorate can caucus against individual councillors or whole council. Bielection.

1 election every 3 years. 1 councillor, 1 federal member, senate. Fixed terms.

There you go. Why an I wrong ? :)

[HappyHammer]

Here's the definition of federal government from the .gov.au website to chew on....



The legislature, also known simply as parliament, is made up of democratically-elected representatives from around Australia.
These representatives meet at Parliament House in Canberra to discuss legislation and make laws for the benefit of the nation. The issues that they can make laws on are defined by sections 51 and 122 of the Constitution.
The Commonwealth Parliament comprises two separate chambers:

the House of Representatives (or 'the lower house')
the Senate (or 'the upper house')
The House of Representatives has 150 members, each representing a different area of the country ('electorate'). Each electorate has roughly the same number of registered voters within its boundary, meaning that states with larger populations have more electorates and therefore more representatives in the House.
The Senate is composed of 76 members. Unlike the House of Representatives, membership of the Senate is divided evenly between the states. Each state has 12 senators, and the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have 2 senators each. The Senate was established this way to ensure that the larger states could not use their majority in the House of Representatives to pass laws that disadvantaged the smaller states.
The Constitution is silent on the role of political parties in parliament. It does not make any reference to a government party, an opposition party or minor parties, or to roles like Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. These are conventions that have been adopted to assist the smooth operation of the legislature.

HH.

[HappyHammer]

I like this bit...


The Constitution is silent on the role of political parties in parliament. It does not make any reference to a government party, an opposition party or minor parties, or to roles like Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition. These are conventions that have been adopted to assist the smooth operation of the legislature.
Based on this we could get rid of the political party system without requiring a change to the constitution. You would then make each MP Independant and require alliances and collaboration across MPs to drive through change.

Unfortunately I think this would be a little chaotic and there is a need for "leaders" to bring people together otherwise nothing will get achieved.

On the flip side of that the current MPs are so consumed by self interest and re-election that they stab each other in the back (within parties) to try and ensure survival rather than channelling that energy into delivering change that benefits the country and its people.

This I think is the biggest challenge how do we motivate politicians to work towards beneficial change and delivery rather than focusing the majority of their effort on political survival?

HH.

[damian]

Partyless parliments to a greater or lesser extent have happened. Australia's first few PM's were neither liberal nor labor. Thing is parliments and similar bodies tend towards parties/coalitions/allegences because combining voting power helps the individuals within the group achieve their agenda. It also happens to lead to stability, but I suspect that's a result not a motive.

I keep a copy of the constitution at home and it's available online. Unfortunately it's hard reading for a non lawyer but it's worth a look. There are many unexpected (for me) things in it. New Zealand is specifically mentioned as a potential state in the federation for example. The only right it explicitly garantees is free trade across state lines, which is why such things as pornography and gun law differences between states are virtually unenforcable. Of course it also says explicitly that only the federal government can levy taxes and look how effective that is....

[Big Shed]

Interesting thoughts Damian, so how do you propose that these councillors get elected?

Each party puts up a number of candidates, up to 15 or whatever, the party with the most votes gets all 15 candidates? Or would we for the first time in our history have a true democracy and have proportional representation?

[acmegridley]

Wont comment, I've run out of Stematil:(

[jimbur]

Yes, in theory there is no need for political parties as monolithic entities. The person who can form a government would be invited by the monarch to form a parliament. he/she didn't even have to have a majority of parliamentarians behind him/her. They just had to make it work. If they couldn't someone else would be asked.
The party system has short-circuited this process to a great extent and advertising with its massive costs has done the rest.
Cheers,
Jim

[notenoughtoys]

I'm all for monarchy's or dictatorships myself. The problem with elected govt is they have one thing on their mind for 3/4 years, getting re elected. No long term plans or major works, if there's no immediate political gain to be had, then only build a 2 lane tunnel.

Obviously I don't really support a dictatorship but I'm sure you get my point.

[acmegridley]

Looks like the Gullard has put the cat among the pigeons Australias first female prime minister,can't make a bigger mess of things than the blokes ,or can they?:roll:

[damian]

Interesting thoughts Damian, so how do you propose that these councillors get elected?

Each party puts up a number of candidates, up to 15 or whatever, the party with the most votes gets all 15 candidates? Or would we for the first time in our history have a true democracy and have proportional representation?

Many years ago we had a system to elect senators that gave all the seats to the group with the most votes. Lead to a big disparity between the balance of senate and reps seats. Probably wouldn't create instability in a single tier system like these councils.

Or we could have a system like that which elects the senate now, where you need ((no of councillors)/(number of voters))+1 to win a seat then votes over that number are redistributed to second preference by proportion of total votes for that candidate and so on until the seats are filled.

Or you could have preferential voting like the lower houses, or first past the post.

Personally I favour wards with first past the post.

Democracy doesn't provide satisfying or efficient government. It produces a compromise that everyone can live with, or is supposed to. The preferential voting system best achieves that outcome, but as always the quality of representation you get is reliant on the electorate being engaged.

Be aware that my personal opinions are not always in step with accepted political theory. One of the most glaring examples of this is popular democracy. Those who study politics discard it, I don't. I believe popular democracy is perfectly viable.

The big issue for me is high resolution representation. I believe very strongly that if we had strong local government and less distraction by the higher level of government we could make Australia what Australians want it to be, one locality at a time. I believe that part of the reason the key players in th electorate are disengaged is that they feel unable to really affect outcomes at state and federal level, and that our current local government is so ineffective that no one bothers to pay attention to them. I believe that if we had strong relevant accountable local government Australia would get better instead of worse. Closeness to candidates also undermines the party system.

These are precisely the reasons the major political players don't want reigonal government. It works for the people, not for vested interests (to use the popular term).

[jimbur]

I'm all for monarchy's or dictatorships myself. The problem with elected govt is they have one thing on their mind for 3/4 years, getting re elected. No long term plans or major works, if there's no immediate political gain to be had, then only build a 2 lane tunnel.

Obviously I don't really support a dictatorship but I'm sure you get my point.

This is a really strong point of course. (forthcoming elections, not dictatorships) Everyone, especially the media, want nescafe solutions when the reality often is that policies often don't come to fruition for a longer time period than the gap between elections. The benefits of economic policies usually fall into this category and are reaped by the next government.
The problem isn't just politicians with an attention span that doesn't see beyond the next election but the electorate themselves (not us far-seeing individuals of course:D) who can't see through the hype and understand what is possible and what is a sensible time frame.
Cheers,
Jim

[.RC.]

Looks like the Gullard has put the cat among the pigeons Australias first female prime minister,can't make a bigger mess of things than the blokes ,or can they?:roll:

Also the first non-married PM and probably the first atheist PM as well..

But all that is nothing as it does not make you better or worse...

[damian]

Deputy PM's don't get the same scruitiny as PM's. She's managed to look pretty good until now but I will be interested to see how she goes from here.

Wikipedia amazes me. Within seconds of the announcment the pages were updated.

RC unfortunately a lot of stuff that has no bearing on how good you are at the job gets thrown into the mix at election time. Our system is neither policy nor performance driven, it's perception driven and that is directed by media and politicans in concert.

[HappyHammer]

The head of the AWU was on Lateline last night claiming the Education revolution as a Gillard win.:o

I think the whole thing is a disgusting example of politicians being focused on nothing else except re-election, it sickens me to see them stabbing each other in the back just like the Liberals did to Turnbull, the whole system isn't worth a #### and neither are any of the participants.:minigun:

HH.

[damian]

I won't dispute your assessment of politicians, but I would point out that the PM's position relies on concensus, he is not a president, and when incumbent PM's get rolled in aus it's invariably because they have pushed their supporters beyond the limit. Opposition leaders also.

Turnbull afronted a lot of strongly held positions of a lot of coalition members and failed to get traction in the polls into the bargain. Rudd was famously exclusive of not only caucus but the ministry bar the gang of 4. You ignore and humiliate people long enough and they will stop being your friend. Add poor polls and your toast...

They are not nice and this isn't atypical, but it's not baseless either. Fraser's machinations in the 60's and early 70's were harder to justify, as were the too and fro between Howard and Peakcock in the 80's, and, well, how far do you want to go back :)

I wonder if Gillards foreign birth will come into it ? BTW she's the second athiest PM, Hawke...

[Gingermick]

Obviously I don't really support a dictatorship but I'm sure you get my point.

Nothing wrong with a benevolent dictator. Look at :D

[Gingermick]

I believe very strongly that if we had strong local government and less distraction by the higher level of government we could make Australia what Australians want it to be, one locality at a time.

That was my argument against the forced council amalgamations, though less eloquently put.
Now I'm not calling for a coup d'état...

[Clinton1]

Congrats to Julia.
Having a woman as PM means nothing to me... best person for the job... but it means a lot to "Rosie the Riveter"... there are a lot of happy older women today, and quite rightly it means little to the younger generation. It all makes me happy as well. :)

[wheelinround]

I wonder how often she is going to be compared to Maggie Thatcher or Helen Clark.

Well thats another Primeminsterial Pensioner on the books can we squeeze another one in before the election do ya thunk.

[HappyHammer]

I wonder if Gillards foreign birth will come into it ?
:wales3:Australia has it's first Welsh Prime Minister.

HH.

[Gingermick]

bloody goon for her, I am very happy with this, she is much more astute than Kev.

[HappyHammer]

bloody goon for her, I am very happy with this, she is much more astute than Kev.
Didn't she advise him to back down on the ETS?

HH.

[Big Shed]

BTW she's the second athiest PM, Hawke...

Correction, Hawke never professed to be an atheist, he declared himself an agnostic. There is an important difference.

Somehow the Sunday night ABC News won't be the same without Kevin, with Therese on his arm, providing a sound bite on the steps of the Anglican church.

[wheelinround]

Another one bites the dust Tanner just announced he's not standing next election.

[jimbur]

Correction, Hawke never professed to be an atheist, he declared himself an agnostic. There is an important difference.

Somehow the Sunday night ABC News won't be the same without Kevin, with Therese on his arm, providing a sound bite on the steps of the Anglican church.

Reminds me of a card my sister sent me - I used to be an atheist but now I realise I'm God!

[jimbur]

Next time they're thinking of increasing the tax on grog will they negotiate with me, or is that just limited to rich, non-voting entities?
Cheers,
Jim

[jow104]

We had a lady prime minister, it all ended in tears of course.:;

[jimbur]

Reminds me of a card my sister sent me - I used to be an atheist but now I realise I'm God!

Here it is

[Gingermick]

Didn't she advise him to back down on the ETS?

HH.

and a very good thing it was too, that legislation was a dogs breakfast.

[m2c1Iw]

Congrats to Julia.
Having a woman as PM means nothing to me... best person for the job... but it means a lot to "Rosie the Riveter"... there are a lot of happy older women today, and quite rightly it means little to the younger generation. It all makes me happy as well. :)

Actually I think the younger generation is extremely interested and better yet SA might have a chance of getting some water down the Murray........well perhaps. :roll:

[Rifleman1776]

kiwigeo said in part: "5. Without sitting down and thinking really hard I cant think of many good reasons to have State and local governments. It's an old institution that might have worked in the past but has long outlived it's usefulness."

As an American, I'll wade in with why we believe that is a bad idea. Centralization of governmental powers leads to abuse of those powers. Ours is a confusing quilt of ideas, laws and customs. It works and we like it this way. Currently there are efforts to introduce more centralization but there is resistance from the people and the effort is being balanced, to some degree, by our two party system of government.
Not trying to offend by saying you are wrong or ours is better. I'm saying we like what we have. It is confusing and that is part of the control.

[damian]

Big Shed: I know the difference and yes it's important. My memory failing as always :) I don't KNOW that she's an athiest either. Has anyone heard her say that ?

The American situation is different to ours. First you ahve 10 times the population (or 15 or whatever it is). Second you have a more evenly distributed and denser population.

We have something like 85% of our population in urban areas so there is a tremendous disparity between rural and urban voting power. We have concentrated pockets of population on the east coast and vast tracts seperating the other populations around the country. We are very much more like Canada than the USA, and in some ways Canada's government is an inversion of ours, with principle and residual power resting with the provinces while here those rest with the federal government.

Anyway the upshot is the state governments rule principly for the cities, and are undermined by federal actions. Meanwhile they undermine and thwart the local councils. When something is positive they all line up to take credit, when it goes wrong the point fingers at each other and duck blame.

The nature of your government is a debate you have to have, not us, but Australians recognise widely I believe that our system is not serving the people as best as it could. We have had loud and sustained cries for structural reform form some decades now, but apart from a general "ditch the states" or "ditch the councils" there is little detail concensus of how or what. That is a big part of why I wanted to encourage this conversation. I am interested in the opinions of people here.

[Sturdee]

, but Australians recognise widely I believe that our system is not serving the people as best as it could.


IMO you are wrong. On the whole Australians are well satisfied with the situation as our voting record at referendums designed to change the constitution shows, It's only a small but vocal minority that sees benefits in change.




We have had loud and sustained cries for structural reform form some decades now, but apart from a general "ditch the states" or "ditch the councils" there is little detail concensus of how or what.

The only reform we should have is return some powers back to the states and reduce the Commonwealth government back to what the founding fathers agreed to. The Commonwealth usurpation of powers by financial intimidation is what IMO is wrong with the system.


Peter.

[Sturdee]

Of course it also says explicitly that only the federal government can levy taxes and look how effective that is....

My understanding was that the states and the Commonwealth can levy taxes ( but the Commonwealth taxes were a priority to the states) and until WW2 that was the case

To assist the war effort (lack of manpower) the Commonwealth raised the level of income tax to the average combined tax and gave grants to the states in return.

Unfortunately after the war the Commonwealth refused to go back to the original position and refused to reduce the level of their taxes.

So whilst states can still level income tax it would be in addition to the Commonwealth income tax.


Peter.

[damian]

I just quickly re read the constitution. I couldn't find the section but I thought there was a statment somewhere in it that ONLY the commonwealth may levy taxes and that was the basis of the tobacco excise case some years back, which in turn led to the petrol excise being shifted to the commonwealth. Might have been based on differential rates between states though...

I suppose we move in different circles. People I talk to don't support referendums because they don't trust the government and referendums are usually structured to favour them rather than us. The disparity between city and country is probably (?) less of an issue in Victoria. When I lived in NSW there seemed to be a resentment of the Sydney centric government and it's a BIG issue here in Queensland where there have been real movements to split the state.

One thing I am sure of: given I have a certain opinion/view and most people I know share it, that does not by any means ensure other groups in society hold the same view. :)

Which of course means they are wrong...

http://australianpolitics.com/articles/constitution/full-text-of-the-australian-constitution-as-amended

[.RC.]

I couldn't find the section but I thought there was a statment somewhere in it that ONLY the commonwealth may levy taxes and that was the basis of the tobacco excise case some years back, which in turn led to the petrol excise being shifted to the commonwealth. Might have been based on differential rates between states though...




Excise is not a tax, it is an excise. It is administered by customs..

[HappyHammer]

As an American, I'll wade in with why we believe that is a bad idea. Centralization of governmental powers leads to abuse of those powers. Ours is a confusing quilt of ideas, laws and customs. It works and we like it this way. Currently there are efforts to introduce more centralization but there is resistance from the people and the effort is being balanced, to some degree, by our two party system of government.
Trademarks are a good example of how bogged down someone can become in the web of State vs. Federal America. You have to register Trademarks state by state because no one authority has the ability or control to establish a trademark that covers the US. Reading between the lines I'd suggest this is to support the incomes of IP Lawyers in the US and for no other reason than to people off. Even the EU have come together and organised one place you can go and register a trademark across all member countries.


IMO you are wrong. On the whole Australians are well satisfied with the situation as our voting record at referendums designed to change the constitution shows, It's only a small but vocal minority that sees benefits in change.

That's not my view and it's not the view of many of the people in my circle either.

HH.

[.RC.]

Getting sick of the W card being played for gillard... Who cares that she is a woman, it does not somehow give her magical powers or make her any more a better politician then a man or a hermaphrodite..

I really doubt she is going to be a long lived PM, while she may win the next election due to the silliness of the libs putting abbott in charge, she will not survive for much longer then that.. Her hands are just as much spoiled by the complete amateurish performance of this government as rudd's and swan's...

Remember she was part of the gang of 4..

[damian]

That's not my view and it's not the view of many of the people in my circle either.

HH.

Sorry, can you clarify what you said there. Are you saying you and people you know are in favour of retaining the states, or are you saying your in favour of abolishing them ? Your sentence can be read either way.

In a perfect world politicians would be elected on the basis of their ability to do the job. That unfortunately does not happen.

[m2c1Iw]

I really doubt she is going to be a long lived PM, while she may win the next election due to the silliness of the libs putting abbott in charge, she will not survive for much longer then that.. Her hands are just as much spoiled by the complete amateurish performance of this government as rudd's and swan's...

Remember she was part of the gang of 4..

I think she will get a good number of the under 30 swinging vote. It will be interesting how she handles the miners. That issue IMO was more important in Mr Rudds demolition than what has been reported or portrayed by Gillard. There is no doubt the miners sent the backroom boys into panic with their advertising.

Despite my opposition to Mr Rudds policies I have enormous respect for his dedication no matter how misguided.

As has often been reported no Prime Minister should be treated in the manner he has.

[notenoughtoys]

I suppose we move in different circles. People I talk to

I have a certain opinion/view and most people I know share it, that does not by any means ensure other groups in society hold the same view. :)

Which of course means they are wrong...



Isn't that human nature. We mix with people who share our interests and views. Life would be a drag if we hung around around with people we had nothing in common with. You didn't join this forum because you're interested in V8 supercars.

I believe this was one of KRudds undoings. An astute politician would surround himself with (and listen to) a diversity of opinions, not just those that are complimentary to his own point of view.

Bob

[Greg Ward]

10 million women in Australia and this is the best we can do.

We are in the hands of a mob of professional politicians and union head bashers with no business experience and we allow them to run our biggest company.... called Australia.

And please don't tell me that the Canberra public servants fix the mess behind the scenes.

I think I'll move to WA. Things are really happening there and they don't give a fig for Canberra.

greg

[kiwigeo]

I think I'll move to WA. Things are really happening there and they don't give a fig for Canberra.

greg

Moving to Perth. Should be great......once you've negotiated your way through the grossly overloaded shambles of an airport and once your taxi driver has worked out where hes going. :D

[.RC.]

I think she will get a good number of the under 30 swinging vote. It will be interesting how she handles the miners.

It depends on her internet filter... I doubt she will drop it and a lot of youngsters hate it. I think she will regain a lot of the swinging green voters who would have preferenced labor anyway...

I find it totally sad how gullible people really are.. Here we have the #2 now #1 and people think she is going to fix everything. Reminds me when Anna Bligh took over in Qld, she continued the party line of wrecking everything.

I have learnt once a political party becomes incompetent the only way to fix their incompetence is to vote them out, simply changing the perceived leader is only a cosmetic change.

[m2c1Iw]

I see "Hard working Australians" is the new Gillard catch cry. Hmm even worse than "Working Australian families" how condescending! Man am I sick and tired of pollie speak.

[Big Shed]

I see "Hard working Australians" is the new Gillard catch cry. Hmm even worse than "Working Australian families" how condescending! Man am I sick and tired of pollie speak.

Yep, and not very "inclusive" either. Leaves out self-funded retirees, people on the dole or disability pensions, veterans pensions and anyone who hasn't got a job (or indeed anyone who has a job, but doesn't work hard or otherwise:D)

[wheelinround]

10 million women in Australia and this is the best we can do.

We are in the hands of a mob of professional politicians and union head bashers with no business experience and we allow them to run our biggest company.... called Australia.

And please don't tell me that the Canberra public servants fix the mess behind the scenes.

I think I'll move to WA. Things are really happening there and they don't give a fig for Canberra.

greg

Greg can I have your wood stash :D remember I asked first :;

[HappyHammer]

I think she will get a good number of the under 30 swinging vote.
I knew I was missing out on something being an over 40.:C

Isn't that human nature. We mix with people who share our interests and views.
No I live in a relatively small town and have to make the most of what I have.:U

I think she will regain a lot of the swinging green voters.
:o OMG the Greens are into it as well.

HH.

[m2c1Iw]

(or indeed anyone who has a job, but doesn't work hard or otherwise:D)

I knew she wasn't referring to me. :q

[Greg Ward]

Ray...... my wood stack is my retirement super and all I have between the gutter and.... well a long career as a pensioner under Julia.


Greg

[wheelinround]

Ray...... my wood stack is my retirement super and all I have between the gutter and.... well a long career as a pensioner under Julia.


Greg

With an August 2010 Poll being tipped ( I think they mean August 2011) I am wondering if the rush to show what she has done will all fall in a heap fingers crossed.

[Greg Ward]

Ray, they mean 2010 and she means business.

And the Labor party means business as well! I think the past week show that they are really only interested in power...not people

But they don't really understand that successful businesses need good policies to be successful so they can pay the taxes that allow the Labor Party to be socially benevelant and for them to waste funds as she has under her BER.

I think she will win in August and so we go into the labour cycle of debt again as expenditure exceeds income.

The change in WA has already show good signs...WA has already started to repay Labor's debt in that state.

I wonder how much debt she can clock up in the next term and whether that will exceed Kevin's.

Greg

[wheelinround]

Scary thoughts Greg, its always been that way one spends the other drags them out of the debt. A lot will suffer badly.

[damian]

I was watching the courier mail comments as all this unfolded last week. I was quite disturbed at how many people (about a 3rd) obviously had no idea how our system of government works.

She's had the expected bounce in the polls, but I'll be watching with great interest to see if she can maintain that, even until August.

[Ironwood]

She's had the expected bounce in the polls, but I'll be watching with great interest to see if she can maintain that, even until August.

I'm surprised she is waiting until August, I would have thought her best chance was to go to polls as soon as, while she thinks she's got enough people thinking that the change in leadership was a good move, by August too many things will have panned out, and people have had time to think :?, waiting could work against her.

[Big Shed]

Apparently she can't call a "normal" election until Thursday 01/07/2010, with the minimum time period being 33 days and an election must be held on a Saturday, August 7 is the earliest we will see an election.

A "normal" election is an election other than a double dissolution, which she can still call as the trigger for that is also in place.

[wheelinround]

Mid snow season election now hen did I see that last early to mid 80's, its also when many people are OS touring in the summer sun postal votes galore. Who wants to go stand in queues in this weather :no:. Oh ok I want to stand but not in a polling line :U

[wheelinround]

Voting Greens will still get you a Labor government.:roll:

[HappyHammer]

Bill Shorten was on QandA last night trying to suggest that Julia is going to an early election to allow the people to verify their support of her as PM. What a load of rubbish! The only reason she is going to an election as soon as possible is to try and ride the current wave of popular coverage about her hairdo, her boyfriend, being a woman etc etc to get re-elected. Because as said above if she waits until after the honeymoon period people will work out that she was as culpable as Rudd in the decisions made by the current government and that nothing has really changed.

It's a shame Malcolm Turnbull didn't wait a week to appear on QandA and had been on the panel instead of Barnaby Joyce it would have made for an interesting debate about who has the power in the labour party.

All this because poor Bill Shorten didn't get a promotion....

HH.

[kiwigeo]

Bill Shorten was on QandA last night trying to suggest that Julia is going to an early election to allow the people to verify their support of her as PM.

Shorten one of the small band of faction leaders that pull the puppet strings in the Labour Party. I often wonder why the right wing of the Labour doesnt just join the Liberal Party and the left faction of the Liberal Party join the Labour Party...would make things alot easier for all.

[kiwigeo]

Ray...... my wood stack is my retirement super and all I have between the gutter and.... well a long career as a pensioner under Julia.

You havent heard the latest?!?

The super mining tax is going to be replaced with a super woodstash tax.....indexed according to species and which way it's sawn. :D

[fxst]

You havent heard the latest?!?

The super mining tax is going to be replaced with a super woodstash tax.....indexed according to species and which way it's sawn. :D

Oh noes now I will have to hide it too :oo:....mmmmm bottom of the fireplace accounts :U
I wonder if I burn it in species if I can re-constitute it when I need it??
Pete

[kiwigeo]

Oh noes now I will have to hide it too :oo:....mmmmm bottom of the fireplace accounts :U
I wonder if I burn it in species if I can re-constitute it when I need it??
Pete

If you burn it then you'll have to make sure you've got enough carbon credits stashed......theyre going to rejuvenate the Emissions Trading Scheme.

[Greg Ward]

This is how it works and how stupid we are
We have 600 hectares of forest. Last cut around 1973. Ready for cutting in the next 10-20 years.
I'm prepared to lock it up and sell the C credits for around (say) 50K a year. Not ever cut a tree for ever!
That is OUT under the way the system works.

To gain C credits I have to clear all the trees and plant a plantation of monocultured trees.
I can then sell the credits....... and we have lost 600 hectares of mixed NSW bush.
But we have C credits that the Govt can claim
So I guess my stash will be on the ground in the future.....

What a mess and the next Govt will also be a mess.....a Gillard one won by hiding her and Labor's true face from the nation by going to an early election.
What do we know about her? She never answers a question, just smiles and simpers about being a red head..
Great. Even NZs looking better....
Greg

[cultana]

Greg but not only monocultured trees don't they have to be of a specific kind; some kind not being acceptable others acceptable.

[Sebastiaan56]

Voting Greens will still get you a Labor government.:roll:

You can still choose your preferences. That goes for whatever party you vote for; Shooters, Christian Dems, Family First, etc. If you forgo putting in your own preferences you may as well donkey vote IMO.

The Carbon Trading scheme was cooked up by the same people who cooked up "Colateralised Debt Obligations" and "Sub Prime" mortgages. The money can only ever go one way, and that is to the entities that control derivatives trading. It is very bad policy. But both sides of Aussie politics are beholden to financial engineering ideas so I dont hold much hope really. Notice how there is no "Big Bank" party.... we dont need one.

[Greg Ward]

Don't know about this in any depth, I won't really be cutting down 600 hectares to plant a plantation, but others will.
They are a nightmare. They planted a blackbutt forest near Wauchope in 1972 and are currently cutting it down.... totally, burning and replanting. All wildlife disappears. The old foresters selectively cut every 30 years or so, so wildlife could coexist and biodiversity continue. With the 'green' forestry C Credits schemes, you just get a mess but the city centric greenies feel good as global warming will benefit from such schemes....... Sure......
Greg

[damian]

Even NZs looking better....
Greg

Actually I think NZ looks pretty darn good. My partner and I went over for 2 weeks with a view to possibly emmigrating. I concluded if you were comming to Australasia from another place NZ is a clear winner. The trouble is the advantages compared to the aggravation and cost of moving there from here are pretty much balanced. The biggest negative is their terrible wages, but if you don't have to work...

Regarding the carbon tax did anyone else notice they have put an ex Macquarie investment banker in charge of CSIRO. My poor ex employer has been unders seige by politicians and other sorts of criminals for 20 years. This is another big nail. His first announcment was a greater focus on global warming. Of course the profits the finance industry will make from carbon trading have nothing to do with any of this...

It would be the silliest thing in the world to put a scientist in charge of a scientific organisation.

[artme]

Green politics certainly has a lot to answer for, as has the finance industry.

One of the problems I see with being green is the narrow view most people take of what that means. Planting trees and protecting forests is wonderful and an absolute must for more reasons than anything to do with global warming.

Our political masters still have not made a real connection between the need to be green by turning to smater USE of energy. The real problem with global warming is the vast imbalance betwen what is emitted into the atmosphere as carbon and what the photosynthesising biomass can soak up.

I mentioned in another debate that UQ had developed a process that extracts twice the energy currently extracted from a given mass of coal. Surely this should be funded and pushed into use as quiclt as possible.

Or are there too many vested financial interests that will be upset by this??

[cultana]

I mentioned in another debate that UQ had developed a process that extracts twice the energy currently extracted from a given mass of coal. Surely this should be funded and pushed into use as quiclt as possible.

Or are there too many vested financial interests that will be upset by this??

The problem here is the coal types used in power generation through Australia. There are quite a few and all have different levels of combustion problems. So what works with one type of coal may not work with another.

Also is the process commercially feasible. Money is sunk into coal fired power stations to extract the max amount of heat possible from the burning process. So any vested interests are definitely on the power station side, and that vested interest is in cutting down costs to make more heat. SO any power station owner would be interested but again commercial viability.

[Sebastiaan56]

Green politics certainly has a lot to answer for, as has the finance industry.

I think there has been a lot of misrepresentation of Green politics. I am very sympathetic to the environment so you may call me green, just dont call me a Greens voter! But greenies come in all shades of green. There is a lot of pragmatism as well as idealism. I really dont think Greg's situation makes any sense at all and really doubt most environmentalists would think anything else. The problem is that sections of the media have characterised policies as "greenie driven" when in fact policies such as emissions trading came from the big banks in America. The very ones that gave us the GFC. There are hook ups between Green organisations and industry and greenies push hard on reduction of consumption as the main way to reduce carbon emissions. Ideas such as cogeneration and regenerative machinery have their genesis in the green movement. So as with Labour movements, Womens movements, Aboriginal movements, or any other kind of non "L" organisation it is wise to check the organisations own material rather than rely on what an "L" politican or shock jock tells you what the policy is as they will spin as hard as they can to retain the duopoly they are so comfortable with. As we are in a phase where people are losing faith in the machinations and blatant lying of both "L" parties the green movement will cop a lot more flack and a lot of it will be lies and fear mongering. As with all things one will need to do ones own research and draw ones own conclusions.

One major point of difference with Green movements is that their policies tend to be backed by academic research and so the movement has to a degree emerged from the universities of the world. This is also why they are not explained so well and easily misunderstood. Most people want to believe what is plausible not what hard facts and research indicate as truth. Another confounder is that science and research are processes of discovery and so ideas will change as the emerging facts change. This is of course anathema to religious organisations and well entrenched political parties. A terrific example is law and order policy where incarceration rates have little to do with overall crime levels but personal income is the prime driver.

Does this make Green politics elitist? I dont think so as most people I have met are capable of thinking for themselves. Generally we are not encouraged to do so but fed slogans, logos, spin etc. Where facts are replaced by rhetoric we have the beginnings of a problem.

[artme]

Have to agree with most of what you say Sebastiaan. I should have qualified my original remark.

I call myself "green" also. I don't like waste, I believe in the conservation of the natural environment to the greatest possible practical extent.

What you say about fear mongering and demonising is very true. The evolution of the green movement in Tasmania is a clssic example of this. The tie-up between the politics of the state and the vested interests is in plain sight for all to see.

This brings into view another point about Oz. Politic. State rights. Over the years I have witnessed this dog in the manger attitude coupled with the parochial bleatings of both politicians and he media _ "keep your nose out of our business, this is ours."

It's time we all realised that the interests of all of us are at stake, not just those in one state.

[damian]

I may not know a lot about some things but I can tell you for nothing I know about coal. I spent many years of my life researching the stuff.

It's really easy for some self-agranding academic to issue a press release telling us about some wonderful new discovery. The truth is mostly they are either outright wrong or the idea makes no economic sense. I remember years ago some twit from QUT doing a news paper story about a flying saucer they'd "invented" to fly around airports dispersing fog. The thing was about a meter across.

The fossil fuel industry is a simple thing. They are in the business of making money. Consumers want cheap energy and those two facts are what keeps us using oil and coal.

The fact is we have tremendous reserves of oil and coal, it is the really cheap and easy reserves that are drying up. Electricity is generated from the cheapest grades of coal because the good stuff is used to make steel. Most of the bowen basin in queensland goes overseas to the steel works in china and japan. Queensland's economy won't be fussed at all if they shut down coal fired generation tomorrow. Most of the coal in NSW and Vic goes into generation because it's low grade.

artme: Your assertion that there is a "vast imbalance betwen what is emitted into the atmosphere as carbon and what the photosynthesising biomass can soak up" is incorrect. If there were a vast imbalance we'd be in a LOT of trouble. The reality is there is a small, barely measureable, increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over time and even the most rabid greenies accept that human activity is a small percentage of the total created. I've already ranted and raved about the misinformation on global warming and I'm not going to revisit it at length here. If you want to discuss that we'll reawaken the GW thread. What I will suggest is that you clearly distinguish between facts backed up by solid data and the propoganda spouted by both sides of this religeous war.

[kiwigeo]

The fact is we have tremendous reserves of oil and coal, it is the really cheap and easy reserves that are drying up.



Not quite correct. We have large reserves of coal and gas but not the case for oil. The untapped oil/gas reserves are largely offshore in deepwater and mostly in gas prone Basins (eg Browse).

[cultana]

Electricity is generated from the cheapest grades of coal because the good stuff is used to make steel. Most of the bowen basin in queensland goes overseas to the steel works in china and japan. Queensland's economy won't be fussed at all if they shut down coal fired generation tomorrow. Most of the coal in NSW and Vic goes into generation because it's low grade.


The coal used for power generation, steaming coal, and the coal for steel, coking coal, has little to do with cost as you suggest.
Steaming coal and steel or coking coal are two totally different coal types. Steaming coal does not produce the correct coke structure for steel making so it is not used. That is the resulting coke lump is not strong enough to maintain is shape, it breaks up too easily, ie powders.

You can use the term grade but it is in some ways incorrect as you are actually talking outside a coal type.
Lignite
- steaming coal Victoria
Sub-bituminous coal
- steaming coal South Australia
Bituminous coal
- coking coals
- steaming coals high end of the bituminous type
Anthracite
- steaming coals

[artme]

OK Damien, sorry about the hyperbole.

I want toknow where you get the right to poo poo the business of more enrgy from the same amount of coal. I'm sorry, but you sit and pontificate, deride suggestions put by others and at times make yourself generally difficult to cope with. I don't see you, or anyone else, as the fount of all knowledge and it is unwise of you to put yourself across in this manner. Educated, knowledgable and intelligent you may be, but possessor of all knowledge you are not.

Is it not possible that the idea of extracting more energy from coal is true? Look at what has happened with other fossil fuel technologies. The power turned out by modern diesel and petrol engines was unheard of 10-15 years ago, and probably not even dreamt of.

[Sebastiaan56]

As far as I know there is little in the way of heat capture going on in the power stations here in Aus. I know there is little or none happening in industry. Correct me if Im wrong. And yes its an idea born in academia, and there are billions to be saved world wide,

Why the diatribe about academics Damian? Im sure you have no qualms benefiting from medical research and I know you are not claiming to have superior knowledge to the combined uni's of the world. The most essential process is called peer review. This basically means that other people look over your work before you proclaim your discoveries to the world. Now the peer review process is not perfect but how many tax evaders are there in the world?

[cultana]

Kindly remember that boilers in power stations use super heated steam. that is, in simple terms, steam passed through a heating chamber before it gets to the turbines.

the problem with any idea of extracting more energy, ie heating ability from coal as I have indicated earlier is going to be more difficult, and hence has commercial implications, as not economic, and it may also by its nature be non green.
There are several coal used in power stations and each type has its own burning or more correctly its flame thermodynamics. This is dependent on non combustibles and moisture as the two main points of concern.

A bituminous coal is significantly different to a sub bituminous not to mention a lignite. So any concept designed for a bituminous cola will have no effect on a sub bituminous coal.

artme: any chance of providing a pointer to this research paper?

Besides are we not tracking off the topic of Australian politics?:o

[artme]

Indeed we are tracking off topic!!:doh::doh::doh:

This was a news item I heard one afternoon while driving. Sorry,c an't point you to any papers.

[damian]

OK Damien, sorry about the hyperbole.

I want toknow where you get the right to poo poo the business of more enrgy from the same amount of coal. I'm sorry, but you sit and pontificate, deride suggestions put by others and at times make yourself generally difficult to cope with. I don't see you, or anyone else, as the fount of all knowledge and it is unwise of you to put yourself across in this manner. Educated, knowledgable and intelligent you may be, but possessor of all knowledge you are not.

Is it not possible that the idea of extracting more energy from coal is true? Look at what has happened with other fossil fuel technologies. The power turned out by modern diesel and petrol engines was unheard of 10-15 years ago, and probably not even dreamt of.

I am sorry you find me difficult. I have been told by writing style is rather abrupt. You may not believe me but I do not set out to offend.

You might consider that apart from knowing something about this I don't just "sit", I've spent a signifigant part of my life "doing", actually rolling up my sleeves and trying to improve the way we do things. I have many years of first hand experience of how hard it is to get all the dominos to fall in a project like this and frankly resent people glossing over all that hard work as if it's easy and obvious.

I never said it wasn't true. The essential difference between a scientist and an engineer is we have to make stuff work AND make money out of it. All sorts of things can be done in a lab, but run the numbers and this wonderful new technology usually costs more money than it makes. My point was that if this process your talking about was economically viable the coal burning industries would be all over it like a rash. They spend hundreds of millions on research every year. I was part of that industry for years, searching for ways to squeeze cents per ton of cost off production. They were always grateful for every little improvement we could make.

The reason I am negative about this stuff is your repeating one side of the story, some fiction some academic is spreading because their idea isn't taken up or they missed out on a research grant. They sit in their ivory towers and think the world should bow down to them. If it actually made economic sense the coal burning industries would be all over it.

No doubt you've read about Ken Talbot's death recently in Africa ? You know how he made his billions ? He found a way to use a lower grade of coal in steel making. Trust me, if you come up with a way for them to increase profit you will be well rewarded.

Cultana: coking coal gets more $ per ton. Steaming coal is the mud that isn't clean enough or old enough for coking. If you want to have a protracted discussion about coal classifications I'm happy to do so, but is there really any point ?

Quick search: http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalprice.html

Kiwigeo: Ok, you probably know more about the distribution than I do, but I was under the impression there was buckets of crude all over the place, including in western Queensland. Stuff like the oil sands in Cananda that just cost more to recover and refine. The point I was making is that if oil disappeared tomorrow we'd get on alright, we'd just be paying more for energy. The idea that we're about to "run out" is alarmist propoganda.

[artme]

[QUOTE=damian;1174642]
The reason I am negative about this stuff is your repeating one side of the story, some fiction some academic is spreading because their idea isn't taken up or they missed out on a research grant. They sit in their ivory towers and think the world should bow down to them. If it actually made economic sense the coal burning industries would be all over it.QUOTE]

There you go again!!

Who says it's fiction and propaganda? Many of these things take time to come on line or even be heard about by Joe Public.

I cannot prove any of what I said to be true or backable. I simply made the statement that I had heard of this process. I also said in an earlier post, elsewhere in these forums, that if this was the case why wasn't something being done about it by governments and industry

BTW _ Do you have a particular, or several, problem/s with academics?

[damian]

Ok. I am prepard to believe I have misunderstood your previous posts but they read like a complaint to me.

Case 1, the development is new and it makes sense and it will be rolled out in due course. Why are you unhappy about that ?

Case 2, the development has been assessed and rejected. My point is that there wold have been good reasons for that. Cultana pointed out rather better than I did that the likelyhood of a conspiricy to hold back development is unlikely, while the economic imperitive to embrace any advantage is tremendous.

Regarding academics:

(I assume we can agree that a loose definition of academic is someone with a PhD or with a senior position in research)

I know lots of them, many of my friends have PhD's. I have worked with them for many years. In my experience they are like every other group of humans you can identify. Some are criminals, some amoral, some hard working and honest. Some are competant, many aren't. The reason I rail against them is they are often held up as absolute authorities and morally pure. The same attitude that is often promoted for indigenous peoples and other groups. The oppsoite is also true, some groups are universally demonised (lately muslims). If you want to win an argument first convince your audience that some person or group is perfect, then quote them, debate over.

So my intention is to show that their motives may not be pure, or even reasonable. In my experience the better academics work in the background, and like most groups you can identify the sort that actively seek out the media, fame, power and money are not people I would choose to spend my time with, and not people I am prepared to trust or "believe".

I am cynical and I know it.

So to answer your question: I have a problem putting my faith in anyone, it just happens that academics have been held up regularly of late as messiahs so I have felt compelled to point out that they are not.

As it happens I am attending a birthday party tomorrow for ladyfriend with a PhD and there will be quite a few others there also. :)

[artme]

:no::no::no::no::no:

[Greg Ward]

Meanwhile.... back with the red heads.
In Queensland, apparently red-necks rule, (although Kevin was a lighter shade)

Now in Canberra, by her own admission, red heads rule.

And they rule far and wide, even here. Earlier in this thread I made a sexist pathetic remark about our new ruler and it was thankfully pulled within 30 seconds.

But then again.......When I think back to the remarks made in the forum abut Kevin, many of which were worse, they all remained because he is not a red head.

Poor Tony.

Greg

[Gingermick]

You need special character to be a sucessful young redhead. John Howard wouldn't have be a sucessful redhead until his 60's. You need a blend of cantankerousness and pig headedness not often found in those under 60.
so get stuffed