Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Domestic Politics


cadete
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Appalling revelations concerning state care and guardianship in Western Australia coming out of the latest Royal Commission. What kind of society are we living in?

Looks like the Victorian election could go down to the wire. It really is difficult to know who to vote for.

For the upper house I'm in the Southern Metropolitan electorate, and it grates on me to see so many candidates who don't live in suburbs that I would describe as "southern."

Where possible I've voted for people who might at least have some knowledge of the suburb where I reside.

I shall watch TV on Saturday evening with interest.

Same kind of society as always. It is just that today it is being aired. It was the late 80s when Victorians discovered that the town of Ararat were stealing the money from the intellectually challenged and of course not feeding them/caring for them. This led to that institution being shut down and all the townsfolk made unemployed (no sympathy from me).

Ultimately specialist care requires money and Australians don't like to pay taxes and don't like to police those institutions.

I think that a lot of people will be watching the election results with interest. I won't be - I am going to a gig :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So, the Federal Government has taken action on energy costs has it?

Hmm. I've just received a nice little communication from my gas provider that my charges are being raised and that based on historical consumption I can expect to pay an extra $556 in the coming 12 months for my gas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@jw1739in short yes. They have 'capped' the price that uncontracted gas and coal can be traded at domestically. This has significantly decreased the forward price curve for electricity (given those two fuels still supply more than half of the electricity in Australia). In particular capping gas prices will affect electricity prices because it is often the marginal or price setting fuel. Future wholesale gas prices have also fallen although gas suppliers are trying everything they can to bypass the cap and I'd expect some legal challenges from both suppliers and consumers.

What the residential customer will probably see is that electricity and gas prices will go up relative to the past, but not by as much as they otherwise would have. Hence your communication from your gas supplier - always best to shop around though if you have the time and patience. 

I think the Federal Government is also negotiating an energy concession policy ($1Bn +) with the states but the details are yet to be sorted so i don't know who will be eligible or by how much.

Of course any Federal Government could do more than the ALP have decided to, but if they do business will scream louder about sovereign risk, 'think tanks' will talk about authoritarianism or socialism and any antagonistic parts of the media will have a field day. So it's a political and budgetary choice about how much to intervene and whether to be on the side of consumers, business or choose a path in between. 

Would probably be difficult for any colour of government to navigate.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

So Andrews has pulled the pin on the Commonwealth Games. There's the usual bleating from some quarters, and I would have to agree that the decision at best can be labelled clumsy, but overall IMO it's the right call. However, I hope that he's taking the same approach to some of his other pet projects. As a matter of fact, and probably I will incur the wrath of some, I hope he pulls the pin on the new regional sports facilities that were part of the promised Commonwealth Games, because IMO far too much is expended in general on sports facilities. Sure we'd all like the latest of everything, but it's not attainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jw1739 said:

So Andrews has pulled the pin on the Commonwealth Games. There's the usual bleating from some quarters, and I would have to agree that the decision at best can be labelled clumsy, but overall IMO it's the right call. However, I hope that he's taking the same approach to some of his other pet projects. As a matter of fact, and probably I will incur the wrath of some, I hope he pulls the pin on the new regional sports facilities that were part of the promised Commonwealth Games, because IMO far too much is expended in general on sports facilities. Sure we'd all like the latest of everything, but it's not attainable.

I intend to agree with you. As far as I am concerned I would never vote to stage any "sporting event" such as the FIFA world cups, other world cups, F1 racing. If these sports want to stage the carnival in Australia it has to be done purely by the private sector. Where I differ is that taxpayer dollars should go to grassroot sports including facilities. For less commercial sports such as cycling, fencing, etc I don't have an issue that the taxpayer contribute to the sports. And certainly the regions do deserve a bigger share than the metropolitan areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yes and no. Expenditure should be balanced. I'm currently watching and enduring a redevelopment of a reserve behind my home, which was a pretty good suburban facility, although really only regularly used by Little Athletics and a lower-grade cricket club in the summer, and all year by the local Dog Obedience Club. A perfectly adequate pavilion has been razed to the ground to be replaced and an electronic scoreboard erected in a redevelopment that is budgeted to cost A$8.94 million. I regard this as grossly excessive and I think that are better ways to spend taxpayer dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Well, yes and no. Expenditure should be balanced. I'm currently watching and enduring a redevelopment of a reserve behind my home, which was a pretty good suburban facility, although really only regularly used by Little Athletics and a lower-grade cricket club in the summer, and all year by the local Dog Obedience Club. A perfectly adequate pavilion has been razed to the ground to be replaced and an electronic scoreboard erected in a redevelopment that is budgeted to cost A$8.94 million. I regard this as grossly excessive and I think that are better ways to spend taxpayer dollars.

I agree that money should be better spent. and I am sure there are suburban grounds in despearate need of better toilets, changing room, levelling, irrigatio, etc. And that is where I want the tax dollars need to be spent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

I agree that money should be better spent. and I am sure there are suburban grounds in despearate need of better toilets, changing room, levelling, irrigatio, etc. And that is where I want the tax dollars need to be spent

I endorse your comments. But again, we need to ensure that these facilities are actually used, and maintained properly. For example after visiting Sylvan Reservoir with my wife and overseas friends I wrote to Parks Victoria and complained about the state of the toilets there. Their reply stated that Parks Victoria had only sufficient resources to clean said facilities twice per week!

I note today that the park there is actually closed while the toilets are rebuilt, but that's no good if they are not maintained properly.

Of course, I have contentious views on a lot of this stuff. I don't believe that it should be necessary to build completely new facilities for these "big events." I recall visiting Montreal and seeing the near-derelict facilities built there for whenever it was. In terms of the Olympics my view is that they should be held in Greece, when and where the Greek people decide to do so. As far as I am concerned the Brits can have the Commonwealth Games if they want it, and stage it at facilities in the UK. Even the World Cup Finals should be played using existing facilities if at all possible. I would think most football-playing nations have such facilities, and if they don't then maybe they shouldn't be applying to host the event anyway. I'm that old that I was on the terraces at all the London group matches in the 1966 Cup - every match in that tournament was played at an existing ground. IMO that's the way it should be.

The money collectively saved by some sensible decision making can be better used elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

I endorse your comments. But again, we need to ensure that these facilities are actually used, and maintained properly. For example after visiting Sylvan Reservoir with my wife and overseas friends I wrote to Parks Victoria and complained about the state of the toilets there. Their reply stated that Parks Victoria had only sufficient resources to clean said facilities twice per week!

I note today that the park there is actually closed while the toilets are rebuilt, but that's no good if they are not maintained properly.

Of course, I have contentious views on a lot of this stuff. I don't believe that it should be necessary to build completely new facilities for these "big events." I recall visiting Montreal and seeing the near-derelict facilities built there for whenever it was. In terms of the Olympics my view is that they should be held in Greece, when and where the Greek people decide to do so. As far as I am concerned the Brits can have the Commonwealth Games if they want it, and stage it at facilities in the UK. Even the World Cup Finals should be played using existing facilities if at all possible. I would think most football-playing nations have such facilities, and if they don't then maybe they shouldn't be applying to host the event anyway. I'm that old that I was on the terraces at all the London group matches in the 1966 Cup - every match in that tournament was played at an existing ground. IMO that's the way it should be.

The money collectively saved by some sensible decision making can be better used elsewhere.

You are right. And this is the problem with low taxation and circuses. So we want places to visit such as the Sylvan Reservoir but don't want to pay taxes to maintain it and we are stuck with what we have. Olympics/FIFA? Well ever since TV and advertising dollars moved in, nations are required to fork out new facilities to house the athletes, the actual events, etc. The corruption (begun by Brazilian administrators BTW) is now endemic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say, however, that it has been a most satisfying 48 hours.

With one clumsy announcement, not that I disagree with actually walking away from the Games itself, Andrews has succeeded of making a fool of himself "saving" 6 billion whilst quietly forgetting that he still wants to carry on with the suburban train link, the first two stages of which have ballooned out to 125 billion..., embarrassed both Victoria and Australia, and brought the whole relevance and meaning of the Commonwealth Games into question.

And today comes the news that Kathryn Campbell has been suspended without pay from her $900,000 per annum salary and position at DFAT over the findings of the Robodebt Royal Commission.

Keep it going boys and girls!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This seems to be a subject that people are avoiding, perhaps because of political correctness or perhaps for a lot of other reasons, but I am increasingly concerned that Albanese is simply not providing sufficient information concerning the "Voice." Whilst he continually avoids describing how it will work and how it will differ from existing consultative arrangements I cannot but suspect that he is hiding something. It is my opinion that Australians are mugs if we approve something without knowing, or having the chance to know, how a change to our Constitution will actually work. Our Constitution is very hard to amend, and I would suspect that once any change is made it will be nigh on impossible to remove.

For example, I would like to know how the "Voice" will improve on what already exists, such as the organisation described here:https://www.coalitionofpeaks.org.au/our-story, and also whether it will replace, or merely be additional to, and how it can be more effective than, what already exists. There is no point in establishing something that will not be effective in getting the resources to the people who both want and need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, jw1739 said:

This seems to be a subject that people are avoiding, perhaps because of political correctness or perhaps for a lot of other reasons, but I am increasingly concerned that Albanese is simply not providing sufficient information concerning the "Voice." Whilst he continually avoids describing how it will work and how it will differ from existing consultative arrangements I cannot but suspect that he is hiding something. It is my opinion that Australians are mugs if we approve something without knowing, or having the chance to know, how a change to our Constitution will actually work. Our Constitution is very hard to amend, and I would suspect that once any change is made it will be nigh on impossible to remove.

For example, I would like to know how the "Voice" will improve on what already exists, such as the organisation described here:https://www.coalitionofpeaks.org.au/our-story, and also whether it will replace, or merely be additional to, and how it can be more effective than, what already exists. There is no point in establishing something that will not be effective in getting the resources to the people who both want and need them.

I am not sure about PC but this thread is kept ticking over by you and me :)

There is confusion between what the constitution is and what statutory law is. The Australian constitution, like the Magna Carta, is a hodgepodge of wishful thinking, intentions, useful measures and explicit instructions. I think that in my lifetime every government has violated the constitution by not holding a sheep census (it must have been an important topic in the 1890s).

The intentions are that the High Court of Australia is the foremost court in the Commonwealth and all other courts are subservient. You will note that the constitution does not mention how many levels of courts there should be, how they will operate, what matters come before those court (one exception and I will get to that), how many people will work there, why those courts are needed, where those courts will sit, etc. This is why when I was in my teens there was no Federal Magistrate but Howard created by, statutory law, the Federal Magistrate. The exception to the preceding is that the constitution explicitly creates a court for resolving industrial disputes and AFAIK is the only constitution in the world that does that. So for me creating a Voice to parliament and the executive is no different to the many intentions already in the constitution.

So why have intentions rather than explicit diktats? Well it enables the governments to create and modify via statutory law the organisations to fit the problems of the day. So the diktat to hold a sheep census is no longer valid but that will require a referendum. A better wording would have been for the government of the day to ensure that agricultural businesses have sufficient information to enable the sustainability of the industry - which is what happens in practice. BTW the constitution does not mention ministries other than the Chancellor of the Exchequer (popularly known as Treasurer) and a Minister of War (more commonly known as the defence minister. It does not mention the PM or any other ministry, in fact it barely mentions how the government ought to be organised.

You mention that there are already organisations that have a similar role. There is one major difference back in the day there was ATSIC which was in effect a parliament of sorts with no powers. And they were noisy. Hence one of the first thing that Howard did was to abolish it. You will have noticed that Senator Price at the beginning of the No campaign said that it was corrupt but when she was told that if she repeated that again she would be sued for defamation as no corruption charges were ever laid and none were found she never repeated it again. So under Abbot as minister for Aboriginal Affairs (and women) the indices stagnated - lots of TV noise no action. So how would a Voice be different? By being constitutionally mandated it could not be abolished and a parallel to that is the industrial courts (Fairwork Australia) for which there was a big push to eliminate it in the 90s (IPA headed that monster) but as it is constitutionally mandated it would need a referendum hence the IPA gave up and instead pushed for it to be stacked with Trumpists.

So how would a Voice impact me? Let's take the recent case when the government lifted the alcohol ban in Alice Springs. The locals were saying not to do it unless there were some other measures in place, the NT government was saying that in principle it was a racist piece of Federal legislation, the Morrison government agreed and then it all went to shit. So here I am in Melbourne thinking that the NT Minister is a tosser and that she had not put in place an alternative but more importantly how come no one in the Senate queried it? So what that tells me is that the Victorian senators are useless dills.

There is another aspect to the voice which goes beyond the First Nations people. Until recently I had to travel for work and I went to disadvantaged areas of South Australia where I met professionals who were embarrassed by where they grew up. I saw kids with little prospects and the social problems associated with those areas. And none of them were First Nations. My take is that what ever programs that are effective  will be expanded to assist these kids.

As far as citizens having a voice through their elected parliament? As the 2010 state election was approaching the Coalition had a much tougher gambling policy. James Packer called Ted Baillieu, the leader of the opposition, spoke with him for 15 minutes and the policy was shredded. 20 years later we found that Crown was breaking the law and that Packer was not a fit and proper person to hold the gambling license. Gina Reinhart gives Barnaby Joyce a $50k cheque for being a good bloke but to whom? Do you have that kind of Voice?

So I am voting yes to the voice because the intention is that constitutionally the governments cannot abolish it. I would prefer that the Voice be to parliament so that the government of the day cannot hide it and I can judge them on their performance because I will have access to the thinking of the locals and see effectiveness of the policies.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewConvert said:

One other thing if you have the inclination and time is that you can download the Australian constitution and from Project Gutenberg you can download a version of the Magna Carta. See how many time your eyebrows get raised?

I have a copy of the Constitution and I have in the past made myself aware of the the Magna Carta and various other changes that have taken place in England and the UK. However I cannot say that I am an expert in such matters and I would be a fool to do so.

As a family historian I remain of the view that it is wrong to judge the past using the values of today. For many years I blamed one of my parents for the break-up of my family before I realised that it was me who was wrong to adjudicate on the matter. I think I respect them and understand them more now than I ever did, and what I have to do is to make the very best of what they did do for me - which was substantial. I cannot change the past, get over it and move on.

As for the topic I raised, I cannot see how a few words on a piece of paper can or will make any difference to outcomes today or tomorrow. All the consultative, legislative and other processes to deliver better outcomes for all Australians can be put in place, or are already in place, without the changes proposed. As you have rightly said, almost all those in place now don't get a mention on the existing piece of paper.

I think it's up to the proponents of change to demonstrate clearly what precisely is being proposed and how it is all going to work, who is going to make it work, and what existing processes are going to be dismantled and terminated. TBH I am not going to research that myself, and so far I have seen nothing that properly gives me the details. If the proponents don't or won't do that then I'm sorry, I shall vote accordingly.

However, whatever the decision, I shall respect that decision, get over it and move on.

And one more thing. Get on with it. IMO there are far, far more important challenges facing Australia, the world, and life itself, happening right now, right now in our faces, and we don't need to spend time on more talkfest about something that happened 250 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I have a copy of the Constitution and I have in the past made myself aware of the the Magna Carta and various other changes that have taken place in England and the UK. However I cannot say that I am an expert in such matters and I would be a fool to do so.

As a family historian I remain of the view that it is wrong to judge the past using the values of today. For many years I blamed one of my parents for the break-up of my family before I realised that it was me who was wrong to adjudicate on the matter. I think I respect them and understand them more now than I ever did, and what I have to do is to make the very best of what they did do for me - which was substantial. I cannot change the past, get over it and move on.

As for the topic I raised, I cannot see how a few words on a piece of paper can or will make any difference to outcomes today or tomorrow. All the consultative, legislative and other processes to deliver better outcomes for all Australians can be put in place, or are already in place, without the changes proposed. As you have rightly said, almost all those in place now don't get a mention on the existing piece of paper.

I think it's up to the proponents of change to demonstrate clearly what precisely is being proposed and how it is all going to work, who is going to make it work, and what existing processes are going to be dismantled and terminated. TBH I am not going to research that myself, and so far I have seen nothing that properly gives me the details. If the proponents don't or won't do that then I'm sorry, I shall vote accordingly.

However, whatever the decision, I shall respect that decision, get over it and move on.

And one more thing. Get on with it. IMO there are far, far more important challenges facing Australia, the world, and life itself, happening right now, right now in our faces, and we don't need to spend time on more talkfest about something that happened 250 years ago.

Kind of agree that you can't judge the past by the values of today but you can certainly judge them by the values of those days (Wilberforce anti-slaver vs Lord Wellington slave owner and both were in the Chamber at the same time) and of course countries that claim a Christian heritage need to contend with Jesus who pre-dates most of the modern history. My comment was based around the concept of what were they thinking of... Some clauses became outdated within days. Case in point was the rail line between Adelaide and Darwin - it was John Howard who built and only to fulfil the constitutional clause as I notice that he never mentions it as part of his achievements.

I just went to the PM's website (https://www.pm.gov.au/media/next-step-towards-voice-referendum-constitutional-alteration-bill) to read the text proposed. The text creates a body that will make representations to parliament and the executive. The form and shape of the body will be determined by Parliament. This means that it is not descriptive and can be changed over time to ensure that it remains current as well as prioritise issues as the representations see fit.

The way that I see it, it is no different to the journey that from being Melbourne Heart through to the change to Melbourne City and the ability to nurture talent as well as being a competitive side. It took a lot of years for the youth talent machine to evolve - and yes some Heart supporters left the club but others joined. However, no one stood there and said how long will it take you to fix the problems or how changing the name of the club will fix the issues that Heart had.

As for the comment about all Australians - well this is dedicated to a particular group of Australians for whom over the course of my lifetime the welfare indices have stubbornly being unable to match the average population. And this is no different to specific legislation/regulation aimed at those born with severe autism, down syndrome, blind or deaf.

And I will confess that if I look at four different people: one aged 50, one aged 25, one aged 5 and one who is yet to be born; I don't expect that the 50 year old will see any improvement, the 25 year old should see some improvement over the next 25 years, the 15 year old will see a lot more improvement by the time they turn 50 and the greatest improvement will be for the one that is yet to be born.

As for processes I have a different perspective and one that I have seen in both private enterprise and government and that is to do with financial governance. Shareholders/taxpayers expect that every cent be accounted for but that comes at the expense of efficiency, flexibility and innovation - the opportunity cost losses. And for this I have no answer but having a voice, it may be possible that they may be able to experiment in some fashion about this (although I would not hold my breath). Nor would I expect to see what processes/organisations will be modified in a referendum. See my earlier post between intentions and prescriptions.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NewConvert Many thanks for that. TBH, that's the first time that I have seen it. Maybe my fault, but I think quite a few people might not have, or won't, see it unless they are pointed directly to it. It might also be considered that a percentage of older voters won't see it unless it is delivered to them in person through that ancient mechanism called the postal service; not everyone is connected to the internet.

My comment this morning is that I think Albo, rather than start threatening along the lines of "if you don't say yes now you won't get a second chance" should be listening and actually quietly pointing out the sort of information that you have pointed out to me. I haven't deliberately canvassed everyone I know, but I do know that those who have spoken to me about it made up their minds a while ago and CBF to think about it any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

@NewConvert Many thanks for that. TBH, that's the first time that I have seen it. Maybe my fault, but I think quite a few people might not have, or won't, see it unless they are pointed directly to it. It might also be considered that a percentage of older voters won't see it unless it is delivered to them in person through that ancient mechanism called the postal service; not everyone is connected to the internet.

My comment this morning is that I think Albo, rather than start threatening along the lines of "if you don't say yes now you won't get a second chance" should be listening and actually quietly pointing out the sort of information that you have pointed out to me. I haven't deliberately canvassed everyone I know, but I do know that those who have spoken to me about it made up their minds a while ago and CBF to think about it any more.

TBH I spent a fair bit of time thinking about it. And as you can see from my post, the decision came about what I saw. And I definitely agree that the Yes camp is going about it the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one thing is for sure. I sincerely hope and indeed trust, that whatever the outcome - that is whatever the outcome - all parties will accept it with good grace and move on together to work with whatever it is and whoever is involved to continue to improve outcomes.

IMO in Australia we spend too much time talking and wanting to find the "perfect solution" to a "problem" rather than getting something underway and done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jw1739 said:

That is why I came to the conclusion that economics is the withered intellectual branch. They are effectively in comparison with the sciences stuck in the middle ages. BTW I have never seen an economist deal with the economics of crime be it corruption or drug selling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the state of play is that Albanese is committing A$200 to women's sport in general. That should just get each of our lovely Australian femmes, all 13m of them, a nice pack of three pairs of ankle socks at Woolies. Meanwhile, down the very-fast-rail line that we don't actually have just yet, Dan the Man is paying A$380m so that the Commonwealth Games can be held somewhere other than in Victoria.

Well done boys. Keep the team-work going there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jw1739 said:

So, the state of play is that Albanese is committing A$200 to women's sport in general. That should just get each of our lovely Australian femmes, all 13m of them, a nice pack of three pairs of ankle socks at Woolies. Meanwhile, down the very-fast-rail line that we don't actually have just yet, Dan the Man is paying A$380m so that the Commonwealth Games can be held somewhere other than in Victoria.

Well done boys. Keep the team-work going there.

Didn't see you comment when Sussan Ley (or was it Michaelia Cash) was dishing out the sports grants...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NewConvert No, missed it. Both of them have their mouths open pretty often so I don't pay any attention to what they say...

I confess that my cynicism comes from a long-standing opinion that we spend far too much money on "elite sports" - and indeed on "sports" in general. It's being made even worse as I watch the painful "progress" on an updated community facility behind my home where the main use is actually by the local dog obedience club...and I won't go on about my previous local council (Bayside) because it will make me even more angry than I am right now.

Next up, AUKUS and radioactive waste...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/08/2023 at 4:55 PM, jw1739 said:

@NewConvert No, missed it. Both of them have their mouths open pretty often so I don't pay any attention to what they say...

I confess that my cynicism comes from a long-standing opinion that we spend far too much money on "elite sports" - and indeed on "sports" in general. It's being made even worse as I watch the painful "progress" on an updated community facility behind my home where the main use is actually by the local dog obedience club...and I won't go on about my previous local council (Bayside) because it will make me even more angry than I am right now.

Next up, AUKUS and radioactive waste...

One reason I wouldn't make it as a politician is that I would always cut back on the circuses as in the roman adage of bread and circuses.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

With respect to the recent drug deaths at music festivals in NSW, I suppose this is a controversial view, but I cannot see how governments can control individual behaviours to the extent that the NSW government is being asked to do. Surely governments can be expected operate only at a macro level, by trying to stop the import, production and circulation of these substances? To operate at a personal level introduces a police state, and as that progresses gradually more and more of our lives becomes under surveillance and attempted control. I'm no civil libertarian, I see no downside to i.d. cards for example, but there must be a point where individual responsibility takes over. Someone close to me took drugs, low level, for about 6 months, and then stopped. It was not possible, as a family, to stop it - it had to be the individual concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jw1739 said:

With respect to the recent drug deaths at music festivals in NSW, I suppose this is a controversial view, but I cannot see how governments can control individual behaviours to the extent that the NSW government is being asked to do. Surely governments can be expected operate only at a macro level, by trying to stop the import, production and circulation of these substances? To operate at a personal level introduces a police state, and as that progresses gradually more and more of our lives becomes under surveillance and attempted control. I'm no civil libertarian, I see no downside to i.d. cards for example, but there must be a point where individual responsibility takes over. Someone close to me took drugs, low level, for about 6 months, and then stopped. It was not possible, as a family, to stop it - it had to be the individual concerned.

Completely agree. If they want to prevent deaths then legalise them and let proper pharmaceutical manufacturing processes be used top make drugs and sell them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

These revelations about the treatment of autistic children by providers to the NDIS are a national disgrace. Albanese and his government need to spend zero time in getting unnecessarily involved in international disputes that are none of our business and get to work here on the home front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jw1739 said:

These revelations about the treatment of autistic children by providers to the NDIS are a national disgrace. Albanese and his government need to spend zero time in getting unnecessarily involved in international disputes that are none of our business and get to work here on the home front.

Totally agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm completely over our lockstep with the United States and all this pandering and kow-towing to the Israelis. As far as I am concerned we owe Israel and the Jewish diaspora nothing in 2023. One atrocity does not justify anther one in retaliation. IMO Netanyahu is nothing less than a criminal and in the same basket as Putin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I'm completely over our lockstep with the United States and all this pandering and kow-towing to the Israelis. As far as I am concerned we owe Israel and the Jewish diaspora nothing in 2023. One atrocity does not justify anther one in retaliation. IMO Netanyahu is nothing less than a criminal and in the same basket as Putin.

Add me to that list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about others but I am getting so pissed off with our "politicians" over this. First the weak-as-piss Albanese kow-towing to the U.S. and Israel, and now Dutton showing what an arsehole he is - doesn't he realise that being the "opposition" means that he should be conducting himself as the leader of an alternative Government?

Have these guys any idea of the pulse of the Australian people on this senseless Middle East conflict? It's nothing less than the slaughter of people over a conflict that has its origins over 2000 years ago? We should be condemning all parties that are involved, whether overtly or covertly.

I'm neither Jew nor Palestinian but I've lived with this shit going on all my life and I don't want to die knowing that it is still doing so. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I don't know about others but I am getting so pissed off with our "politicians" over this. First the weak-as-piss Albanese kow-towing to the U.S. and Israel, and now Dutton showing what an arsehole he is - doesn't he realise that being the "opposition" means that he should be conducting himself as the leader of an alternative Government?

Have these guys any idea of the pulse of the Australian people on this senseless Middle East conflict? It's nothing less than the slaughter of people over a conflict that has its origins over 2000 years ago? We should be condemning all parties that are involved, whether overtly or covertly.

I'm neither Jew nor Palestinian but I've lived with this shit going on all my life and I don't want to die knowing that it is still doing so. 

Dog and Pony show

The truth can be found when you follow the money

Edited by playmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I'm afraid that I cannot see a tax reduction of $804 per year is going to make a jot of difference to the hardships being faced by many Australians. It's already been eaten up by price rises at the local supermarket let alone increases in insurance and utility bills.

It's just tinkering with a broken system. IMO what is required is a financial transactions tax, which no-one can escape, and the abolition of other taxes altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I'm afraid that I cannot see a tax reduction of $804 per year is going to make a jot of difference to the hardships being faced by many Australians. It's already been eaten up by price rises at the local supermarket let alone increases in insurance and utility bills.

Yeah but in fairness of full context, he's paired that with an ACCC enquiry to Coles and Woolworths.

This tax cut will have 11.5 million Australians better off, even if its only slightly that shouldn't be brushed off so casually.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/1/2024 at 12:29 PM, jw1739 said:

I'm afraid that I cannot see a tax reduction of $804 per year is going to make a jot of difference to the hardships being faced by many Australians. It's already been eaten up by price rises at the local supermarket let alone increases in insurance and utility bills.

It's just tinkering with a broken system. IMO what is required is a financial transactions tax, which no-one can escape, and the abolition of other taxes altogether.

What is required is indexation of tax levels, a massive drop in tax rates and a commensurate drop in the size of government 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, D.B. Cooper said:

What is required is indexation of tax levels, a massive drop in tax rates and a commensurate drop in the size of government 

Doesn't work. Chile tried that in the late 70s culminating with record bankruptcies, official unemployment rate of 26% and a an increasing foreign debt - all thanks to the disciples of Milton Friedman who two years before his death conceded that he was wrong. A U-tune was enacted but not enough which eventually led to the mass uprising against the constitution in 2019 (IIRC) which had embedded what you are asking for.

 

On 25/01/2024 at 12:29 PM, jw1739 said:

I'm afraid that I cannot see a tax reduction of $804 per year is going to make a jot of difference to the hardships being faced by many Australians. It's already been eaten up by price rises at the local supermarket let alone increases in insurance and utility bills.

It's just tinkering with a broken system. IMO what is required is a financial transactions tax, which no-one can escape, and the abolition of other taxes altogether.

Define hardship. Those at the bottom of the ladder have always experienced hardship - I have been seeing homeless people sleeping in the streets since the 70s. Nothing changes there. The opposite question is why was the Tesla the biggest selling vehicle last year? why is there a market for pick up trucks that are over $70k? why are massive utes such big sellers? Why are overseas flights booked out? This is not necessarily a cost of living crisis - this is more like a cost of luxuries crisis being experienced by people who feel entitled simply by existing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I don't understand about the tax changes is why its so bloody hard to give all income taxpayers the same relief. Couldn't this be done by simply raising the tax-free threshold?

Even with the revision, some taxpayers receive 5-6 times the relief that those at the bottom do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jw1739 said:

One thing I don't understand about the tax changes is why its so bloody hard to give all income taxpayers the same relief. Couldn't this be done by simply raising the tax-free threshold?

Even with the revision, some taxpayers receive 5-6 times the relief that those at the bottom do.

They would need to re-write the entire legislative package. Rudd did this during the GFC when taxpayers got either $800 or $1600 depending on the income.

These tax packages designed by Morrison were meant to address bracket creep, except that he made sure that the bracket creep refund was bigger for those on higher incomes. The reworked package does not require complex legislation (as per stages 1 & 2) and more importantly Albo can still claim that the top earners are getting a redress due to bracket creep.

BTW I am not sure that cost of living relief ought to be a goal - Argentina has been doing that for a century and the vicious circle that it got itself into does not show any sign of abating. Inflation exists for a reason and one of those is that you are living beyond your means. The problem with interest rate increases is that it does not necessarily combat the root cause of inflation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...