75 radical ideas to transform Australia. Be like Gough.... but in reverse.

[greennick]

This judgement made after one year of its operation, of course. And your supporting evidence is...?

Anything that increases the costs to business hurts their international competitiveness. Want evidence? See the statements by the Holden CEO that it was hurting his business.

Based on the last Nielsen poll conducted on the topic, as I recall, a full-scale media inquiry was supported by over 60% of Australians. With good reason.

Inquiry. Not the laws they tried to pass. You can't conflate the two.

The word of a man who affirmed that you can't trust anything he says unless it's written down, then went on to prove you couldn't trust anything he said when it was written down either, is about as worthless as it gets.

Yet you can trust the Labor party? And you ignore that he was against it when Howard was pushing for it. He was one of the lone dissenting voices in the Liberal party.

Howard brandishing around that so-called 'fairness test' didn't change the fact that it was anti-worker legislation, designed to further disenfranchise people in the workplace, nor significantly alter the effect thereof.

It was designed to improve flexibility, where conditions could be traded off for pay and productivity could be rewarded, instead of everybody getting paid the same regardless of performance. Prior to the introduction of the fairness test I thought it was bad policy, however the fairness test forcing pay rates to at least be at the award level meant people largely couldn't be ripped off by it, even if some conditions were lost.

Repeating such a statement doesn't make it any truer. They're not 'state assets'. If this claim had validity, Forrest's High Court challenge would have posed a serious threat to the continued operation of the mining tax, and it doesn't.

A conclusion reached by many respected jurists within Australia before now, including George Williams, Greg Craven, John Williams and many others. A conclusion even upheld, of course, by WA Coalition Premier Colin Barnett.

We've done this one many times before.

They are state assets, they are getting around it by their ability to tax company profits, not through direct taxation of the assets. This is the whole reason Henry said it should be negotiated with the states. The fact they can legally do it, doesn't mean the assets are not state assets, again, you're conflating two issues.

Talking about 'forced student unionism' in this way is like talking about people being 'forced' to pay local council rates. It fails the laugh test.

Not at all the same. Does my local council organise protests? My council rates is more my university fees. What was I paying for with the guild? A leftie organisation that liked to champion what they thought were important student issues, many of which I disagreed with. It shat me at uni that they would use my money to pay for buses to go to protests. For example when they made it so you could have full fee paying domestic students. The student unions complained about it being the end of government supported education and organised busloads of people to go to parliament. They were wrong. Yet somehow my money has to support this political campaign?? If someone wants to pay to do a degree they didn't have the TER for, more power to them.

Another sweeping claim without evidence.

What evidence do you want? Surveys done in WA when the Court government banned forced unionism here indicated most people dropped the membership as they didn't utilise any or most of the services, this is what forced guilds to actually try and justify their existence as something more than what they were.

What useful services did your guild provide to you?

 

[greennick]

For very low values of nothing wrong. The Gina/IPA northern development plan is horrendous. It is not about development of the north, it is about exploitation of the north. Lower taxes, less regulation, less environmental regulation. All serviced with a super cheap FIFO workforce from Indonesia or the Philippines, so not even an income tax windfall for the government, and no compulsory superannuation contributions going into the national savings pool to fund future investment.

It is about more profit for the proprietors of the mines at the expense of lower taxes and lower wages. Not to mention the natural environment.

Rubbish idea.

Agree with this, terrible idea that shouldn't see the light of day. There are already enough incentive payments for those living North.

 

[sherb]

YOU want to help the disadvantaged.

I want to stop them being disadvantaged in the first place.

Good for you.

How do you plan to stop people from being disabled as an example? Legislate against car accidents and debilitating disease?

 

[greennick]

So the right don't want disabled people (using them as an example) to miss out?

Well then why in the hell is the NDIS opposed by the born to rulers?

Oh that's right - they never thought of it and the left did.

But they didn't oppose it? They voted for it and agreed with it. They appreciated it went through the productivity commission.

This is one of the main issues with the NBN, it hasn't had a proper cost benefit analysis, but the NDIS did.

 

[greennick]

Good for you.

How do you plan to stop people from being disabled as an example? Legislate against car accidents and debilitating disease?

The coalition voted for the NDIS, they were never against it from the day it has been discussed.

The shadow minister for the disabled was discussing a policy for a national scheme with shadow cabinet at the same time Labor was formulating their plan. So, the coalition was with it all along.

 

[sherb]

The coalition voted for the NDIS, they were never against it from the day it has been discussed.

The shadow minister for the disabled was discussing a policy for a national scheme with shadow cabinet at the same time Labor was formulating their plan. So, the coalition was with it all along.

I wasn't referring to the Coalition.

I was referring to the personal view I had quoted.

 

[greennick]

I wasn't referring to the Coalition.

I was referring to the personal view I had quoted.

Ah, yeah Dan26 is more right wing than the Coalition. Though I am sure the coalition has some members who are that right wing!

 

[Ripper]

Ah, yeah Dan26 is more right wing than the Coalition. Though I am sure the coalition has some members who are that right wing!

I would say dan in more libertarian than right wing. Libertarians are more left wing on some issues then the Coalition.

The TEA party and OWS mob are basically protesting about the same thing.

Everybody who isn't a banker should support "sound money" and less centralist control.

IPA latest very good effort

 

[greennick]

Damn it, I left my headphones at home...

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

France also has a good health system with extremely high private coverage.

You would proclaim France as an example of limited government?

The UK has a horrendous health system.

Oh really. In comparison with which other nations...?

The US spends more on health than Australia, does that make their health system better?

And of course, the fundamental reason why the US govt spends so much on health while having such disastrous outcomes is because they chose to essentially privatise health care across the board, going down the road of subsidising private health insurance companies rather than maintaining an effective public health system.

Always helps when someone makes my point for me.

Your argument falls apart on so many levels.

There's that projection again I see Meds.

No, as far as any argument about government involvement in health care is concerned, you've basically demolished your own position

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Anything that increases the costs to business hurts their international competitiveness. Want evidence? See the statements by the Holden CEO that it was hurting his business.

Oh come on.

Aside from the fact, again, that a carbon price has only been in operation for one year, hence couldn't possibly have had much effect on any business one way or the other up to this point, Holden have been losing money for many years, and no, that certainly hasn't been because of any carbon pricing.

Yet you can trust the Labor party?

To be brutally honest, a party who, while squibbing frequently, at least follow through on policies some of the time, and make truthful statements about the details of policy outcomes which take place under their auspices, while not exactly blessed with credence, have somewhat more policy credibility than a party who, when it comes to policy, change positions as often as Jenny McCarthy at a Playboy orgy, and whose statements on policy issues and the outcomes of same generally consist of invented claims, which are invariably found to have no validity.

however the fairness test forcing pay rates to at least be at the award level meant people largely couldn't be ripped off by it, even if some conditions were lost.

Conditions being lost is the main point, of course. And Howard only backflipped at the time and had pay rates set at award levels because he was forced into it by public pressure.

They are state assets, they are getting around it by their ability to tax company profits, not through direct taxation of the assets.

OK, yes, that's a fair point.

George Williams also concurs, from looking further on this. But in any case, that reinforces the case about the validity of this taxation.

Not at all the same.

The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee seem to disagree with you on this.

JOHN MULLARVEY, AUSTRALIAN VICE-CHANCELLORS COMMITTEE: When you belong to a community, a local council charges you a fee called rates. Now, it's compulsory. You don't always use all of the services, but it's something you're required to pay. We talk about universities as a community. And part of the obligation of being part of that community is to pay the essential services fee even though you may not use all of the services.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1325097.htm

And the fact organisations providing such services might have a perspective on matters of public debate which differs from that of the Coalition, doesn't give them the right to kneecap said organisations, for no other reason than because they've spoken out against decisions made by the Coalition in government.

What useful services did your guild provide to you?

Pretty much any service I used on campus outside of the immediate classes I took.

 

[greennick]

The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee seem to disagree with you on this.

And the fact organisations providing such services might have a perspective on matters of public debate which differs from that of the Coalition, doesn't give them the right to kneecap said organisations, for no other reason than because they've spoken out against decisions made by the Coalition in government.

Pretty much any service I used on campus outside of the immediate classes I took.

Just because he uses that analogy doesn't mean it is true. If the univeristy wants to provide those services, then take the money out of the fees I already pay, my "rates" for the classes I attend. Don't make me pay an ever increasing amount of money for s**t I don't want.

I am forced to pay the fees now at my current uni even though I'm not even on campus. It is a rort. I'm forced in to paying for services, when I use none.

For my undergraduate degree, I can't think of one service I utilised from the guild that suffered when VSU came in. I went to their cafe, but that was a money making enterprise. Likewise their tavern. The only benefit the guild ever provided was a discount book, but they only brought that out once VSU came in and they had to actually justify their existence.

 

[medusala]

"Wonaeamirri33, post: 28983005, member: 79525"Oh really. In comparison with which other nations...?

Yes, the NHS is an utter disgrace. The only reason it gets ranked higher by the usual suspects pushing a barrow is that it is free at the point of care. It is horrendous. Scandal after scandal after scandal. See Mid Staffs for the latest one. Cancer survival rates worse than many Eastern Euro countries. Very, very hard to just walk in and see a gp.

Abominable system.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Yes, the NHS is an utter disgrace. The only reason it gets ranked higher by the usual suspects pushing a barrow is that it is free at the point of care. It is horrendous. Scandal after scandal after scandal. See Mid Staffs for the latest one. Cancer survival rates worse than many Eastern Euro countries. Very, very hard to just walk in and see a gp.

Fair reply on that point Meds. I'll give a genuine rep there, as opposed to the ribbing I gave you on the other issues.

Will look into those details further.

 

[Dan26]

of course, the fundamental reason why the US govt spends so much on health while having such disastrous outcomes is because they chose to essentially privatise health care across the board, going down the road of subsidising private health insurance companies rather than maintaining an effective public health system.

Virtually everything is better when it is privatised.

How can something run by the government, exempt from competition and cost-benefit analysis, be better than something provided by a company with competition from other companies? It provide a product that must be of a good standard otherwise the company that provides it goes out of business.

If a government run service is poor, then taxpayers just pick up the bill.

The reason why socializing medicine has failed in so many countries, including Australia, is because it ends up costing more money. It "seems" free, but it's not. You are paying for it, and you are getting ripped off. The problem in the USA is that they've done something actually WORSE. By subsidizing the insurance industry to the extent that they do and by making it healthcare part of employment they've actually caused health care prices to go up even faster with their form of socialism than other parts of the other countries have with theirs. People don't shop around. They just get what they employer gives them.

Take areas of related to health where the government is not involved at all. Laser eye surgery, Cosmetic surgery. Look at the competition and the cost reduction in those areas, where the government is NOT involved.

Healthcare is a commodity, not a right. It costs money. There are freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, but as soon as you start making commodities into rights, where do you stop?

Food? You can last longer without food, than you can without health. Why not make that a "right." Why not make housing a "right" all paid for by our taxes. After all, shelter is more important than healthcare.

It means everyone involved in healthcare effectively becomes your slave... after all, it's your "right"

Socialized health is a dismal failure. When it is half socialized, like in the USA it's even worse. The best result would be to open it up totally to the market. The cost savings (like with laser eye surgery) and resulting competition would be immense.

 

[Dan26]

Indeed. Even the manifest poisoning and perversion of the ABC which has taken place over the last 17 years (and the substantial damage done to SBS, of course, under a similarly stacked board of Howard appointees, including Zampatti as Chairman, and former managing director Shaun Brown) does not satisfy the political aim of these forces.

As we know, obviously, the desired goal is absolute irrevocable partisan hegemony within the Australian news media across all mediums - where the voices heard are those which back a neoconservative agenda, and the wishes of the vested interests behind same, and contrary voices are silenced sufficiently that the agenda goes unchallenged.

A goal highlighted most acutely in recent years of course by the Rinehart push within Channel 10 and Fairfax - in line with the plan as revealed in that meeting with Monckton and others at the offices of that 'thinktank' of hers in WA.

Unfortunately, of course, the Internet poses a growing threat to said goal, and the NBN dramatically heightens that threat, since greater high-speed Internet access opens up greater possibilities for new media, new entrants into the Australian media landscape, a number of whom, like Al Jazeera, Independent Australia and the Guardian's new outlet in this country, are already building momentum.

Abbott's opposition to the NBN rollout is a particularly obvious factor in the stridency of the support given to him by the Murdoch press over the last few years, for instance.

You really do have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. None. It's just a rant of leftist fear mongering.

Here are some facts for you:

1.) The ABC and SBS are both biased towards the left. Comically so. All 8 of the presenters of their current affairs programs are of the left. All of them. MORE than 40 per cent of ABC journalists who answered a survey question about their political attitudes are Greens supporters, four times the support the minor party enjoys in the wider population.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...abc-survey-finds/story-fn59niix-1226647246897

The problem with this, is that the ABC is taxpayer funded. It needs to be totally unbiased, or it isn't fulfilling its charter.

2.) Journalists, tend to lean to the left as a profession. A recent survey of 372 journalists, showed that 43.0% said they would give their first preference vote to Labor; 30.2% would vote for the Coalition; and 19.4% said they would choose the Greens – about twice the Australian average.

http://theconversation.com/whose-vi...ote-out-labor-while-reporters-lean-left-13995

Any insinuation that the media in Australia is biased to the right-wing is pure rubbish.

46.5% of 86 News Limited journalists who answered this question said they would vote for Labor, 26.7% for the Coalition, and only 19.8% for the Greens. As well as The Australian, the News stable includes some of the country’s best-selling tabloids such as the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, Courier-Mail, Northern Territory News and the Adelaide Advertiser, and some suburban newspapers.
Among the 86 Fairfax Media journalists who responded, Labor was by far the most popular party at 54.7% support, followed by the Coalition and the Greens, both on 19.8%. The Fairfax journalists came from outlets including the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Canberra Times, a range of regional and suburban newspapers, and metropolitan radio stations

So, yes, it's true that News limited is more right-wing than Fairfax among the journos that work at both. But Labor is the preferred party of the journos who work at BOTH.

3.) It actually doesn't matter if Fairfax of News Limited is biased because they are private businesses. People can choose to buy those papers or not buy them. More people buy the right-wing "Herald-Sun" than the left-wing "The Age", but so what? That's the free-market at work. More people want to read the Herald-Sun. Good on them. No one is forcing them. No one is preventing a person buying the left-wing global warming bible known as The Age. It's there for people to read if they want it.

If the Age put out a product that people actually wanted to read, then maybe it would stop them going out of business. It's up to them to provide content that makes people want to buy it.

The reality is that the extreme left-wing bias of the ABC is putting Fairfax out of business. Lefties can get for free with the ABC, what they have to pay for with "The Age"

What's the moral of all of this? Privatise the ABC, of course.

 

[RUNVS]

However in the same survey wasn't it also said most of the editors and bosses were much more likely to vote right wing?

 

[Ripper]

However in the same survey wasn't it also said most of the editors and bosses were much more likely to vote right wing?

Yep, in the private sector. But they are not the ones writing the stories.

 

[pazza]

Virtually everything is better when it is privatised.

How can something run by the government, exempt from competition and cost-benefit analysis, be better than something provided by a company with competition from other companies? It provide a product that must be of a good standard otherwise the company that provides it goes out of business.

If a government run service is poor, then taxpayers just pick up the bill.

The reason why socializing medicine has failed in so many countries, including Australia, is because it ends up costing more money. It "seems" free, but it's not. You are paying for it, and you are getting ripped off. The problem in the USA is that they've done something actually WORSE. By subsidizing the insurance industry to the extent that they do and by making it healthcare part of employment they've actually caused health care prices to go up even faster with their form of socialism than other parts of the other countries have with theirs. People don't shop around. They just get what they employer gives them.

Take areas of related to health where the government is not involved at all. Laser eye surgery, Cosmetic surgery. Look at the competition and the cost reduction in those areas, where the government is NOT involved.

Healthcare is a commodity, not a right. It costs money. There are freedoms like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, but as soon as you start making commodities into rights, where do you stop?

Food? You can last longer without food, than you can without health. Why not make that a "right." Why not make housing a "right" all paid for by our taxes. After all, shelter is more important than healthcare.

It means everyone involved in healthcare effectively becomes your slave... after all, it's your "right"

Socialized health is a dismal failure. When it is half socialized, like in the USA it's even worse. The best result would be to open it up totally to the market. The cost savings (like with laser eye surgery) and resulting competition would be immense.

Medicare is a 30 year success story in Australia. It is the greatest single policy success in the last 50 years of Government in this country.

Combine it with the PBS and you will see what has been the result.

Australians are living longer, because in part they can access the medications and health care they need to live without having to have a second mortgage to afford it.

Who really takes up the use of cosmetic and laser eye surgery? A small percentage of the population.

These are the real issues for health.

Asthma - 5 million Australians
Diabetes - at least 3 million
Epilepsy - a million
Deafness - nearly a million
Blindness - 500000
Osteoporosis - 500000

Those are the big health issues.

 

[JRoo]

Singapore spends less than Pakistan as a % of gdp and has a brilliant health service.

The US spends more on health than Australia, does that make their health system better?

France also has a good health system with extremely high private coverage.

The UK has a horrendous health system (which kills lots of people every year unnecessarily) and yet very little private coverage

Your argument falls apart on so many levels.

No Singapore does not spend less on it's health services as a % of GDP than Pakistan!!!

 

[JRoo]

Who in the hell takes the IPA or anything they say seriously?????

 

[Dan26]

Medicare is a 30 year success story in Australia. It is the greatest single policy success in the last 50 years of Government in this country.

Combine it with the PBS and you will see what has been the result.

Australians are living longer, because in part they can access the medications and health care they need to live without having to have a second mortgage to afford it.

Who really takes up the use of cosmetic and laser eye surgery? A small percentage of the population.

These are the real issues for health.

Asthma - 5 million Australians
Diabetes - at least 3 million
Epilepsy - a million
Deafness - nearly a million
Blindness - 500000
Osteoporosis - 500000

Those are the big health issues.

It says a lot about the naïve way left-wing people think, that you believe the fact that Australian's are now living longer is due to Medicare.

No, it's not due to that at all.

As time has gone on, humans have invented more things, discovered more things, and built on the top of achievements of other humans. As a consequence, the standard of living has gone up, all over the world over the last few hundred years/ few thousands years

Governments don't invent things. Governments don't discover new technology. People do.

 

[pazza]

It says a lot about the naïve way left-wing people think, that you believe the fact that Australian's are now living longer is due to Medicare.

No, it's not due to that at all.

As time has gone on, humans have invented more things, discovered more things, and built on the top of achievements of other humans. As a consequence, the standard of living has gone up, all over the world over the last few hundred years/ few thousands years

Governments don't invent things. Governments don't discover new technology. People do.

Read what I said Dan. Medicare and PBS have played their part.

Medications that would have prohibitive costs on them without both the PBS and Medicare in place, are now affordable to the population, helping them live and having a greater quality of life.

Tell me - just how much would you expect a person to pay to stay alive?

If you think that forking out thousands of dollars per year to have a life without accessing cheaper medication, then you and the likes of the extreme right wing organisations like the IPA do not understand reality.

When I was working and not able to access cheap medication as I now can via the Health care Card, I was paying $20-$30 per piece of medication to live. An average chemist visit for me, just to fill my scripts would be $120 a time.

Right now, it would cost me $30 for the lot.

That's a big saving.

 

[clogged]

It says a lot about the naïve way left-wing people think, that you believe the fact that Australian's are now living longer is due to Medicare.

No, it's not due to that at all.

As time has gone on, humans have invented more things, discovered more things, and built on the top of achievements of other humans. As a consequence, the standard of living has gone up, all over the world over the last few hundred years/ few thousands years

Governments don't invent things. Governments don't discover new technology. People do.

This would be a fair indicator that Australia's health system is the best in the world

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...al-rate-in-world/story-fneuzlbd-1226593471571

AUSTRALIAN cancer patients now have the highest survival rate in the world and new vaccines, early detection tests and genetic treatments are set to drive further dramatic improvements

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Who in the hell takes the IPA or anything they say seriously?????

Tony Abbott