Howards first act with a senate majority?

[teams]

Elucidate.

BB must be having a nap. I used that word once and had my heritage questioned.

 

[medusala]

I enjoy a bit of casual prospecting. I live in the Murchison goldfields in WA. What over the years has limited my chances to do some beeping?
1. Mining leases of large mining companies.
2. Pastoralists not wanting detectors or campers on "their" land.

Funnily enough, I've never been restricted by Native Title or blackfellas.

If you had a large prospect I think your chances of a claim would be pretty good. BTW has the WA govt passed legislation emanating from the Bowler Report that would stop farmers ability to restrict mining on their land? I know in Tas that farmers dont have the ability to stop someone mining for tin on their land.

If you had a small farm of 5ha, how would you feel is someone wanted to camp on it and start digging holes everywhere?

 

[timelord]

Who has the leasehold on the land? The pastoralists. So the miners negotiate with them. If there's a native title claim, that makes things harder because then the pastoralists have to take that into account - and that's when they stop negotiating because they have to negotiate with the native title holders and that's what they refuse to do. The miners get left out on the cold and they've done nothing to warrant it. It's the pastoralists fault - with the right wing fools right behind them on it.

Now do you get it?

 

[hoss]

If you had a large prospect I think your chances of a claim would be pretty good. BTW has the WA govt passed legislation emanating from the Bowler Report that would stop farmers ability to restrict mining on their land? I know in Tas that farmers dont have the ability to stop someone mining for tin on their land.

If you had a small farm of 5ha, how would you feel is someone wanted to camp on it and start digging holes everywhere?

My thread was just about the problems for very small time casual prospectors. My brother ran a bigger gold operation here, but sold out about the time Native Title was introduced, and went back to farming. Some of the pastoralists around here get a bit "precious" - I mean they have slightly more than 5 ha of land (multiply by about 100,000 - 1 000,000) and its closer to the mark. I'm not up to date with current legislation.

 

[Dry Rot]

I would be amazed if the Democrats didnt start getting involved with senate negotiations. They have been replaced on the left, the only hope for them is to move to the centre (where their founder always intended them to be) and get themselves some publicity. Besides the Libs have long held hope that Murray would join them or become an independent. It will really ******** Bob Brown off if the Democrats still retain the effective balance of power.

Do you henestly believe that the Democrats or one of them will vote to roll back native title?

 

[medusala]

Who has the leasehold on the land? The pastoralists. So the miners negotiate with them. If there's a native title claim, that makes things harder because then the pastoralists have to take that into account - and that's when they stop negotiating because they have to negotiate with the native title holders and that's what they refuse to do. The miners get left out on the cold and they've done nothing to warrant it. It's the pastoralists fault - with the right wing fools right behind them on it.

Now do you get it?

So what you seem to be saying is that pastoralists shouldnt have the right not to negotiate. What if the mining prospect is on aboriginal or crown land. Should the aborigines also be forced to let mining proceed?

 

[Docker_Brat]

Well Family First have only recieved a small amount of the primary vote. Which they'll build on with the preferences of a number of irrelevant minor parties. That's not enough to win a quota, it just puts them in the hunt.

What's expected to get them over the line is that fact that Labor's ticket sends preferences to Family First ahead of the Greens.

Crapski.

How to vote cards really annoy me, but not as much as the sheep who follow them.

 

[DaveW]

Crapski.

How to vote cards really annoy me, but not as much as the sheep who follow them.

We're talking about 'above the line' voting in this instance.

 

[Docker_Brat]

We're talking about 'above the line' voting in this instance.

Morons vote above the line on the senate ticket.

 

[medusala]

Do you henestly believe that the Democrats or one of them will vote to roll back native title?

Unlikely but I think they may agree to some but not all of the IR changes eg secret ballots. I also think that if they see the writing on the wall re Telstra ie if the god botherers look like wavering on it, then they might support it in return for lots of environmental/infrastructure spending.

Who are left now for the Dems others than Murray, Bartlett and NSD?

 

[campbell]

So whats the Libs plan for Pharmaceutical benefites and Disability Pensions?

 

[DaveW]

Who are left now for the Dems others than Murray, Bartlett and NSD?

Those three and deputy leader Lyn Allison.

The Dems are also a slight chance of picking up the last senate spot in SA. It's probably more likely to go to Labor, it just depends on the order of elimination of the candidates.

 

[funkyfreo]

The libs have alot of legislation that they have repeatedly introduced and repeatedly knocked back. Obviously he will have another crack at this legislation now.

I think the most important by far is to clear up the complete nonsense that is Native Title. It should be immediately extinguished on leasehold property and the right to negotiate eliminated. Prospecting would immediately pick up again and deposits worth potentially billions could get back on track. Will also stop the courts being clogged up.

He can leave 9th rate issues like banning gay marriage until he really cant think of anything else worthwhile.

Medders, I think your being in the UK has made you lose touch with Australian sentiment on this issue. NO one other than a few farmers who clearly do not comprehend the system are particularly aggrieved by this IMO.

 

[funkyfreo]

Morons vote above the line on the senate ticket.

That really is bull********. I voted above the line because I knew where the preferences were going and it was the same as I wanted. The whole "morons vote above the line" reeks of conspiracy theory propaganda.

 

[Mr Q]

Not entirely FF. I refuse to vote above the line because there is never any information readily available to tell you how your preferences are going to distribute.

 

[telsor]

I have never votes above the line..

if you do, your prefs get distributed by the party you vote for, and they'll decide based on whats best for them. ( and I don't blame them for that ).

I'm pretty much centrist in my views..( as an example ) if I were to vote labor however, they'd have my prefs go to the greens before the libs...ie, extreme left before right-of-center...this wouldn't reflect my desires, so I make the effort to mark all 65 boxes.

What I really wish is that you could fill in every box above the line and your vote went to parties in that order...I doubt that'll happen though..having 2 options on how to vote seems to cause a lot of informal votes, let alone 3. ( insert nasty comment here about how people too dumb to work that out shouldn't be allowed to vote )

 

[funkyfreo]

Not entirely FF. I refuse to vote above the line because there is never any information readily available to tell you how your preferences are going to distribute.

Well I knew my Greens vote would end up with Labor - but most likely count 1st up with Greens.

I do agree I guess that I would not vote above the line if I had no idea what the preference set up was.

I guess a great example is that FF guy who is getting in because both Labor and Democrats on that ticket preferenced them above the greens, where the greens had a much higher 1st pref vote.

 

[funkyfreo]

What I really wish is that you could fill in every box above the line and your vote went to parties in that order...I doubt that'll happen though..having 2 options on how to vote seems to cause a lot of informal votes, let alone 3. ( insert nasty comment here about how people too dumb to work that out shouldn't be allowed to vote )

Certainly would be a great option.

 

[medusala]

Medders, I think your being in the UK has made you lose touch with Australian sentiment on this issue. NO one other than a few farmers who clearly do not comprehend the system are particularly aggrieved by this IMO.

You may be right FF but this is because it doesnt affect the vast majority of Australians directly and they have no idea how significant it is for the mining industry. I can tell you the farmers clearly understand how the system works, its the tossers in Double Bay who dont have a clue and want to walk over Sydney Harbour for some notion of reconciliation. Just because mining and agriculture dont directly affect people in the big cities doesnt mean that they arent still vitally important to Australia.

Native Title is clearly and unambiguously not in Australia's national interest.

 

[funkyfreo]

You may be right FF but this is because it doesnt affect the vast majority of Australians directly and they have no idea how significant it is for the mining industry. I can tell you the farmers clearly understand how the system works, its the tossers in Double Bay who dont have a clue and want to walk over Sydney Harbour for some notion of reconciliation. Just because mining and agriculture dont directly affect people in the big cities doesnt mean that they arent still vitally important to Australia.

Native Title is clearly and unambiguously not in Australia's national interest.

Well I clearly and unambiguously disagree

 

[Tim56]

A friend of mine worked on a polling booth in what you would think would be a more poltically interested and sophisticated area (Higgins) and he said that of about 3000 Senate ballots they counted about 50 that were below the line.

 

[funkyfreo]

A friend of mine worked on a polling booth in what you would think would be a more poltically interested and sophisticated area (Higgins) and he said that of about 3000 Senate ballots they counted about 50 that were below the line.

The fact is that most people actually do figure "well I will vote for them, and since I want to vote for them, I guess their preferences are good too."

I admit that after supporting above the line voters, after some more thought on the matter, I agree I would not vote above the line if I was voting 1st preference to either major party.

 

[DaveW]

Not entirely FF. I refuse to vote above the line because there is never any information readily available to tell you how your preferences are going to distribute.

The AEC website had every parties senate ticket online within a day or two after the close of nominations. As did the ABC.

Apparently you can acquire the details at the polling stations on election day too.

 

[DaveW]

What I really wish is that you could fill in every box above the line and your vote went to parties in that order...I doubt that'll happen though..having 2 options on how to vote seems to cause a lot of informal votes, let alone 3. ( insert nasty comment here about how people too dumb to work that out shouldn't be allowed to vote )

This is how it works for the NSW legislative council. You can put several numbers above the line.

The tickets are all intra-party. So your vote simply exhausts if the party (parties) you selected drop out of the count. (Which means it's also a form of optional preferential voting.)

The reform came after a bloke called Glenn Drurey almost got elected to the upper house in the 1999 state election by "preference harvesting" from a number of minor parties. (The famous tablecloth ballot.)

The same guy tried the same thing this time round for the Senate on the Liberals for Forests ticket. Looks like he'll just fall short once again.

 

[pazza]

Being here in Vic, there was one bloke's name I recognised who was standing for the Democrats.

Don Chipp's boy John was up, but, sadly was second divs in for the Vic. Democrats.

Maybe if he was moved to number 1, he might have got in.